Post by: Felix Truong on March 10, 2010, 07:28:50 AM
Anyone with input on this?
Post by: Art Welter on March 10, 2010, 03:43:30 PM
| Felix Truong wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 05:28 |
I was looking at the JTR site and it says now thru Apr 1st, the JTR Growlers are $799 and can handle 2,000 watts RMS? So does that mean I can run 4,000 watts program into one cab and not blow them up? Seems a bit... off to me? Anyone with input on this? |
Felix,
You have misread the specs.
The Growler specifications don’t include the RMS rating of the speaker, they mention the maximum recommended amp for the Growler is up to 2000 watts RMS, which is 33 dB more than one watt.
They also say "peak power is double but not recommended."
That is a rather ambiguous statement, Jeff probably means a 4Kwatt peak may leave a hole where the cone was, depending on frequency and duration.
The speaker's voice coil probably handles around 500 watts RMS, capable of 6 dB peaks (2000 watts).
I’m sure Jeff Permian (Mr. Growler) would be glad to answer specific questions.
Art Welter
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on March 10, 2010, 04:51:22 PM
Art is correct, Jeff recommends an amp capable of about 2000 watts into 8 ohms for the new driver.
The last time I talked to Jeff P. he was leading on that the new driver would have an "RMS" rating about somewhere between 1400-1600 watts. (As the old driver was rated for 800 RMS and he recommended about 1000 watts)
A Crown IT8000 or QSC PL380 seems like they could do a good job powering them.
Take Care!
Phil
Post by: Felix Truong on March 10, 2010, 09:08:35 PM
In terms of output, the growlers used to trail the UCS1's by a tiny bit according to the maryland shootout. I wonder how they are now with the new drivers..
Post by: Art Welter on March 12, 2010, 11:27:50 AM
Post by: Jeff Permanian on March 12, 2010, 12:59:06 PM
| Art Welter wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 14:43 |
Felix, The speaker's voice coil probably handles around 500 watts RMS, capable of 6 dB peaks (2000 watts). Art Welter |
Even the previous model was more capable than that
The new driver has 23mm of xmax (eachway, 46mm total linear) and nearly 3" peak to peak mechanical travel.
Post by: Jeff Permanian on March 12, 2010, 01:11:17 PM
| Phil Lewandowski wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 15:51 |
A Crown IT8000 or QSC PL380 seems like they could do a good job powering them. Take Care! Phil |
There are a lot of amplifiers capable of 4000 watts into 4 ohms bridged on the market which will work out great to power a pair of the new Growlers.
Post by: Art Welter on March 12, 2010, 01:20:04 PM
| Jeff Permanian wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 10:59 | ||
Even the previous model was more capable than that The new driver has 23mm of xmax (eachway, 46mm total linear) and nearly 3" peak to peak mechanical travel. |
Jeff,
How many watts of say a 60 Hz sine wave is the new speaker capable of ?
Do you have any comparative graphs of the previous model compared to the new?
How does the power compression compare with the previous model?
Art Welter
Post by: Jeff Permanian on March 12, 2010, 01:54:19 PM
Frequency response is unchanged.
New Growlers handles double the power of the previous.
The Triple 8X handles 69.28 volt (1200w at 4 ohm), logarithmic, sine wave sweep with 3db of compression.
JTR builds speakers for real world use NOT just pretty 1w/1m measurements and thermo capacity.
Where does a vented speaker's low end come from?
The ports. The Triples cabinetry is extremely complex because of its huge slot ports (equal to 6x 3" ports) and that amount of port area is absolutely necessary. I laugh when I see everyone little tiny ports because I know they will start compressing with only a couple hundred watts. Same principles apply to throat area and xmax. The louder, the more cone movement, the more xmax required.
Post by: Evan Kirkendall on March 12, 2010, 02:11:05 PM
Looking at your specs, seems as if you gain maybe a dB...
Why is everyone playing the "our drivers can handle more power, but no increased performance" game? I like the "if you give our speakers 1200 watts, you get more SPL then you'll ever need!" game...
Evan
Post by: Jeff Permanian on March 12, 2010, 02:15:00 PM
| Evan Kirkendall wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 13:11 |
So, you have to feed them more power to get the same results as before? Or is there anymore extra output gained here? Evan |
??? There is 3db output gain.
Post by: Evan Kirkendall on March 12, 2010, 02:20:15 PM
| Jeff Permanian wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 14:15 | ||
??? There is 3db output gain. |
Good!
I remember the "old" specs saying they could do 132dB peak, and the new ones(at least posted here on the forums) only said 133, so that's why I was curious.
Now you just need to throw a lead brick in them to keep them from bouncing around even more.
Evan
Post by: Jim Duyck on March 12, 2010, 05:06:27 PM
Post by: Art Welter on March 12, 2010, 05:48:58 PM
| Jeff Permanian wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 11:54 |
126.5 volt (2000w at 8ohm), logarithmic, sine wave sweep with 3db of compression. Frequency response is unchanged. New Growlers handles double the power of the previous. |
Sound's like impressive power handling, but I'm still unclear with exactly what you are saying.
Does a swept sine wave of 126.5 volt cause 3 dB of compression?
Does that happen immediately, or after thermal equilibrium has been reached in the magnet structure?
What voltage level with a continuous sine wave causes the voice coil to burn up?
Will the voice coil burn up before the 3 inch peak to peak excursion limit is reached?
Post by: Jeff Permanian on March 12, 2010, 06:40:03 PM
Sine wave testing as been long abandoned because it doesn't resemble what speakers will have to reproduce in the real world, music.
The industry standard is to use pink noise with a 6db crest factor (allowing for peaks up to 6db over the average). This is why you topically see power ratings: continous, program and peak. Continous is the average power, peak is 6db above the average and program splits the difference.
Topically power testing to done monitoring voltage and amperage (current). Add power until the amperage halves which is when the resistance of the speaker has doubled and there is the 3db of power compression.
This only tests thermo power handling and does NOT account for any and all the other losses which is why everyother company only lists "calculated" numbers.
Post by: Douglas R. Allen on March 12, 2010, 07:16:03 PM
| Jeff Permanian wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 12:59 | ||
Even the previous model was more capable than that The new driver has 23mm of xmax (eachway, 46mm total linear) and nearly 3" peak to peak mechanical travel. |
Jeff
Do the growlers you have on sale for $799 have the new drivers in them or is this the old driver stock being discontinued?
Thanks
Douglas R. Allen
Post by: Jeff Permanian on March 12, 2010, 07:26:31 PM
| Douglas R. Allen wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 18:16 |
Jeff Do the growlers you have on sale for $799 have the new drivers in them or is this the old driver stock being discontinued? Thanks Douglas R. Allen |
New.
Post by: Art Welter on March 12, 2010, 08:13:14 PM
| Jeff Permanian wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 16:40 |
I know my specs aren't like everyone else. |
Answering the four questions I asked in message #527890 would be helpful to determine how you arrive at your specs, and what they mean.
I’m not looking for the “easy” answer, I explained what I thought your current specs meant to the OP, then you said “Even the previous model was more capable than that
”.Art Welter
Post by: Jeff Permanian on March 12, 2010, 08:39:30 PM
| Art Welter wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 19:13 |
Answering the four questions I asked in message #527890 would be helpful to determine how you arrive at your specs, and what they mean. I’m not looking for the “easy” answer, I explained what I thought your current specs meant to the OP, then you said “Even the previous model was more capable than that ”.Art Welter |
Actually, they won't. Speakers are not resisters.
1) yes, some port compression, some power compression, some mechanical compression.
2) heat soaked
3) frequency dependent (power consumption tracks impedance curve)
4) frequency dependent (you'll never hit 3" peak to peak at 80hz and above)
You arbitrarily picked a 60hz sine wave. What if there is a large impedence peak at 60hz? You could put a ton of voltage in and not consume any power. This is why boardband testing is done. Everything in audio is averaged or depends.
Post by: Art Welter on March 12, 2010, 09:17:12 PM
| Jeff Permanian wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 18:39 | ||
Actually, they won't. Speakers are not resisters. 1) yes, some port compression, some power compression, some mechanical compression. 2) heat soaked 3) frequency dependent (power consumption tracks impedance curve) 4) frequency dependent (you'll never hit 3" peak to peak at 80hz and above) You arbitrarily picked a 60hz sine wave. What if there is a large impedence peak at 60hz? You could put a ton of voltage in and not consume any power. This is why boardband testing is done. Everything in audio is averaged or depends. |
Thanks for the answers.
I understand that speakers are not resistors, an impedance, frequency and an excursion plot would answer my questions much more effectively.
At 35 Hz will the voice coil burn up before the 3 inch peak to peak excursion limit is reached?
I thought the Growler was a folded horn, what port are you referring to?
When the impedance curve is equal to the nominal impedance of 8 ohms, what is the long term sine wave power level that will burn up the voice coil?
Art Welter
Post by: Elliot Thompson on March 12, 2010, 10:12:23 PM
Powersoft claims the K 10 will deliver 2000 watts (126.49 volts) per channel in an 8-ohm load. With a 2-ohm load minimum capability, there shouldn’t be any cutbacks based on the limitation of the power supply from such a light load.
I would imagine the new woofer would be able to withstand that type of power longer without the fear of driver damage compared to the older version.
Best Regards,
Post by: Duane Silveira on March 13, 2010, 11:27:42 AM
Post by: Jeff Permanian on March 13, 2010, 01:50:55 PM
| Art Welter wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 20:17 |
Thanks for the answers. I understand that speakers are not resistors, an impedance, frequency and an excursion plot would answer my questions much more effectively. At 35 Hz will the voice coil burn up before the 3 inch peak to peak excursion limit is reached? I thought the Growler was a folded horn, what port are you referring to? When the impedance curve is equal to the nominal impedance of 8 ohms, what is the long term sine wave power level that will burn up the voice coil? Art Welter |
Using the maximum recommended amplifier power, it is nearly impossible to break or damage a Growler.
| Elliot Thompson wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 21:12 |
At the subwoofer shootout held in NYC, the JTR Growler managed to withstand the Powersoft K10 being clipped for short periods throughout the duration of the test without driver damage. Powersoft claims the K 10 will deliver 2000 watts (126.49 volts) per channel in an 8-ohm load. With a 2-ohm load minimum capability, there shouldn’t be any cutbacks based on the limitation of the power supply from such a light load. I would imagine the new woofer would be able to withstand that type of power longer without the fear of driver damage compared to the older version. Best Regards, |
Wow, I can't believe its been over 3 years since that PSW subwoofer shootout. Seems like yesterday. Since then there have been hundeds of Growlers, coast to coast, used day in and day out yet there has only ever been a few that have ever broke.
| Duane Silveira wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 10:27 |
It seems those super long stroke, rediculous power handling car audio subs are crossing over into our pro audio world |
Yeah and the original Growler driver was no slouch.
Post by: Rain Jaudon on March 14, 2010, 12:32:00 AM
Post by: Pascal Pincosy on March 15, 2010, 01:23:19 AM
| Felix Truong wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 18:08 |
Interesting. In terms of output, the growlers used to trail the UCS1's by a tiny bit according to the maryland shootout. I wonder how they are now with the new drivers.. |
I'm just going to point out (again) that the testing at the Maryland shootout was done in an unscientific manner and amplifier output levels were not properly matched. Point being is that any conclusions about max output levels of the various subwoofers involved in the shootout are bogus.
Post by: Jeff Permanian on March 15, 2010, 01:49:17 AM
| Rain Jaudon wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 23:32 |
So this is the new lighter weight Growler you told me about back at Mardi Gras? |
Yes sir.
Post by: Rory Buszka on March 21, 2010, 09:08:22 PM
| Duane Silveira wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 11:27 |
It seems those super long stroke, rediculous power handling car audio subs are crossing over into our pro audio world |
This is a fairly uninformed comment. According to the paper by Marshall Leach on which designs such as the LAB Subwoofer, EAW "SuperSubs", and the "Punisher" design (popular in Europe) are based, the most favorable driver for a low-frequency acoustic horn is actually a driver with smaller cone area, higher moving mass, and more motor strength. Pro-audio drivers as you are familiar with them suit none of these three parameters - they typically try to push a large, lightweight cone while using a motor containing as little magnetic and flux conducting material as possible to keep weight at a minimum. When these drivers are applied to low-frequency acoustic horns, they are quickly swamped by the demands of producing high pressure, and the horn does not provide the maximum possible benefit to the driver. That's at best; at worst, a large-diameter cone driver with a lightweight diaphragm will undergo failure of the diaphragm at the pressures involved.
The horn design of the JTR Growler is actually compromised somewhat to take advantage of the displacement capability of a high-excursion driver to extend its low-frequency response without requiring an extremely large mouth area. That's why arrays of two Growlers still work well at the lowest frequencies, even though optimum horn loading is not maintained per accepted horn theory. The compromise that's probably at work is that the flare is not designed for maximum efficiency over its loaded passband, so that when the horn does transition to direct-radiator behavior the transition is less noticeable. That's what it seems like to me.
The real-world performance of these subs leaves no question of whether the approach works, and just because the type of driver used isn't the typical 'pro audio' driver, that's no reason to look down on the Growler.
Post by: Jeff Babcock on March 26, 2010, 03:03:26 PM
| Duane Silveira wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 11:27 |
It seems those super long stroke, rediculous power handling car audio subs are crossing over into our pro audio world |
Duane, this is a very misinformed comment.
I recall previous postings where you apparently loaded a driver into some homebrew horns that was totally unsuited for the tasks and consequently sent them to their death. Making statements about the credibility of the Growler driver seems a little bit much given your apparent inexperience with the subject.
Jeff P knows a thing or 2 about loudspeaker design and has an established background in this industry. The driver is specifically optimized for the cabinet design.
Post by: Phillip_Graham on March 26, 2010, 07:03:36 PM
| Rory Buszka wrote on Sun, 21 March 2010 21:08 |
...they typically try to push a large, lightweight cone while using a motor containing as little magnetic and flux conducting material as possible to keep weight at a minimum. |
It should be pointed out that the raw BL product of the average professional LF driver is approximately double that of an equivalent HiFi woofer.
Post by: Duane Silveira on March 26, 2010, 10:05:15 PM
Post by: Jeff Babcock on April 13, 2010, 03:11:31 PM
When trying to convey such ideas in forums I often will do something like this:
<sarcasm> My sarcastic remark here </sarcasm>
Cheers
Jeff
Post by: Jeff Permanian on April 15, 2010, 01:16:12 PM
Post by: Jaraad Brown on May 01, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
Post by: Bob Kenton on May 01, 2010, 02:17:43 PM
Post by: Jeff Permanian on May 02, 2010, 12:46:17 PM
About to introduce the "Growler Duo" that is a little larger than a Growler, powered and uses dual 10's with the same motor used on my new 12.
Post by: Josh Billings on May 04, 2010, 09:15:02 PM
I always liked that configuration (TSW-218 style)
Not too many people use the growlers as singles...maybe some use them as 2 per side...but having a dual configuration cabinet could be offered that would save on wood, be easier to move, lighter than 2 cabinets.
Sounds like a win win win to me
-Josh
Post by: Jeff Permanian on May 06, 2010, 09:36:59 PM
| Josh Billings wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 20:15 |
Why not just do the dual 12s? I always liked that configuration (TSW-218 style) Not too many people use the growlers as singles...maybe some use them as 2 per side...but having a dual configuration cabinet could be offered that would save on wood, be easier to move, lighter than 2 cabinets. Sounds like a win win win to me -Josh |
The Growler Duo is meant to be small and easily portable. Its only a couple inches larger, 20 lbs heavier (powered) but has a foot longer horn and quadruple the powerhandling of the orginal Growler. For those looking for larger subwoofers, I'm about to introduce the "Orbit Shifter".