Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Steve81 last won the day on September 26 2017

Steve81 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Steve81

  • Rank
  • Birthday 08/18/1981

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. The numbers currently on the PB16's page are 95mm peak to peak Xmech and 82mm Xmax:
  2. Thanks for the good work Josh. Only comment is that it kind of raises the question again about the FV15HP. With the bigger amp and driver, one might reasonably expect the F18 to have at least a modest output advantage where the port isn't contributing, but the old FV15HP with both ports open meets or exceeds it's newer sealed sibling at every point until below port tune. Without knowing more details about the F18 driver, it's obviously possible...just interesting.
  3. A new addition for my space, Nathan's new 21.0LX, based on the UH21 driver.
  4. Steve81

    TC Sounds 15" sub

    That's what's stated on the AVS article at least. Amp looks more or less like this also.
  5. Steve81

    TC Sounds 15" sub

    I dunno, I hear Thilo is pretty confident in his numbers. Either that, or Mark @ AVS is having fun jerking everyone's chain. I lean towards the latter.
  6. Hi Contrasseur, I've got a formula and some thoughts (already mentioned) that might help you square some things away... The formula I use is from Acoustics by Leo Beranek: P(rms) = Square Root Of 2 * Pi * Frequency Squared * Rho * Sd * Excursion / Distance P(rms) is recorded in Pascals Rho is the density of air, which varies by things like temperature, humidity, elevation, and so on. Sd is the radiating area of the driver in square meters Excursion is also noted in meters, as is distance Here are a couple examples of backdooring excursion through that via excel. With the LMS, that seems to track Nathan's comment re: 39mm of excursion, and Josh's <65mm comment for the T3S2-19. Rho is altered between the two to account for temperature differences on the day of measurement, and assumes a ~600' elevation, and 50% humidity (and yes, Pi goes to more than just 2 digits).
  7. Ask and ye shall receive. BMS 2.83V / HST 2V 25.269Hz: 85.709dB / 84.146dB 31.86Hz: 89.399dB / 88.206dB 40.283Hz: 92.886dB / 91.03dB 50.171Hz: 95.6dB / 91.115dB 63.354Hz: 97.047dB / 89.231dB Again, subtracting 3dB from the BMS figures, you're looking at a sensitivity difference between 1-2dB from 25Hz-40Hz; 50Hz on up is in favor of the BMS (significantly so by 63Hz). In terms of impedance, the BMS never sinks below 8 ohms in this range, while the HST drops to a hair under 6 ohms around 55Hz. Keep in mind, both drivers are being tested in the same 4.2 cu ft cabinet, vs handicapping the BMS with a 0.5 cu ft enclosure.
  8. I'm one of those people that doesn't really post here much, but if I can learn something by attempting to answer the question, so much the better, right? Let's do a quick comparison between two DIY systems that have been measured: http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=110 http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=112 Now looking at the sensitivities of both on the low end, you get: BMS / HST 20.142Hz: 82.244dB / 80.773dB 16.113Hz: 77.937dB / 77.073dB 12.451Hz: 73.66dB / 72.45dB 10.254Hz: 70.517dB / 68.948dB Obviously since the BMS driver was tested with 2.83V, you'll have to knock off 3dB from it's numbers to equal the 2V test of the HST driver. Impedance is close enough between the two at the frequencies involved that it's not all that important (the BMS is higher except at 20.142Hz in any case). However, what I see from this comparison is that the low end sensitivity is relatively close, not 6dB+ off. This is in spite of the fact that the BMS driver has higher BL, less moving mass, and an Fs of 29.1Hz vs 20.1Hz. What I also see is that the top end of the BMS driver appears to be much more sensitive. As such, while it appears that you need to boost the bottom end considerably to achieve a flat response, the other way of looking at it is that you're cutting back the overachieving top end.
  9. While I doubt either choice would be bad, I'd also lean towards the Funk given it's solid measured performance (vs no data for the JTR).
  10. Steve81

    HST18 / HS24

    FWIW, Josh did also do passive tests on the Funk 18.0 and 18.0C, along with tests using their standard 2.4kW and 0.8kW amps. Not quite the same gap as with the Chase unit, but an interesting comparison nonetheless. 18.0 18.0c
  11. I've owned one in the past, and it's definitely a solid sub (literally and figuratively). It's 16-31.5Hz output is still top tier among the commercial units that Josh has tested. That said, it's getting a bit long in the tooth, and a lot of competition has cropped up. Output on the top end (i.e. 50Hz on up) is nothing to write home about either.
  12. Hi Josh, Any thoughts on using this driver full bandwidth given the lack of a 10Hz passing response? I know that THD is a relatively minor concern at that point given that cabin gain will end up reducing effective distortion in room. At the same time, it doesn't inspire much confidence about how the driver will hold up an octave below that.
  13. Depends on the application I suppose. Obviously you can use EQ to tame the hump, and if you have enough amp the drop in top end sensitivity doesn't matter quite so much. OTOH, if you're crossing over at 120Hz and attaching it to one channel of an iNuke 3000, it might matter a little more.
  14. Can't say it'd be my cup of tea either... The burst numbers from 16-31.5Hz are impressive, but the inability to post a 10Hz passing score and the mediocre top end sensitivity stick out compared to high performers like the UXL.
  15. There are always variances in the results due to a number of factors (environmental, equipment, human error, etc.). Given that Josh's results were within a dB of Paul @ AH's with the same sub, it would seem to reduce the possibility of human error or serious equipment issues. Of course, there are more nefarious possibilities I suppose (i.e. the unit could have been a ringer).
  • Create New...