Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nate Conti]

I am currently aware of the processor settings from the manufacturer but I am curious if any experienced users have suggestions that would increase the performance of the box? I am assuming the is no delay required between the subs and the high packs needed?. Any info helps me greatly.

[Bill Forbes]

I'm not sure of a performance difference, but you might want to take a UX8800 for a test drive. The UX has a GF setting for the SB1000z. Being a Gray Box setting you cant see what parameters are different from the published settings. All I can say is, if it does for the SB1k's what it did for my KF730's you WILL hear a difference. Sorry cant give you any real world A/B comparison. That being said, I did use the UX8800 with GF (SB1000z) setting on 8 per side and it really kicked butt! (powered via Crest 9200, 1 SB per channel) I did not have the time to setup the UX with SB1K settings w/o GF (which you can). Contact your local Rep or dealer to arrange for a demo maybe it helps? maybe not?  Bill Forbes

[Geri O'Neil]

It's my understanding that the GF settings for the subs are pretty much the standard processor settings. GF is utilized primarily for the lows, mids, and highs of a system. Something about latency being an issue with GF at sub frequencies.

As for the need for delay, that depends entirely on what speaker system you're using and the position of the subs in relation to the top boxes being used. There is no "one delay setting fits all" for the SB-1000s or any sub/mains system.

Geri O

[Langston Holland]

Methinks the SB1000 preset available in the UX8800 is a NGF greybox only. As of the current EAWPilot build, there are no subs with GF.

I've got my doubts that subs will audibly benefit from this magic.

Edit: what if you could get the SB1000 to produce 1/10th of its current distortion at full throttle with even greater output, do that with a much flatter acoustic phase and significantly improved impact, reduced weight and smaller size all while requiring less than 1/2 the amp power to make it go? You'd call it a TH115.

[Troy Gwin]

Langston Holland wrote on Thu, 20 December 2007 01:25

Edit: what if you could get the SB1000 to produce 1/10th of its current distortion at full throttle with even greater output, do that with a much flatter acoustic phase and significantly improved impact, reduced weight and smaller size all while requiring less than 1/2 the amp power to make it go? You'd call it a TH115. )

Langston...Langston...Langston.  You crack me up.  

Merry Christmas.

[Dan Brown]

Troy Gwin wrote on Sat, 22 December 2007 14:31

Langston Holland wrote on Thu, 20 December 2007 01:25 Edit: what if you could get the SB1000 to produce 1/10th of its current distortion at full throttle with even greater output, do that with a much flatter acoustic phase and significantly improved impact, reduced weight and smaller size all while requiring less than 1/2 the amp power to make it go? You'd call it a TH115. ) Langston...Langston...Langston.  You crack me up.   Merry Christmas.

Troy,

Are you saying you disagree with Lang's statement?

db

[Troy Gwin]

No, not at all.  Langston is a good friend.  I just thought his "Edit" comment was a pretty comical way of introducing the TH115.  That's why I put the big " " after my comment.

Although, it might be noteworthy to mention that EAW has just released a new updated version of the SB1000...the SB1002.  It is flyable and sports some new upgraded drivers.  They don't even have specs on their website yet.

[Chris Van Duker]

This thread reminds me of a question which I've had about the SB1000, but never bothered to ask until now. Not having seen them up close, it looks like it's got about a 4" diameter port on each side of the cabinet. Are there more of them someplace where I can't see them? It seems like the air velocity in the port would be way too high -- I'd probably use at least 3x the venting area for a double-18 cabinet.

-Chris

[Troy Gwin]

Chris Van Duker wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 00:00

This thread reminds me of a question which I've had about the SB1000, but never bothered to ask until now. Not having seen them up close, it looks like it's got about a 4" diameter port on each side of the cabinet. Are there more of them someplace where I can't see them? It seems like the air velocity in the port would be way too high -- I'd probably use at least 3x the venting area for a double-18 cabinet. -Chris

The entire center portion of the clamshell (between the two drivers) is open.  It's hard to tell in this picture, but there is an open slit down the center of the sub (where the clamshell portions meet) a couple inches wide or so: