Ricci

I have similar thoughts based on the design work and simulations. In a lot of ways they do seem to be a vintage type of design, but taking advantage of modern driver advancements. Big, leverages a lot from one driver, should be loud and efficient over a narrow band, cabinets do not lend themselves to going low especially considering the considerable size, potential upper response phase and ringing issues could limit the upper range usefulness. Note: I've not actually seen good measurements on a top end example and have not heard or used any examples my self yet. YMMV.

Kyle let's have a conversation soon. I can take over the payments for some time. I'd really hate to lose everything at either the main site or the forum, but since I've been spending times with other endeavors for a few years and don't have time to post like I used to the traffic has gone downhill. Perhaps there is an interested party at another website or forum that would be interested in taking over? Unfortunately for the future I don't know if or when I'll have time to do testing like I used to. I have far too much on my plate. I have no web developer or programming skills and no time to learn it either so that's another piece of the problem.

See my reply in the other thread. The physical dimensions of the driver make mounting it in a horn that models well acoustically a particularly tough challenge.

Good job Mike. Those look excellent.

That is the problem with using these drivers horn loaded. They want a compression ratio that is quite high and the drivers themselves are huge with a massive frame and surround . Typically back mounting is used for horns but these do not have a frame designed for back mounting. Logistically it isn't feasible to use the drivers like this. This is part of the reason that I didn't pursue a horn for this driver myself. You could try a compression chamber...Or a bandpass which the MAUL already is sort of.

I'd agree with Peniku8 on that comparison based on the available info.

Isobaric doesn't really give much extra output. You are still limited by the xmax of 1 driver. it was a way to get extra motor force and a smaller cab back in the day. The modern 21's don't lack for motor force. It's a huge money sink for not much gain. The CKRAM is already small for a single 21.

Hello DJimbo and welcome. As far as assembling the cabs go. Clamps and more clamps are your friend. Other options that help are a brad nailer, or a pocket screw kit. If using the 21SW152 drivers best results will probably be with 2 to 4kw of amplifier rating per driver. Any more might get sketchy over long periods of time. Less would leave some of the dynamic capability on the table. I prefer to run fully bridged amp channels on bass when possible. Smoothing out the corners might help with airflow in an ideal scenario but it has drawbacks. It reduces the internal volume utilized by the driver. With bass size (air volume) is king. The Skram is a vented cab on the back side so it's a traditional ported arrangement there. Large flares and circular vents would be beneficial ideally but would greatly increase the size of the cab and its complexity. The front is a short horn/expanding slot. The same applies here. Ideally it would be a totally smooth, straight path, but packaging it into the cab dimensions requires compromises. At best these would be small gains in output / noise reduction, even if it was built ideally with a totally different (much uglier and unwieldy) form factor. I hope this explains why most bass cabs do not bother with dramatic smoothing of the air path. It comes with other tradeoffs.

A pair of the NSW in parallel should be closer to a 2 to 2.5 ohm min at the vent tuning once cable resistance and cabinet effects are factored in. Most of the freq range will be much higher in impedance but this would be pretty low for most amps bridged. I'd suggest the 4 channel amp method, or running the drivers in series which should present a 8 to 10 ohm min load to the bridged amp. Most touring amps are happiest at about 4ohms per channel.

Hello Shayne. That is a lot of power. Whether it is too much depends on a few factors. I'd suggest doing a bit of experimentation before running it wide open for long periods of time. Remember doubling power is only 3dB in an ideal case.

Yes. If using all vents open a 25Hz HPF is recommended.

Sure...Please see the following link back to the Articles section under the heading "Equipment" https://data-bass.com/#/articles/5cc09423a75a260004255c87?_k=65aub6

Unfortunately I've had to put audio on the back burner the last few years. I no longer have the time required to do them. Other priorities etc. I'm not saying I'm finished for good. I may get back to it someday.

All of the outdoor measurements with the Ipal's are posted on the main data bass page for the Skhorn. Have a look at the voltage sensitivity measurements. There is no processing on those and they are outdoors. Really doesn't need a lot of processing. Throw a 25Hz HPF on there and set the LPF where it matches well with the mains. They run pretty decent up till above 140Hz and the response is reasonably flat, so anything below that should be fine. The rest sorta depends on the mains, amps, environment and bass content ( limiting, etc...)

Do it!

Hey Chris. The Nero will make some noise but it has lower xmax, power handling and less motor force. It probably wants a bit more cabinet volume. Hard to say with out trying it though. The Mms is light too indicating a cone that may flex at war volume. CKram should be useful up to 120Hz giver or take.

That's my bad PC. My inbox was full. I've cleared out some space. It should work now.

I think you need a minimum of 5 posts. I haven't been on AVS in months.

Yes I was factoring that in as well.

In my experience the NLW9601 drivers are a little less capable than the B&C's. If you can deal with the impedance the Lavoce drivers are about the best option I know of for reasonable money.

Is this an outdoor measurement? How far away is the nearest large object? Building, truck, etc? Looks like about 8db down at 30Hz compared to 100Hz. The tuning seems to be a bit under 30Hz as well. I'd expect about 4 or maybe 5dB down at tuning with those drivers. The HPF probably shaves another 1db off. Realistically this isn't too far off. Once all of the factors such as driver tolerances, construction methods, signal chain, measurement setup and atmospheric conditions are stacked up it can account for quite a bit of variation. I'd not worry about it too much if it's a little different from the model or other peoples measurements. Is the mic equidistant between the vents and the upper section or closer to one vs the other? That could account for another 1dB.

I'm not aware of any. All of the neo motor woofers have gone way up in price and the availability is hit and miss. You could try a DS115 or a Lavice driver but these face the same problems. I'm not as on top of the market as I used to be so perhaps there are some newer options to look at that someone else knows of?

Hello Alexlel. Thanks for the info. Interesting. A 4th order LR would be 6db down at the Xo frequency. 109Hz. The response should be slightly rising towards 120Hz with that driver without any processing at all. That's including increasing directivity/baffle step as the frequency rises. You also have a pair of cabs. I wouldn't be surprised to see the response up 4dB or so at 100Hz under these conditions. Either way that's a useful starting point with just a LPF and HPF. Lowering the LPF frequency and/or changing the slope or filter type should be able to get your XO to the mains where you want it without much extra EQ needed.

Make a few posts and message me your email.

I would run the Skram or Ckram sub which is smaller, instead. Splitting the Skhorn in half results in a lot of driver pressure directed into an outer panel which I'm not a fan of. It really wasn't designed to be split in half because the driver arrangement is less than ideal for that.