ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => SR Forum Archives => LAB Subwoofer FUD Forum Archive => Topic started by: Chris Coleman 2 on June 08, 2006, 10:34:09 am

Title: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Chris Coleman 2 on June 08, 2006, 10:34:09 am
I notice that both the bassmaxx z-5 and the danley sound labs th-115 are very similar in exploiting the technique where you don't throw away the rear pressure wave like the LAB does, but you let it conribute to the overall output power of the box.

In fact I believe that the entire line of bassmaxx subs uses this technique of raising the efficiency by adding the backward to the forward pressure wave.

Not to mention that these subs are very efficient AND they do not require FOUR cabinets (1000 pounds of cabinet) to reach their intended low extension like the LAB SUB does. It seems that one or two boxes (200-500 pounds) is enough to hit 34 Hz.

Efficiency-wise they seem close: 136 max spl for the danley sound labs th-115, 138 db long term peak output for the bassmaxx z-5.

Maybe it is time for a new LAB design... "LAB version 4"  that takes advantage of this principle of timing the front pressure wave and back presure waves to add together, increasing efficiency, and reducing the number of cabs needed to reach 35 Hz.

Comments / opinions ??

Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: jeffhtg (Jeff Kenney) on June 08, 2006, 11:17:09 am
oooh new lab yeah yeah! lets chain tom up in the basement, DONT COME OUT UNTIL IT SOUNDS GOOD!!!
Smile

I havent used the new bassmaxx yet.. the older ones yes. but they dont sound as good as the th115 to me. The danley box is definatley tighter and higher fidelity. Altho The (z5 is it?) might be better than the previous ones.. its sort of what you can expect from a big mega super excursion 18"
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Phil Pope on June 08, 2006, 12:23:27 pm
have you got a link for the new bassmaxx?

phil
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Antone Atmarama Bajor on June 08, 2006, 12:39:02 pm
www.bassmaxx.com
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Mark Seaton on June 08, 2006, 12:53:32 pm
Chris Coleman 2 wrote on Thu, 08 June 2006 09:34

I notice that both the bassmaxx z-5 and the danley sound labs th-115 are very similar in exploiting the technique where you don't throw away the rear pressure wave like the LAB does, but you let it conribute to the overall output power of the box.

In fact I believe that the entire line of bassmaxx subs uses this technique of raising the efficiency by adding the backward to the forward pressure wave.



Not quite right.

The BASSMAXX designs use the open back side of the box to allow for a more efficient design above the point where the front and rear start to destructively interfier.  The horn magnifies the front radiation and puts distance and time between the front and rear wave.  Above roughly 40Hz the front wave from the horn is significantly louder than the rear.  From what I have seen in measurements, below this range the output starts attenuating by ~6dB/octave, the same as a dipole.  Of course adjustements to the drivers and EQ can make the output flat, but the driver is working harder.  In this case the stiffness of the drivers' suspension serves similar purpose as the small rear chamber of the LAB sub.  Of course down low the LAB doesn't self cancel, but rather the system has been ballanced to maximize efficiency to it's low corner in the 28-35Hz range.

The Tapped Horn truly does use the rear radiation of the driver.  Being a higher order system, it offers greater sensitivity and driver loading down to it's low corner (for a given box size) and then falls off more quickly below that corner.  If you like analogies to udnerstand these systems, if you can see the extrapolated similarities between a T-Line and a ported box, and a horn like the LAB sub and a 4th order, front loaded bandpass (sealed rear, reflex front - http://www.diysubwoofers.org/bnd/4thorder.htm), you can then see that the Tapped Horn is most comparable to the 6th order, series bandpass as shown here:  http://www.diysubwoofers.org/bnd/6thord4.htm
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Phil Pope on June 08, 2006, 01:14:12 pm
Antone Atmarama Bajor wrote on Thu, 08 June 2006 17:39

www.bassmaxx.com



it's not there, is it?
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Chris Coleman 2 on June 08, 2006, 01:31:45 pm
Right, it's not on bassmaxx.com (too new??), but it's here:

http://catalogs.infocommiq.com/AVCAT/CTL2982/index.cfm?mlc_i d=2982&SID=0&pin_id=1786&ProdID=342448&T3=13 7

Hmm... just found this. An interesting shootout organized by Wayne Parham in tulsa said of the Z-5:
Quote:

Did any of you notice how incredibly flat the Z5 response curve is? Amazing. And I think David was somewhat conservative in his choice to use 1200 watts as maximum power. Had he gone to 1600 watts, this would have added 2.5dB more output if there was no compression. So that would put the Z5 in the 135dB or 136dB range, with a perfectly flat response. That's some pretty impressive stuff, especially for a single horn.


http://www.audioroundtable.com/ProSpeakers/messages/262.html

http://www.audioroundtable.com/ProSpeakers/messages/249.html
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Phil Pope on June 08, 2006, 02:41:16 pm
these results from the shootout

http://www.audioroundtable.com/ProSpeakers/messages/249.html

show that the Z5 response falls at 18dB/octave below 70Hz. this does't seem very impressive for a sub or am I missing something?

Phil
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Tom Danley on June 08, 2006, 05:45:35 pm
Hi

A few thoughts, for a horn which has one side of the driver exposed, like the BassMaxx’s or an old “scoop” for that matter, the driver suspension takes the place of the stiffness one normally uses (in the form of a sealed box) in a conventional horn (like a lab).
The issue here is not that there is “spare energy” that can be picked up by using the rear of the driver, a horn can load the driver just fine on one (either) side.
Rather, the reason for the Tapped horn is that when one makes the horn “too small” then one gets large peaks and dips in the response.  Those are caused by the acoustic load on the driver changing too much (on account of the horn mouth being too small).
The idea in the tapped horn is that by including both faces of the radiator within the horn passage,  separated by distance (phase), the load on the driver is then comprised of the load on one side at some frequencies and both sides at another (as well as “in between”).
In effect, by making the driver’s radiating area change with frequency, one can accommodate a much smaller horn (the changing impedance it presents to the driver).
The physical arrangement is as Mark pointed out, is conceptually similar to the BP system he linked with the air Volumes being very small and the horn (instead of  ports) being more normally sized. The roll off on a Tapped horn varies between 24 dB per octave (like a vented box) to about 18dB per octave or a little less (a sealed box is 12 dB per octave) depending on size / frequency.

As I am unaware of anything similar and being a “new” kind of horn with some apparent advantages,  I have applied for a patent on this  . It would be “premature” to make a LAB project out of it but who knows maybe someday.

FWIW, 1200Watts is 30.79dB over 1Watt, 1600Watts is 32.04dB over 1Watt, thus an increase from 1200 to 1600Watts is (with no power compression) is a change of 1.25dB, not 2.5dB.

When someone provides a measurement in a repeatable condition, then one can compare devices.  I wish more folks published real response measured curves.  
I have posted a higher resolution (than on the website) measurement of a TH-115 at 10 meters and 100Watts input (~3.5Hz bw, 1 /10 octave vector smoothing) equal to 1W1M.
While the measurement is only of the subwoofer range (it is a subwoofer), one could overlay the two relevant portions of the curves and compare the two at the same distance, same power level.   Maybe someone with more skill than me can scale and overlay them in photoshop.

When comparing,  levels VS frequencies, remember the TH115 is also smaller, it is 40 by 22 1/2 by 28 (with wheels) @ 120Lbs   –VS-   42 by 42 by 22 ½  @<200lbs (w/o wheels).
What would really be fun is to compare the Z-5, labsub and 115 to some of the “big name, expensive” subwoofers out there, some of which obviously “play with” the numbers and also (because of?) have no response curves.  
Here is where the marketing BS is going to cost the “Goliath’s” in the long run (I hope).
I think many would be down right pissed off if they knew what some speakers actually did compared to what was claimed, hence, I encourage people to measure for themselves.

Fwiw, I have met the Bass Max guys at a couple trade shows, the designer and I have some things in common and I do wish them good luck ( they have a powerful boxes too).
Best Regards

Tom Danley










Title: Just the numbers TH-115 vs Z-5
Post by: William Cowan on June 08, 2006, 07:28:04 pm
G'day Tom and others

This is a really interesting comparison. Here are two horn subs that are at the front of the field, yet results are very different. I overlaid the numbers from the Bassmaxx 28.28V/10M test with the single TH115 under the same conditions and came to some interesting conclusions.

The TH115 has about 5dB more output at 30Hz, 10dB more at 40Hz, 5dB more at 50Hz, then they are pretty much the same to 150Hz. What makes this remarkable is that the TH115 is only 64% of the cubic capacity and weight of the Z-5. The TH115 also uses a driver that is much cheaper to replace than the Z-5, should one be destroyed.

Not knowing what the Z-5 costs, it's impossible to compare prices. I would have to assume that because it uses a more expensive driver, and is bigger and more complex, the Z-5 would be significantly more costly than the TH115.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it appears the tapped horn has a huge advantage when used alone. I would have to assume this advantage would diminish as multiple boxes were stacked. Are there any numbers for a block of four Bassmaxx cabs? (Or even more interesting, a block of four EAW BH822e/BH760. (I've never seen a response graph for those Rolling Eyes ))

Cheers

William Cowan
Title: Re: Just the numbers TH-115 vs Z-5
Post by: Ivan Beaver on June 08, 2006, 09:40:25 pm
I cannot help on the other brands, but here is a measured plot of 1-2 and 4 TH115's with 100W each measured at 10', so it is the same measurement technique as the bassmax in the shootout.  Note that there is 0%-yes NONE- smoothing used.  This is the raw data with 4096 samples.

Also notice the phase response at the bottom of the graph.

index.php/fa/5006/0/
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: William Cowan on June 08, 2006, 10:03:58 pm
Wow! Four boxes sure are flat.

Anyone have plots for a four box Bassmaxx or EAW cluster?
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Ivan Beaver on June 08, 2006, 10:19:45 pm
Yes I was amazed also.  I wondered if there was something wrong with my measurement, so I dropped the drive level and the output level just went down by the same amount. So I dropped it some more and the level just came down, but the response curve stayed the same. While the TH115 does not rely on mutual coupling as much as regular horn subs do, it does benefit from it.  If I put a little smoothing on it, you get a really straight line.  The data shown is as bad as it can be shown.
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Duane Massey on June 08, 2006, 11:33:06 pm
The "open compression" design has always puzzled me, as all of the big horns we built in the 70's and 80's used sealed compression chambers. I am playing "catch-up" with the newer designs, not that I plan on building anything along these lines, but I am trying to fill in the many gaps in my knowledge about subwoofers outside of the straight horns that I have been involved with.
This forum has been a great window for someone like me to catch little tidbits of knowledge. Thanks.
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Pascal Pincosy on June 09, 2006, 02:14:14 am
The Z-5 is designed to be used in large blocks ie 4 or more cabinets. The more cabinets you use, the lower the rolloff point. And it's flat to 150 Hz.

Bassmaxx also makes the Z-6, which is a Z-5 cabinet with the Neo driver in it, which will also extend the low-end response. They have a removeable horn modification that moves the response down to "normal" sub ranges, with a measured response of +/-1db from 28Hz to 106 Hz.

I highly encourage anyone interested in purchasing either of these subs (or any other subwoofer out there in the approx same price range) to take a listen to both the TH-115 and the Z-5. Either sub will cream anything else on the market (including EAW's EAW BH760.) However the TH-115 and the Z-5 have two very different sounds to them, so I would definitely recommend a listening test before you throw down your hard earned cash.

One of the biggest advantages to the open-backed design is driver cooling. The motor structure is able to disperse heat that would just build up in a sealed chamber, meaning that long-term heat buildup is less of an issue.
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Ivan Beaver on June 09, 2006, 06:57:11 am
There is a link on Danley's website that discusses the basic idea behind a tapped horn.  Sorry, but no plans------.

http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/pdf/danley_tapped.pdf
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Scott Hibbard on June 09, 2006, 07:58:32 am
Hi Pascal,

Have you had the opportunity to listen to all the subs you mentioned, TH-115, Z5/Z6 and the EAW BH760/822e??  If so, you're quite fortunate!

I'm curious as to what you're basing "...Either sub (TH-115 or Z5) will cream anything else on the market (including EAW's  BH822e/BH760" on.  What does this mean? Lower freq response? Higher output? etc.

Again I'm just wondering as you've peaked my interest.  I've not yet heard the TH-115 or Z5 (and hope to have that pleasure someday), but speaking from first hand listening, the BH760/940 are among the very top echelon of premium touring subs.  

ScottH

Title: Re: Just the numbers TH-115 vs Z-5
Post by: Tom Danley on June 09, 2006, 02:19:32 pm
Hi William

As you suspect, the advantage of the Tapped horn goes away as the size of the horn is increased, by the time you have a full mouth and a half wavelength path at the low cutoff, there is no advantage.  I forgot to link to the White paper with more of an explanation but I see Ivan did link it.

Pretty much my whole life people have said my horns were too big and / or heavy.
I suppose that actually started with one of my first big ones that didn’t fit through my parent’s back door and spent its short life outside serving as both a wasp nest and target backstop, until a picnic bonfire in the fall..
Anyway, I am pleased having found a way to make a bass horn a bit smaller.

To me, when I compared to what I could get in a conventional small bass horn or vented box of the same size, it did seem like the Tapped horn was something of an acoustic breakthrough and is why I applied for a patent.    
Ivan posted a TEF screen capture for 4 115’s at 400w, here is a curve for 4 boxes –6dB from that (like the others.).
At 50Hz, the sensitivity is about 109dB which is about 50% efficiency, above that, there is a rise in response which is not increased efficiency but rather from forward directivity.
One does not get a flat response curve or this efficiency with anything like this physical size using a conventional horn.

Since it is easy to fudge or misinterpret numbers and hard to fudge a response curve and since they are easy to take, it would seem like response curves should be a common form of loudspeaker data presentation.  
I suppose it is partly because loudspeakers are by far the weakest link in the reproduction chain and in some cases the ability to fudge numbers, that makes measured curves “not too common” among some of the big guys.
I have not seen any measured curves on the speakers you mentioned, although it seems to me that they hired somebody who posted on the forum to do that quite a while ago.
In the interest in identifying actual reality, I would encourage people to measure / compare loudspeakers.
I have seen some marvelous examples of highly  fictional specifications in pro sound, perhaps fictional assumes too much maybe they just have  different dB and frequency scales than I am used to.  
To me, there is just no excuse for stating a subwoofer’s sensitivity based on what it did at 800 or 1800Hz, for over stating the acoustic output by a factor of 10 or 100 or the low cutoff stretched a half octave from where it measures. No excuse for using vague, unstated or non-standard signals or practices (seemingly to avoid replication / verification of the numbers.)

In any case, the point is that what ever a speaker does, can be measured and compared to the spec’s or other products and that is reality.  
Every so often the Lab sub guys get together and have a shoot out or the live-sound guys, a listening test, that is probably the best thing available for the attendees and readers to separate the wheat from chaff.
Best Regards,

Tom Danley
Title: Re: Just the numbers TH-115 vs Z-5
Post by: Iain_Macdonald on June 09, 2006, 03:44:49 pm
Tom,

In between the million and one things you need to do. Could you find time to post a set of meaninful tests for sub cabinets, whatever their type. There are other tests than TEF sweeps, MLS etc. I would add, the multi-tone tests that Dr Anhert? uses. These will show up a badly designed reflex box in a short time. The driver ends up getting a DC like shift in position, then crumples. This test will also blow the back of some other types of cabinet at full power.

Iain.
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Matthias Schuler on June 11, 2006, 03:11:52 pm
Hi William

Want to see a response graph for the EAW BH760?
Here they are:
http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/3954/0/32/0 /
(Scroll down to Langston Holland's post).
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Pascal Pincosy on June 11, 2006, 07:04:35 pm
Hi Scott, I own 4 Bassmaxx B-Zeros. I've heard the TH-115's several times. I've worked a show with 16 Bassmaxx Z-5's (123 dB at the back of a 7000 seat auditorium.) I've been to several shows with the BH760 and several clubs with the DCS 2's. I have not heard the BH-822e/KF940.

What I mean is that IMO, nothing that I've heard from EAW, JBL, Nexo, or L'Acoustics, will hold a candle to the offerings from Danley and Bassmaxx, not when comparing SPL to weight, quality of sound (my personal opinion), or overall cost (including amps).

Ask yourself why EAW will no longer participate in the subwoofer shootouts.
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Ivan Beaver on June 11, 2006, 08:56:08 pm
Looks like 1 or 2 note bass to me.
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Matthias Schuler on June 12, 2006, 02:52:56 am
Ivan

If your argument is directed towards the BH760-measurements, please keep in mind that these are processed (at least lopassed). And that the aim of these measurements was to generate directivity at low frequencies.
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Gareth James on June 12, 2006, 08:44:01 am
Matthias they may be low passed and be able to achieve higher spl's as frequency rises past 80hz or so but i think one of the major points on here was regarding the frequency at which subs are measured.

There is no point to rating a subwoofer "out of band" when its intended use is generally sub 100hz content. I think Ivans point is valid, the 760 array seem to exhibit rapidly falling spls from 50/60hz downwards especially when compared to the incredibly flat measured response of the TH-115 array.

There doesn't appear to be a scale on any of the 760 response graphs to directly compare output levels of one array versus the other and i am eager to see a shootout involving all of the above mentioned subs.

In my eyes it would provide definitive information which anyone would be able to access when searching for advice on "which subwoofer" threads.
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Pascal Pincosy on June 12, 2006, 05:05:52 pm
I don't think it's fair at all to compare a reading done specifically to measure frequency response, with one done to measure directivity. Processing, mic placement, etc will have significant impact on the frequency response shown FWIW. Was there a high-pass filter invoked? Was the mic placed on the ground? Or on a stand? We don't know and Langston didn't specify as he wasn't measuring for frequency response. Small variables in measurement technique will cause big changes in the measured response.
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Ivan Beaver on June 12, 2006, 07:52:57 pm
Actually, looking at just a single freq when doing directivity measurements is not a good idea at all.  Unless of course you are only going to be using the cabinets at just that 1 note.  What may look good at a single freq, may be causing all sorts of rear/side lobes that are actually doing more damage than good at other freq.  The forward direction may be better, but what you are really concerned with is the TOTAL response all around the cabinets throughout the response band.

Just like doing signal alignment and freq response adjustments to get a super flat response, but only at a single seat.  Even out of polarity signals can be made to "look" good in a single measurement position (amplitude response wise ONLY).  However, you are actually making things worse for the rest of the people listening to the cabinet.

As in all things audio, you cannot describe the total action in just a single or few numbers.
Title: Re: Just the numbers TH-115 vs Z-5
Post by: Too Tall (Curtis H. List) on June 14, 2006, 11:25:53 am
Iain Macdonald wrote on Fri, 09 June 2006 15:44

Tom,

In between the million and one things you need to do. Could you find time to post a set of meaninful tests for sub cabinets, whatever their type. There are other tests than TEF sweeps, MLS etc. I would add, the multi-tone tests that Dr Anhert? uses. These will show up a badly designed reflex box in a short time. The driver ends up getting a DC like shift in position, then crumples. This test will also blow the back of some other types of cabinet at full power.

Iain.



Hmm, Praxis will do that (Spectral Contamination).

From the Praxis measurement guide-

(Below are given example values for tone frequencies to use, based on Jon Risch's "New Class of In-band Multitone Test Signals", in AES preprint #4803.  This arrangement, based on a log-spaced series of tones with multiplier 1.618, minimizes stacking of harmonics on the resulting modulation tones.  Numerous other variations on this method are possible, and you may wish to restrict the tones to certain frequency ranges or to increase the tone density.)

Bandwidth of 10Hz – 500Hz
multiply by factor of 1.618
10
16.18
26.2
42.4
68.5
110.9
179
290.3
469.7

I used this on the Michigan LAB Subwoofer Shootout , but managed to screw up on the multiplication factor. Without realizing I set it too low making the tones so dense the test was useless.

One thing we think might have happened is we may have damaged some of the subs that unloaded under tuning. I did not push very many volts during testing because of a volume restriction (We tested in a building that had office work going on in the complex.) I found it hard to believe we damaged them at the level I was using, but became gun-shy there after.

I was wondering how things went while measuring ported boxes? Was the test done with a proper high-pass on the box or were the tones below tuning deleted?

Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Tim Padrick on June 18, 2006, 03:28:35 am
Pascal Pincosy wrote on Fri, 09 June 2006 01:14


....take a listen to both the TH-115 and the Z-5. Either sub will cream anything else on the market (including EAW's EAW BH760.) However the TH-115 and the Z-5 have two very different sounds to them, so I would definitely recommend a listening test before you throw down your hard earned cash.


I've heard the LAB (one per side only) and the 760 in a quad per side.  The 760s sounded terrible - very heavy from 60-80, very ringy, and no bottom.  A friend mixed a system with them and had the same opinion.
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Phil Pope on June 28, 2006, 01:30:32 pm
is this another 'tapped' type horn?

http://www.voidaudio.com/product_detail.asp?id=50

danley sound labs says it has a patent pending on the tapped horn but I can't find a filed application on the USPO site. can anyone give a link to it?

cheers
Phil
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Iain_Macdonald on June 28, 2006, 04:22:21 pm
Phil,

The link you provided to Void, looks more like a back to front K horn with extra length. If you read the paper on Tom's site you will get a good idea of what he is doing. You might also read up on the Voigt pipe or TQWP.

Iain.
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Ivan Beaver on June 28, 2006, 09:34:23 pm
There is no way that cabinet can be a tapped horn-in the true sense, not at least down to any bass freq. There is not enough volume in the cabinet.

Regarding the patent-i really have no opinion, and know nothing of the subject, but I would guess that they would not publish patents that are applied for-but could easily be wrong.
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Phil Pope on June 29, 2006, 05:12:49 pm
Iain Macdonald wrote on Wed, 28 June 2006 21:22

Phil,

The link you provided to Void, looks more like a back to front K horn with extra length. If you read the paper on Tom's site you will get a good idea of what he is doing. You might also read up on the Voigt pipe or TQWP.

Iain.


as in the old Klipsch K-horn that uses the room corner as a mouth extension? If so I don't see the similarity.

Phil
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Mark "Bass Pig" Weiss on June 30, 2006, 01:33:23 am
As a satisfied (very!) owner of four Bassmaxx ZR-18 drivers, I am of the opinion that the driver is a big contributing factor to the output capabilities of the system as a whole.

I've owned a large number of drivers from several manufacturers, and the ZR-18s are like no other on the market. Just sheer mechanical servo pistons with a very long stroke capability. In my vented boxes, two of them easily surpass 140dB. My boxes are essentially flat to 16Hz, +0/-1dB, as measured on a CEL 241/1 sound level meter. Maybe not quite as sensitive as some of the horns, but they go very low and with a monster amp behind them, they get the loudness below 30Hz. Due to the mass of the double-layer fiberglass cones, they don't seem as loud above 50Hz as some top commercial drivers with their distorted output, but get down below 30Hz and they really turn whatever building you're in, into one giant shake table!

Frankly, anything with a paper cone just doesn't do a clean enough job. Distortion is often mis-perceived as loudness. The Bassmaxx drivers have no distortion to speak of.

Where I find the most noticeable difference between the Bassmaxx drivers and other drivers is not in the room, but a block away from the building. It's the difference between a weak thump and the sound of one of those dual rotor Army helocopters hovering directly overhead. Clean bass really carries for great distances. Trying to insulated and soundproof against a ZR-18 is like trying to conceal an atom bomb detonation. Smile
Title: Re: danley sound labs TH-115 vs bassmaxx Z-5
Post by: Iain_Macdonald on June 30, 2006, 02:50:35 pm
Phil Pope wrote on Thu, 29 June 2006 22:12

Iain Macdonald wrote on Wed, 28 June 2006 21:22

Phil,

The link you provided to Void, looks more like a back to front K horn with extra length. If you read the paper on Tom's site you will get a good idea of what he is doing. You might also read up on the Voigt pipe or TQWP.

Iain.


as in the old Klipsch K-horn that uses the room corner as a mouth extension? If so I don't see the similarity.

Phil



No. I didn't say Klipsch. The shape is like a K if you look at it from above.

Iain.