Post by: Steve Shafer on October 30, 2004, 09:19:43 PM
I saw this on the web, and thought it to be a bit of a stretch that this design could compete with the Lab Sub. What class of design is this?
How realistic are these stats? BTW-who is Bill Fitzmaurice was he connected to a major speaker company at one time?
http://www.billfitzmaurice.com/plans/product_info.php/produc ts_id/8
Steve S
Post by: blades976 on October 30, 2004, 10:39:11 PM
I just built one and can honestly say it belts out the bass, and I am hard to impress. I have not built a LAB subwoofer nor do I have access to one so I cannot give an AB comparison as far as overall output is concerned. The Tuba30 does blow away any dual 18 cabinet I have come across.
The low end extension is much lower than I had hoped for; a big surprise considering the output of the cabinet. The high impedance makes it a breeze to drive with relatively inexpensive amplifiers. The design is simpler to make than the LABs from what I have seen in the designs. The cost of one driver vs. two drivers is a no brainer. It took me well over a month to decide which cabinet design to go with. In the end, overall price vs. performance pointed me towards the Tuba.
I hope someone can put the two side by side and give a fair and objective comparison some day.
pic. shows internal design of the Tuba30 I built.
Post by: Elliot Thompson on October 31, 2004, 05:54:10 AM
| Quote: |
blades976 The Tuba30 does blow away any dual 18 cabinet I have come across. |
What Dual Eighteen are we talking here?
McCauley EA 588, or Soundtech's version of a Dual 18.
And, when you say blow away, what do you exactly mean,
in terms of frequency response, when comparing the two?
Best Regards,
Post by: Mr.Nightro on October 31, 2004, 08:57:51 AM
Post by: blades976 on October 31, 2004, 10:01:22 AM
The dual 18 cabinets I am referring to are some cabinets I have heard from Carvin (standard and the Kilomax loaded TCS Boxes now discontinued), JBL, an EV loaded cabinet (Don’t know the brand) and a few other retail chain boxes. In terms of extension the Tuba30 easily blew them all away. In terms of output only the Kilomax loaded Carvin cabinet and the EV loaded cabinet came close, but I still think the Tuba30 is louder. Basically on paper the Tuba30 has the output of ~ 3.5 good 18’s in reflex cabinets; more expensive drivers level the field somewhat.
The extension of the cabinet was somewhat difficult to get used too. I didn’t like it at first and thought it was not giving adequate output. This is my first horn speaker and it does not behave anything like a reflex box. I think it sounds very musical and not the least bit boomy, in fact I thought something was wrong because it wasn’t booming. The upper midbass response is a bit obnoxious if it is not filtered out. Under moderate volume I run it without a low cut (30Hz) and get some very cool shaking and some unheard of extension. When its time to raise the volume the low cut gets engaged and the beatings commence.
The enclosure I made is for a Bass Guitar rig and to see if the design performance is up to par before I invest in more wood and drivers for a P.A. setup. From what I seen and heard thus far I think I will go ahead with this design for P.A. use. I plan on scaling the design up to 15” drivers for P.A. Bill keeps grumbling that it is overkill but I’m just like that
. Post by: Nicklas Bengtsson on October 31, 2004, 02:45:05 PM
Do you have any moore pictures?
I'm planing to build the Tuba 24 and it would be nice to see some pictures.
Post by: blades976 on October 31, 2004, 03:00:00 PM
Post by: ChainedDragon on October 31, 2004, 07:39:16 PM
ohh, and there's been PLENTY of comparison/flame threads recently
(i'm monomer)
Post by: Mark Seaton on October 31, 2004, 07:52:07 PM
| Stevesb65 wrote on Sat, 30 October 2004 20:19 |
Hello all: I saw this on the web, and thought it to be a bit of a stretch that this design could compete with the Lab Sub. What class of design is this? How realistic are these stats? BTW-who is Bill Fitzmaurice was he connected to a major speaker company at one time? |
Just a few thoughts here...
From what I've seen, Bill has done a good deal of building and design, and has experience with a fair range of professional offerings. He does post some basic measurements as shown in the link provided.
The posted graph does offer an interesting comparison, and it further clarifies why many of us initially involved with the LAB sub project suggest not bothering with the LAB if you are going to be running only a single box outside. In the graph, we have only one snapshot of a comparison. I expect that in comparing more boxes and including excursion and power limited output, the comparison would shift drastically. Of course the Tuba 30 is a bit less expensive, and also smaller in total volume. Personally I see some issues with transporting a 30" cube, as doorways and corners can make for some rather tight manuvering. I tend to prefer at least one shorter dimension. The dimensions might be just fine for many though.
In particular, I would expect the LAB sub's low frequency response to change much more with 2 or more boxes packed together. Of course this is obviously a benfit of the Tuba 30 in that it is optomized more for single box use. I would think anyone with 4 LABs and more than 4kW of power would have no feelings of inadequacy in any such comparison, and I'm sure that those with Tuba 30s are quite impressed with this sort of output from a single 12".
Post by: blades976 on November 01, 2004, 04:08:39 AM
| ChainedDragon wrote on Mon, 01 November 2004 00:39 |
blade, why nopt just link him to fitz's forum? ohh, and there's been PLENTY of comparison/flame threads recently (i'm monomer) |
Anyone interested in learning more about or discussing the Tuba subwoofer, or any of Bill's other designs feel free to check out the forum at
http://audioroundtable.com/BillFitzmaurice/
Post by: Michael_Elliston¶ on November 02, 2004, 03:24:39 AM
What i think it is-is ,effective use of a 12" for guitar,bands etc.
Even if there was a labsub killer-it wouldnt 'kill' by much-only by using more expensive drivers! -It cant since the labhorn is an optimal design -alot of people dont realise this!
Cheers!
Post by: Mark Seaton on November 02, 2004, 05:08:29 PM
| blades976 wrote on Sat, 30 October 2004 21:39 |
I hope someone can put the two side by side and give a fair and objective comparison some day. |
One of the guys who first built and measured the LAB sub sent Bill F. the proper response. I was suspicious of the relatively low output from the single box, but I only could recall the response of multiple units, so I didn't object. As before, these are drastically different animals. Consider that the recession in the response around 40Hz is the first thing to pull up when placed near a boundary or another box. Also it should be noted that Bill's graphs are plotted using a minimal 1/3rd Octave point of measurement, so most any significant peaks or dips are largely smoothed over. The "Tuba 36" shown is an estimated prediction. There is still no doubt that anyone with 2 LABs together will significantly out woof most competition.
Tuba 30 graphs
Cheers,
Post by: Peter Morris on November 03, 2004, 01:37:43 AM
FWIW I have played around with modelling the LAB design and variations thereof, and for a block of 6 I have trouble finding anything that will go any better. (that’s assuming the programs and assumptions I made were OK)
However in small numbers I think there are other designs would be more effective compromise.
Not to criticize Toms design in terms of performance but I always thought that the LAB sub as a DIY project was too complicated, and being optimised for a block of 4 to 6 was not what most DIYer’s needed. They need good performance with 1 or 2 boxes. In addition having gone to all that trouble it would have been better to use a driver that could take a little more abuse, more forgiving suspension and a large voice-coil etc.
Which brings me to my next point – what about…… the LAB / Tom doing a 40 hz horn which is simpler in design and construction.
Something with about 7-8 ft of horn length, (ie 1/ 4 wave length of 40hz), usable to 200hz, and optimised to work in small numbers similar in concept to the Tuba or Punisher, but will truck pack and fit though a doorway.
When I analyse such designs in half space what I find is that you should be able to achieve an average of about 3-4 dB more in the 40 to 60 hz region and up to 10dB(!?) at 42hz than the LAB for a small number of boxes.
Sooooo what about it ????
Peter
Post by: Michael_Elliston¶ on November 03, 2004, 02:11:44 AM
Thats Easy!
40hz-200hz
Simple Construction
Would have to be 12" for enough output.
Tcsounds Driver?
Im really keen on a high excursion driver with moderate-high power handling.
I have several designs from 2226-Tempest-lab12 ideas,
Cheers!
Post by: Mark Seaton on November 03, 2004, 09:30:32 AM
| Peter wrote on Wed, 03 November 2004 00:37 |
Hi Mark, FWIW I have played around with modelling the LAB design and variations thereof, and for a block of 6 I have trouble finding anything that will go any better. (that’s assuming the programs and assumptions I made were OK) However in small numbers I think there are other designs would be more effective compromise. |
Indeed, it appears even the BassTech7 only gets a little lower comparatively. The one factor few of the modeling programs include is directivity. That is the easiest way to get beyond the performance of multiple LABs. Our upcoming bDeap-R looks to do very close to the sub 40Hz output of 4 LABs, where the directivity as seen in the bDeap-32 give even a pair equal or better performance than 4 LABs above 40Hz. The response is certainly a lot smoother. I will plan to post some measurements I have on our forum.
| Quote: |
Not to criticize Toms design in terms of performance but I always thought that the LAB sub as a DIY project was too complicated, and being optimised for a block of 4 to 6 was not what most DIYer’s needed. They need good performance with 1 or 2 boxes. In addition having gone to all that trouble it would have been better to use a driver that could take a little more abuse, more forgiving suspension and a large voice-coil etc. |
When the LAB sub project originated here, everyone was hyped up to build something with huge performance. Of course most are used to hearing marketing specs, not real performance numbers. "Enough" is often much less than one would think, or at least quite different. The ability to "take more abuse" generally comes down to over designing, and more cost. Make a LAB12 with only 7mm of Xmax and you would see people hearing the distortion onset much sooner and less probability of failures. Who want's that? Raising the low corner could help quite a bit with the excursion issue, and then we would probably start seeing more thermal failures as well as over-excursion from those not using a proper high pass. Pick your poison. So far as difficulty of construction, I personally see that a fair trade so far as price of entry for a FREE design.
| Quote: |
Which brings me to my next point – what about…… the LAB / Tom doing a 40 hz horn which is simpler in design and construction. Something with about 7-8 ft of horn length, (ie 1/ 4 wave length of 40hz), usable to 200hz, and optimised to work in small numbers similar in concept to the Tuba or Punisher, but will truck pack and fit though a doorway. When I analyse such designs in half space what I find is that you should be able to achieve an average of about 3-4 dB more in the 40 to 60 hz region and up to 10dB(!?) at 42hz than the LAB for a small number of boxes. Sooooo what about it ???? |
Our bDeap design was intended to operate more optimally in smaller numbers through the use of boundaries or another adjacent box. I would suspect Tom to first design a larger ABP type design targeting much higher output rather than the compact package. Tom's real interest in the project was in keeping the design closer in line with modern design practices. I think that was achieved and it is very clear that the LAB sub project has allerted and converted many people who previously would not have thought a bass horn was the preferred method of reproduction. There are plenty here who are capable of designing a 40Hz bass horn of impressive performance. It takes time, modeling, and some careful consideration.
What I suspect you will find is that we quickly approach scales of economy where manufacturers will be able to supply production products which will be similar in cost to rolling your own while offering a more known quantity. I have heard of a few manufacturers looking to the LAB sub as a point of reference in performance, and I suspect we will see some interesting products in the near future.
In direct opposition to Bill F's beliefs, I feel our most intelligent path to better sound quality while keeping our average levels in check is to reach even lower. High level output at 25Hz will radically change the pallate with which we and the artists have to work from. Having actually done this outdoors on a smaller scale I am quite certain it is just a matter of time. Response to below 40Hz is what most people find impressive in the pro-sound world. There is justification for products offering hugely optimized performance over this range, as well as some reaching nearly the octave lower.
Cheers,
Post by: [x] on November 03, 2004, 06:31:53 PM
One thing I need to know is what people want here. I have some concept drawings that are fairly advanced and about ready to go into Hornresp (the excellent program responsible for relative newbies like me breaking into the once-exclusive land of bass horn design). One thing I want to know is this: The current targeted bass cutoff is 55 Hz for a single box in half space. Would you have me try to go lower at the expense of sensitivity? Also, I'll have to see what Hornresp has to say, but the 97" horn of the Crusher is 1/4th the wavelength of 36 Hz. If the use of four or six of these boxes can get you down to 36 Hz, then that would be quite a thing to experience. However, it's been a while since I read up on horns, and I don't remember how mouth size affects the bass cutoff frequency. Guess I should do reading.
And if this turns out well, I intend to design the Super Crusher, designed around the LAB12, or perhaps the Adire DPL12 driver.
Post by: John Chiara on November 03, 2004, 10:14:54 PM
Our upcoming bDeap-R looks to do very close to the sub 40Hz output of 4 LABs, where the directivity as seen in the bDeap-32 give even a pair equal or better performance than 4 LABs above 40Hz. The response is certainly a lot smoother. I will plan to post some measurements I have on our forum.
Can you tell us a little more about this now?
Post by: Michael_Elliston¶ on November 04, 2004, 04:05:44 AM
BHFProfessional
Basically what your gona do(?),Is use a small driver with high Vd,on a CVbin like horn of longer length,punisher style folding.
Series of your statements and my comment.
| Quote: |
designed around the LAB12, or perhaps the Adire DPL12 driver. |
Neither the Lab12 nor DPL12 are especially low distortion drivers,infact one could say they are just 'home theatre' quality.
| Quote: |
Would you have me try to go lower at the expense of sensitivity? |
No. Imagine 600w RMS with music,inputted into the HL10.
| Quote: |
I'm making it a good deal smaller than the Punisher Horn, which uses a 12" Ciare woofer |
How do you expect to make it alot smaller-when the path lengths should be relatively similar,with almost identical mouth areas.
The only difference is that the HL10 will require a longer path length..
| Quote: |
One limitation, however, is that the HL10 only handles 300w RMS instead of the Ciare 12.00SW's 1000w |
1) Power ratings need to be of the same type eg 8hrs bandwidth limited pink noise for example
2)Power compression of either driver is NOT listed. For all we know,the Ciare could have 7db of power compression at 1kw.
-The actual difference in output wont be that great if linearity is about equal
Audible perhaps,but other factors will have more effect.
| Quote: |
The Punisher reportedly handled 1700w well |
music signal,not sinewave for 15minutes
| Quote: |
(55Hz low frequency cutoff, -5dB) |
That would probably be quite sufficient for most people.
1. Note that a box of this higher type F3,should have high bass also possible-its much more useful if it can effectively cover ALL the kick range up to 400hz perhaps.
2. Note that with a sealed rear chamber front loaded horn,the F3 appears to be where the Horn Flare rate cutoff has HIGH excursion ie unusable at high input-subsonic filter required,so the actual horn 'tune' is higher. Hornresp will show this effectively.
Note also that adding more boxes ie doubling mouth area-results in HIGHER FLATTER bass,not lower bass.(simulation)
Cheers!
Mike.e
Post by: [x] on November 04, 2004, 08:30:02 AM
Also, as far as dimensions as compared to the punisher, I think my design has less internal wasted space, and the folding does not include any turns greater than 120 degrees, unlike the first 180 degree bend of the Punisher horn. Its mouth is only 15" wide compared to the Punisher's 18.5" wide mouth, and 27" high compared to the Punisher's 23.2" high mouth. The entire front of my enclosure is horn mouth, to make up for its smaller overall frontal size. The depth of my Crusher horn is 2" more than the Punisher. After the first turn of the horn, the Crusher looks a lot like a smaller Punisher, but a lot of horns start looking alike after that point anyway. The Crusher does not fire upwards into the horn throat as you can see in these plans ( http://www.speakerstore.nl/constructions/speakerstore/Punish er/punisher_bouwtekening.jpg), but downwards. Then the first section of horn follows that sort of slanted thingy up to where it can connect with the section that runs along the top. But a picture is wirth a thousand words, so I hope to be able to provide some sketches of my design here soon.
Post by: Walt de Jong on November 04, 2004, 09:01:02 AM
If you look at the construction of Ciare 12.00SW and Eminence HL10A I don not see a obvious reason why the Eminence would suffer less powercompression. The ciare has a very big magnet, a magnet gap hole and holes in the spider to make sure the generated heat can escape, therefore reducing powercompression. Also a 100mm coil has some advantage above the 63mm coil of the HL10A...
I would like to see a Hornresp or AJ sheet and graphs of your horn. I also played with the HL10A when I was looking for a driver for Punisher but the Caire 12.00SW always seemed to get louder en deeper in a same size cabinet. Well don't remember that exactly so let me see your results to compare.
Best regards,
Walt
Post by: [x] on November 04, 2004, 10:58:44 AM
I'm glad you're interested in my Crusher horn. My Crusher horn is intended to be an answer to the call for smaller, more transportable horn-loaded enclosures, for those who find the LAB to be too big and bulky, and who can be content with slightly less deep bass response. There have been many who report that they would rather carry a larger number of smaller enclosures than a small number of really big enclosures. There are lots of people who don't think the HL-10 is as perfect for horn-loading as Eminence advertises, but it has been demonstrated in another thread on this board that you can get perfectly acceptable response out of the HL-10 as long as you've got a relatively small horn throat. I also took a little bit of inspiration from Bill Fitzmaurice's designs, which use a slightly largish rear chamber to let the horn have that little bit of extra extension in the range of transition from horn loading to direct radiating. The only thing is, I don't know too well how this will affect power handling. I may decide to make it smaller.I realize that my design has almost the same external dimensions as your Punisher, so we're almost in competition on this, but my goal in this is not to "Crush" the punisher (The name instead comes from the sort of output you'll get when you stack a bunch of my boxes together) but instead to provide a good, small horn for the Eminence HL-10. There was word of a horn designed by Eminence for the HL-10, but that has yet to materialize. I think it's a good idea at this point to let you know how my horn differs from your Punisher horn: My horn has a larger compression chamber (not extremely large, but large enough to accomodate the driver's entire mechanical excursion) and a different folding pattern nearer the horn. Also, it does not use battens to mount the driver access panel, but instead has an extra layer of 1/2" plywood on the side walls of the entire horn. While it's tough to describe my way of having the access panel, it will be apparent from my drawings.
The other problem is that in the United States, the Ciare product line isn't exactly super-available as best I can tell (I haven't looked super hard but in my Google search I didn't turn up any American sellers). Eminence products, on the other hand, are very widely available. The 12.00SW is certainly an interesting driver, though. I haven't had time to get my Crusher horn into Hornresp. that will probably come in the next week or so.
Post by: Walt de Jong on November 04, 2004, 11:28:59 AM
There is a guy here in Holland who is building 8 Punishers, he uses aluminium plates just as with the LAB subs. People can do whatever they like just make sure there is a way to get the driver out. This next guy didn't do that but his pictures are still nice. He said he didn't think he would ever blow a driver therefore he doesn't use T-nuts:
http://members.home.nl/denniselshout/Punisher/
Best regards,
Walt
Post by: Mark Seaton on November 04, 2004, 12:14:44 PM
| BHFProfessional wrote on Thu, 04 November 2004 09:58 |
The other problem is that in the United States, the Ciare product line isn't exactly super-available as best I can tell (I haven't looked super hard but in my Google search I didn't turn up any American sellers). Eminence products, on the other hand, are very widely available. The 12.00SW is certainly an interesting driver, though. I haven't had time to get my Crusher horn into Hornresp. that will probably come in the next week or so. |
Hi BH-
Just for reference, the 12SW driver and other CIARE products are available through Assitance Audio where it is listed at $165. Eminence certainly has the greater distribution and some cost savings, and I would say when used intelligently (in regards to box design and powering) are very durable. It is of course a matter of weighing the many opposing desires.
Cheers,
Post by: Mark Seaton on November 04, 2004, 12:25:22 PM
| Peter wrote on Wed, 03 November 2004 00:37 |
Hi Mark, Our upcoming bDeap-R looks to do very close to the sub 40Hz output of 4 LABs, where the directivity as seen in the bDeap-32 give even a pair equal or better performance than 4 LABs above 40Hz. The response is certainly a lot smoother. I will plan to post some measurements I have on our forum. Can you tell us a little more about this now? |
Basically the design of the box is 95% finalized, and fine for install, while I am working on options for offset skid pads to make clustering and portability easier. We are just waiting for the input plates with the proper name. I have some measurements of a pair in the same upright configuration as we have posted on our website, where this box offers ~6dB more output at 30Hz over a pair of bDeap-32s with equal output above about 45Hz. The box is a square (no truncated corner) at the same 42" dimension where the thickness is increased to 20" from the 18" dimension of the bDeap-32. Cost is about 10-12% greater. For down-firing, stand mounting, the bDeap-32 can still fit under smaller deck heights. This will be a definite improvement for portable use.
We can discuss further details in our "what's happening" forum.
Cheers,
Post by: Michael_Elliston¶ on November 04, 2004, 03:34:41 PM
| BHFProfessional wrote on Thu, 04 November 2004 13:30 |
Higher Flatter bass - you mean less-extended, less-deep bass? Or higher-level bass in terms of how far you can push things before they start blowing up? Or, perhaps you mean flatter bass, higher up in the horn's frequency range. |
Less extended less deep bass,more flatter response bass.
| Quote: |
but downwards. Then the first section of horn follows that sort of slanted thingy up to where it can connect with the section that runs along the top. |
The 'slanted thingy' reduces the Vtc,increasing HF slightly due less volume in front chamber (Vtc)The horn is presumed to start at the drivers edge on this type of horn.(from what ive seen of it)
| Quote: |
I also took a little bit of inspiration from Bill Fitzmaurice's designs, which use a slightly largish rear chamber to let the horn have that little bit of extra extension in the range of transition from horn loading to direct radiating. The only thing is, I don't know too well how this will affect power handling |
Decreased power handling at flare cut off and below.
His rear chambers are purposely large-because he uses high Fs drivers which dont requite a miniature sealed box to bump the Fs up.
Post by: [x] on November 05, 2004, 12:17:48 AM
Post by: bgavin (Bruce Gavin) on November 05, 2004, 09:20:17 AM
Ain't gonna happen.
Despite the protests the contrary, even HornResponse takes the CIR into consideration. The is the mouth circumference/wavelength relationship.
A small mouth is going to choke your bass response.
Too short an air column is going to choke your bass response.
Post by: Michael_Elliston¶ on November 06, 2004, 04:38:12 AM
Yes hornresp does even include CIR which is always a handy check.
Bear in mind that he plans on using several boxes,with all that added mouth the higher bass frequencies will be supported instead.
Cheers
Post by: bgavin (Bruce Gavin) on November 07, 2004, 03:44:14 PM
There is a mile of difference between a 32 Hz horn and a 60 Hz one.
Post by: Graeme Goodacre [Centauri on November 08, 2004, 01:30:01 AM
Cheers
Graeme
Post by: felipe tha dj on November 11, 2004, 09:51:03 PM
any advice would be great!! thanks
Post by: Weogo Reed on November 11, 2004, 10:46:57 PM
What are you using for top boxes? What do you have for a crossover/delay?
I am looking for new subs for myself and also a venue I work regularly.
From the specs I see, the plans I bought and what I have been reading online, a Tuba24 looks pretty good.
I think one would work well with a modest DJ rig as long as you don't want really low bass. Two stacked together will have significantly more low end and will likely have smoother response. Four would definitely move some air, yet are a size you can move by yourself.
Any gig where you can corner load subs will mean much more output or bringing fewer subs.
Two Tuba24s equal about one Tuba30 in output. A Tuba30 is more efficient than the Tuba24, and also almost four times bigger and weighs about twice as much.
The two are slightly different animals.
Do a search on Tuba24 and Tuba30, compare them to what else is out there and make the most informed decision you can.
Good health, Weogo
Post by: felipe tha dj on November 11, 2004, 11:18:12 PM
Not the best but they sound decent, they are going to be run crossed from 70Hz~80hz up...
This are just some numbers you might wanna look from the JBL's…
Frequency Range (-10 dB): 36 Hz - 16 kHz
Frequency Response (
Post by: felipe tha dj on November 11, 2004, 11:27:06 PM
Post by: [x] on November 12, 2004, 10:03:27 AM
Or you could wait a week or two until I can get around to doing some more work on my own HL-10 horn design. It should be easier to transport than the Tuba 24 (which is my major gripe with the cube shape).
Whatever you do, I want to be sure to see some pics of it.
Post by: Weogo Reed on November 12, 2004, 11:48:38 AM
How many of the JBL boxes do you have and what are you powering them with? Hopefully you have short runs of adequate-gauge cable.
Eight direct radiating 15" drivers can move a fair amount of air in the mid and low-mid range.
If low-mids are an issue with your boxes, I would check polarity of all cabling and make sure each driver is in proper polarity.
One Tuba24 is 8 cubic feet with 4 square feet of mouth area.
One Tuba30 is 15.5 c.f. with 6.25s.f. of mouth.
I have yet to hear the Tubas so this is just speculation.
Simplest would be a single stack of two Tuba30s.
Four Tuba24 boxes would have about the same level. They would also have a bit more mouth area with possibly a bit more low frequency extension.
You definitely want a limiter so cone excursion doesn't damage the sub drivers!
On the behr crossover, are you sure the delay is on the lows?
With your JBL boxes you may need about one millisecond delay on the TOPS to line them up with the 15" lows.
Horn-loaded subs have a long path, around 7 milliseconds for the Tuba24, and you would want to delay the JBL 15" drivers about 6ms and the highs about 7ms, assuming they were all stacked together.
This gets fuzzier when boxes are spread out.
Are you are using the JBLs two per side? If so, the 90 degree horn patterns are an issue.
If you have two SF boxes and two JRX boxes I would put the two SF on one side and the two JRX boxes on the other and splay them a lot so each pair of adjacent horns aren't covering the same area.
Or spread them out along the long wall of a room.
Or just not send signal to one of the HF drivers in each stack.
Good health, Weogo
Post by: Matt Loretitsch on November 12, 2004, 03:12:00 PM
It does NOT play as loud as my good 18's do. My 18's are 7 cu ft. boxes tunes to 36 hz using an excellent Selenium driver. It DOES however sound better than an MI grade 18 like an Ev force 18 (the sideways narrow ones) and a low end peavy unit for sure. I can build the tuba 24's for under 200 bucks each with the hl-10a including finishing and handles. Not a bad deal for small gigs I think.
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&P artnumber=264-438
We're going to do more comparison tonight on a tuba 24 to this 18 box and see what happens. I can light the clip lights on an rmx 2450 bridged mono to the 18 (1500 watts rms) without straining the driver audibly. Clean, loud, and low.
I will be using probably 150 watts to the beta 10" and see how it compares. If it's withing 20% of the bigger, heavier, more expensive box I will build and use some of the 24's. The rest of them will be built with the hl-10a for sure! I just happened to have some beta 10's sittin' on the shelf.
For what it's worth I've been extremely pleased with some of the higher end Selenium line. I have some 2" exit horns (d3305ti) that sound very very good and also a bunch of their 15" wpu1507's that have taken a BEATING from dance music in clubs. No complaints, no smoke.
Lab horn builds are on hold at the moment until we evaluate the tuba 30. If it will work singly or in pairs we may use those instead.
-Matt
Post by: Dave Rickard on November 12, 2004, 11:48:21 PM
| mloretitsch wrote on Fri, 12 November 2004 20:12 |
We're going to do more comparison tonight on a tuba 24 to this 18 box and see what happens. -Matt |
Please share your results. This is the exact question I am considering! I think there are many would like to know if the Tubas live up to their claimed performance. Are you using the Selenium 18 SW1P?
FWIW, I asked Bill (on his forum) which Peavey 18 was used in his comparison graph, but he can't remember, so that comparison is not very helpful.
daver
Post by: Matt Loretitsch on November 13, 2004, 01:52:42 AM
InterM M1000 amp giving 330 watts RMS per channel at 8 ohms. It's the lowest power thing we've got. system fed by a drive rack PA crossed over at 100 hz and 80 hz. Highs were a pair of jbl Eon gII's that we use for monitors in our practice space. Hey, they were there!
Sound level in the room was about 100 db a weighted slow.
Beer was Molson XXX and Guinness
Tuba 24 had the eminence beta 10. not the word in power handling in this cabinet. Sound was pretty good but seemed very dependant on room placement. Putting it against a wall (quarter space) helped things out a LOT as expected. This thing has good low end extension considering it's a 10. I had hoped for more volume from it. I believe the HL-10a driver instead would have given me the desired volume. I measured a c-weighted slow average of 123db right at the horn mouth.
Our own subwoofer was a Selenium 18SW1p-SLF in a total 7 cu ft. box. Sound was also extended, but subjectively cleaner to our ears. This thing needs no eq, it just sings
Drank beerSo at the end of round one the 18sw1p has it on sound quality. The tuba 24 most definetly has it on cost and weight!
For our next test we decided to go for some more power. I ran the InterM as close to clipping as I could. Volume still not quite what I want out of the tuba 24. Again, this could be driver related. Bridged the InterM mono to some 700 watts to the Selenium driver. This is where the 18sw1p really began to shine. This thing is rated for 800 watts RMS and needs every bit of it to rumble. Loud, Low, and satisfying. Drank a few beers.
Round Three saw a break in the action to try the Tuba 24 out doors. It really filled the yard nicely with low clean bass. I liked the sound quality much better out doors! Some 50 feet away the bass was still rather pleasing. Drank Beer.
Round Four... still wondering what the Selenium will do i bridged a PLX 3002 in to it. At 2000 watts RMS this driver will do nothing but rattle your innerds loose. We played back an old Korn album which has some serious low end grunt. Within 10 seconds dust was falling from the ceiling tiles, I had knocked a 4x7" custom bass cabinet over on to the floor, and I could do nothing but smile. Tuba 24, sadly, sat in the corner at the same volume level. Drank another beer.
Things to keep in mind about my review:
-The hl-10a should give a lot more output. The sound quality is good in the tuba 24, I just need more power Scotty! i'm going to order an hl-10a next week and find out. i'll try to report back on the hl-10a version and also check my box over for any leaks just in case.
-The Selenium 18sw1p is NOT a toy m.i. speaker. This is in a vented box I spent a lot of time designing and tweaking. It TROUNCES anything at your local music store. We work hard to give the best audio quality we can and this is our unit of choice. in other words, this is an above average piece of hardware! Go look at the specs for yourself.
-A tuba 30 is in the near future for a second grudge match!
All that said, I'm keeping my Tuba 24 for smaller gigs. Especially ones where I can't get enough electricity to feed a rack of plx's
-Matt
Oh! and one last thing... we also pitted the tuba 24 against our old w-horn 15" loaded subs from the early 80's. We've got 8 of them collecting dust presently. Firewood anyone? Sound quality definetly goes to the tuba 24!
Post by: Dave Rickard on November 13, 2004, 01:53:41 PM
That's exactly what I've been wondering. Right now I'm using single 15's, but I'm tossing between the Tuba 24's with HL10, and vented Peavey Low Rider 18's which have almost identical T/S params as the 18SW1P, but at lower cost. Good job typing after all that "testing lubrication" too...
Were they a difficult box to build?
I look forward to your HL10a comparison.
daver
Post by: Matt Loretitsch on November 14, 2004, 10:34:37 AM
I'm in Ohio so the hl-10a shouldn't take too long to show up from Parts Express (also in Ohio)
Box construction was not too hard really. you need to cut some decent angles on the boards, but if you follow Bill F's instruction and use polyurethane construction adhesive you should have an extremely solid box. The stuff does expand as it cures filling voids up to 3/8" or so the bottle says.. I also used an 18ga brad nailer to tack the pieces as i was going instead of screws... I hate building boxes with screws! Biscuits and glue are usually my choice materials. Expect 2-3 days for the first box depending on how fast you work and how good you are with setting a table saw. Cutting the internal braces was the toughest part for me.
I'm working on my website again, but you can see a few pics here of the early build process.
http://www.chevypowr.com/tuba24.htm
-Matt
Post by: Michael_Elliston¶ on November 16, 2004, 02:49:27 AM
I think that with the alpha 12" running so close to its RMS power limit,into its power compression region,it achieved a decent result!
Bl,power rating and xmax is larger on the HL10 im keen to hear how it goes!
btw,it looks easier to build than a WSX
Regards
Mike.e
Post by: Steve Shafer on November 17, 2004, 09:43:16 PM
I know this is off topic for the thread, but what driver is in the WSX-3? Also have you built your own versions or is the pic a real Martin box?
Enquiring minds want to know
Steve S
Post by: Graeme Goodacre [Centauri on November 17, 2004, 10:56:29 PM
The pic Mike posted is from http://homepage.hispeed.ch/EnergyAudio/wsx.htm Don't know the person's name, but apparently from Switzerland. He is building some of these based on drawings I did from an actual WSX some time ago. They are loading them with Void v18-1000 drivers.
Cheers
Graeme
Post by: The Guy on November 18, 2004, 10:34:14 AM
JB
Post by: Matt Loretitsch on November 19, 2004, 10:01:24 AM
Got home from my day job...loaded up my hl-10a with some new t-nuts among other things and a drill. Stopped by and grabbed a case of Labatt Blue. We redrilled holes for the hl-10a since it's bolt pattern is a good 1/2" bigger than the beta 10's. Hooked to a single channel of an rmx-2450 amp from QSC giving 500 watts RMS. All I can say is...WOW
Below 60hz this box is really operating as a bandpass from what I understand of horn theory (which ain't much admittedly) The long 11mm xmax of the hl-10a really delivers down low rewarding us with sound quality just about on par with our big 18" sub. Volume was much higher and the box did not sound stressed when given all 500 watts. It could definetly use more like 800 watts in my opinion.
Final verdict: It's probably 85% of the 18 incher using 1000 watts less, weighing less, using less space, and costing less. I feel it is not quite as clean sounding as the 18 is although a little eq'ing may be all that's needed. We ran flat for all our testing. We're impressed and plan on building some more of them now for smaller club gigs and rentals.
18" cabinets are about 350 dollars to build
Tuba 24 with the hl-10a is more like 200 to build
Clincher for us is less amp power and less back strain. I still can't give up the 18's however...good for all out rock or hip hop shows.
-Matt
Post by: Michael_Elliston¶ on November 19, 2004, 04:41:48 PM
thanks for the effort of posting!
It might not be as clean due to being operated too close to its flare cutoff where distortion /excursion increases HEAPS -
Check out labhorn measured distortion graph trend
Take it with a grain of salt though,the measurements arent the be all and end all-it has limitations check
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/sbk1/ssi.htm
Post by: Jim York on November 20, 2004, 10:47:22 PM
Post by: Elliot Thompson on November 21, 2004, 02:42:20 AM
Reading both reviews, it proves a few things.
1. One Tuba 24 loaded with the HL 10, is equivalent
to a good 18 inch Single Bass Reflex.
2. One Tuba 24 loaded with the Beta 10, offers
piss poor results when you really need to crank it.
So, Two Tuba 24's loaded with two HL 10's, will
offer the same results, as a good dual 18 enclosure.
While the Tuba 36 may be nice, if it shares the
same characterisics in dimensions, as the Tuba
24 (ala Cube) it will be useless.
As I remember, Bill stated the box would be
rather big. I'll take that as clumsy. So, I
imagine, we will be looking at a box bigger
than the old MT 4 dimensions here. Definitely,
not passing through doorway friendly here.
Providing it follows the Tuba 24's scheme of
course.
PS. Thanks for the review Matt.
Best Regards,
Post by: Jim York on November 21, 2004, 09:27:05 AM
Post by: Elliot Thompson on November 21, 2004, 12:14:20 PM
| Jim York wrote on Sun, 21 November 2004 14:27 |
I don't know what reviews you read, Elliot, but they sure aren't the ones that I've read, or written for that matter. Everyone who's built a Tuba 24 loves it. A Tuba 30 at 30 inches cubed is a lot more user friendly than an EAW BH760 at 30x30x45 inches. A Tuba 36 at 36x36x30 inches will go through the same doorways as that EAW BH760, but is some 7,000 cubic inches smaller for equal output. All of these factors make a lot more sense than the horn sub designs I've seen at speakerplans.com that use drivers too big in horns too small to work properly. Maybe you guys just need to install bigger doors? |
Hello Jim.
I read Matt's Review. As far as he stated, there isn't
a big improvement comparing the Tuba 24 loaded with the
HL 10, compared to his Silenium 18 Reflex.
| Quote: |
Final verdict: It's probably 85% of the 18 incher using 1000 watts less, weighing less, using less space, and costing less. I feel it is not quite as clean sounding as the 18 is although a little eq'ing may be all that's needed. We ran flat for all our testing. We're impressed and plan on building some more of them now for smaller club gigs and rentals. 18" cabinets are about 350 dollars to build Tuba 24 with the hl-10a is more like 200 to build Clincher for us is less amp power and less back strain. I still can't give up the 18's however...good for all out rock or hip hop shows. -Matt |
Probably someone that just got their first experience
in robust bass will be astonished by the Tuba 24, but,
someone with more experience (Matt) knowing how bass
is suposed to sound, will not. I own 16 Dual Driver
Subs. So, possibly I know how to read pass the hype,
and get straight to the point.
The Tuba 24 wins over his Reflex due to being cheaper
to build. Performance wise, the Tuba 24 didn't outshine
the Selenium 18, nor did the Selenium 18 outshine the
Tuba 24. They are relatively the same. This is why I
stated two Tuba 24's loaded with HL 10, is equivalent
to a good Dual 18 Reflex.
As far, as the BH 760 is concerned, that is a Touring
Box. So are you saying that I will get a better coverage
with the Tuba 36 using say 12 - 16 boxes aside,
when used outdoors opposed the the KF 760?
So, my assumptions was somewhat correct. The Box is indeed
the size of the EV MT 4. Is this Tuba 36 designed for Touring
purposes?
Got any charts using these boxes in blocks of four?
As far as Speakerplans goes, although I post there, I
never said, I used, or owned any of the designs offered
on Rog's site.
Best Regards,
Post by: Mark Seaton on November 21, 2004, 03:45:27 PM
| Jim York wrote on Sat, 20 November 2004 21:47 |
I've got a Tuba 24/HL10a and agree, its untouchable in its size and price class. The Tuba 30 with one Magnum 12 is almost the equal of the LAB, and the Tuba 36 that some of the guys are now constructing and discussing at Bill's forum promises to do what the original poster of this thread alluded to, compete with the Lab with one 15. If projections hold true it will actually beat it, despite being smaller and a far easier build. I think based on what the Tuba 30 builders have said one of those would definetely put your 18s out to pasture. |
Hi Jim,
As was posted before, the cases cited for "equalling" a LAB sub are only looking at a single box. While it certainly produces a good deal of sound, if you typically only use a single LAB per side, you have the wrong box. The LAB doesn't really come to life until you have a pair or more together. The fact ignored here is that the response changes significantly when you add more boxes.
If 4 LABs is more than someone wants to carry or can justify, or they are very limited in power, the Tuba 30 and proposed 36 look interesting. I would suspect these are great solutions for weekend warriors and bands carrying their own gear. They are likely cheaper, and simpler to build. I also would expect that if you took a few kilowatts of power and a pair of LABs, you would need many more Tubas to keep up. If you look at the graphs Bill has posted, they suggests to me that multiple LABs will be more efficient over 30Hz and will have much higher dynamic capabilities. We also need to remember that the graphs Bill has posted are only THIRD OCTAVE resolution. It looks like they are plots from an RTA. Almost anything looks decent and smooth at 1/3rd Octave, so we can't know for sure. The points plotted there for the LAB are from a high res measurement.
I think many miss the point when they see that some have found ways to break the LAB12 drivers. In almost all of the cases where clusters are used we see people talk about how good it sounded until they killed them, but I have yet to hear someone post that they had the same size pack or same quantity of boxes which were significantly louder or lower. The problem is classic. As soon as you give someone big output for a reasonable number of boxes where they will have headroom and almost no failures, they then want to try and do the same with fewer boxes; usually requiring more power. At some point you ask for too much. With the huge power available these days, the limits of what many ask from a box can get pretty rediculous. Sure, it's possible to design a box you can't kill(with currently available amplifiers), where it just stops giving you more beyond some input. That takes a lot of work and more expensive parts. Remember the LAB sub is a FREE DESIGN! The reality is that any significant advancements in performance will require some serious design work, and whom ever puts in that work will likely want to either keep it for themselves or be compensated for it.
In the initial design of the LAB sub, Tom took many factors into account which he values. While modifications can alter the response like the V3, this comes at the expense of greater excursion and less acoustic load on the driver. Perfectly justifiable in some cases, but a trade off none-the-less. Useful trade offs could be made in other areas as well, and that is of course up to the person who designs and builds the speaker. As Tom emphasized early on in the project though, be sure to do real side-by-side comparisons, and at the levels you want to use the system at. I have yet to hear a case of multiple LAB subs not being close or significantly bettering the competition.
Tom nor I benefit at all from someone building a LAB sub over a TUBA design. The designs, while both horn loaded, are quite different, and I think many here have measured and documented the LAB to be a serious performer. We don't have comparative measurements of the TUBA at high levels or in multi-box clusters. It would be interesting if owners of each were to meet up and compare.
Post by: Walt de Jong on November 21, 2004, 04:42:22 PM
To bad the alumninium acces panels on the LAB's had some airleaks so they didn't perform like they should be the experts told me. This day the stack of 4 Punishers was the loudest measuring 130db at 3 metres distance
The 18" basreflex boxes also did a good job! The horns project the sound more far but up close the BR aren't that bad really.
http://www.vitality-show.nl/fotoboek/album31?page=2
Punisher stack: http://www.vitality-show.nl/fotoboek/album31/IMG_8408
Best regards,
Walt
Post by: Jim York on November 21, 2004, 05:29:23 PM
Post by: Graeme Goodacre [Centauri on November 21, 2004, 05:55:35 PM
| Elliot Thompson wrote on Mon, 22 November 2004 04:14 |
but, someone with more experience (Matt) knowing how bass is suposed to sound, |
Interesting statement. If you are used to listening to front loaded subs at high levels, then you haven't been hearing true bass - but excess levels of harmonic distortion. This is the bass nearly all of us know. A good horn sub has MUCH less harmonic distortion and does indeed sound different, giving the impression of lower quality sound. Listening to a stack (note STACK) of LABsubs, KF940s or Tubas will reveal what true bass is all about. Whether or not it is better is purely subjective depending on what the listener is used to.
Cheers
Graeme
Post by: Graeme Goodacre [Centauri on November 21, 2004, 06:03:14 PM
| Mark Seaton wrote on Mon, 22 November 2004 07:45 |
We also need to remember that the graphs Bill has posted are only THIRD OCTAVE resolution. It looks like they are plots from an RTA. Almost anything looks decent and smooth at 1/3rd Octave, so we can't know for sure. The points plotted there for the LAB are from a high res measurement. |
Mark,
As far as I know, Bill measures spot frequencies with a dB meter and transfers these to a spreadsheet to generate the plots. I can see that this will introduce many inaccuracies, and is one reason why I am rather sceptical of the responses. I would like to see proper RTA generated graphs, especially when making comparisons.
Cheers
Graeme
Post by: Elliot Thompson on November 21, 2004, 06:48:55 PM
| Centauri wrote on Sun, 21 November 2004 22:55 | ||
Interesting statement. If you are used to listening to front loaded subs at high levels, then you haven't been hearing true bass - but excess levels of harmonic distortion. This is the bass nearly all of us know. A good horn sub has MUCH less harmonic distortion and does indeed sound different, giving the impression of lower quality sound. Listening to a stack (note STACK) of LABsubs, KF940s or Tubas will reveal what true bass is all about. Whether or not it is better is purely subjective depending on what the listener is used to. Cheers Graeme |
On the Contray, my friend! I'm more than familiar with
Horn Subs. However, the Tuba 24 hasn't proved to excel
over a Reflex design. Nor has it been measured using
4+ boxes a side. Does anyone knows what is the minimum
box required to achieve optimum performance using the
Tuba 24?
The box seems to be a stand alone design. Or atleast,
this is how, the designer portays it. For I have yet
to see a graph measuring these boxes in groups of 4,
8, and so forth.
The hype was one Tuba 24 surpassing 18 inch
reflex box, in performance. Well, Matt made
the test, and, surely didn't put the reflex
to shame. And keep in mind, the hype came from
the Beta 10.
I've witnessed Horn Subs demolish Reflex Subs
using 4 horns, -vs- 8, 10, 12 Reflexes. I've
been around horns all my life. From the worst,
to the best. I'm not new to horns.
So, when I read someone comparing a Reflex -vs-
a horn box, {That has no documentation stating
how many of these boxes are needed to ensure
optimum performance, BTW} and, they are relatively
the same, in output..........
Until charts start popping up, stating what these
boxes can do in groups, I'll stand corrected.
Best Regards,
Post by: Mac Kerr on November 21, 2004, 07:06:35 PM
| Centauri wrote on Sun, 21 November 2004 18:03 | ||
Mark, As far as I know, Bill measures spot frequencies with a dB meter and transfers these to a spreadsheet to generate the plots. I can see that this will introduce many inaccuracies, and is one reason why I am rather sceptical of the responses. I would like to see proper RTA generated graphs, especially when making comparisons. Cheers Graeme |
I think the point Mark was making was that the points were 1/3 octave resolution. In a speaker system that operates over less than 2 octaves (2 octaves being 30Hz to 120Hz) that is pretty coarse resolution. Most RTA's will continue to be 1/3 octave resolution. SIM, SMAART, TEF, and some other measurement systems allow for greater resolution over that limited bandwidth.
Mac
Post by: Matt Loretitsch on November 21, 2004, 07:38:03 PM
The Tuba 24 with HL-10A WILL NOT exceed the performance of the front loaded Selenium 18sw1p. We are building more of the 24's and 18's and here is our reasoning....
We could run 4 tuba 24's off a plx 3002 or heck, even an rmx 2450 from ONE single 15 amp circuit and not melt down an amp or trip a breaker. They also weigh 40-50 pounds which makes them a breeze to move. In a group of four there would be some serious output at a small venue. We run in to power problems all the time and this would help answer it. If power is available to run 6000 watts RMS to four 18's then great... it just doesn't happen in a bar. I still gotta run tops and power for the band!
As for the Tuba 30 design... it's 30 inches cubed! That really IS a big deal for load in time. The 24 already scrapes through some house doorways. If anyone is in Northeast Ohio I would be happy to let you audition the tuba 24 versus 18SW1p for yourselves. Buy me a beer *grin* I'm don't have a lot of measurement equipment but I can try to rig something up if you guys want hard numbers.
-Matt
p.s. Saw Slayer last night... HOLY BASS batman! I don't know what they were carrying for subs but they rocked!
Post by: Graeme Goodacre [Centauri on November 21, 2004, 08:33:13 PM
Do you have access to any measuring gear (Speaker Workshop, TrueRTA etc)?? Many people (including me) are itching to see REAL response curves for the Tubas instead of Bill's smoothed over ones. Simulations by myself (and Walt) would suggest they don't work quite as well as Bill would have us believe...
Cheers
Graeme
Post by: Dave Rickard on November 21, 2004, 08:49:28 PM
| Elliot Thompson wrote on Sun, 21 November 2004 23:48 |
The hype was one Tuba 24 surpassing 18 inch reflex box, in performance. Well, Matt made the test, and, surely didn't put the reflex to shame. And keep in mind, the hype came from the Beta 10. |
Good points Elliot, Mark, Jim, Matt, and others. Here are some assorted thoughts:
1. Elloit, The hype was also against an *unnamed*, and unmemorable?, single 18. Hmmm....
2. When more Tubas get built, more will fail, and then we'll see a track record.
3. I look forward to scientific measurements also. Until then, Matt's word is the only independent comparison we've got, and knowing what I know of Matt, I'm OK with that.
4. Multiple cabinet results should be interesting. Jim?
5. Mark, I'm sure you are aware that the LABsub is the standard by which many are comparing themselves. That says something. Thanks for offering a *FREE* design!
6. Jim, Not to start a war here, but Matt said he'd build more tubas for "smaller gigs". I think his meaning is clear.
7. I own a tuba. 1936 Conn 26J in satin silver and gold.
My 2 cents,
daver
Post by: Dave Rickard on November 21, 2004, 08:54:22 PM
| mloretitsch wrote on Mon, 22 November 2004 00:38 |
If anyone is in Northeast Ohio I would be happy to let you audition the tuba 24 versus 18SW1p for yourselves. Buy me a beer *grin* I'm don't have a lot of measurement equipment but I can try to rig something up if you guys want hard numbers. -Matt |
Maybe Darren would measure them?
daver
Post by: Matt Loretitsch on November 21, 2004, 09:14:12 PM
I'll be out of town the whole weekend, but perhaps I can figure something out beforehand. If nothing else you could see a comparative measurement betweent he front loader and the horn.
Darren from PE is about 4 hours south of here... quite a haul. Let me see what I can work out with speaker workshop.
Post by: blades976 on November 21, 2004, 09:20:51 PM
LABhorns have great all out performance. However I challenge anyone to find a better cabinet design than the Tuba’s that are
1. Easy to build
2. Only require one driver to operate properly
3. Have deeper bass extension
4. Have more sensitivity
5. Do not require a premium amplifier to drive
I think you people are getting your wires crossed on the intended market for these designs. The Tuba’s are marketed towards budget minded people who want an easy design and want to maximize every precious watt they have. The LAB horns seemed geared toward a more affluent crowd who can afford to buy parts for and build multiple cabinets and have serious capital available for the amplifiers to run them.
“Its the economy stupid!”They are both excellent designs, now can’t we all just get along?
Post by: Graeme Goodacre [Centauri on November 21, 2004, 09:23:50 PM
Cheers
Graeme
Post by: Graeme Goodacre [Centauri on November 21, 2004, 09:52:09 PM
I have no doubt the Tubas do work well (there is plenty of testimony out there in their favour), and the design is a good one. My problem is that Bill makes claims and comparisons (as he is entitled to do) and backs it up with dubious charts. It costs buggar all to set up a PC measurement system that would provide more accurate measurements than a dB meter - the dB meter cannot differentiate between original tone and harmonics - and I can't see why Bill won't use them. Bill's curves on the Tuba look much smoother than the published measured response of the LabSub, which may lead one to believe the Tuba is superior. The Lab's low frequency ripples are confirmed in simulations and are a result of compromises of size. My simulations of the Tuba show greater ripples (presumably from the small mouth in relation to the low flare rate) than the Lab and Bill's smoothed curves, and I would suspect that these would lessen with the Tuba in multiple stacks just as the Lab does.
Cheers
Graeme
Post by: blades976 on November 21, 2004, 11:01:04 PM
I would love to see the Tuba’s plotted with more precision but for now I will take what I can get. I was curious to HEAR just how good they would perform so I bought the plans and parts and put one together. I liked the results so now I am building two more even bigger
. I honestly don’ think Bill meant to make any claims of superiority of the Tuba vs. the LABhorn, but merely posted the graphs so that there would be a familiar reference. Bill recently updated the graph on his web site showing LABhorn giving out quite a bit more bass at 32hz than previously posted after somebody emailed him the graph. If Bill really wanted to he could have posted a cost to build and operate comparison and maybe that could be considered a hostile comparison but he didn’t so all this perceived animosity is misplaced IMO.
I think this whole argument over response graphs is kind of silly. I took the initiative and built my own cabinet because I didn’t feel like sitting around comparing computer simulations, I wanted the real thing to hear for myself. If you trust one design vs. another then you should build the one you believe will be better. Life is too short to spend bickering over the perceived performance of two different products based on what computer monitor shows you. Do you really want to trust your EYES to tell you how good something SOUNDS
? If you really want to hear what a Tuba sounds like build it. If you don’t like the results it would be a snap to sell it off and recoup all your investment. If someday somebody puts the two designs next to each other and it turns out the LAB comes out on top it still wouldn’t bother me as I take price of performance into consideration when making my purchasing decisions. The cabinets I have built and am currently building still outperform by a very large margin any name brand subwoofers out there that I could get in the same price range. I also have no qualms about using a cheap amp to run my tuba’s on. How many LAB owners out there would dare try and run two LABhorns off of a $600 amp
? Post by: Jim York on November 22, 2004, 01:58:46 PM
I asked Bill in a personal email how he measures his speakers; he does it outdoors with a sine wave generator and precision mic/soundmeter. He measures at 1/3 octave intervals on ISO center frequencies because those are the same frequencies that 1/3 octave EQs operate on. I personally don't care if he doesn't measure on a computer in an anechoic chamber with 1/2Hz resolution; the stuff sounds good, it's small, it's cheap, it easy to build, it just plain works. Quit the whining already.
Post by: Dave Rickard on November 22, 2004, 02:27:55 PM
| blades976 wrote on Mon, 22 November 2004 02:20 |
I don't see what everyone it getting their panties in a twist over. These are speaker cabinets, nothing more. |
Hello again Blades and Jim,
No regulars are getting "panties twisted" here. This forum is not that juvenile about these things. These are not inflammatory questions. These are the usual questions posed by professionals who have seen designs come and go, claims made and substantiated, and other claims debunked. We all agree that the Tubas perform, maybe good, maybe even GREAT. We're all interested in other questions like:
1. Exactly how great?
2. In what situations?
3. Based on what?
To some these are just speaker cabinets, nothing more, to many here these are business investments. Before I trust my reputation, and my client's trust, to gear, I want to know it will not let me down, and that I brought the right gear to the gig.
I don't think anyone is maligning Bill's character either. The facts are that data matters more than words. $10 is not much to spend, but $100's and the hours necessary to build mean something to most people here. To some, the build time (lost) is more valuable than the dollars invested.
Finally, the claims made are interesting. The unidentified PV 18 is a mystery, as are the test conditions for it, and the Tubas. The Labsub is documented and proven. Most designers readily provide test details. We would like to see data AND anecdotes.
Finally the question about multiple cabinets has more to do with how they respond to horn coupling than whether it's a good design or not. That's a valid question. Even if you don't see the validity, it's still valid. Who wants to build 8 of these to find out the answer MIGHT be "OK, but not great"? That's not good business, and these are all reasonable questions.
Check the Study Hall for articles on the "business" of sound to understand more where this board is coming from.
never worn panties,
daver
Post by: Jon McDowell on November 22, 2004, 04:27:33 PM
Post by: Jim York on November 22, 2004, 06:58:19 PM
Post by: Dave Rickard on November 22, 2004, 08:44:03 PM
| Jim York wrote on Mon, 22 November 2004 23:58 |
We're not in basic disagreement here. I only make about $200 per gig, so if anything I'm less able to afford to make a mistake in my spending on new gear. I'm also not the best woodworker in the world, so I couldn't even contemplate something with the Labs complexity. And finally being in a band that isn't playing stadiums the last thing I need is a sub that needs to be used in multiples of more than one, or the semi truck it would take to haul them in. My needs are for small size, low price and good performance. The Tubas and DR250a I've built give me that, and at a price that's a quarter of what I'd be paying otherwise. Bill Fitzmaurice is the first to admit that he's not catering his designs to the 1% of the professional musicians who make ten grand a night, but to the 99% who make $200 or less like I do. |
I agree Jim. For the record, I'm not an arena sound provider. We all want small, affordable and good. Hoffman's Iron law demands trade-offs. The size and price look great. The unanswered question is "They're good, but how good are they?" That is why others have asked for solid, standard, scientific data.
daver
Post by: Steve Shafer on November 23, 2004, 03:27:30 PM
For the record, I have purchased some of Bill's plans, and they are very attractive to me as they are considerably easier to build than is the LAB Sub. Like Tom Danley, Bill is not going to get rich from his design even though he charges a very modest fee for the Tuba plans. For a bit more money, i think Bill should supply the buyer with more specific plans with cut sheets and actual measurements or tracing sheets for patterns/jigs.
However, all bass is not created equal. Once you listen to a pair of Bassmaxx subs and properly made Labs or any other well made and designed horn loaded sub, you will begin to hear the difference.
I will borrow this quote from a post on another thread about the Labs which points out only one element of having real solid performance data on a speaker.
"The importance of low distortion at very low frequencies can be deduced from the equal loudness contours. The threshold of hearing is around 70 dB SPL at 20 Hz. This is at the level of normal conversation. With increasing frequency the threshold drops rapidly. The loudness contours have an initial slope of 80 dB/dec, or 24 dB/oct, at low perceived volume levels (phon).
This means that if the 40 Hz 2nd harmonic of a 20 Hz tone is at a 24 dB lower level, then it will sound equally as loud as the fundamental. This corresponds to 6% 2nd harmonic distortion. The 3rd harmonic distortion would have to be below 1%, or over 38 dB down, in order that it is less loud than the 20 Hz fundamental. It all leads to very low distortion requirements. The fundamental frequency sound pressure level needs to be above 70 dB to even become audible and it should not be masked by higher frequency distortion products.
For a detailed investigation of requirements see: Louis D. Fielder & Eric M. Benjamin, "Subwoofer performance for accurate reproduction of music", JAES, Vol. 36, Number 6, pp. 443 (1988)"
I have found that many people associate big bass with low end distortion. However, distortion almost always leads to ear fatigue.
With the availablity of SMART and various other analysis tools, I think it would be quite easy to test the Tubas and to publish some real solid data. Has any one done any measurements of distortion for the Tuba's? Any time you see the freuquncy plots condensed together, most engieneers are going to get suspicious. The people who have rasied this quesiton are professionals who have to purchase gear and sorting through marketing hype and inflated specs is a necisity in this business.
As for the Tuba blowing away a single PV 18 front loaded sub. Well that may be. But put them up against a line transmission loaded Aura 1808/Neomaxx sub, and i do not think that they will fare as well. Put the Tuba up against a dual 18 sub with some Aura 1808/Neomaxx or McCauley 6174's, and I will need some real quality confirmable specs to believe.
How the Tubas couple is of importance to me,and I can pick up a good used QSC PLX 2402 or a Crown MA1200 to run a LAB for $600 off of Ebay with out too much problem, so the amp cost thing is moot.
I would think that it stands in Bill's best interest to have this data compiled published and repeated by other people who built high quality Tuba's. I have no doubt that Bills Tuba's are going to make for impressive ouput and extension from 12" eminence Magnum drivers. However, before I lay down hard cash and my time to do a DIY, I want to know what I am going to get once finished. If I buy a JBL, EAW, EV, or Tubosound sub, I can always sell it if i do not like it and recoup a fair amount of my investment. With a DIY, you often get next to nothing for them.
As for needing credible specs, I say this becuase of all the modeling, Smart measurements, and repeatable data for the LAB sub gives the LAB SUB instant credibilty as a DIY project. Having Tom Danley as the major designer for the project also adds instant credibilty. These two facts alone motivate me to brave the detailed wood work that is involved in a quality excecution of the Lab Sub design.
Having said that, I think that an improved driver(increased excursion, more power handling, and a bigger BL factor among other things) would take the Lab Sub to an even higher level of performance.
my .02
SteveS
Post by: Matt Loretitsch on November 23, 2004, 04:10:06 PM
Thanks for enlightening me on the whole curve versus harmonic distortion thing. You made me remember some testing on amplifiers (audiophile) where some small chip amps sounded exceptionally good. Measurements showed that they suppressed second and third order harmonics exceptionally well compared to standard amplifier designs and thus were far less fatiguing to listen to and just sounded clean. This is beginning to make sense to me now.
All I can afford is speaker workshop on my small time budget (read: free) so I'll have to make do. I'm not a pro at measurements, but I will try my best.
I've been exposed to ultra low distortion systems in the audiophile world (edgarhorns come to mind) and it is remarkably good.
-Matt
Post by: [x] on November 23, 2004, 05:57:07 PM
I think the tuba 24 is kind of a hybrid between a bandpass enclosure and a horn enclosure (where the horn functions as bandpass filter), and the same goes for the Tuba 30 and 36, though the horn begins to play a bigger role as it gets longer and as mouth size increases.
Post by: Michael_Elliston¶ on November 23, 2004, 07:21:28 PM
Comparing apples with oranges,proves nothing but the fact that you are comparing apples with oranges.
Although i enjoy measurements + listening experience/reports
-because no manufacturer posts distortion graphs of completed subwoofers no one will post them on their site.
Sure DIY people are welcoem to,but I cant imagine anyone doing it,because they would be the only ones doing it,putting themselves at a disadvantage UNLESS they explained how other manufacturers are too afraid of doing it
Linkwitzlabs is pretty solid
I like the michigan subwoofer shoot out info its about all there is!
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/sbk1/ssi.htm
Post by: Jim York on November 23, 2004, 07:59:38 PM
Post by: Al Limberg on November 23, 2004, 08:26:08 PM
JMHO,
Al
Post by: Elliot Thompson on November 23, 2004, 08:55:28 PM
| BHFProfessional wrote on Tue, 23 November 2004 22:57 |
The claims were made based on the performance of the HL-10, not the Beta 10. Because I was the one who first introduced the claims to the board. |
I wasn't quoting your statement. That statement
was before Bill made a website dedicated to his
designs. We are talking Audio Asylum here.
I'm basically, on every audio forum on the net.
I may not use my real name, but, I'm still there.
I respect the man, and knows, he's very knowledgable
with horns. This is why I'm so surprised
with the chart he posted. He's not new to horns, yet,
he makes a chart thats looks like something a novice
did.
For a man of his Character, I would expect more.
Best Regards,
Post by: Michael_Elliston¶ on November 23, 2004, 11:38:09 PM
| Stevesb65 wrote on Thu, 18 November 2004 02:43 |
Mike: I know this is off topic for the thread, but what driver is in the WSX-3? Also have you built your own versions or is the pic a real Martin box? Enquiring minds want to know Steve S |
Hi steve
its a VOID 18" 1kw,5" VC,typical high BL prosound woofer.
=> http://www.speakerplans.com
The enclosure is a copy of the real thing.(ask Centauri)
I had the site somewhere,i always lose it! theres jsut more pics,no words anyway on the site.
Cheers!
Post by: Jim York on November 24, 2004, 08:17:22 AM
Post by: Jim York on November 24, 2004, 08:25:59 AM
Post by: Graeme Goodacre [Centauri on November 24, 2004, 09:01:04 AM
| Jim York wrote on Thu, 25 November 2004 00:25 |
Perhaps the simplicity of his charts is for the benefit of his average customer, a DIY newbie |
Jim, yes I would say that is the case. However, those newbies will quite often seek the opinion of more established individuals, such is happening here and on Harmony Central, and they will be the ones who will look at the charts and advise against.
Bill's reaction to all this can be seen on this thread on his forum, beginning with my post http://audioroundtable.com/BillFitzmaurice/messages/1186.htm l
If that's the way he wants to play it, then fine. I still think the designs are good ones for the intended customers, but they may take a while to be generally accepted.
Cheers
Graeme
Post by: Matt Loretitsch on November 24, 2004, 09:57:31 AM
I'm still strapped to making measurements next week when I get back, but I will definetly do so... even if it IS snowing here at that point. I've looked over the distortion graphs from the michigan shootout as well so I have an idea of what real data looks like.
Education by the seat of the pants
My ideas so far then are a frequency response measurement, and a distortion measurement.
-Matt
Post by: Al Limberg on November 24, 2004, 10:14:35 AM
Al
Post by: Peter Jones on November 24, 2004, 03:34:29 PM
The engineers that have mixed bands on them have been really happy.
I got the drivers from Jack at Assistance Audio www.assistanceaudio.com
Post by: BrideofZen on November 26, 2004, 04:15:45 PM
FWIW,
BOZ
Total disclosure - I do have a set of (2) labhorn, (4) tempest horns, some (2) 18" bins loaded with Eminen stuff.
Post by: Dave Rickard on November 26, 2004, 06:55:36 PM
1. Thanks for posting that. I'm no horn expert, but I assume that I see about a 15dB drop from 69Hz down to the next plateau around 44 Hz. Do you think coupling multiples will flatten that?
2. What is your subjective opinion of these, as compared to your other cabinets? Do you think these will be fine for smaller gigs? Large gigs?
3. What driver is in the graph? I assume the Beta?
Thanks,
daver
Post by: gazzamongo on November 26, 2004, 08:09:40 PM
any chance of an 8th space plot to see what kind of boost one might get with corner placement in the home?
cheers
gazza
p.s would you say a tuba could sound good for h/t or hi fi?
Post by: Graeme Goodacre [Centauri on November 27, 2004, 12:03:17 AM
All in all, a good all-round compromise in a high effeciency box of modest dimensions. This is exactly the sort of info we have been looking for, and this curve certainly does not make the box seem inferior.
If you want to get an idea of actual spl level, pick a frequency in the passband (say 100Hz) and feed 1W level of this frequecy in and measure the volume with a dB meter. Then scale the graph until the 100Hz level reads the measured level.
BTW, what software did you use for measurement ?
Cheers
Graeme
Post by: Michael_Elliston¶ on November 27, 2004, 02:25:30 AM
DONT do a set of not so useful measurents like the subwoofer shoot out 'walt'
the levels are so low its hard to see anything,and im afraid the voltage levels might even be only just above the noise!
even speakerworkshop with $2flat response mic is better than
nothn!
And dont forget to NOT compare apples with oranges
Post by: Jim York on November 28, 2004, 07:53:41 PM
Post by: [x] on November 28, 2004, 11:17:54 PM
Post by: Dave Rickard on November 28, 2004, 11:39:21 PM
| Jim York wrote on Mon, 29 November 2004 00:53 |
Aside from curved lines versus straight that chart nearly duplicates the one Fitzmaurice published. Too bad we didn't see it before Thanksgiving, as it seems a lot of guys should have forsaken their turkey dinners for a heaping serving of crow. |
Not necessarily, Jim.
I can't speak for everyone here, but this is the sort of validation I wanted to see. BOZ's graph, along with Matt's anecdotes, and the updated graph on Bill's page for the Tuba24 (naming the single 18), I'm not nearly as skeptical as I was. By the way I did check the chart on the "other" sub and it matches that manufacturer's published curve, so that raises confidence as well. See link:
http://billfitzmaurice.com/tuba24.jpg
I hope you didn't confuse "Show me the data" questions with "He's a liar" statements. Two different thoughts. I try not to have to eat crow. I just ask lots of questions...
I'd still like to see measurements with the HL-10, too.
daver
Post by: Graeme Goodacre [Centauri on November 28, 2004, 11:51:51 PM
I have noticed that some seem to make a connection between a response chart and maximum volume, which is not the case. Probably a little more editorial about each design, with its intended application, advantages, disadvantages etc, and explainations and estimates of maximum spl etc, along with comparisons of boxes which are capable of similar maximum spl, on Bill's wbsite may give the average customer more info to make better decisions.
Cheers
Graeme
Post by: Jim York on November 29, 2004, 10:19:27 AM
| Quote: |
have noticed that some seem to make a connection between a response chart and maximum volume, which is not the case |
Fitzmaurice is acutely aware of this and nowhere makes claims for maximum output of the Tubas, admitting that the constraints of his testing facility (his back yard in a residential neighborhood) prevent him from attempting full power testing. Power compression is an issue that he's extensively discussed on his forum. He readily admits that output versus power and frequency is not linear, though an examination of many manufacturer sites readily finds claims of maximum output SPLs that clearly are linear extrapolations from the base 1w/1 meter SPL, the EAW BH760 being one case in point. But that could just be a case of EAW not wanting to upset its neighbors too.
Post by: [x] on November 29, 2004, 10:12:20 PM
Post by: Craig Leerman on November 29, 2004, 11:05:14 PM
| Quote: |
How realistic are these stats? BTW-who is Bill Fitzmaurice was he connected to a major speaker company at one time? |
Bill has stated repeatedly on his forum that as long as soundfolks use only a 31 band EQ then thats all the resolution he will ever measure on his stuff!
He also stated that he is the "audio guy in charge" of a 6,000 seat theatre and tried to drop the name of CLARE Brothers to me!
I corrected him and explained that they are actually named CLAIR Brothers, to which he said "Clare or Clair I've never worked for them but they have worked for me"I find it hard to believe that he is paying Clair Brothers and does not know their name. More like they worked in the hall he works for and he was the house tech/local crew!
Craig
Post by: Mike MacWillie on November 30, 2004, 01:29:18 AM
Post by: Walt de Jong on November 30, 2004, 04:44:54 AM
The driver will exceed x-max at some point than the distrtion kicks in and max SPL is limited. You won't see this effect in a 1W/1m measurement! In fact you can cheat a little bit by optimizing the 1W/1m graph for lineairity but messing up the high power behaviour.
Best regards,
Walt
Post by: [x] on November 30, 2004, 09:55:01 AM
Post by: Matt Loretitsch on November 30, 2004, 10:25:11 AM
I'm back in town and I grabbed my measurement mic and a small mixer. All I need now is a temp above freezing so I can test some stuff. Neighbors beware!
-Matt
Post by: Dave Rickard on November 30, 2004, 10:37:12 AM
| mloretitsch wrote on Tue, 30 November 2004 15:25 |
All I need now is a temp above freezing so I can test some stuff. Neighbors beware! -Matt |
Understood. Our low was -10F/-23C yesterday. I'm working inside today.
Daver
Post by: blades976 on November 30, 2004, 11:33:08 AM
| Quote: |
More like they worked in the hall he works for and he was the house tech/local crew! Craig |
Wow, another assumption, just like the ones that stated the response graphs were probably bunk. I tell ya, some people only open their mouths to change feet
. Well, I guess I’ll jump on the assumption bandwagon and assume that Bill simply isn’t star struck about having a big name sound company come through a venue he is working at or in charge of. Personally I’d rather Bill concentrate on his designs than the spelling of a company. Groupies can be tasked with spelling errors, the talent can design speaker cabinets .
Post by: Craig Leerman on November 30, 2004, 05:18:52 PM
| Quote: |
Wow, another assumption, just like the ones that stated the response graphs were probably bunk. I tell ya, some people only open their mouths to change feet . Well, I guess I’ll jump on the assumption bandwagon and assume that Bill simply isn’t star struck about having a big name sound company come through a venue he is working at or in charge of. Personally I’d rather Bill concentrate on his designs than the spelling of a company. Groupies can be tasked with spelling errors, the talent can design speaker cabinets |
I'm so glad you are the leader of the Bill Bandwagon! Unfortunately, many of us who actually work in audio full time for a living are not so keen on jumping on any bandwagon until we see some proven results and experience!
I have read Bill's forum and noticed that he is wrong about a few things about audio in general. Unlike these forums which have a variety of users (many who bring world class skills and experience to the discussions), his forum seems to be Bill telling the forum "his" way of things, and then a few people who have build his products chimming in on how great they are.
When I corrected him on his forum, Bill proceeded to try and "impress" me by name dropping CLARE
While that will probably impress many of the regulars on his forum, it does not impress people like me who have worked with CLAIR! The regulars on his forum seem to be new to audio, or part time local band types.
Read his response to me on his forum, and you will see that Bill was stating that Clair "worked" for him! Unless Bill is now a Promoter, I doubt he is signing Clair's paycheck! Touring sound companies don't work for the local crew, its the other way around.
Either way, his name dropping still does not impress me! Of course, people who actually use their real names when they post on these forums impresses me! (hint hint)
Craig Leerman
Post by: BrideofZen on November 30, 2004, 05:33:44 PM
First to answer some questions:
Q: Do you think coupling multiples will flatten that?
A: Somebody said, "There is no replacement for displacement." I tend to agree. Two horns ought to reinforce each other well. Going with 2 will also get you to 4 ohms for increased sensitivity and spl (always good)! I don't think I would personally go to a cluster of 4/side. You start needing expensive or multiple amps to take care of that 2 ohm load. When it gets to that point, why not just go all the way and build a pair of lab horns (2 is a definite minimum for lab horns IMHO)?
Q: What is your subjective opinion of these, as compared to your other cabinets? Do you think these will be fine for smaller gigs? Large gigs?
A: I think the tuba's are good; better than the 18's (as far as spl goes, not as spectrally balanced though), in the same league as the tempests (in some respects the tempests win out, in others the tubas), probably not as good as the lab horns (my reasoning later). I am probably not going to trash my lab horns and replace them with tubas, even with the HL10's loaded. The proof is the in UPS truck.
I think they would be good for small gigs with a little work. I would run them in side by side pairs minimum. After modeling the HL-10 below the flare frequency of the tuba, I believe that the back chamber volume MAY be too big. BassBox Pro wants a 0.5 cu. ft. sealed cabinet. I think stuffing the box with sheets of polystyrene to take up a cube or so will increase power handling, raise f3 out of bandpass (a little flatter response), and make the setup more durable (that HL-10 suspension is floppy like the Lab 12). I know that other "professional" prototype horns for the HL-10 that I have consulted on leave ALMOST NO back chamber volume. This will be something to investigate when my HL10 arrives.
I personally tend to wonder about using only 2 tubas in a 500 seat venue. I think it would be borderline for the HL10 and just begging for problems with the Beta.
Q: What driver is in the graph? I assume the Beta?
A: That is not the beta 10. I used a Chinese driver that I have around with very similar specs. It does have a lower FS though. IMHO, probably too low for the tuba (as evidenced by that 28Hz f3 of the graph when the woofer was operating below flare freq. The main reason I posted that graph was to show that, yea, the horn cutoff freq is around 55Hz for a single box in quarter space.
Q: What software did you use for measurement ?
A: That is the shareware version of Spectralab. I will probably end up buying Praxis. Hopefully Santa will be good to me and leave it under the tree!
Final Thoughts:
In this graph you will probably notice increased humps in the mid-bass response. I believe this is due the resonance modes in my room. This is a persistent problem in this room. From what I see, the right crossover point/slope combo with a little eq'ing could make the tuba's sing and give you usable response into the low 40's. Clustering them will help more.
I think Bill has designed a good little sub with lots of potential that will work well for many people. Is it a lab horn killer? Sorry, no. In clusters, I do not believe that HL10 loaded tubas can come near the operating output of lab horns. I would bet on it for the beta loaded horns. Even if a tricked Mustang can give a Ferrari a run for its money from 0 to 60 mph, the Ferrari will eat the Mustang's lunch at 220mph!
I am by no means a "pro" but I have spent a lot of time with commercial manufacturers talking turkey about drivers and speakers and have spent some time designing some cabinets in cooperations with some working loudspeaker engineers. I might be totally off base in my conclusions here, but I believe I have made a fair assessment of the concerns surrounding the tuba question.
FWIW,
BOZ
Post by: Steve Shafer on November 30, 2004, 10:17:25 PM
Are you the designer of the punnisher horn? If so can we correspond off line.
Thanks
Steve S
Post by: blades976 on November 30, 2004, 10:34:41 PM
| Craig Leerman wrote on Tue, 30 November 2004 22:18 |
I'm so glad you are the leader of the Bill Bandwagon! Unfortunately, many of us who actually work in audio full time for a living are not so keen on jumping on any bandwagon until we see some proven results and experience! |
I am not the leader of anything and certainly not on any bandwagon, although it is cute you assume as much. I just built a product and tried it out before I passed judgment unlike many who are obsessed with using their eyes to judge sound via simulation software. I am curious how many people took the LABhorns seriously before someone else built them and tested them? Yes, waiting for someone else to take the initiative is safe, but rather boring. That’s okay, you sit there and wait, and others will have the pleasure of discovery and possibly learn something along the way.
| Craig Leerman wrote on Tue, 30 November 2004 22:18 |
I have read Bill's forum and noticed that he is wrong about a few things about audio in general. Unlike these forums which have a variety of users (many who bring world class skills and experience to the discussions), his forum seems to be Bill telling the forum "his" way of things, and then a few people who have build his products chimming in on how great they are. |
I certainly do not know everything about audio and I would be loath to say somebody is wrong about something(s) unless I can prove it, regardless of how much I thought I know. Perhaps you could share what Bill is wrong about and prove your point? You are right though in stating that this forum is a wealth of information from very knowledgeable people. I also learn a lot from Bill’s forums. I take knowledge anywhere I can get it, regardless if it comes from someone with a top dollar Yamaha board, or a $500 Carvin, if they know something useful, I am grateful that they shared it with myself and others.
| Craig Leerman wrote on Tue, 30 November 2004 22:18 |
When I corrected him on his forum, Bill proceeded to try and "impress" me by name dropping CLARE While that will probably impress many of the regulars on his forum, it does not impress people like me who have worked with CLAIR! The regulars on his forum seem to be new to audio, or part time local band types. Read his response to me on his forum, and you will see that Bill was stating that Clair "worked" for him! Unless Bill is now a Promoter, I doubt he is signing Clair's paycheck! Touring sound companies don't work for the local crew, its the other way around. |
I simply think Bill used Clair as a familiar reference, just as the graph of the LABhorn response. I am not impressed with any sound company's name, only the quality of the sound they produce. If you put an idiot on the board it will sound horrible, regardless of what the company is called.
You are right about the weekend warrior crowd on Bill’s forum, which is why I find it so funny that all these “professionals” are getting worked up over a design not even marketed towards them. If the Tuba’s and DR’s take off for professional use, great, if not, the world will go on.
Anyway, I thought you and Bill were discussing sub placement not having a spelling contest? I think you took Bill a bit out of context
”Clare or Clair I've never worked for them but they have worked for me, and they still put their subs to the either side at our venue and there are no restrictions of any kind to prevent them from doing otherwise. Agreed that most venues aren't sound friendly, but that's not the case at ours. In any event I conduct RTAs at every concert from locations throughout the audience and there are no particularly live or dead spots to speak of; if there were I'd advise the contractors to set up differently than they do, but since nothing is broke I'm not inclined to try and fix it.”
I looks to me as though Bill was trying to stick to the topic at hand, sub placement. Oh well, I guess arguing about spelling is easier than sound physics. I am not all that sure which way sounds better or measures out better and was rather enjoying the thread until you bowed out. Do you take RTA's througout the audience for every show? Do you have any graphs or readouts you can post to support your claims on sub placement? Seriously, I have wondered about this myself many times, but I do not have the resources to set up a massive rig to measure.
| Craig Leerman wrote on Tue, 30 November 2004 22:18 |
Either way, his name dropping still does not impress me! Of course, people who actually use their real names when they post on these forums impresses me! (hint hint) Craig Leerman |
If you wanted to know my name all you had to do is ask, or did you ASUME I wouldn’t tell you? Anyone who emails me knows my name is John.
The bottom line is, if you want to know how a cluster of Tubas sound, build them and measure the results. Don’t hop around screaming because your precious simulation software tells you it won’t work and do not pass judgment on a design you haven’t heard. If you want to know how loud a tuba goes, build it and blast it. The general consensus I am sensing here is that “It sucks until someone else builds a bunch of them, measures them, and tests them to destruction.” This is the exact opposite behavior I would expect from professionals that I would assume to be a bit more open minded.
Take care,
John Reynolds
Post by: Walt de Jong on December 01, 2004, 04:31:41 AM
Best regards,
Walter de Jong
Post by: raj on December 01, 2004, 11:58:56 PM
Where can I see the plans of your punisher horn . What are the outside dimentions ??
Post by: Dave Rickard on December 02, 2004, 01:24:52 AM
| blades976 wrote on Wed, 01 December 2004 03:34 |
The general consensus I am sensing here is that "It sucks until someone else builds a bunch of them, measures them, and tests them to destruction." This is the exact opposite behavior I would expect from professionals that I would assume to be a bit more open minded. Take care, John Reynolds |
John,
No one said they suck, they merely said, "Show me the money".
And I do disagree with your last point. It's not "opposite" that's *exactly* what separates vocational audio techs from hobbyists and HiFi. The performance of gear under duress is every bit as important as how good it sounds in the parlor. When you've had a KEY component(s) fail in the middle of a gig, causing promoter headaches, audience mocking, and red-faced embarrassment to your reputation, you'll understand better. The performance and failure points are not trivial niceties, but vital info. As you do more gigs, you'll see it clearly.
Pray that it never happens to you. I don't wish it on anyone.
Dave
Post by: Graeme Goodacre [Centauri on December 02, 2004, 08:29:50 AM
| raj wrote on Thu, 02 December 2004 15:58 |
Hi Walt , Where can I see the plans of your punisher horn . What are the outside dimentions ?? |
Punisher stuff here http://www.speakerstore.nl/index.php?show=tekening&const ructieID=21
Cheers
Graeme
Post by: ChainedDragon on December 02, 2004, 03:13:54 PM
| Centauri wrote on Thu, 02 December 2004 08:29 | ||
Punisher stuff here http://www.speakerstore.nl/index.php?show=tekening&const ructieID=21 Cheers Graeme |
its there a mirror of the site in english anywhere?
Post by: [x] on December 02, 2004, 04:07:46 PM
In English:
Introduction:
Are you looking for a compact subwoofer with enormously high output? Then the Punisher is possibly what you're looking for. The dimensions (HxWxD) are only 70cm x 50cm x 81.5cm, and the weight is approximately 48kG depending on the finishing and hardware (wheels, void filling material, etc.)
In contrast to most of the horn-loaded subwoofers available, the Punisher already works very well with only one enclosure per side. This proves it is an ideal match for smaller odd jobs where one can't lay down too much money but wants to have a pure, heavy, and carrying bass reproduction. Stack one, two, or four Punishers per side and then take a step back because of the output of more than 140dB at 1 meter. The enclosure can also handle bass transients of 4kW.
[translator's note: the 140dB figure and the 4kW power handling might be for a four-bin stack.]
Driver:
The design uses the 12.00SW driver by the manufacturer Ciare. This is not an ordinary 12" driver. With its 11kg weight, 1000w power handling and linear excursion of 11.5mm in one direction, this tearlly is an animal of a driver.
Construction: Normal subwoofers of this size use a 15" or 18" chassis. You may wonder why the Punisher with the 12" woofer still goes loud enough. The Punisher is a horn-loaded subwoofer. This housing type radiates sound through a flare, or horn. The length of the flared waveguide affects how low the enclosure can go. The surface at the beginning of the horn is related to the surface area of the driver. Since the 12" driver has a much smaller surface area than its 15" or 18" brothers, the horn can have a smaller throat. The advantage is now clear: Within a givien enclosure size, a longer horn can be used. Another advantage is that the chamber benind the 12" driver can be smaller.
There is still the question of the performance. Does it go loud enough? The answer is simple: YES. From 50 Hz, maximum outputs of 130dB are possible (with a 1000w power handling). The driver must have a completely sealed rear chamber, with removable panels on both sides to reach all eight driver screws. These removable panels must have no leaks. This applies to the complete compression chamber. Use an adhesive that fills openings so there are no leaks. Before the glue is set, check all the angles to make sure they have not been distorted.
Post by: ChainedDragon on December 02, 2004, 05:58:39 PM
...but are the plans for sale or something?
Post by: [x] on December 02, 2004, 08:19:18 PM
Post by: Brian Adams on December 03, 2004, 04:04:27 AM
Not that it's my place to say this, but the reasons he asked for your name are:
a) He is a moderator of several of the forums here, including the subwoofer forum, and,
b) In the sticky thread at the top of "Classic" LAB page entitled:
| Quote: |
Announcement: Please read this BEFORE you post |
| Quote: |
What should I include in my posts, to help identify me? Posts submitted, without a valid email address are subject to deletion. Please include your real name somewhere in your post. You can pretty much say what you want, but let other people know who you are, and your email address. |
Again, it's not my place to say anything about it, just repeating information. I'm just bored I guess.
I'm also not getting into this little battle about subs. I'm just not that interested. Well, I'm interested in subs, just not interested in arguing about them.
Well, carry on...
Post by: Walt de Jong on December 03, 2004, 08:39:13 AM
Plans for the Punisher are on that site, they are for free. I strongly recomment the Ciare 12.00SW as a driver. Something like a 18Sound 12LW-1400 also works, it offers al little more efficiency but lower SPL max. Please also note space for driver is limited so the driver shouldn't be to deep to fit in.
In modeling the 1w/1m response for the Tuba 24 design my AJ-horn software comes very close to the published and measured curves. Therefore that 1w/1m simulation seems about right. It also tells me the Tuba designs have a powerdip which limits max SPL... Punisher hasn't, it can take a full 1500W from 50hz up. Piece of cake for that mighty Ciare driver.
Best regards,
Walt
Post by: Graeme Goodacre [Centauri on December 03, 2004, 09:24:43 AM
Whilst Hornresp seems to be pretty accurate for "normal" horns like the punisher, it didn't seem to work well with the Tuba - maybe differences in the algorithms between the programs doesn't allow Hornresp to take some situations into account. But Hornresp IS free.... and it is written by an AUSSIE.......so I will continue using it
I would expect the Tuba to have more of an spl limit than a straight horn design - there has to be some sort of trade-off to gain extra low end extension from a small box. Will be interesting to hear about the results of the test.
Cheers
Graeme
Post by: Walt de Jong on December 03, 2004, 12:11:28 PM
I don't get a flat response for the Tuba 24 and SPL is about 95-98dB halfspace. Output for the Tuba is strong around 40Hz, a few dB stronger than the Punisher. But above 45Hz Punisher is about 10db louder when it comes to max SPL (600W for the HL10-A, 1500W for the Ciare 12.00SW)
Best regards,
Walt
Post by: [x] on December 03, 2004, 11:56:04 PM
Post by: Mikael Holm (the old one) on December 04, 2004, 08:58:58 PM
| mike_nz wrote on Wed, 24 November 2004 02:21 |
Although i enjoy measurements + listening experience/reports -because no manufacturer posts distortion graphs of completed subwoofers no one will post them on their site. |
Turbosound publishes the distortion figures (has done that over a decade) on their website and specsheets. Nexo has them in the user manuals (i have downloaded the manuals for Geo S, Geo T, Alpha and PS-series).
Post by: Michael_Elliston¶ on December 10, 2004, 05:21:01 AM
SLight exaggeration,'no manufacturer'
Re: turbosound -
Id never noticed it before
i did 'sign up' for something with nexo in order to get more info-but the site isnt so simple,cant find stuff like that.
I see some of the Flight series stuff at outdoor gigs in UK - havent seen anywhere else though. Funktion1 is different.
Il take a look at the FTP part of turbosound.
Cheers!