32" IST (Mach 5)

[Electrodynamic]

I appreciate you took the time to write that, and there's definitely a history to some of this I wasn't aware of so thank you. 

 

I don't have anything against SI products, and you can search here or AVS and you won't find a negative comment from me.  If you read through the more recent thread about the BHS-24, I'd like to think I was very complimentary of Nick and his accomplishments.

 

The only history you need to understand my comments in this thread are Nick's comments in the 32" IST AVS thread and then his comment here.  I personally find it distasteful to post things like that in a thread of a competitors product (by no means am I insinuating that Nick is the only one guilty of this).  He then started to repeat those same comments here, which are not true, and I called him out on it.

 

It's really as simple as that.

 

His insults in return were uncalled for, and this isn't a first for him.

 

Lastly, and I'm really fine with the thread getting back on track and will let this go , I never said anything about who was or was not affiliated with Mach5/IST. 

We were discussing the theoretical design of the 32" driver and you choose to say the latter? Ok. We were not throwing anything under the bus other than discussing the claims that IST/Mach5 have actually claimed. You see "insults" when looking at discussion. Pretty typical for you having met you and seen your actions online after the fact. 

[lukeamdman]

We were discussing the theoretical design of the 32" driver and you choose to say the latter? Ok. We were not throwing anything under the bus other than discussing the claims that IST/Mach5 have actually claimed. You see "insults" when looking at discussion. Pretty typical for you having met you and seen your actions online after the fact. 

 

It's plain and simple what was being discussed and where you were taking it.  There's nothing to explain, everyone can read it for themselves, and you're not fooling anyone. 

 

Learn when to stop. 

[Diogenes]

We were discussing the theoretical design of the 32" driver and you choose to say the latter? Ok. We were not throwing anything under the bus other than discussing the claims that IST/Mach5 have actually claimed. You see "insults" when looking at discussion. Pretty typical for you having met you and seen your actions online after the fact. 

 

 

It's plain and simple what was being discussed and where you were taking it.  There's nothing to explain, everyone can read it for themselves, and you're not fooling anyone. 

 

Learn when to stop. 

 

Oh, cripes, come on guys...

 

 

We all love the same stuff here. Let's share the hobby and mutually partake in acoustic powered structure destruction.

[Electrodynamic]

It's plain and simple what was being discussed and where you were taking it.  There's nothing to explain, everyone can read it for themselves, and you're not fooling anyone. 

 

Learn when to stop. 

 

Why do you have to interject in a technical discussion about a proposed [not real] motor design and throw instults to make yourself feel better about being "that guy" who "exposes" a different audio company? Are you getting paid by IST/Mach5 to do so? 

 

I simply have zero time to entertain your theatrics. Carry on attempting to ruin threads here on DB. I will still chime in on discussions of motor design whether you want me to or not as actual data needs to be discussed and/or at leat mentioned. 

[lukeamdman]

Why do you have to interject in a technical discussion about a proposed [not real] motor design and throw instults to make yourself feel better about being "that guy" who "exposes" a different audio company? Are you getting paid by IST/Mach5 to do so? 

 

You're turning this into something it's not, and taking it way too far. 

[N8DOGG]

Oh, cripes, come on guys...

 

 

We all love the same stuff here. Let's share the hobby and mutually partake in acoustic powered structure destruction.

You literally typed 100's of words complaining about me and mach 5 and now you want everyone to get along and be "excellent" to each other? lol. common man. Thats pretty hypocritical. 

[Ricci]

You literally typed 100's of words complaining about me and mach 5 and now you want everyone to get along and be "excellent" to each other? lol. common man. Thats pretty hypocritical. 

 

After re-reading through the latest round of manufactured drama in this thread, I agree with this. That's not how it works.

 

Yet another train wreck that is obviously going south and has nothing to do with Mach5 or the proposed 32" driver anymore. I'm trying to let everyone say their piece and not clean up or mod things here but it's getting real old.

[lukeamdman]

Why do you have to interject in a technical discussion about a proposed [not real] motor design and throw instults to make yourself feel better about being "that guy" who "exposes" a different audio company? Are you getting paid by IST/Mach5 to do so? 

 

I simply have zero time to entertain your theatrics. Carry on attempting to ruin threads here on DB. I will still chime in on discussions of motor design whether you want me to or not as actual data needs to be discussed and/or at leat mentioned. 

 

Nick, this has strayed so far from where it started I think it would be helpful if you re-read my first two comments.  There's no hidden agenda, don't read into it anymore that what's simply stated. 

 

I'm not bashing any SI product in any way, nor am I trying to "expose" anything.  I think you're mistaking me for someone else, as I've never posted a single negative thing about a SI product anywhere.  On the contrary, I've purchased your drivers and recommended your products countless times.

[mlah384]

Back on topic, how many 18" will it take to equal a 32"?

 

Also, will a 3ft'ish driver avoid some nulls since the size of the cone is so big?

[tuxedocivic]

At 80hz the wavelengths are several meters long. So even though the driver is very large, it'll still be omni-directional within the intended bandwidth.

[Shredhead]

Some 32" vid's.  Not anything to do with Mach 5 but still fun.

[Shredhead]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMyqgUT6XV4

[Ricci]

That driver in the video looks like it has little mechanical clearance for truly big excursion.  It's sort of hard to tell though since it's a freaking 32"! Might be deceiving.

 

The more I look at that cone and the size of that dust cap and surround we might easily be talking 2000g moving mass or more. I do like the look of the top assembly components though. I wonder what just the top assembly will weigh? That frame looks heavy. Probably 20-25lbs just for the top assembly.

[N8DOGG]

The cone is close to 1300 grams I think Mark said, something like that. it's hard to tell if the same basket is being used by Fsd is the same as the one marks got, looks like the cone is different. It's a modular one. You have to put it together, I've never seen that before but it seems like a good idea for shipping.

 

It's got spots for dual spiders, one then a spacer plate and bolts down and one on top.

 

Marks frame is all aluminum. It's fairly heavy, could be 20-25 lbs. The basket has over 60mm xmech and surround could do 34mm or so from the specs.

 

It's gonna be a fun project, though I don't know if I will end up with one, I don't have the room.for the 34" width the sub will need. Maybe a few of the 24s instead.

[Ricci]

I'd guess it is the same basket. doubtful there are many 32" baskets floating around. How large are the spider landings or spacers? Hopefully 12" diameter or so. That big half roll surround will do more than 34mm. Might not be real linear past 30mm but if it's anything like the one on the 24" it'll certainly go further before stretching tight.

 

Do you mean that the frame is modular or the top assembly and motor will be? From what I understand the surround is clamped to the frame under the aluminum trim rings. Do the spiders also mechanically clamp to the frame using the spacers?

 

I'm with you I don't see me ever using any drivers this large. Definitely a cool project and something to watch for fun though.

[Infrasonic]

The cone is close to 1300 grams I think Mark said, something like that. it's hard to tell if the same basket is being used by Fsd is the same as the one marks got, looks like the cone is different. It's a modular one. You have to put it together, I've never seen that before but it seems like a good idea for shipping.

 

It's got spots for dual spiders, one then a spacer plate and bolts down and one on top.

 

Marks frame is all aluminum. It's fairly heavy, could be 20-25 lbs. The basket has over 60mm xmech and surround could do 34mm or so from the specs.

 

It's gonna be a fun project, though I don't know if I will end up with one, I don't have the room.for the 34" width the sub will need. Maybe a few of the 24s instead.

 

Don't you have a manifold IB system off to the left side front? Can't fit a couple there?

[N8DOGG]

The frame is 8 identical pieces, you bolt them together. And yes the spiders clamp down just like the surrounds.

i couldn't tell you how big the spiders were, I had the pics of them sitting in the 18s and 21's on the avs post. They were pretty darn big though. The spider landing was literally an exact fit for the spider.

 

And the 34mm was usuable excursion. I don't know how far the surround would actually stretch but that's what Mark figured would be about as far as he could/would go.

 

I'm sure he will have.some more detail soon about his plans with it and some more idea what will be built.

[N8DOGG]

Don't you have a manifold IB system off to the left side front? Can't fit a couple there?

Not nearly big enough lol.The manifold Is only 24" wide by 40" long. I can't really redo it, as that's the room that holds all my amps and my sump pump. Though now that I'm a nearfield junky, I don't think I could go back to anything else lol.

[Ricci]

The frame is 8 identical pieces, you bolt them together. And yes the spiders clamp down just like the surrounds.

 

Cool. I'd probably glue the spiders and surround on top of using the clamps personally.

 

Sounds like the XXX frames. Those bolt together as well. Spider landing bolts in, each spoke (6) and the frame flange.

[Diogenes]

After re-reading through the latest round of manufactured drama in this thread, I agree with this. That's not how it works.

 

Yet another train wreck that is obviously going south and has nothing to do with Mach5 or the proposed 32" driver anymore. I'm trying to let everyone say their piece and not clean up or mod things here but it's getting real old.

 

Fine,I just get tired of the same old bullying and vitriol from the same clique dumping into every thread when I just want to see what someone's building. Bear in mind, this hobby is more than a dozen forum personalities, there are many others like me who wish to share experience and have questions, but just don't want to be run over by the same people. It is a disservice to them and we're all the lesser for it judging by some of the incredible builds I've seen on the rare times they're shared by people who think life is too short to post with such attitudes around. But, whatever, it's your forum. I'll just keep using the "Ignore" function.

 

...The cones are really stiff and the surrounds are as well...

 

So, speaking of questions: what are your thoughts about resonance and break up issues with this particular cone? I realize that nothing's certain without actual measurements of an extant driver, but until then, going by your experience, what are your gut instincts of how it may behave for us guys who dabble with subs outside of the .1 realm? The high modulus is good and paper does do a pleasant sounding job of damping and spreading out modes, least ways I'm used to it and don't mind it much, but that is a lot of cone.

 

When Mitsubishi/Diatone was designing their 32" PW-8012 drivers for the D-80 series subwoofers they ultimately had to go full out with an aramid fiber honeycomb, which was...well, it was pretty badass for almost thirty years ago and would still be really high end today. It seems that it was the only way they could keep the cone from getting nasty once it started moving and that was with a low excursion (but high sensitivity as they claimed 100dB/w/m in their literature) driver.

 

The HS-24 and likely other 24"s using the same soft parts shows a few wiggles in the impedance plots indicating the cone is already starting to want to misbehave a little down in the upper bass region. With this larger cone, it seems like sticking with basic paper would keep to the same breakup trend and possibly push a 32 inch into acting up well into the .1 arena of playback and definitely so above that 'case, well, crossover slopes aren't infinite.

 

With these softparts, do you think the combination of the huge dust cap (assuming it doesn't contribute too much with its own breakup as that's bigger than many drivers in its own right) and that stiff and heavy surround might keep the worst of it damped down without resorting to more exotic cone materials? Provided they'd be a solution in themselves without getting fancy with a compound geometry composite design, of course. (Aluminum seems to be no solution as I've noticed the LMS-U has a bit of a zing to it around 180Hz that can get excited with the right or, rather, wrong music and it's hard not to hear once you notice it. A 32" aluminum dish would just bring that further down nevermind how effective a parabolic reflector it'd act for anything coming out of the main speakers. That could add a whole new complication. Carbon fiber straight up and without getting fancy is notorious for having some very messy break up modes of its own, so that's kind of out without going the honeycomb laminate route, which, hey, looks to use aramid fiber in the core. Seems we're always playing catch up to a good idea someone or other had long ago. There's quite a lag between genius insight and significant market introduction.)

 

Alright, another slightly tangential question to put out there now that I'm wondering it: since these giant diaphragms are a largely unfamiliar realm: sympathetic resonance. Even running a supersub like this in .1 only mode, there's still something in the system that'll be cranking the midbass and the needs of maintaining a usable space means that the regular bass boxes and midbass drivers for the main channels will probably be within a few feet of such a monster. As these large cone drivers (24", 32" and whatever those magnificent bastards in China come up with next [i don't know who over there is coming up with these things, but I like how their mind works]) couple to the air exceptionally well compared to the much smaller old school drivers, I wonder if cone resonances couldn't be excited by the bass in the room even if the signal isn't being fed directly to them? Well, alright, it's a given that it must happen to some small degree. I've had a disconnected sub sitting in front of another get to moving when my test tone sweeps hit the resonant frequency of that sub's system with a little sympathetic acoustic coupling, but I'm wondering about audibility. Seems like it might have the potential to muddy up the distortion numbers a bit in some of these high output systems, but would it be to an audible degree or more on the theoretical end than the practical issue?

 

Pardon my literacy. tl;dr: Big cone breakup a problem? Was a problem in same size subs in the past and required an expensive solution. Paper and surround enough of a fix? Pondering for the fun of it, can cone related distortion in a huge sub be triggered by another sub at high SPL?

[Ricci]

Diogenes I don't have a lot of time at the moment so I'll have to address the technical section later.

 

As Luke said earlier I'd suggest the thread be read from the beginning. Again. It's clear where things got off track and it was clearly not Luke or N8 that started it from my view. N8 wasn't even a member that I know of until his name was thrown around with Mach5 with a whole bunch of speculation and backhanded remarks which clearly are not positive when read.