Jump to content

deepthoughts

Members
  • Content count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by deepthoughts

  1. deepthoughts

    Horn length extension on Othorns?

    I was visiting one of the crazier bass enthusiasts out there this weekend, the infamous pennynike. Anyone who's been in a few listening sessions with him know he has a serious appetite for bass. He basically bought a home so he could add 4 of my dual 18", 11Hz tuned, Terraform D18s. He had a lust for more, and found Josh's Othorn design. He grabbed 2 from Josh, and was loving the intensity they could add to the VLF extension the Terraforms provide in his basement bunker. Of course if 2 are good, 8 should be even better... and some enabler built him up 6 more cabinets. That's how he got to this with a pair of SP2-1200 amps powering the 8 Othorns. ? He had everything set in place before he got around to covering the walls, where this picture shows a lot more of the craziness going on here: I also want to point out the pink rigid foam wedged into the window well openings on the front wall... Those were added after he literally BROKE the windows. After visiting and seeing what was roughly going on, but not yet breaking out my microphone and just going on what he has measured, it would appear things would be much happier if we change the 2x2 stacks deep, to 3 units set on their side for a 6' tall stack, with the mouth against the front foundation wall. As the front center location did measure rather well in his room, I'm thinking to put the 2 stacks of 3 firing at each other against the front wall. This brings me to the question... for this thread. I've done some creative horn extensions with some of Tom Danley's past designs, with very useful results. With the 2 stacks firing at each other, lets assume for a moment we confined the height to the 6' tall stack. This would provide a much tighter spacial load, along with extending the horn length by most of the 36" height of the cabinet. We can vary the distance between the two stacks to adjust the area of the added segment, and I'm wondering if anyone has a model already in Hornresp who could check what range/type of effect an extension might have? I'm thinking I would start with about 36" between the two, which gives an extension area for each of about 18" x the 24" height of each for about 36" figuring the 90 deg turn and mouth/end effects. If anyone had time to model a 12" x 24" (1860 cm2), 18" x 24" (2790 cm2), and 24" x 24" (3720 cm2) extension that is 36" long, it would be appreciated and interesting. -Mark
  2. deepthoughts

    Horn length extension on Othorns?

    Pennynike1 took a first step of stacking the Othorns in the double stacks (I wasn't there). Of course any stack over 6' warrants a picture: After some tinkering he currently spun 2 of the Terraform D18s around to slide into the outer cavities firing toward the front wall. Remember this all has a screen hung in front of it. Here was the last in process picture I got: I'll be curious to see how things are measuring when I visit next and see if we might be able to use the 2 remaining Othorns to good effect at the sides or rear of the room.
  3. deepthoughts

    Horn length extension on Othorns?

    It is rather narrow at just under 13.5' wide, with a small divider middle depth and a depth of I think >30 feet.. There is a lot of gain, but the hurdle is really getting the sound to the seats. Just firing a 36" deep subwoofer with rear SpeakOn puts the front of the sub ~40" from the wall, which immediately sets up some potential issues around 85Hz. He was also seeing some peculiar behavior when the subs were aimed at the right wall vs left wall I expect due to the big bass trap along the top of the right wall. I'm hopeful that closing off the ceiling in the front of the room will dramatically improve that peculiarity. In my experience, getting the best coupling to the room and delivery of the frequency range to the listening position can easily make for more gains than 6 vs 8 boxes, and I think we can put the last pair to use at the rear of the room.
  4. deepthoughts

    Horn length extension on Othorns?

    I getting a serious lack of creativity in implementation here. If you look at the front right corner, he is seriously limited in placement options there with the sump pump & well, so nothing can directly go in the front left corner. What's also not obvious is that the right cinder block wall is a mid-wall of the basement with the same size space on the opposite side. Complicating further, there is currently an opening the height of the floor joists at the top of the wall on the right running the full length of the room. He is going to close off the ceiling in front first, and then the rest as that will go a long way to make things more symmetrical. Yes, I already directed him to install high grade plywood so it might survive the high SPL. I was hoping someone had a model they could quickly adjust to model the horn extension and boundary loading. Fortunately Josh has the DXF files posted with the side profile. Some quick measurements and re-approximating the path with just 1 segment from front to back of driver gave me the 4th segment to experiment with as the extension/loading. The impedance and general shape are correct, with a little less energy modeled in the 40-60Hz range, but not much. I do understand how the tapped horns function vs conventional horn, as I was working with Tom Danley when he did the first tapped horn design which was to solve an application I was looking to fill. What started as a dual 12" with a high-flow port, quickly had the driver slide back in the port, and the port was lengthened into what we now know as a tapped horn. Early on Tom measured a few of the tapped horns in singles vs stacks at Sound Physics Labs and then the early models from Danley Sound Labs which showed that the performance generally tracked the models where added spacial loading often damps the upper bandwidth harmonics. Take most of the tapped horns and compare them with 4.0 Pi or 2.0 Pi loading vs say 0.50 Pi loading, and you will see the same trend. Even before we create any sort of extended pathway in front of the horn, stacking the subs in a large block, or creating the same spacial load with boundaries confines the expansion past the mouth to a 90 deg opening that forms a radius out to the edge of the box face. Modeling this to an added length of 24-30" beyond the effective length of the single box with an effective area of 6000-10,000 cm2 shows very significant changes to the horn's response, especially in smoothness and broader output gain. The effect is most beneficial at smaller spacial angles. Looking at firing the sub into the other stack of subs or a corner boundary, we end up with a 24-36" extension, depending on how it's figured and sized. Modeling that range with different exit angles shows you get a bit of a saddle in the response, but you can push the lowest excursion minimum down from ~28Hz to below 25Hz. With 6 units, we're not too worried about the increased excursion around 30Hz, which I'm still seeing to be below ~15mm with 80V input (ouch that'll be loud). From past experience with BDeaps, LAB Horns, and a few others in confined spaces, planning for room interaction becomes tricky, as the boxes become so big as to almost create new walls or boundaries that other interactions can get minimized or react a bit differently than expected. For example, if we just stack the subs with the mouths to the center in a 2 wide x 3 tall stack, we now have a 6' square front baffle that is ~3' from the front wall. Setting the stack of 3 subs with the mouths firing left or right along the front wall, we now have a 3' deep x 6' tall boundary and the rest of the box for the sound to wrap around. Now it starts making sense to talk about just walling off the front of the room at 3' deep so the subs radiate from flush with an effective wall, but with box faces so large, how much difference will that actually make? It will be different, but knowing how much gets much fuzzier. In the end real world measurements and lots of experimentation tells all.
  5. deepthoughts

    Inductance modelling

    Thanks for the searching. A quick scan looks like the models add/account for the missing aspects not represented in a simple 3 element, shorted inductance model which LspCAD has had since version 5.25. One bit not immediately clear is the units of the semi-inductance, Ke. Does this just come through as a parallel inductance to Le which reduces to an inductance and resistance in parallel or is Ke somehow variable with frequency? I thought I caught mention of Ke varying with the square root of frequency. Is this figured/modeled as a frequency dependent inductance element? -Mark
  6. deepthoughts

    Inductance modelling

    Taking any impedance measurement with WT2 or DATS gives simple text files. They might classify it with their own suffix, but you can rename any of them as text or other types of files after opening in a generic text editor. Most often the hiccups come from errant header info that might miss a " or * or simply isn't formatted as the program is looking for. That's really all the different suffixes are telling us... what the header info might contain. I'll have to do some hunting through the thread unless anyone can point to a summary of how they are calculating and how many elements they are using for the complex Le model. I know in my own experience, until you have a very complex model, the most useful results come from the ability to make adjustments to best correlate with a simple, near field measurement of the driver in a known sealed box or similar. Particularly where shorting rings and sleeves are used, you have to pick what parts of the curve you want to match related to which parts of the frequency response interest you most. I look forward to seeing what they have put together for the latest update.
  7. Many thanks Josh for the extensive work involved in testing so many variables here. I'm happy to see so much interesting data collected by adding the iNuke3000DSP to the mix. From your testing, I generated the following set of EQ filters to flatten the single vent, 14.5Hz tuning option which can be used in any DSP that includes shelving filters, and doesn't require filters below 20Hz. An iNuke DSP or similar can easily implement this. For the 21DS115-4 as tested I have the following filters recommended: 1. BW 12 / 2nd order high pass at 20Hz (2nd order Q=0.7 filter) 2. A 2nd order Low Shelf at 20Hz boosting 6.0dB 3. A 2nd order High Shelf at 90Hz cutting 14.0dB This gives a response that is +/-3dB from 14-200Hz, and should be useful to around 12Hz in-room. Here is what I modeled up where this is just generic, so the exact shape may vary by a smidge:
  8. deepthoughts

    (4) Sealed 21": Funk Audio UH-21v1

    Promising and impressive results after all the work put into the project. I couldn't quickly find and answer, but are you currently running the SP2-12k off 120V or 240V power?
  9. I saw this in a local Dolby Cinema and was very impressed with the Atmos mix and overall sound, along with the movie as a whole. Are there specific scenes that really throttle the 20Hz range creating the spike we see in the graph?
  10. deepthoughts

    what makes a sub "sound good"

    The bag end device certainly works. I had long ago come across this and talked to one of the Bag End engineers about it's effectiveness at a SynAudCon event many years ago. I recommended this as an option to a friend with fairly exotic audio gear in his home demo room who wanted to have effective treatment for playing LP's without re-digitizing and something he could do for customers with the same preference. In playing with the Bag End solution in 3 different rooms and on a few occasions in the first room, I came to a few conclusions... The controls are way to coarse and low precision. Nudging and bumping a dial to get center frequencies to bump up a little higher or lower sucks. Similar to what we know about conventional bass EQ, you need to get the Fc and Q very accurate to the original problem to get the best damping results, and much like EQ you do not want to over-do it. It was hard to do "enough" where the audible benefit was dramatic without hearing some unwanted effects in the room. When set too aggressively you could hear the devices "speak back" while just talking in the room. They can be tricky to set and dial in. It's easier to make a modest improvement if you have 1-2 dominant and well spaced modes, so expectations should set be appropriately. While the active trap is effective, we are trying to correct the reproduced sound, where the microphone and filtering has poor selectivity. I would much prefer a input-based system that creates a cancelling signal in the subwoofer. A microphone does have the ability to better track the real variances and decay, but we are limited with what sort of problems and how many we attack, as they can even influence each other when using a microphone. We can also better measure and quantify the results from the specific stimulus of the speakers being used vs the listener, where the microphone-active systems will react to any sound produced in the room. When done digitally up front, we also add the possibility of simultaneously using a device as both a producer of desired output and as an active cancellation device. It seems a waste to have a good subwoofer location unavailable due to a device, or a cancellation location unavailable due to it being a worthwhile subwoofer location.
  11. Skipping the other silliness for the moment, In the rooms you have calibrated, has every room of differing size, construction, and acoustics subjectively sounded to have the same spectral balance just by adjusting for a flat magnitude response as measured by a sine-sweep? How about measured by RTA? If the answer is yes they sound the same beyond loudspeaker/subwoofer deficiencies, then there's not much to discuss. I don't know anyone with experience calibrating more than a dozen rooms who would answer yes to that question, and that gives us something to discuss.
  12. While you talk of first arrival, it's barely something that exists at the lowest frequencies in most of our listening rooms as you note at the beginning. While related, I would say the missing component from your study/experimentation is paying attention to decay and energy vs time. The ultimate litmus test is to create a correlation that translates the same subjective bass quantity from outdoor listening to a small listening room. Floyd Toole has written a few times about work with the Synthesis systems that getting the same subjective bass from a very large, leaky space to a small, rigid room can require a lift of as much as 10dB. We generally perceive loudness based on sound power, not just intensity, so it really is all about the intensity vs frequency vs time and finding a handy way to quantify different decay with respect to how much we hear as part of the original vs late energy. I'm sure this requires some form of variable time window, but confidence in such a correlation still remains elusive.
  13. deepthoughts

    Ricci's Skhorn Subwoofer & Files

    The part some might skip over is investigating ways to slice & dice the cabinets into pieces with fractional performance. Obviously the image above would be easy to slice in 1/2, but what about 1/3rd or 1/4 or even less? As you mention, sometimes drivers aren't so hard to find, and you increase the number of voice coils to split the power between. Separating boxes also gets around the issues of spreading the loading point along the horn path, although I suspect 2 with some careful spacing might even be beneficial to resonances, but that would require some testing... That gets to the other very useful reason to look at fractional designs. Proof of concept. If you have a design that looks very exciting, but you don't know how bends, real losses and Q's of resonances will be in reality, it can be very worthwhile and easier to test a 10-15" driver in a smaller package with the same acoustic design. The ultimate test is if a pack of the smaller subs is comparable to a single large sub, which it theoretically should be.
  14. deepthoughts

    Ricci's Skhorn Subwoofer & Files

    One way to up the challenge a bit is to dive deeper into these huge cabinet designs that are fun to model and every once in a while build. One great property about acoustics is the ability to scale things. Maybe burn some late nights working out what a sliced fraction of such a design would look like, what parameters are needed for a 15", 12", or even 10" driver to maintain the same response? Might any of those parameters be something you can find? The suitable smaller drivers might not have the same excursion, but things might get interesting if you can actually use multiple units. No matter the type of alignment I'd say that being able to scale most all the performance qualities to be an interesting challenge. Ricci mentioned the Bose boxes earlier, and ironically the 6th order bandpass was a now expired Bose patent. Sometimes looking at designs in a different scale or with different technologies we stumble on some fun possibilities. If you can make a $1 driver sound impressive in something the size of a briefcase, what can you do if that's the size of a refrigerator with high excursion parts? Similarly, maybe when scaled down there are parts from a different market or application that you wouldn't have bothered modeling, but in fact the math suggests it scales nicely in some interesting design. Personally I still would love to have the time to create my concept of a subwoofer system using 3 or more bandpass designs intended to blend together into a multi-way subwoofer with the ability to place each bandwidth in efficient locations. The upper 1/2 of the bandwidth really gets interesting when you look at small modules and bandpass designs with significant gain. Of course getting better results than just a pile of compact sealed subs always comes back to the execution. Excuse the diversion, back to big obscene subs.
  15. deepthoughts

    Is it possible to model port compression?

    LspCAD 5 includes an optional attempt at modeling port compression (can check a box to see with and without model). Unfortunately it doesn't really allow a simple model of a commonly flared port. Instead they have a model more akin to a flared vent that defines more of an hourglass shape with an effective, assumed radius greater than 1/2 the length of the port. Comparing straight ports and more significantly flared ports gives some interesting points of consideration. One thing overlooked in your assumption above is that as the port compresses, the driver excursion increases. This is seen very easily in the LspCAD models and can be estimated/correlated by comparing high level impedance sweeps around tuning, and comparing driver vs port near field measurements. With high excursion woofers you will often see the driver picking up a good bit of the output load as excursion increases in an exponential manner due to port compression. This actually reduces the observed output compression, so remember the port itself is even more non-linear than the total SPL compression suggests. As with most things, the models are overly conservative and compression isn't quite as severe as suggested, but it's a lot more than none. Long ago I recall Deon Bearden relaying on that in his testing and research most port designs start compressing anywhere past 10m/s. That's not to say the ports aren't useful past that point, but we should understand that behavior isn't linear, just as with real drivers well before the rated Xmax. The complicating factor is always the wide bandwidth, complex signal consideration. If a component of a complex signal pushes a port into severe compression, how does this impact the rest of the complex signal being produced at the same time?
  16. deepthoughts

    What kind of compressor do commercial subwoofers use?

    That all depends on what the designer, the DSP/electronic hardware/software capabilities or flexibility. The specific subwoofer design with respect to box, driver and amplifier limits all impact what sort of design is appropriate. Some give a lot of thought to the issue and do lots of experiment and listening. Some never bother or just quickly set a Voltage limiter using default settings. There is no all encompassing answer. Sometimes a simple Voltage limiter does the trick, as is the case with many sealed systems. The answer you are seeking is as clear cut as asking which subwoofer design is superior... sealed or vented?
  17. The patent is long expired now, but the real issue was always cost, engineering, parts sourcing and testing required to get the mechanics refined and durable enough. There is much more possible now with modern cone/surround design. Before Tom left ServoDrive, followed by myself and later Jeff (JTR), we did have a pretty cool 2nd generation prototype in testing. There was a concept for a preferred 3rd generation that would require more development and work with parts suppliers. Ultimately you need applications where high motor force and high excursion are needed for the advantages to outweigh the hurdles and cost, and/or you would need to have a custom built and optimized motor made. It does start to get interesting again when comparing to 6" VC's the motor strength and excursion required for 18-32" cones. If someone has $50-100k they want to gift away to get them to production I'd be happy to make it happen. -Mark
  18. deepthoughts

    Official SpeakerPower amplifier thread

    The ideal manner is to peel back the jacket from the 4 conductor cable and use 3 pieces of heatshrink to dress the split. Use a smaller and longer piece on each leg, with a larger diameter piece put over the split and overlapping the legs last. As Josh posted, there are many ways to split, and you can even bring 2 separate 2 conductor cables into 1 connector.
  19. deepthoughts

    ZOD Audio M.A.U.L. Test Results and Discussion

    You can also get some interesting results by getting a little more LF loading with longer slots by tapering down where effectively the "port" is the in one dimension of the path, but narrows slightly, and ideally opens again near the exit. I've landed at the same point from both directions of starting with a chamber and port that kept growing to be the same cross section as the end of the chamber, to starting with a longer line/horn that you reduce the horn segments to model it like the line/column it really is. When I last experimented Hornresponse couldn't load 2 of the same drivers at different points on the pathway, so it was an average and a double check with models from each separate location to insure acoustic resonances don't line up. It does open up some interesting options if you can direct all the output from a large box to a relatively modest sized opening. Slot ports certainly work, they just need a little compensation as the aspect ratio increases. The one hurdle they all face is noise/turbulence near the small ends. Of course it's then a question of do you really care if it lets you get 6dB more from larger area or a tuning you might never build with round ports. The big bandpass designs can work well, with the caveat that any non-linearity in the high frequency system sets in motion all sorts of gross response modulation. In my early investigation with the Terraform design I first spent a lot of time making sure I got a handle on why there were so many bad sounding examples of bandpass designs. Shift the BL and Cms on a driver in a bandpass design and you can quickly see what happens to those short Xmax, long Xmech pro drivers which used to be so common. Next look at an undersized port and the changes that occur and you can get an idea of what is happening dynamically. Most of it isn't a big deal below 30Hz, but at 50-100Hz, it's highly audible, with some driver non-linearities probably responsible for 6-10dB high-Q peaks if they are producing that range when the driver gets past Xmax. Having free tools like the recent incarnations of Hornresponse opens up possibilities which would have been largely guesswork not that long ago.
  20. deepthoughts

    ZOD Audio M.A.U.L. Test Results and Discussion

    Hi Josh, That looks like quite a fun and highly effective design you've brought to life... so long as you have others around to move it. Thanks for posting the with/without for comparison. For those curious about using such design, this is ultimately what determines if you've done something useful with the front chamber. While trickier to compare, as it requires a bit more back/forth adjustment in models, matching either the SPL or excursion at a few frequencies in the loading range let you know if you are just gaining sensitivity (still worthwhile) or if you are also seeing some useful acoustic loading. I've played with many variations on this sort of 4th/6th order loading, and you can almost always get a smoother result from sort of front pathway than a classic chamber w/small port, and you don't suffer from the huge mess caused by a small port's dynamic behavior in the upper bandwidth nor the out of band peaking... as your simulation shows. You also hit on the other benefit with such high motor strength woofers in your later post about the under-sized ported box. With a little creativity in the chamber size, length, and tapering it is easy to push some of the upper bandwidth efficiency down into the heart of the operational range and achieve a response which would require a very heavy or hard to build woofer. Using 2 woofers at different offsets along the chamber can also help stagger notches and any resonant issues with the front pathway. Thinking back, I believe the pro subwoofer cabinet Acoupower put together to demonstrate their woofers used a higher tuned, non-opposed variation on this design. Congrats on the results aligning with predictions and how well it appears to have come together. I know how much planning and head scratching must have gone into bringing this to life!
  21. I haven't looked at the exact unit and specs yet, but you should be able to get decent info for sine wave testing over shorter duration. You would have to check if it can look at peak or some sort of sustained maximum current to measure shorter bursts. I'm not really sure it will give you all that much more info other than being able to see how the amplifiers draw power from the wall at the same output level, which gives you insight into the real world efficiency. Ironically a couple big pro amps dump a lot of power into cooling fans if the temp gets hot which can significantly affect efficiency of a class D design. This shouldn't be an issue in home use though.
  22. Good additional info Luke. It should be noted that the clip light is intended as an indicator, but the LEDs ramp up their brightness. When they first start to flicker it is usually just shy of clipping (1-3dB depending on load, power line, and component tolerances) where the first bit of full brightness is right around the clip point. The 6000W modules are a little fuzzier with the clip lights as they have a lot of Voltage headroom, but as time goes on (5-20 seconds) they ramp down to similar long term power as the 4000W. That Voltage headroom can be seen in the posted 4 & 8 Ohm power ratings of 3400W & 2000W respectively. Power output can certainly be estimated from the info Luke provided, but there's no way to compute any sort of efficiency. You can get creative with circuit breaker ratings, but it's just creative math and a guess. Breakers are intended to protect against fault conditions and long term overheating of supply wiring. Wires take some time to heat up, which is why breakers can have a time-variable behavior. "Long term" for home wiring near a breaker's rating is often on the order of a minute, not a few seconds as we've all discussed and posted about here. The dynamic load of the subwoofer also can change based on non-linearities in VC heating and changing air loading in the horn at high level. Luke's anecdotal data point is very useful for real world performance to design around, and less useful for mathematical calculation of power output, power delivered, power drawn from the wall, and certainly not for calculation of actual efficiency.
  23. I think you put a lot of added intent behind what I wrote than was actually there. The term "robust" was meant in terms of design, not physically superior parts. There are more than a few amplifiers which we've seen give up the ghost driving lower impedances or have odd behavior as they are used near their maximum capabilities. The burn-in process on every amplifier is also something few China factories perform unless stipulated by a buyer with enough of an established relationship for them to actually listen. The "housekeeping circuitry" is handled by a custom programmed micro-controller. There is different programming for each power model, rack vs. plate, and even some differences between those sold to the home vs. heavy duty pro use like those doing EDM shows. The upside is the protection makes major/catastrophic failures very rare. Any needed repairs are usually relatively low cost vs. the cost of the amplifier, of course there's no charged cost to the customer within the warranty period. Any misbehavior results in a shut down and usually protects the rest of the circuitry and components. I consider that a robust, fault-resistant design. I've dealt with more than a few amplifiers which would blow up if the amp is set to 115V and plugged into a 230V line, or would die or blow a hard to get to fuse if speaker wires were shorted somewhere. The downside of the internal monitoring is that it can have a false trigger caused by an unexpected condition. Since the early Torpedo amplifiers shipped in 2010, there has been continued polishing of the housekeeping circuits and Brian has been very receptive to making adjustments for different applications any time the issue was repeatable or otherwise identifiable. Wire loss is the down side of lower impedance loading. I use 4x11 wire for my high power runs, which keeps loss in the wire to around 0.25dB even over a 50' run with a 2 Ohm load at the end. Of course if that's 2 4 ohm loads you always have the option to make 2 runs making that loss 1/2 as much. Very common and even less expensive 4x12 wire meets the same loss at a relative 35' vs 50'. If the amp is internal to the box or very close, the wire loss is a non-issue. We would have to ask Brian about the balance of "how low is too low?" Brian's products are compared against many pro audio amplifiers which all are rated into 2 Ohms as many want to drive 2-4 cabinets off one amplifier channel. It's meeting a market demand more than an ideal design. If we're aware of the limitations, it's a highly useful gain of power output above the 4 Ohm rating. At the time of the GTG in question, David was a user & enthusiast and not yet planning to take the plunge into being a manufacturer. If David was able to reproduce the situation at home he likely would have pursued it, but from what I saw posted, there was no more info than "It cut out while we were cranking it." The load presented by the 24" with the 2 Ohm nominal coil per channel was a moderate load, especially in such a large box. Who knows what happened. If someone else happens to repeat such an issue, we can figure out what was happening as it's a rather rare occurrence vs. the amplifiers out in the field.
  24. The DC detection circuit on the outputs is basically a low pass filter that detects a threshold. It ends up being current/power related so if VLF was tripping it, it would be level dependent. While not the same circuit, the Dayton SA-1000 rack mount amplifier has the same issue but happens very easily when driving a nominal 4 Ohm load. Many incorrectly attributed this to some sort of input clipping, including Mr. Chase who never knew why the ones he sold would occasionally go into protection when driving dual woofers. Changing the time constant and sensitivity of this circuit was part of the many modifications Sandbagger was doing to the SA-1000 amplifier shipped with the MFW-15 Turbo kits. The detail I can't remember is if the amp shutdown at beast's place required cycling the power or if it bounced back on its own? To the best of my knowledge there isn't any current protection that would cause a cut out, but a few power line conditions could including a GFI condition or over/under Voltage. With the severe clipping this level occurred at, it's possible there was some internal condition the monitoring circuits were over-sensitive to as well. We should also remember the levels the amp cut out at was akin to complaining about how a driver behaves well past linear Xmax. It's much preferred if any protection doesn't cause a shut down that requires a power cycling, but not suffering any damage is just as important.
  25. Power is I^2 * R. Delivering that power with high Voltage or high current is just a matter of design choices. If you want more power than you get from rail Voltages easily created from a 120V line, low impedance capability works out pretty well as you just need to add current capability rather than design a new power supply. Into an 8 Ohm load or 2 Ohm load, power is power. I'd have to look it up, but Brian has posted the VLF frequency response more than a few times, and even pushed the corner a little lower not too long after introducing the Torpedo series. While there is just 1 "PROT" protection indicator LED, when ever the amp goes into an error state, it does signal the fault with a short-long flash code. I believe David's amp had firmware with only 6 different indications, where the current version has 17 combinations and indications. While most brushed past and focused on 1 of my 2 suggestions for the fault/cut-out, I also suggested this could have been the result of an overly sensitive DC protection circuit. I know David's amp had a looser setting than the first release as I was responsible for the first adjustment, but it has been pushed to a lower/longer time constant over time, and I've been talking with Brian about eliminating it entirely as the other diagnostics in the amp would detect the issue upstream in the circuit, making it a belt & suspenders situation. I suspect the brief cut-out Josh noted was also a DC protection circuit, but can't be certain without Brian bypassing the circuit and letting Josh run that sweep again. Exactly. No one checked what was indicated on the rear to see what the fault was. The Torpedo amps will generally deliver their rated power into a ~1.5 Ohm load. At lower impedances the amplifier will operate just fine, but will clip due to current limiting at lower Voltages, but will very rarely cause a shutdown. The amplifier monitors its temperature and will usually throttle back maximum power until the temperature comes back to a safe operating range. If by some chance a signal and environmental condition kept it from cooling, the amp would eventually shut down before reaching dangerous temperatures. To keep this in perspective, that temperature of throttling back is well past the point where the fan on the rack mount amplifier switches to high speed, and is very hard to reach with typical subwoofer loads. Most often this really only comes into play in pro applications where the black rack and amplifiers are out in the sun, packed tight in a rack with another heat source above and below the amp. Even so it's nice to know the amp will almost never shut down from heat, but rather just throttle back. If it does go into this state, the red protect LED indicates this behavior with 3 long flashes followed by 3 short flashes while still running. Thermal shutdown until temperature falls is indicated by 3 long flashes and a pause with no sound until the temp falls. As an example of the low impedance tolerance/stability, the in-house burn-in step at Speaker Power uses a near short circuit heating element mounted to its own heatsink in order to get the amplifiers to heat up in a realistic time frame. This tests thermal stability and protection. That sort of burn in and robust protection is part of what makes for the premium cost of the amplifier vs. the cheaper amps produced in China.
×