Jump to content

Help Choosing The Right Sub To Build


deacea87

Recommended Posts

I'd like to build 2 Subs for home theater playback. I want to get down to 15 Hz. The space area is 1000sq to fill. I was thinking of 2 Lowarhorn builds, but I'm a novice to bass and was wondering, for the cost of 2 Lowarhorn or G-horn builds, could I reach the same output level using more drivers and a different design? Power for me is not a concern, I have 4 high power amps. Space is not at a problem, however I wouldn't be opposed to a smaller design. Any suggestions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to build 2 Subs for home theater playback. I want to get down to 15 Hz. The space area is 1000sq to fill. I was thinking of 2 Lowarhorn builds, but I'm a novice to bass and was wondering, for the cost of 2 Lowarhorn or G-horn builds, could I reach the same output level using more drivers and a different design? Power for me is not a concern, I have 4 high power amps. Space is not at a problem, however I wouldn't be opposed to a smaller design. Any suggestions?

 

What about some large ported subs tuned to 15-17hz?  There are plenty of good and cheap 18" drivers out there to choose from as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...  the iNuke6000 can't be bridge, can it?  That's a pain - it means you either have to run one channel per voice coil on a dual voice coil (DVC) sub (which I'd personally be loathe to do, just in case the channels aren't perfectly balanced) or run a sub off each channel and have more subs that are lower powered.

 

I was going to suggest you look at the Stereo Integrity 24" because they are by all accounts excellent at shifting a lot of air while also sounding high quality, but IIRC they are DVC.

 

Perhaps you should consider six 18" drivers, one off each channel of the iNuke amps, in dual opposed boxes to cancel out box movement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should consider six 18" drivers, one off each channel of the iNuke amps, in dual opposed boxes to cancel out box movement?

The only advantage I see to dual-opposed boxes is the vibration cancelation but I don't think that makes up for their shortcomings. Before mentioning the shortcomings, I haven't noticed any vibration issues with any of the well-built single 18s on the market. Here are the things I don't like about dual-opposed:

* larger box size

* lack of flexibility in placement

* phase/coherence issues if facing one side into a wall

* external noise on other side of wall if sub is facing wall

Add those up and I don't know why dual-opposed is as popular as it is or at least was.

 

Then again, one sub system I really liked with dual-opposed boxes was BeastAudio's setup with his 4 dual-opposed SI HT18 subs placed at 45-degree angles to the front and left/right walls, upper and lower. Then again, he was fortunate to have the large but square Danley SH50s at the time, which allowed that unique and optimal placement. With his JBLs he has now, that placement doesn't work anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only advantage I see to dual-opposed boxes is the vibration cancelation but I don't think that makes up for their shortcomings. Before mentioning the shortcomings, I haven't noticed any vibration issues with any of the well-built single 18s on the market. Here are the things I don't like about dual-opposed:

* larger box size

* lack of flexibility in placement

* phase/coherence issues if facing one side into a wall

* external noise on other side of wall if sub is facing wall

Add those up and I don't know why dual-opposed is as popular as it is or at least was.

 

Then again, one sub system I really liked with dual-opposed boxes was BeastAudio's setup with his 4 dual-opposed SI HT18 subs placed at 45-degree angles to the front and left/right walls, upper and lower. Then again, he was fortunate to have the large but square Danley SH50s at the time, which allowed that unique and optimal placement. With his JBLs he has now, that placement doesn't work anymore.

I largely agree with these points. In favor of a dual opposed box, it can cost a bit less than having the same arrangement in two separate boxes. However, that doesn't outweigh the cons you listed. I don't think phase issues are a serious disadvantage with dual opposed though, however, obviously you do have more control with how the room handles the frequency response with separate enclosures, and that far outweighs the advantages of dual opposed when everything else is equal. Another point I want to make is that dual opposed does not eliminate cabinet vibration- it cancels out cabinet rocking motion. If anything, dual opposed would make panel vibrations worse, but it doesn't take a lot of internal bracing to make panel vibrations a non-issue in subwoofers.

 

For the home theater oriented subs, I think dual opposed gets some attention from those who just think bigger is better and just want a big sub, period. For the hi-fi market, those manufacturers are banking on the "vibration cancellation" aspect of dual opposed, and are also trying to get as much output out of a small enclosure as possible. Bowers and Wilkins have just gone this route and have recently announced three new dual opposed subs at their high-end. IF the drivers are light and powerful enough to deal with a small enclosure size, than I think dual opposed makes sense, for those who can only have small cabinets but still want some output. One dual opposed subs that I think makes sense is Funk's 18.2 subs, but they have a light driver that is powerful enough that it can handle a small space without being badly compromised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...