ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: anyone built their own cabinet for 2268H subwoofers?  (Read 32990 times)

Silas Pradetto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3047
Re: anyone built their own cabinet for 2268H subwoofers?
« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2010, 09:57:43 pm »

Adam Schaible wrote on Wed, 07 April 2010 21:53

You really like to take things out of context.

+/- 8mm is fine.  
23mm doesn't seem necessary.


To go low and loud you need Xmax. Period.

Most any sub I've ever used has run out of excursion before power capacity, with the exception of using dubstep as program material. The 2268H loaded subs go lower than just about any other front loaded sub on the market and they sound very good doing it. That extra Xmax is quite useful.
Logged

David Morison

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 237
Re: anyone built their own cabinet for 2268H subwoofers?
« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2010, 07:29:48 am »

Art Welter wrote on Wed, 07 April 2010 23:37

David,

The 4018LF has an Xmax of 7.9 mm.
The B&C 18TBX100 has an Xmax of 10 mm.
According to your sim, they both have exceeded Xmax with 2kW.

<snip image>

The 2268 is no where near its rated Xmax of 23 mm, could you check what its output level would be when you reach that excursion ?

Art Welter


Hi Art,
Will do once I'm back at home with WinISD rather than here at the day gig. I'd suspect that it would take so much power to get to 23mm that you'd be well over the thermal handling of the drivers, so it may be a moot point. I will also have a look how the temp rise Phillip G mentions pans out.
I agree the others do model over Xmax, though as stated I'm not 100% sure the actual excursion is as bad as modelled.

Not trying to knock the JBL, I'm sure it is a better driver, but just wanted to help show some potential benefits of the other drivers - i.e. getting down to the target 35Hz range in a smaller box, albeit with some trade-offs.

Regards,
David.
Logged

David Morison

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 237
Re: anyone built their own cabinet for 2268H subwoofers?
« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2010, 07:39:40 am »

Hi Phillip,
Thanks for joining in.
I actually agree on all points, and will have a play with the temp rise later today. I wasn't really trying to knock the JBL, as I'm sure that it is a better driver all round. I just wanted to show some of the potential benefits of the cheaper drivers, such as getting to the target 35Hz range in a relatively smaller box (albeit with some trade-offs). Given the implied budget constraints, I thought it was interesting to have a look at both sides of the coin.
Regards,
David.

Logged

Jeff Wheeler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2364
Re: anyone built their own cabinet for 2268H subwoofers?
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2010, 07:58:38 am »

I am satisfied with the cabinet dimensions of the SRX subwoofers.  I suspect the box could shrink and change vent dimensions, and the low-end be beefed up with EQ, to still produce useful output if you really wanted a smaller cabinet.  I am not convinced there is any compelling reason to use a different driver.  This will be a huge upgrade from the current subs anyway.
Logged
Jeff Wheeler, wannabe sound guy / moonlight DJ

Adam Schaible

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 917
Re: anyone built their own cabinet for 2268H subwoofers?
« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2010, 08:23:34 am »

If you're going to use the 2268H you might as well buy the 728 because you get the box for just about free.

That said, anyone have experience with the B&C 21SW152?  Doesn't Yorkville use this in one of their subs?
Logged

Tom Reid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7412
Re: anyone built their own cabinet for 2268H subwoofers?
« Reply #35 on: April 08, 2010, 09:59:55 am »

David Morison wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 06:29


Not trying to knock the JBL, I'm sure it is a better driver, but just wanted to help show some potential benefits of the other drivers - i.e. getting down to the target 35Hz range in a smaller box, albeit with some trade-offs.

Regards,
David.


David,
I picked this reply, but my response can fit anywhere.
In my opinion multiple boxes are the only way to achieve the below 35hz range.  A single or tandem woofer box is going to flail at VLF of noticeable level.

JBL makes a good product.  So does B&C.  What tool do you want for the job?  Comparing based on price doesn't take into account that the JBL is made of a different technology.  

When a company redesigns the brake to allow for more excursion, doubles the coils in a way that wicks heat away from the core, and balances flux as to reduce 2nd and 3rd order harmonics to all time lows (2268h +2% 50hz-100hz @114dbspl) it should win the pencil pushers over.  

But how does it sound?  Well, there's the rub.  No two people agree on the same sound.  If we did, the world would be a boring place, and we wouldn't have as many good loudspeaker companies.

All JBL differential drive speakers are magnetic shielded. Each coil is opposing resulting in no external magnetic field.  So go ahead an put your plasma display on top of your 728s (if you want to shake it to death).

   
Logged
tom

What does Buddha do on his day off?

Paul O'Brien

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 780
Re: anyone built their own cabinet for 2268H subwoofers?
« Reply #36 on: April 08, 2010, 10:53:57 am »

All this discussion about which driver is superior is sorta missing the point here though. The customer in question won't spend big money and by the sounds of it both he and visiting bands are more impressed with quantity than unseen quality, so wouldn't it make more sense to give him a pair of double 18's with slightly less cutting edge but still very good drivers for about the same cost? If the main source music is typical rock band stuff then uber low response isn't needed anyway so the B&C or Definimax drivers would be more than sufficent.  
Logged
Paul O

Tom Reid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7412
Re: anyone built their own cabinet for 2268H subwoofers?
« Reply #37 on: April 08, 2010, 11:33:12 am »

Paul O'Brien wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 09:53

All this discussion about which driver is superior is sorta missing the point here though. The customer in question won't spend big money and by the sounds of it both he and visiting bands are more impressed with quantity than unseen quality, so wouldn't it make more sense to give him a pair of double 18's with slightly less cutting edge but still very good drivers for about the same cost? If the main source music is typical rock band stuff then uber low response isn't needed anyway so the B&C or Definimax drivers would be more than sufficent.  


That's one or two valid data points for selecting a tool for a job.
Logged
tom

What does Buddha do on his day off?

Jamin Lynch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 784
Re: anyone built their own cabinet for 2268H subwoofers?
« Reply #38 on: April 08, 2010, 11:37:54 am »

That said, in a club where people may listen with their eyes, having twice as many speakers costing half as much would look louder  Rolling Eyes .

Art Welter[/quote]

That's funny as hell, but so true.  Laughing
Logged

David Morison

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 237
Re: anyone built their own cabinet for 2268H subwoofers?
« Reply #39 on: April 08, 2010, 02:18:24 pm »

Art Welter wrote on Wed, 07 April 2010 23:37

David,
The 2268 is no where near its rated Xmax of 23 mm, could you check what its output level would be when you reach that excursion ?

Art Welter


Here you go, orange is cold as before, red is with 150K increase in voice coil temp as suggested by Phillip G. Power required to reach 23mm is 8600W cold and 4300w hot, for the pair in the same box as before.

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/2442/jbl23mm.jpg

Regards,
David
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 18 queries.