Post by: Bob Josjor on December 15, 2010, 07:28:33 AM
Here's the product page: http://www.peavey.com/products/browse.cfm/action/detail/item /116925/EU%20218%20Sub.cfm
The first thing that strikes you as you unbox the EU218's is just how stinking light they are. Just 76.50 pounds. This is acheived by using neo-dymium magnets on the speakers and "9-ply 18 mm ultra-light plywood." (Peavey's words) And they're small too. Approximately a 24" cube, smaller than most traditional single 18's.
The second thing that hits you is the finish. In the product page Peavey calls it "GatorHyde" and on the spec sheet they call it "Hammer Head" finish. Whatever it is, its durable, but really rough. I'm pretty sure I could re-finish hardwood flooring with this stuff. I use Peavey QW2 tops, which sports the same finish, but in name only. My QW2s have a really durable finish, but it is comparitively smoother than a babies butt. Maybe the excessive roughness is just on my samples of the EU218's?
Connection is acheived via Neutrik connectors, two in parallel for daisy chaining. These are 4 conductor connectors, but only two are used. I may do some tweaking of the cabs in the future so that I can use get the benefits of using 4 conductor cables.
So on to the testing and sound. For your information and help in understanding the rig, here are the components that make up the FOH enclosures and amps:
QW2F pair
EU218 pair
Power rack includes:
CS1400 (hi's)
CS4000 (mids)
CS4000 (subs)
VSX26 system controller
Peavey doesn't have a VSX download for this particular cabinet combo so I downloaded their pre-set for the QW2/QW118 combo as a starting point. A complete spec sheet including freq. response wasn't available for the EU218 when I first tried it, so my initial testing and gig lacked some fine tuning that came later.
The initial impression was that they sounded good, but lacked a bit in the "low lows." A nice punchy sound, very tight. Sonic qualities are hard to put into words that make sense to everyone, but I would say that if you are doing classic rock or modern country, this is a good tone for you (even better after the tweaking described later). If you're a hip-hop, modern dance, or techno person, you'll probably want something "looser." I know, not very definitive, but its like trying to describe a color. Tough to do and very subjective.
Now the tweaks. About two weeks after recieving the subs Peavey finally released a complete spec sheet that included a freq. response curve. You can see that here: http://www.peavey.com/assets/literature/specs/03600480_10370 .pdf Now with this info in hand, its time to do some tweaking. First off, I wanted to give the 15's in the QW2's a little more work. The QW2's actually have a pretty good low end for a cabinet of its type and size. So I lowered the crossover point to 90hZ. I overlapped the crossover to the EU218 to 100hZ. Then, looking at the EU218's freq. curve you will note a pretty fair downslope on the lowest end so I added a shelving EQ at 40hZ with a 6dB boost to flatten things out.
Much, much nicer. The low end filled up quite nicely and adding a bit more low end to the QW2's allowed them to take up some of the punchiness I like. A very tight bass with much better presence than the folded horn I was using.
Summation
Pro's:
Light weight and compact. I'm a pencil neck and I can haul these around by myself without a cart.
"Tight" sound. No "woofiness" and well defined bass.
Versatile set-up. Small enough that a center cluster doesn't seem intrusive in front of the stage and a pole mount on the top if you're wanting to do a stack with a top cab.
Cons:
Light weight. Why is that a con? Well, there is a stand mount on the top, but if you're using QW2's like I am, the light weight of the sub doesn't exactly give a feeling of confidence if you put the heavy cab on top of the light cab using a stick. Probably fine with the companion lightweight EU tops, but if you're using a heavier cab like the QW2, I probably wouldn't use the stick option.
Finish. I don't know if its just my sample, but this finish is really rough.
Light cabinet. It does exhibit a bit of cabinet flex.
Frequency response. This is correctable for the lower end, but unless you are using a DSP, you might have a problem compensating. DSP's are getting better and better and cheaper and cheaper, so the excuses for not using one are getting fewer and fewer.
Overall I am pleased with them for my applications. I'm in the sticks of Nebraska so 90% my gigs are classic rock, country (new and old), and blues. These have the correct tone for that type of application. 90% of the time I'm setting up solo, so their light weight and size are big plus for me. I'm looking forward to getting a couple more in the future so I can play with some sub arraying. The small size and light weight means I can fit multiples in the trailer and not kill myself deploying them.
Post by: Douglas R. Allen on December 19, 2010, 07:01:13 PM
Douglas R. Allen
Post by: Evan Kirkendall on December 19, 2010, 08:15:56 PM
| Bob Josjor wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 07:28 |
Then, looking at the EU218's freq. curve you will note a pretty fair downslope on the lowest end so I added a shelving EQ at 40hZ with a 6dB boost to flatten things out. |
Good thing you're a Peavey dealer!
Evan
Post by: Bob Josjor on December 20, 2010, 06:17:37 AM
| Evan Kirkendall wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 18:15 |
| Good thing you're a Peavey dealer! Evan |
Did you miss the part in the intro where it said to Peavey bash somewhere else?
Seriously though, find me a 218 sub that street prices for $900.00 and has a truly flat response or doesn't have some bumps or dips in the freq. curve. Now find one that also weighs only 75lb and takes up less than 8 cubic feet in the trailer.
There are trade offs in nearly every peice of equipment one chooses. It's a matter of what one is willing to accept to get the features one wants. As it happens with the EU218 the trade off is the cabs roll off at 40hz, something that is very easily accomodated by even the most basic of DSP's.
Post by: Steve Hurt on December 20, 2010, 07:57:19 AM
| Bob Josjor wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 06:17 |
Seriously though, find me a 218 sub that street prices for $900.00 and has a truly flat response or doesn't have some bumps or dips in the freq. curve. Now find one that also weighs only 75lb and takes up less than 8 cubic feet in the trailer. |
Add 10 pounds and subtract $100 and the JTR Growler fills the bill (not a 2 x 18 but who cares what the driver complement is if the output is there)
Peavey must have made up some featherweight 18's to get 2 of them in a 76 lb box. Interesting stuff.
Post by: Bob Josjor on December 20, 2010, 09:06:31 AM
Post by: Marlow Wilson on December 20, 2010, 10:13:35 AM
| Bob Josjor wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 06:17 | ||
Did you miss the part in the intro where it said to Peavey bash somewhere else? Seriously though, find me a 218 sub that street prices for $900.00 and has a truly flat response or doesn't have some bumps or dips in the freq. curve. Now find one that also weighs only 75lb and takes up less than 8 cubic feet in the trailer. There are trade offs in nearly every peice of equipment one chooses. It's a matter of what one is willing to accept to get the features one wants. As it happens with the EU218 the trade off is the cabs roll off at 40hz, something that is very easily accomodated by even the most basic of DSP's. |
I think he meant that you will have access to affordable replacement baskets if you damage any trying to squeeze the last bit of LF extension out of the speaker. I have no specific experience with the product in question, but a quick look at the chart makes me wonder the same thing Evan did. 40hz looks like a good place to set the HPF (okay maybe not perfect) but certainly not where I would BEGIN adding shelving EQ.
*EDIT* I mean to say he was not Peavey bashing, but was perhaps critical of your corrective EQ choices from a durability perspective.
Post by: Bob Josjor on December 20, 2010, 10:42:32 AM
Post by: Bob Josjor on December 20, 2010, 10:47:04 AM
Post by: Marlow Wilson on December 20, 2010, 10:54:56 AM
| Bob Josjor wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 10:47 |
And here's one of the crossover. |
I can see how it makes sense with the HPF enabled. I wasn't doubting your settings but really just clarifying what I interpreted Evan's comments to be.
On another note, thanks for the review. It's always nice to know what other products are lurking around.
Post by: Steve Hurt on December 20, 2010, 02:45:46 PM
| Bob Josjor wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 09:06 |
The JTR's are a really interesting cabinet and one I would seriously consider for a small, efficient one. I've never seen a published frequency chart for them, just the 45hz at -3 published on JTR's website. Got one? |
From the JTR forum. He puts a lot more info on the forum than he does the website. (takes a while to find sometimes!)
http://jtrspeakers.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=4683881
Post by: Bob Josjor on December 20, 2010, 03:33:51 PM
Post by: Steve Hurt on December 20, 2010, 03:50:58 PM
Post by: Douglas R. Allen on December 20, 2010, 04:37:07 PM
This is them compared to a qsc hpr181i sub.
Peavey is the yellow "ish" trace.
QSC is blue/green trace.
This sub was measured with a 24db, 40hz low cut. 150hz 24 db high cut. The person was using them with 10 inch tops at the time.
This subs never took off for peavey but they measure and sound ok for the small size/weight that they are.
Maybe compared to a Danley Th-Mini?
The filter plus bandpass box roll-off doesn't give much below 47hz or so. Still a good thump for a small size.
http://www.peavey.com/assets/literature/manuals/80301953.pdf
Douglas R. Allen
Post by: Paul Lea on December 20, 2010, 05:31:35 PM
The EU218 handles 800 watts continuous and has a continuous output of 130db and peaks at 136 at Half space. It runs at a 4 ohm load also. It weights 75 pounds-ish.
Why wouldn't I want a QW118 that weighs 10 pounds more, handles 800 watts (the same amount as the EU), does 132 continuous and 138 peak at a 8 ohm load leaving me open to chain another one and hit the 4 ohm power rating of my amp. Plus it is cheaper.
I like what peavey does for the money and have owned many Peavey speakers over the years. However, I fail to see why this one is even being sold when the cheaper, more efficient QW118 does a better job and has better expandability for most folk with high power amps.
I am NOT Peavey bashing here. Maybe I missed something somewhere.
Post by: Bob Josjor on December 20, 2010, 07:50:38 PM
| Paul Lea wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 15:31 |
Looks cool but I am confused, maybe I missed something. The EU218 handles 800 watts continuous and has a continuous output of 130db and peaks at 136 at Half space. It runs at a 4 ohm load also. It weights 75 pounds-ish. Why wouldn't I want a QW118 that weighs 10 pounds more, handles 800 watts (the same amount as the EU), does 132 continuous and 138 peak at a 8 ohm load leaving me open to chain another one and hit the 4 ohm power rating of my amp. Plus it is cheaper. I like what peavey does for the money and have owned many Peavey speakers over the years. However, I fail to see why this one is even being sold when the cheaper, more efficient QW118 does a better job and has better expandability for most folk with high power amps. I am NOT Peavey bashing here. Maybe I missed something somewhere. |
You bring up a lot of valid points, Paul. Really about the only semi-reasonable response is "Tech riders, son, tech riders."
How many times have I seen a tech rider that says:
15" w 4" driver
218 loaded subs
Very true, you can get the QW118 (or something of similar price/quality from another manufacturer) that will outperform, at least marginally, a double 18 like the EU. But its not a 218 so doesn't meet the rider. Silly, ain't it?
As a dealer I see it as a sellable unit simply because the idea of a 218 that's a one man lift is very appealing to a lot of people, regardless as to what the specifications are. Again, silly, ain't it?
Post by: Paul Lea on December 21, 2010, 09:06:47 AM
When peavey can build this box to the same or similar output of a QW218, I would actually buy them for my small portable rig. So close to the perfect inexpensive, lightweight sub box.
Post by: Bob Josjor on December 22, 2010, 07:03:02 AM
| Paul Lea wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 07:06 |
Seems like the tech rider point is moot since it says "Peavey" anyway. I know its not fair in some cases. |
You know, its kind of a funny deal, but I see the "No Peavey" less and less these days. Granted, I deal with local and regional acts, not national. The even funnier thing is that I'll see a list for FOH that simply lists speaker sizes and wattage with no model or brand designation and then when it comes to processing the brand requests start popping up.
So basically they're saying its OK if you have Radio Shack speakers as long as you have an XYZ brand effects processor.
Post by: Bennett Prescott on December 22, 2010, 11:09:21 PM
Post by: Duncan McLennan on December 23, 2010, 12:00:01 AM
| Bennett Prescott wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 23:09 |
I am very surprised that nobody has yet said anything in this thread about the method Peavey used to load those drivers in the cabinet. |
I was thinking the same thing.
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on December 23, 2010, 12:25:38 AM
| Duncan McLennan wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 00:00 | ||
I was thinking the same thing. |
So my question is, what in the world is a "vented, isobaric chamber"?
Post by: Bob Josjor on December 23, 2010, 07:07:47 AM
| Duncan McLennan wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 22:00 | ||
I was thinking the same thing. |
From Peavey's site: "a pair of 18" neodymium-loaded loudspeakers arranged in a vented, isobaric chamber."
I haven't dug deep into the cabs, but I did take the grill off of one of them. A side view of the cabinet would look something like this:
[V]
The speakers are loaded into the cabinet on each side of the "v", facing each other.
Bad description and bad illustration.
Someone more versed in sub design than myself can tell me the pro's and con's of such an arrangement.
Post by: Duncan McLennan on December 23, 2010, 01:11:35 PM
Post by: Bob Josjor on December 23, 2010, 02:46:02 PM
Again, poor illustration. Think of the box seperated into three chambers. The speakers are mounted to the center walls of the chamber, facing each other.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on December 23, 2010, 03:14:55 PM
From the description "vented, isobaric chamber" sounds like a combination of both technologies. Isobaric uses a second active driver to modulate the rear chamber pressure (changing apparent volume) and thus the tuning of the box. The port likewise has an effect on the apparent volume and tuning of the back chamber. I suspect it is dominated by each in different low frequency ranges.
It seems like an all things to all people design, more bass from a smaller lighter box. I notice this one uses Jon Risch's biased air flow direction port cooling (US pat # 6,549,637), so by definition two ports, one biased to push out warm air, the other to suck in cool air. A fully closed box would not exchange much air, so I don't know how important the ports are for box tuning, or just to assist power handling. Hopefully they are complementary and work together to improve both.
JR
Post by: Jay Barracato on December 24, 2010, 03:18:02 PM
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on December 24, 2010, 03:36:14 PM
| Jay Barracato wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 14:18 |
Isobaric literally means "same pressure". Of course, I only know the term from my degree in meterology and have no idea of its importance to sub design. |
My description doesn't agree well with wiki and in this case I would take their word for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isobaric_speakers
JR
Post by: Jay Barracato on December 24, 2010, 03:43:56 PM
Post by: Rory Buszka on December 24, 2010, 10:56:30 PM
Isobaric loading of two drivers is done to couple the two cones together via a 'constant-pressure' volume of air. The volume of air between the drivers is small enough that it acts almost like a rigid mechanical coupling between the two drivers. This puts the motor structures of both drivers to work pushing and pulling the Vd of a single driver. The maximum amount of air that can be displaced is still the same as the amount that can be displaced by a single driver before exceeding its mechanical limits, but now the amount of force the motors working in tandem can bring to bear on the cone is roughly doubled. Both cones can either face forward, and the coupling chamber can be a separate partition built into the subwoofer's enclosure, or the coupling chamber can be formed by the air trapped between two woofer cones turned face-to-face with the frames bolted together at the gasket, with one of the woofers wired out of phase so both cones still move in the same direction, and the effect is about the same for each configuration. And I think I know exactly why this is being done in a pro audio sub. It has to do with how driver manufacturers operate, and the expectations that pro audio clientele have for subwoofer performance based (often incorrectly) on driver diameter.
A single 18" driver has slightly less than double the piston area of a pair of 15" drivers, which have slightly less than double the piston area of four 12" drivers, which have slightly less than double the piston area of eight 10" drivers (and so on for eights, sixes, fives...). It's common for driver manufacturers to build several cone diameters using the same motor structure for each of them. Eminence has a few standard 4" VC motors, a few standard 3" VC motors, a few standard 2.5" VC motors, and so on, and this reduces the number of parts they need to stock and the development effort for each custom driver they do. Using a custom motor for a particular driver pushes up the price of the driver significantly. Looking at B&C and Beyma's range, those manufacturers also build standard models having several different cone diameters on the same motor structure. B&C offers a 12TBX100, a 15TBX100, and an 18TBX100, all with 4" VCs on the same motor structure. However, as one steps up through the standard driver diameters (12", 15", 18"), the piston area that those motors need to act upon increases exponentially, which means that the same motor can generate higher pressures inside the enclosure when it is coupled to a smaller diameter cone. Driving a resonant system at lower frequencies to achieve the same magnitude as higher frequencies requires increased force, and reducing the force that must be applied means increasing the compliance (in this case, reducing the needed box pressure means making the enclosure bigger for a given tuning frequency). As you try to shrink the box for a given tuning frequency, you need a driver with a more and more powerful motor. That explains why the JBL MRX518S (an example with which I have some experience) begins to slump off with decreasing frequency starting at 60 Hz even though the tuning frequency and -3dB point are both right around 40 Hz for that particular box. The frequency response starts falling off prematurely because the driver's motor can't keep up the necessary amount of force needed to drive the small box at its tuning frequency. This is a tradeoff that's made in many, many of the pro-market subwoofer designs using eighteens, because most pro audio professionals (and many of the ones who may be purchasing 'prosumer' products) typically expect that the 'proper' diameter for a subwoofer driver is 18", and that smaller drivers (for whatever reason) just don't produce bass as well as an 18" driver does (even though the speaker designers among us know this isn't necessarily true), but at the same time, the Guitar Center prosumer market demands smaller and smaller subwoofers, but increasing the motor strength means using more ferrite (or neo) and more steel, and the motor is already the most expensive component of almost any pro audio driver.
To prevent the frequency response of a compact 18"-loaded subwoofer enclosure from dropping off with frequency, in light of the above, the designer needs to increase the motor strength. This can either be done by designing, tooling, and manufacturing a purpose-built motor to drive a large cone in a small box, or by using the isobaric principle to couple two standard drivers together to the same air load, effectively doubling the motor strength without the additional expense of designing, tooling, or building a beefier motor to produce in smaller volume. Both approaches result in a more expensive sub for the end user, but the isobaric approach may make more sense to the manufacturer.
Where I see this potentially biting Peavey in the behind is that the EU-218 is marketed as a dual-18" sub. Yes, there are two voice coils, and two motors (and thus the thermal dissipation capacity is doubled), but both motors are still acting on the piston area of a single 18" driver, so the sensitivity of the compound-loaded pair of drivers is the same as a single 18" driver, and the mechanical limits of the compound-loaded pair are also the same as a single 18" driver. A single EU-218's compound-loaded driver pair will need to go through twice the excursion that a typical dual-18's drivers would, in order to displace an equivalent air volume (and making bass is all about displacement). I'd expect the mechanical failure modes of these subs to be torn cones, surrounds, and spiders, instead of burned voice coils. The upshot to all this is that it looks like the isobaric technique is effective in extending the response of this compact sub into the 40-Hz range without the low-end 'slump' I've noticed in other compact subs. While this 'slump' can help the sub sound "tighter", the deeper, flatter response of the EU218 will sound fuller and more satisfying when reproducing kick drums and low-bass fundamentals. There have been a couple of subs to apply this technique (including the massive McCauley quad-21", the EONA 618 sub, and a couple models from EM Acoustics), but the Peavey sub just adds another option geared toward 'prosumers'. Also, when the two drivers are coupled together face-to-face (Isobaric Push-Pull), some mechanical and electromagnetic nonlinearities are canceled out, diminishing even-order harmonic distortion, but there is no effect on odd-order distortion, and the reduction in even-order distortion is of dubious benefit, with there being some debate about the audibility of reductions in this type of distortion.
Also, I should note that the 'isobaric' design principle is different from the 'clamshell' principle used on subs like the EAW SB1000 and Community TLF218. In the case of an 'isobaric' design, the drivers have a closed cavity between them. Early on, a high-profile product in the home market to use this principle bore the moniker "Isobarik", which has led to many people unknowingly misspelling the term in written conversation. The correct spelling is 'Isobaric', with a C at the end. The two are not interchangeable; one is a brand of Linn Products, Ltd., and the other is a generic term to describe the loading principle.