m_ms

TDK. Please do!

Only had problems with 'The Dark Knight' and clipping of the sound (notable the scene involving the underground/tunnel money transport chase), but initially I guessed it that was due to how I downmix in JRiver's output format. Haven't noticed the problem in other Nolan films, but how exactly would he use clipping "for effect"? Oh, really - could you elaborate on that? To me the opening of TDKR has always felt louder somehow, certainly the music, than the rest of the movie, which seems to have a better balance, to my ears, compared to the opening. Yes, certainly Nolan's films from the TDKR and onwards, and Ridley's features strikes me as having very balanced soundtracks. 'The Last Duel' sports some great, fairly subtle LF-cues throughout, and just a great track overall. My previous SVS SB16-Ultra's went deeper than my MW's, but they fell flat compared to the fuller, smoother, more effortless and midbass agile output of the MW's that are filling out the listening room with bass to the brim. Hearing the effects of infrasonics is cool, but it takes quite the displacement to make it worthwhile and more than just an effect.

Great thread, and my first post here, I believe. Re: 'Oppenheimer,' I have the 4K UHD disc-version, though have yet to upgrade to 4K playback capability. I will eventually with my JRiver MC31-based (and AnyDVD HD + Fidelizer Pro) HTPC. However using only the regular Blu-ray disc won't impact the sound of Oppenheimer compared to the 4K ditto, as they use the same DTS-HD MA 5.1 track. I have switched off the so-called "Subclarity™" default feature in JRiver's Output format, as it seems to act as a filter/limiter of sorts. I don't have a multichannel setup - only 2 channels for stereo divided over 3 active outputs per channel for 2-way main speakers (see picture) and a pair of MicroWrecker subs of @lilmike, fitted with B&C 15TBX100 woofers. I believe the subs are tuned ~23Hz, and they're high-passed at 20Hz, 36dB/octave BW, so practically no bass info below 20Hz. They're corner mounted, flanking the mains symmetrically. Amps throughout the driver segments are two MC² Audio T2000 (top horn and subs) and one T1500 (mid bass). As indicated above I have no way to test infrasonics on my setup, but from 20-25Hz on up Oppenheimer is quite the bass beast: clean, visceral, extremely powerful bursts of bass and just an overall great sound design. Certainly from 'The Dark Knight Rises' (or even 'The Dark Knight') all of Mr. Nolan's films have fantastic bass output and quality, I find. By "quality" I mean the sound design in these lower octaves and the director's knack for a visceral and encompassing bass that spans not only the sub-sub region, but also the central to upper bass area. Needless now to say I love the bass from Nolan's films, contrary to quite a few superhero movies as of late in particular. 'Black Adam' and others just have this constantly overbearing, or rather "boomy" bass that's all over the place. Maybe that's just me and the particulars of my setup. Back again to great bass there's Mr. Gibson's 'Hacksaw Ridge' Blu-ray/4K UHD that sports a fantastic track (i.e.: the latter half of the movie, and a "tasting" in the opening scene), one of my references for bass. Those shells going off on the battleground with the combined impact from the initial detonation blast to the following "rumble off" into the lower depths is awesome. Mr. Villeneuve's 'Blade Runner 2049' comes to mind as well as a movie with a fantastic track and bass design.

Old thread, sorry, but this subject is interesting - not least the part about how to orient the mouth of a tapped horn in relation to the front wall/sidewall. A have a pair of tapped horn subs (dimensions: ~24"x32"x47" (w/d/h), with a ~23Hz tune) in my setup that cover the range from ~20-85Hz, and they're positioned pushed into each their corner of the front wall with the mouths firing directly ahead - that is, into the room. The floor is a stiff hardwood ditto, and walls are concrete. I'm now, inspired the above, thinking of turning each of the TH subs 90 degrees firing into their respective side walls, making for a 24" extension. What would be the optimum distance from the mouth to the side wall to load properly - some 12" as an outset, or more/less? Or, I could face each of the TH's firing directly into the corners at a 45 degree angle, and experiment with them being pushed up against the front/sidewall, and pulling them, say, 2-4" back and see what difference it makes. What's the theorized benefits of loading directly into a concrete side wall/front wall with a tapped horn, as opposed to firing directly ahead into the listening room? More output, more LF-extension, smoother frequency response?

"Guesswork" to you is using one's ears to others. At the end of the day it's what matters (i.e.: listening), but if measurements is what makes your day in this specific amp context, go ahead and look up specs and try and be the wiser on the actual perceived effect. My assumption is the in-room frequency response won't change, but that's not to say there can't by any sonic differences.

In continuation of above post of mine, further changes on the amp(s) side have materialized. Whereas previously I ran my fully active setup with 3 different amps (Belles SA30 Class A, Crown K2 Class I & Lab.Gruppen FP6400 Class TD) I've now replaced all of them with 3 amps from MC² Audio's T-series (Class A/B, and fully differential balanced): the T1500 for the EV horn and two T2000's for the EV bass bin and TH subs respectively - essentially the same amps for the whole frequency spectrum, and 2350W in total per channel. For bass heads, i.e.: the most fitting context in this place, the Lab FP6400 may be the more obvious choice for subs duties with its crazy power delivery and control here, but as someone who's very much into the overall reproduction quality of the entire frequency spectrum (not to say others here don't put similar emphasis on this matter), fully outboard active at that, the all-MC² Audio amp implementation has the sonics fall into place to my ears. I actually preferred the MC² Audio T2000 on the TH subs vs. the Lab FP6400, just a subjective preference, but the big surprise was hearing the 575W/8 ohm T1500 on the EV horns holding its own, although differently, against the 30W/8 ohm Class A Belles SA30, the former in fully balanced mode and the latter RCA-coupled. Oh well, a bit off-topic being that the above crosses into non-bass territory as well.

Yesterday switched amps for subs duties; previously used my Crown K2 to feed a pair of 8 ohm-load MicroWrecker tapped horn subs (w/B&C 15TBX100's), and my Lab.Gruppen FP6400 to (also actively) power the bass bins (4 ohm load) of my Electro-Voice TS9040D LX pro cinema speakers. Now with the FP6400 taking on my tapped horns I'm surprised to find out how more hard punching, controlled and clean the bass sounds by comparison. The K2 almost sounded a bit wooly next to the FP6400 - bass "with a belly," not least down very low. The K2 on the EV bass bin however works just fine (perhaps even slightly better vs. the FP6400 here), covering only a ~85 to 600Hz range with 36dB/octave cut-off slopes in both ends. Instead of 500W to the TH subs and 2.3kW to EV bass bins it's now 1.3kW to the subs and 800W to the EV bass bins. I take it wattages is really the least of it though, as I'm never near the limits of the performance envelope of either amp. Nonetheless it's enlightening seeing how different amps can affect the reproduction of bass, even at more "sane" SPL's.

Thanks for your replies, @jay michael and @peniku8. It certainly appears the Skram is a very versatile performer, and that from a fairly limited size all considered and still hitting quite deep in frequency. An impressive combo. And of course, yes - the TH118 trades a few extra dB's in sensitivity with less extension compared to the Skram. I should've looked at little closer at the specs.. Interesting findings on the sonic differences here. They would seem to mirror what I've read earlier in this thread in a comparison between the Othorn and Skram. I use a pair of tapped horns myself (15"-loaded with a ~23Hz tune, @20cf. volume per cab), and can relate to your descriptions. They're just effortless or unflappable and indeed very smooth sounding down low, and I find that to be a great trait also when watching movies on Blu-rays/4K UHD's. The sheer LF output from movies on named formats can be quite overwhelming, not least when reproduced so cleanly and forcefully, and I remember settling on the TH principle (instead of the more classic FLH) to more readily accommodate movie soundstracks (in conjunction with music playback) and their potentially prodigious LF output, with TH's having excursion minima at the tune.

When you say a pair of DSL SH46 "outrun" 6 Skrams, is that simply in reference to the total output the SH46's are capable of by comparison, or is it more of a "feel" for the energy-balance between the SH46's and Skrams in the sort of venue you're using them? I presume the Skrams are dialed in somewhat hotter vs. the DSL's and therefore also run out of steam earlier/need more headroom to keep up? As a thought experiment, say you were using a pair of SH46's in a home environment in a moderately sized listening room (I know, overkill, but bear with me). Would 2 Skrams suffice augmenting them here, i.e.: provide a proper mains/subs balance, or would more of them be necessitated in such a listening milieu in conjunction with the DSL's? Lastly, is a single DSL TH118 comparable to a single Skram in output, even though the TH118 only uses an 18" vs. a 21" in the Skram? And in case, does the TH118 therefore make more effective use of a given driver diameter in given enclosure volume due a more outright horn-loading of the back wave of its driver, while also making use of the front wave? Both of them are high order bandpass designs, but the Skram is using a somewhat shorter "horn" loading..

Thought I might as well bring it up in this thread being it's about a design involving big-diameter woofers: How much of a problem is lack of cone control with large diameter woofers (say, +15"), also known as "wobbling"? Is it a problem mostly with very high excursion, typically no more than moderately sensitive woofers, or is it a general phenomenon and problem even with more efficient pro woofers like the 21" variants used in the Skram, Skhorn and Othorn? How much does it matter sonically and for overall performance? Is it even a real issue, and does it warrant designs using instead a multitude of smaller, say, 12" woofers compared to fewer 18" or 21" dittos?

Thanks for your take on this. It would seem the creativity needed to imagine such "particulars" in measurement approach by Magico makes for a scenario that is wholly disconnected from anything real-world. It's telling they'd venture forth with such claims (or simply outright disinformation?) seeing they believe they can get away with it, but I guess it goes to show the general lack of knowledge in this area among audiophiles and how difficult it is to justify prices of (at least) $22k and $36k respectively - that is, for a single item - without flaunting some über-impressive SPL and distortion numbers, at 20Hz no less. Sorry to be ranting, but isn't it rather typical of audiophilia to prioritize inertness of construction, finding no doubt its apex with these Magico subs for mega $$, than higher sensitivity, more displacement and bigger size? How important do you find rigidity of construction with subwoofers and the aspect of the enclosure itself - apart from the driver/port/other - as another source of distortion? Is it any real issue as a distortive source with subs like the Skram, Othorn, Skhorn etc. at anything but what approaches war volume, not to mention in domestic environments with lesser SPL requirements? I'm not saying rigidity and inertness of construction isn't important, but I'm asking to which degree.

(Off-topic, I know, but had to get below off my shoulders) Please consider the following info from Magico's homepage on their Q subs: https://www.magicoaudio.com/q-sub 136dB's at 20Hz with less than 1% distortion? They sport two sub models, one featuring 2 x 15" woofers and the other 2 x 18" woofers. Sensitivity is a rated 90dB's for both models with 2000W and 4000W amps respectively. The sealed(?) enclosures are made of aluminum and are extremely inert and heavy. Did I miss anything here, or did Magico reinvent the wheel with these specs? Going by sensitivity and amp power rating I can only muster up a max SPL of some (including loosely estimated power compression at full click) ~120dB and upwards of ~125dB's respectively, not bad by any means, but still way off the claimed 136dB's. And 1% distortion at 20Hz at 136dB's - if I'm reading the above correct?!

I did mean and actually wrote extension and not distortion I too can only speculate on the Devastator's and their design and performance specifics, so pardon for assuming what I know not, but added extension (and size) seems to be general thing with these, and so I'm wondering how that impacts upper band extension and overall behavior here compared to the Skram's and their design parameter goals. My intention implementing a pair of Skram's at a future point in my setup is to have a cleaner upper range (for a cleaner upper bass/lower mids - a vital area in sound reproduction - and also to be given more free reigns wrt. XO frequency to the mains), slightly more midbass energy/overall visceral impact and reduced size (from 20 cf. to 16 cf.), whilst also having the opportunity to tweak the tune. A pair of Dev's in some variation would likely defeat the purpose of mine, certainly with regard to size, so regardless of their qualities they're not an option in my case.

I'm sure a pair of Othorn's would be a delightful addition in my setup, but if the Skram's are their equal (with an edge in some respects) while being an easier build, slightly smaller etc., that's the way to go for sure. Many if not most things being equal I prefer cleanliness of reproduction with a more extended upper range via the Skram's, where it seems the prowess of the Othorn's is in the lower near tune performance. I take it the differences here are subtle, though. Impressive design goals and getting them to meet. Never cared for the Devastator variant(s) as it seems they're going rather blindly after extension, but at what cost in other areas of overall bass reproduction? They also take up more space. I assume top your list of the best drivers for the Skram design includes the Lavoce SAN214.50 and B&C 21DS115-4, or are you referring mostly to the Eminence, IPAL or 21SW152?

Thanks for this rundown, @Ricci. It occurred to me earlier that you preferred the Skram to the Othorn - why or how is that? I suppose the Skram is easier to build and mates well with a broader and cheaper range of drivers, is port tune-able, and may extend higher and more cleanly compared to the Othorn. Output-wise it would seem they're comparable, at least. Have you listened to the Skram in action by any chance, and if so what are your impressions subjectively speaking comparing it with your recollection of the Othorn? The latter is semi-direct radiating, and that may account for some its reported "character." Oh well, only so much can be done speculating about these matters. I guess it's the nature of not being able to listen to them side-by-side, and so trying to get a bearing otherwise is attempted. Every indication so far is for the Skram's being "tight, punchy/impactful and very clean sounding" - and different at that compared to the more classical ported, direct radiating designs. Their native tune ~@29Hz with all ports open may feel slightly deeper perhaps with the ports situated so close to the floor, which may act as a slight extension even - as has also been suggested earlier. I gather blocking one port would be sufficient for both music and movie duties - save perhaps those cinephiles who crave infrasonics. (Tidbit) Initially, prior to having my MicroWrecker's built, I actually favored the Othorn's, but the rather expensive 21SW152 was a deal breaker. So far though I've been very happy with the MW's.