AudioCircle
Other Stuff => Archived Manufacturer Circles => DIY Cable => Topic started by: Kevin Haskins on 12 Feb 2008, 02:48 am
-
Ok... this thread started over at AVS while talking about designing a cost is no object 18" driver.
I'll update this thread as we go through the design process.
Design Goal: The highest output, lowest distortion subwoofer we can build in 7-10 cubic feet, powered by a Face Audio F1200-TS.
More to come...
-
Outstanding; should be a fun journey!
-
Details of Concept:
Box Size: 7-12 ft^3
System Design: Single 18" driver with dual matching 18" Passive Radiators.
Power: Face Audio F1200-TS 4700W of power into the driver
Goal: The most accurate and powerful sub on the planet, that can fit in the defined box size, powered by a single 15A/20A breaker. Output >115dB @ 10Hz in-room measured from 1M, >120dB from 14Hz on up, measured from 1M. Anechoic F3 about 20Hz (depending upon signal processing settings) and >116dB anechoic from 25Hz up.
Transducer Design:
*5" Voice Coil with split gap, split coil motor design. Power handling out the ying-yang and at least 55mm of X-max. 70mm of X-mech so we have a full 5.5" of mechanical clearance and 4.3" of clean stroke peak-peak.
*Counter Coil to virtually eliminate inductance issues, careful design for symmetric Le curve for the inductance we have. Counter coils won't saturate with power like shorting rings. End result, 5" VC with very little inductance and EXTREMELY linear with power, frequency and stroke. Impedance curve looks like a planar, ruler flat way out beyond what you typically see with a sub.
*Specially tooled 14" spider with some unique mojo to linearize Cms and maintain production tolerances within +/-5%. Designed to fully support full capabilities of the motor.
*Specially tooled Surround with symmetric Cms curve, both inner & outer rolls like a progressive spider fully supporting the full capabilities of the motor.
*T/S Parameters close to our Maelstrom-X. Parameters usable in both PR/sealed systems of large but manageable size.
*Matching Passive Radiators with the same 5.5" of peak-peak throw.
*Projected Price for the driver: $1000 each Projected Price for the Passive Radiators: $250ea (two needed)
*Projected Price for complete projects (driver, PRs, amp & signal processing): $2500
*Projected Availability: November 2008
-
Are you doing a split coil for price reasons? Why not just do 3-4 gaps for a single coil to transverse? That should reduce Mms (if needed) and reduce inductance. I definitely can't wait to see this monster develop.
-
Are you doing a split coil for price reasons? Why not just do 3-4 gaps for a single coil to transverse? That should reduce Mms (if needed) and reduce inductance. I definitely can't wait to see this monster develop.
Dan is making that choice. Reducing inductance won't be an issue due to the counter coil and I won't know if we need to add or reduce mass until we get a little further along.
This will be a fun project.
-
:o aa :thumb: :thumb:
-
That does sound like a lot of fun!
About 5 years ago I built an HT sub for myself, with a car Nakamichi sub. Built a ported box, 23Hz tuning, and 4 cubic feet.
Not going to suggest that it came ANYWHERE close to the clean, clear, sub bass that you will get with this monster, just chiming in that boxes for pure HT bass can be a lot of fun!
Good luck with it,
-
Power: Face Audio F1200-TS 4700W of power into the driver
Goal: The most accurate and powerful sub on the planet, that can fit in the defined box size, powered by a single 15A/20A breaker.
Just curious - how do you get 4700W through a 15A/20A breaker?
-
Power: Face Audio F1200-TS 4700W of power into the driver
Goal: The most accurate and powerful sub on the planet, that can fit in the defined box size, powered by a single 15A/20A breaker.
Just curious - how do you get 4700W through a 15A/20A breaker?
You don't continuous. That is a worst case (or best case depending on your point of view) situation. The transducers won't be a perfectly resistive 2-Ohm load, it will vary at low frequencies due to the impedance peak at resonance so in real-life, you never get those "perfect" conditions to deliver full power. The counter-coil would provide an almost perfectly flat impedance curve, even at resonance, but we will add a capacitor in series returning it to what looks like a normal impedance curve down low. Otherwise you loose about 3dB of sensitivity in the pass band.
If it where a perfectly resistive load, you might be able to get a peak power rating close to that. Amps are able to deliver peaks much higher than RMS rating due to the power supplies reserves. Line voltage & sag vary, changing output power, so there are several variables to consider.
If we design for roughly 5KW though we make sure the driver is never the limiting factor. Since music/movies is about a 30% duty cycle, the peak power ratings are appropriate to design around. If you have peaks @ 1000W you need approx the ability to provide 300W continuous. Or, if your peak power is 5KW, your continuous should be around 1500W.
-
Motor design for lots of linear BL. :green:
This is +/- 1% out to 42mm.... ONE WAY! :lol: X-max is about 55-56mm one-way!
For a frame of reference, the TC Sounds LMS-5400 was listed as having +/- 1% linear BL out to 30mm, and X-max at 38mm one-way. That gives us a full extra inch of linear (+/- 1% BL) peak-peak throw.
(http://www.diycable.com/main/images/Sicko-1.jpg)
-
Well, that proves it; this thread is appropriately named. That's just 'Sick'!
-
:slap: Thats shocking...1% at 42mm!!! That's got to be pushing the limits of linear xmax possible. I want four :lol:
-
No doubt; really exciting stuff here. I will have a pair of Maelstrom X's driven by a Face Audio 1200; I have no idea what I'll do with a pair of these 'Sick' 18's; although, I'm sure I'll find something :D
:slap: Thats shocking...1% at 42mm!!! That's got to be pushing the limits of linear xmax possible. I want four :lol:
-
amazing stuff.
-
Afternoon Kevin,
I'll be shooting you an email shortly; I'd like to pick up a second Face F1200...
-
No problem Larry.
The Sicko is moving forward. I'm pushing on this hard with hopes of beating our deadline.
You won't have to worry about bottoming this bad boy. In free-air it takes 5000W to bottom it. :lol: Put it in a box and its probably going to take 10,000W or more to hit the back plate.
You guys wanted an extreme driver, we are going to deliver. :green:
-
Hence the second F1200… :o
No problem Larry.
The Sicko is moving forward. I'm pushing on this hard with hopes of beating our deadline.
You won't have to worry about bottoming this bad boy. In free-air it takes 5000W to bottom it. :lol: Put it in a box and its probably going to take 10,000W or more to hit the back plate.
You guys wanted an extreme driver, we are going to deliver. :green:
-
Ok.... this is appropriately named. The motor is about 12.5" in diameter, 6.5" deep so the motor alone is the size of a Shiva-X. :lol:
We are working on trimming some weight because we are up around 100lbs for the motor alone, WITH NEO!
This is looking at the top plate. Nice big 5" Voice Coil provides a pole vent big enough for small animals to climb into. Your going to have to watch the cat because he/she doesn't want to be in there when you fire it up.
(http://www.diycable.com/main/images/sicko1.jpg)
(http://www.diycable.com/main/images/sicko2.jpg)
(http://www.diycable.com/main/images/sicko3.jpg)
Cut-away of the pole, back plate & front plate (not cut-away).
(http://www.diycable.com/main/images/sicko4.jpg)
This will represent a high-water mark in the subwoofer market. The Sicko will be within its 1% linear BL range under almost all conditions with the F1200-TS. It will also be well within its suspension linearity and the inductance will be amazingly controlled. In other words, it should be the most linear subwoofer ever made by a long shot.
As you can see from the renderings, the power handling is going to be helped with the open motor design, not to mention the 5" VC so you have voice coil cooling unlike anything on the market.
For you open baffle guys, the motor will be EXTREMELY low-noise. Not only will the motor design be open, the spider landing is going to be equal distance from the top plate as the cone is from the spider landing. This is the kind of driver that will provide THX levels of output at 20Hz on a 3' wide open baffle! :lol:
-
Imagine supporting a 100+ lbs speaker with 40-50mm controlled one way excursion with an open baffle :o. The baffle itself is going to need a heroic design!
-
Imagine supporting a 100+ lbs speaker with 40-50mm controlled one way excursion with an open baffle :o. The baffle itself is going to need a heroic design!
Hey... that is their problem. If they have the money for a pair of these beasties they can make it out of granite. I have a granite counter top place next door to my industrial site. That stuff is $125/ft^2 so my subs are cheap in comparison. They have a nice big CNC machine cutting the marble tops. You need a fork truck to move the damn things but it would work.
-
Now there's something to imagine! I think you have another project ahead of you ;). I'd say chances are pretty good something like that would probably go in a walk out basement :D.
-
Now there's something to imagine! I think you have another project ahead of you ;). I'd say chances are pretty good something like that would probably go in a walk out basement :D.
I think you would need a DRIVE out basement. :o
I have no plans for building one. I'll leave that to others. I get by just fine with a Shiva-X in my house. :D
-
Kevin,
This is going to be a fun process to watch develop; can't wait to get my 'pair' :D
-
Hmm, that resembles the Parthenon a bit... :scratch:
-
Hello,
Is the reason for building this just for fun or is to get a certain type of performance out of it? Because if it's performance their is a sub that does this type of thing already but uses a 15 inch and a couple of passive's.
Not saying that your sub won't be better just wondering.
Thanks
-
Hmm, that resembles the Parthenon a bit... :scratch:
That's what I was thinking. Although I think I remember Dan saying something about a potential 12 inches of displacement and a 4x4 foot diaphragm (if that's the right term). Only $8000+. I never did hear any more about it. New thread Kevin? I've always wanted to know if there are any in use today (if any were ever made), how much power they put out and the SPL at say 5, 10 and 20 Hz... Come on - I've read you got Dan's number. I had planned on buying one at some point in my life. :cry:
-
Hmm, that resembles the Parthenon a bit... :scratch:
It more than resembles. aa
-
Hello,
Is the reason for building this just for fun or is to get a certain type of performance out of it? Because if it's performance their is a sub that does this type of thing already but uses a 15 inch and a couple of passive's.
Not saying that your sub won't be better just wondering.
Thanks
There will be NOTHING on the planet that will compete with this product. In terms of drivers, its going where nobody has gone before and in much more than just displacement and output. Our goal is nothing less than the most linear transducer ever made.
-
If the driver is going to be really linear, what will the upper frequency useable range be.
Is there any possibility of a 2-way design with a compression driver or is that just crazy thinking.
-
If the driver is going to be really linear, what will the upper frequency useable range be.
Is there any possibility of a 2-way design with a compression driver or is that just crazy thinking.
That is crazy thinking. :) This is a subwoofer, optimized for the first & second octave and since the inductance is extremely low its upper-end usability will be mainly limited by the cone break-up and the off-axis narrowing that you would see in a 18" driver.
The cone break-up and how it performs over 100Hz is not really even on our radar though.
-
Kevin, what software are you using to design motors? Looks like you can build 3d model and simulate results, all in one software, that's quite impressive :) Thanks.
-
Kevin, what software are you using to design motors? Looks like you can build 3d model and simulate results, all in one software, that's quite impressive :) Thanks.
Dan wrote the software from scratch so I guess you would say it's DIY in nature. ;-)
-
Couple of Q's here Kevin:
1. Will it be capable of an inverted mount?
2. What would be an approx sealed box size to get a Q of .7? What would the f3 be in that box?
3. It looks like your Widget does indeed have LT capability. Will it also low-pass at 20Hz? The parametric EQ appears to be notch only. Can that be changed to allow a boost as well?
I'm thinking: low-pass that puppy at 20Hz and use it for things such as, say, a haunted house with some serious infrasonic modulation. It'd also be cool to use it ported with my outdoor speakers since as of now I only have the QSC HPR153s and they could use a little bass help!
That motor is wicked! Keep the pictures coming!!!
-
Couple of Q's here Kevin:
1. Will it be capable of an inverted mount?
2. What would be an approx sealed box size to get a Q of .7? What would the f3 be in that box?
3. It looks like your Widget does indeed have LT capability. Will it also low-pass at 20Hz? The parametric EQ appears to be notch only. Can that be changed to allow a boost as well?
I'm thinking: low-pass that puppy at 20Hz and use it for things such as, say, a haunted house with some serious infrasonic modulation. It'd also be cool to use it ported with my outdoor speakers since as of now I only have the QSC HPR153s and they could use a little bass help!
That motor is wicked! Keep the pictures coming!!!
All of these are questions that I cannot answer at this point. We are still at the stage of designing and modeling parts on the computer. Once we build a couple engineering samples (which is still months away) I'll have more to talk about. For parameters I'm aiming at the Maelstrom-X parameters.
The Widget information I've show is all pre-production. We are thinking of removing the exposed LT circuit for a couple technical reasons.
-
what kind of sensitivity are we looking at for this monster? anywhere near the seismic 8196?
-
what kind of sensitivity are we looking at for this monster? anywhere near the seismic 8196?
It will be much like the Maelstrom-X and about 88-90dB @ 2.83V. Our market is not pro-sound, where 30Hz is considered low frequency. We have to design around smaller boxes and systems that go about an octave lower than what you see in the pro-sound world. Those are the factors that set the efficiency.
If we decided to do a pro-sound version it would loose bandwidth, work in somewhat larger boxes and we would focus more on power handling rather than raw mechanical excursion. In most pro-sound applications you are running the drivers in power-limited mode. That is why you see the big focus on power ratings in those types of systems because ultimately, they are power rather than mechanical limited.
To do that you either drop the moving mass or increase the BL, both of which will cut into the low frequency bandwidth.
-
any idea of how much weight the passive should be able to handle? with over 60mm of excursion if it could handle 4000g or more that would be killer! I've been modeling a few designs of the AE and CSS passives but I think they can only handle 2500g and that just isnt enough to tune them as low as I would like...
-
any idea of how much weight the passive should be able to handle? with over 60mm of excursion if it could handle 4000g or more that would be killer! I've been modeling a few designs of the AE and CSS passives but I think they can only handle 2500g and that just isnt enough to tune them as low as I would like...
You won't find something that handles that much mass using traditional suspension components. You are just asking the device to handle more than it can take.
-
I just stumbled across this thread - might I say....GOOD LORD!!! :drool: :drool: :drool:
Reading this thread really heated up my heart rate, I can tell you that... I want about 10 of these puppies!
Kevin, are you going to be offering these drivers as a standard product once they're released, or is this kind of a single production run for a special purpose thing? I definitely will be buying more than one of these when they come out, assuming finances allow.
Sounds like FedEx will need to buy fork lifts for their drivers once these start shipping... :thumb:
-
I just stumbled across this thread - might I say....GOOD LORD!!! :drool: :drool: :drool:
Reading this thread really heated up my heart rate, I can tell you that... I want about 10 of these puppies!
Kevin, are you going to be offering these drivers as a standard product once they're released, or is this kind of a single production run for a special purpose thing? I definitely will be buying more than one of these when they come out, assuming finances allow.
Sounds like FedEx will need to buy fork lifts for their drivers once these start shipping... :thumb:
It is going to be a standard Exodus product. We have bumped the overall diameter up to 21", since 18" just wasn't SICK enough.
Parameters are going to stay much the same except Sd is about 30-40% higher. Vas goes up too and the box size the driver will be optimized around is going to jump about the same amount, 30% or so. The PR version should still work good in 8-10 cubic feet and the sealed in even smaller so this driver will work in reasonable enclosures and deliver output unavailable in any single production driver on the planet. In fact, I think it eclipses any TWO production drivers on the planet in terms of pure swept volume.
-
It is going to be a standard Exodus product. We have bumped the overall diameter up to 21", since 18" just wasn't SICK enough.
Parameters are going to stay much the same except Sd is about 30-40% higher. Vas goes up too and the box size the driver will be optimized around is going to jump about the same amount, 30% or so. The PR version should still work good in 8-10 cubic feet and the sealed in even smaller so this driver will work in reasonable enclosures and deliver output unavailable in any single production driver on the planet. In fact, I think it eclipses any TWO production drivers on the planet in terms of pure swept volume.
Sounds great. There's something I'm curious about, though. Over on the Cult forum, you said this driver won't be good for an IB. Is that still the case? If it works sealed as you say above, there's no reason I can think of it wouldn't work fine in an IB unless it was optimized for small enclosures. Could you elaborate on this?
-
Sure.... and you are right, there is no reason it couldn't be used IB. My statement, if I remember right, was aimed at someone asking about the Maelstrom-X in an infinite baffle. The only basis for my statement was founded upon the cost per unit output in that situation. For someone buying the Sicko-21", the value is probably not at the top of their priority list.
I still think that if you are doing IBs, you should consider drivers firing in opposing manner. In other words, you would want at least TWO Sicko-21"s mounted in a baffle firing at or away from each other. You will also find, that as the driver size increases the baffle opening needs to increase also. For those reasons I normally recommend people keep their driver size limited to a 15". Four 15"s mounted in a baffle allows you to keep the baffle opening small, it fits between stud spaces and you would be better off in terms of in-room response by having multiple four driver arrays of DPL-15s rather than a single Sicko-21" manifold.
-
Sure.... and you are right, there is no reason it couldn't be used IB. My statement, if I remember right, was aimed at someone asking about the Maelstrom-X in an infinite baffle. The only basis for my statement was founded upon the cost per unit output in that situation. For someone buying the Sicko-21", the value is probably not at the top of their priority list.
I still think that if you are doing IBs, you should consider drivers firing in opposing manner. In other words, you would want at least TWO Sicko-21"s mounted in a baffle firing at or away from each other. You will also find, that as the driver size increases the baffle opening needs to increase also. For those reasons I normally recommend people keep their driver size limited to a 15". Four 15"s mounted in a baffle allows you to keep the baffle opening small, it fits between stud spaces and you would be better off in terms of in-room response by having multiple four driver arrays of DPL-15s rather than a single Sicko-21" manifold.
Thanks for the response, Kevin. Actually I've kind of got something rather, uh, sick, in mind for my theater sub (assuming finances come through). The theater will be designed around this sub, so no concerns about stud spaces or manifold openings or anything like that. They'll probably be mounted right in the wall. And what better driver to use in a "sick" installation than the "Sicko"? :)
-
Sure.... and you are right, there is no reason it couldn't be used IB. My statement, if I remember right, was aimed at someone asking about the Maelstrom-X in an infinite baffle. The only basis for my statement was founded upon the cost per unit output in that situation. For someone buying the Sicko-21", the value is probably not at the top of their priority list.
I still think that if you are doing IBs, you should consider drivers firing in opposing manner. In other words, you would want at least TWO Sicko-21"s mounted in a baffle firing at or away from each other. You will also find, that as the driver size increases the baffle opening needs to increase also. For those reasons I normally recommend people keep their driver size limited to a 15". Four 15"s mounted in a baffle allows you to keep the baffle opening small, it fits between stud spaces and you would be better off in terms of in-room response by having multiple four driver arrays of DPL-15s rather than a single Sicko-21" manifold.
Thanks for the response, Kevin. Actually I've kind of got something rather, uh, sick, in mind for my theater sub (assuming finances come through). The theater will be designed around this sub, so no concerns about stud spaces or manifold openings or anything like that. They'll probably be mounted right in the wall. And what better driver to use in a "sick" installation than the "Sicko"? :)
You are our target customer davepete! :) I heard this whisper one afternoon...... "build it and they will come". So I've been on a mission ever since.
-
You are our target customer davepete! :) I heard this whisper one afternoon...... "build it and they will come". So I'm been on a mission ever since.
Indeed they will! Your driver sounds incredible. It's cool to have someone pushing the boundaries and making such amazing products. Keep up the great work and keep us posted on progress if you would.
-
Hi Kevin, I've been following the threads here and at AVS with a lot of excitement. Thought I'd throw my opinion into the mix. I'm planning to replace my SVS PB Plus/2 and Titanic 15 inch subs this winter with a DIY pair of 18in sealed drivers. I think the Sicko would be great (with an LT EQ and Face audio amp) for what I want to achieve.
My vote for the production sequence would be biased in favor of the 18 in driver first, followed by either the 15 or the 21.
However, if the market pushes one of the other drivers to be released first i could always build a pair of opposed dual 15in drivers :icon_lol:
Thanks for the look inside the development of this amazing driver!
Todd
-
We will probably do the 21" first, with the 18" following within six months.
-
Hi Kevin,
Really exciting stuff here; I'm pleased we're seeing enthusiasts coming on board, this will certainly be a great product! I may be tempted to bump my order up to two units.
btw - the F1200TS' want to know where their playmates are:-)
Best Regards,
Larry
We will probably do the 21" first, with the 18" following within six months.
-
The playmates should be on the boat by Monday next week.
-
Hi Kevin,
Have you decided upon the cone material and configuration yet? I believe you were previously looking at various honey-combed designs, perhaps having a one piece approach as opposed to a cone/dust cap implementation. Also, are you still considereing a 'flat' piston, or are you now looking to a more conventional cone?
Good stuff here; btw - the Face gear is great!
Larry
-
Hi Kevin,
Have you decided upon the cone material and configuration yet? I believe you were previously looking at various honey-combed designs, perhaps having a one piece approach as opposed to a cone/dust cap implementation. Also, are you still considereing a 'flat' piston, or are you now looking to a more conventional cone?
Good stuff here; btw - the Face gear is great!
Larry
No... we have been working on the basket and carving some weight out of the motor.
I've not made any hard and fast choices at this point but I'm leaning towards carbon fiber with a traditional cone shape and an inverted dust cap. The cone itself will proably be some sort of composite foam with the CF skin.
From an engineering standpoint it doesn't matter much. Our next focus is suspension design and the cone material/construction will be the last thing we tackle.
-
Here is the latest. This is the 21" basket, 14" spider landing and the motor using a 5" voice coil.
(http://www.diycable.com/main/images/sicko.jpg)
-
Looks very innovative.
-
Crikey!
-
Crikey!
Can you translate that for us Yankees John? :lol:
-
Kevin,
You know I've been trying to avoid going bigger with my sub!!! You've got to stop showing me this stuff!!!!
Basket looks very well engineered and that looks to be one impressive motor!!! Can't wait to see what the actual paramaters of the first samples are.
-
Kevin,
You know I've been trying to avoid going bigger with my sub!!! You've got to stop showing me this stuff!!!!
Basket looks very well engineered and that looks to be one impressive motor!!! Can't wait to see what the actual paramaters of the first samples are.
I can give you a pretty close estimate. We have as much BL as we need, the suspension compliance is easy to scale and the Sd is going to be around 1500cm^2, up about 25-30% from a typical 18" driver. Box size scales in a linear manner with Vas (for the same F3) so if we aim at T/S parameters like the Maelstrom, it would still be extremely usable with dual 21" PRs in 9-10 cubic feet. The sealed would work easily in 6-8 cubic feet and a simple LT circuit allows complete flexibility with your system Q.
My primary target in the 9 cubic foot with dual 21" PRs. Most people can easily fit that in their home theater install.
-
Kevin, I'm not sure you'll be able to answer this yet, but using the stated 9-10 cu ft box, do you know roughly what kind of tuning point you're shooting for? With a driver of this kind of raw output capability, a good low tuning point would make the best use of it. Will it work well tuned to, say, the 10-12 hz range or so in an EBS alignment? If so, will it do that in 10 cu ft, or is more volume needed for use as an EBS?
-
Kevin, I'm not sure you'll be able to answer this yet, but using the stated 9-10 cu ft box, do you know roughly what kind of tuning point you're shooting for? With a driver of this kind of raw output capability, a good low tuning point would make the best use of it. Will it work well tuned to, say, the 10-12 hz range or so in an EBS alignment? If so, will it do that in 10 cu ft, or is more volume needed for use as an EBS?
The PRs are the only viable method and I'd aim for 15-16Hz. I'm not one of the advocates of 10Hz tuning frequencies.
-
Some more Sicko eye-candy.
(http://www.diycable.com/main/images/sicko.jpg)
(http://www.diycable.com/main/images/sicko1.jpg)
(http://www.diycable.com/main/images/sicko2.jpg)
(http://www.diycable.com/main/images/sicko3.jpg)
(http://www.diycable.com/main/images/sicko4.jpg)
-
Kevin,
I'm definitely looking to tune lower than that. My design goal is a freq response that's reasonably flat to the 10hz region, combined with very high SQ and output (which I haven't quantified yet, but it will probably be about 130db at the listening position). The SQ will be achieved by selecting a driver with a linear BL design like the LMS or Sicko, and not running it past the linear limits. I'll use as many drivers, amps, and as large an enclosure as needed to achieve that. The enclosure will be located behind the theater in its own room, so I've got virtually no size restrictions, even for silly numbers of drivers.
I've done some modeling using the LMS-5400 which has bad issues with ported designs when modeling 1 driver enclosure sizes. The port resonances are unworkable, leaving PR as the only option. I'm guess the Sicko might have similar issues. But it appears that once you start getting into REALLY large enclosures, ~100 cu ft, using multiple drivers (8, in this case) those issues fade as you get lower tuning with shorter ports. At least if WinISD can be believed, anyway. Because of that, I was able to create an EBS model using 8 LMS-5400 drivers in 100cu ft that looks quite workable. When I scale this same model down to one driver (12.5 cu ft), the 1st port resonance comes in at an appalling 19hz, but with 8 drivers and 100cu ft, it's a very acceptable 218hz. The only parameter that looks iffy in this model is the air speed through the port, but the highest speed (68 m/s) is way down at about 9hz. However, there isn't a whole lot of signal that low, allowing leeway there. At 14hz the air speed is at an acceptable 30m/s.
So, again, if WinISD is to be believed, I'm wondering if the same kind of design couldn't be applied to the Sicko to put together a monster sub. Even if it requires a PR alignment in single driver configurations, would larger designs allow lower tuned ported options? Maybe I'm totally out in left field here and just don't know it. If that's the case, I'll just build a huge IB and not worry about it. Just exploring the options here.
-
Kevin,
I'm definitely looking to tune lower than that. My design goal is a freq response that's reasonably flat to the 10hz region, combined with very high SQ and output (which I haven't quantified yet, but it will probably be about 130db at the listening position). The SQ will be achieved by selecting a driver with a linear BL design like the LMS or Sicko, and not running it past the linear limits. I'll use as many drivers, amps, and as large an enclosure as needed to achieve that. The enclosure will be located behind the theater in its own room, so I've got virtually no size restrictions, even for silly numbers of drivers.
I've done some modeling using the LMS-5400 which has bad issues with ported designs when modeling 1 driver enclosure sizes. The port resonances are unworkable, leaving PR as the only option. I'm guess the Sicko might have similar issues. But it appears that once you start getting into REALLY large enclosures, ~100 cu ft, using multiple drivers (8, in this case) those issues fade as you get lower tuning with shorter ports. At least if WinISD can be believed, anyway. Because of that, I was able to create an EBS model using 8 LMS-5400 drivers in 100cu ft that looks quite workable. When I scale this same model down to one driver (12.5 cu ft), the 1st port resonance comes in at an appalling 19hz, but with 8 drivers and 100cu ft, it's a very acceptable 218hz. The only parameter that looks iffy in this model is the air speed through the port, but the highest speed (68 m/s) is way down at about 9hz. However, there isn't a whole lot of signal that low, allowing leeway there. At 14hz the air speed is at an acceptable 30m/s.
So, again, if WinISD is to be believed, I'm wondering if the same kind of design couldn't be applied to the Sicko to put together a monster sub. Even if it requires a PR alignment in single driver configurations, would larger designs allow lower tuned ported options? Maybe I'm totally out in left field here and just don't know it. If that's the case, I'll just build a huge IB and not worry about it. Just exploring the options here.
You are borderline nuts davepete. :wink: You are the perfect guy for the Sicko!
Ports are not going to work. They get too large, and have too many port resonance/airflow issues. PRs will work, but have limits to how much mass you can put on them. In the smaller sane sized enclosures, it becomes tough to load the PR with enough mass to tune much below the 15-16Hz range that I'm targeting for a 9-10ft^3 application. If you double the box size, you will be able to go deeper. I won't know exactly how deep until we build some PRs and see what they will take. Even then, I tend to estimate on the conservative side so that I don't have customers ripping them apart.
For your application, which doesn't seem to have a budget, just run them sealed and use a bunch of them. That gives you great low frequency extension and you can get as much output as you have space and money.
-
For your application, which doesn't seem to have a budget, just run them sealed and use a bunch of them. That gives you great low frequency extension and you can get as much output as you have space and money.
Kevin,
Since you think sealed is the better way to go, would you advocate using an LT circuit?
Davepete...
Why don't you get a bunch of these and do an IB (an ultra large sealed enclosure)? The install negates the need for enclosures within the room, decreases the demand for amplification, and then you get great low end excursion without the need for extra processing (LT circuit). I'm using two 18" drivers in an IB that pale in comparison to these beasts and I'm flat to 10 Hz... I don't get the SPL that you want (I'm getting about 115dB), but having 4 of these puppies would probably do the trick. 8 would be unreal. Just be sure to have a manifold so you're running opposed pairs so you reduce mechanical vibrations that would tear apart your walls :D :D :D !!!!!!!
-
For your application, which doesn't seem to have a budget, just run them sealed and use a bunch of them. That gives you great low frequency extension and you can get as much output as you have space and money.
Kevin,
Since you think sealed is the better way to go, would you advocate using an LT circuit?
It depends on what your goals are..... but I'd say sure. There is no reason not to use some equalization with this kind of project. It gives you box size flexibility and the choice of final system Q.
-
You are borderline nuts davepete. :wink: You are the perfect guy for the Sicko!
The way I look at it, I'm looking for bass that will bring out the full experience that the creators of the movies intended. Everyone else is nuts for settling for less than that. :P
Ports are not going to work. They get too large, and have too many port resonance/airflow issues. PRs will work, but have limits to how much mass you can put on them. In the smaller sane sized enclosures, it becomes tough to load the PR with enough mass to tune much below the 15-16Hz range that I'm targeting for a 9-10ft^3 application. If you double the box size, you will be able to go deeper. I won't know exactly how deep until we build some PRs and see what they will take. Even then, I tend to estimate on the conservative side so that I don't have customers ripping them apart.
For your application, which doesn't seem to have a budget, just run them sealed and use a bunch of them. That gives you great low frequency extension and you can get as much output as you have space and money.
I realize the ports would be large - my model calls for a 16" diameter pipe. It would definitely need to be internally braced. I agree on the PRs. I consider them extra moving parts that I don't really need when a port will do essentially the same thing without moving/wear issues. I haven't found anyone who has built a ported sub of the size I'm looking at, though, so I'm not sure if resonance issues would apply as the port lengths do get a lot shorter in really big enclosures. In any case, I'll probably just build the IB, as that entails a lot fewer tweaky type details and would be much easier to construct. I'll still have to consider whether to use a manifold or not. With 21" drivers, a manifold isn't a small undertaking!
Thanks for the input, Kevin. I'll be looking forward to the T/S specs when available.
-
Hi Kevin,
Why the complex basket structure - would a cast basket not have been feasible?
-
Hi Kevin,
Why the complex basket structure - would a cast basket not have been feasible?
Sure... it would cost $25,000 to tool. This one has a higher cost per unit (about $80-$100) but lower tooling cost. It is also scalable to be used for 15" & 18" drivers. Tooling three baskets would be well over $50,000 in tooling. For a product that sells 100/yr it isn't a good choice.
-
Thanks - a clever solution - especially the scaling potential.
I hadn't thought of that, but can see the 15 and the 18 in the basket for the 21, now that you mention it.
-
pardon the thread jack . This is surely a sick project no doubt .
But please check this out . A true 22 inch monster with a 900 OZ. magnet :o And a 6.5" voice coil setup :o :o
http://www.mtx.com/caraudio/products/subwoofers/jackHammer.cfm
cityjim
-
pardon the thread jack . This is surely a sick project no doubt .
But please check this out . A true 22 inch monster with a 900 OZ. magnet :o And a 6.5" voice coil setup :o :o
http://www.mtx.com/caraudio/products/subwoofers/jackHammer.cfm
cityjim
It isn't usable..... notice they don't list parameters. It is a competition sub for burps and that is pretty much all it's good for.
I'm out to create a truly USABLE subwoofer with the inductance of a midrange driver, usable in sane sized enclosures that is as linear as anything ever made.
That is the design goal... not a car audio competition product although I'm sure there will be a couple guys wanting to use it as such.
-
Kevin... do you have an estimated cost for the end user?
I know you previously estimated the cost to be about $1000 for the active woofer, but since then you jumped from a standard 18" size to a much more custom 21" size. I would have to think your cost went up.
-
Kevin... do you have an estimated cost for the end user?
I know you previously estimated the cost to be about $1000 for the active woofer, but since then you jumped from a standard 18" size to a much more custom 21" size. I would have to think your cost went up.
We started off as a $1000 price goal for a LMS-5400 replacement. That was back when it was going to be a 4" VC with 38mm of x-max. We have had some mission creep since then, basically expanding x-max to 55mm with the Parthenonn motor, jumped to a 5" VC, added a counter coil, and bumped the overall diameter up to 21". The Parthenon type motor is Neo based and we are having to do a lot of machining to remove excess weight and keep the format usable.
I'm estimating we are at $1500 now but I won't really know until we are closer to production. I'm not really concerned with where the price lands, I just want to build the best subwoofer on the planet. We have other products that are a better "value" type of products and I'm comfortable with our position there.
A little later, we will develop a series of subs to fit between our current subs, and the Sicko. I'll probably use the Sicko basket, cone, and suspension components and drop them onto a more traditional 4" VC motor with that original LMS-5400 type x-max of 38mm. Those should occupy a price-point somewhere between Sicko-land and our value lineup since that Parthenon motor is extremely expensive to manufacture. I'd like to see a 15" and an 18" in the midline series that fits in the $500-$800 range and offers some incredible performance in their own right.
-
Thanks for the update. I'm not surprised the least bit to see the jump in price. Ultimately, getting the best requires a premium price. Imagine what the price would be if Wilson got ahold of this puppy! I bet they'd charge at least $40k when you consider the fact that their dual 18" LLT was $20k several years back.
-
pardon the thread jack . This is surely a sick project no doubt .
But please check this out . A true 22 inch monster with a 900 OZ. magnet :o And a 6.5" voice coil setup :o :o
http://www.mtx.com/caraudio/products/subwoofers/jackHammer.cfm
cityjim
It isn't usable..... notice they don't list parameters. It is a competition sub for burps and that is pretty much all it's good for.
I'm out to create a truly USABLE subwoofer with the inductance of a midrange driver, usable in sane sized enclosures that is as linear as anything ever made.
That is the design goal... not a car audio competition product although I'm sure there will be a couple guys wanting to use it as such.
It was on MTV's "Pimp My Ride" and numerous videos on the net . Parameters are on page 2 . X-max 2.5 inches and X-mech of 3 inches , OMG . http://www.thetrue22.com/downloads/JackHammer%20Owners%20manual.pdf
Sealed enclosure of 4.2 cubic feet and vented 8.7 cubic feet . I personally like the comment made by MTX for the installation of this 22 incher . MTX mentions "forklift" . :o
Here is one of the videos . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvXY-Cgpz68
cityjim
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ecC5LOabPY&feature=related
cityjim
-
Out of curiosity, how much does it cost?
-
Out of curiosity, how much does it cost?
$7000 - http://www.woofersetc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=3344
-
Not at all surprising.... I love the look on that guy's face when he looks in the back. :lol:
The Sicko isn't going to have the same shock value as we have trimmed the motor weight down to around 85lbs. They should have us slightly edged out on the mechanical clearance but I'd bet money we have more linear stroke. Are those numbers one-way or two-way? The inductance on that thing has to be pretty ugly too and I'm also fairly certain we will have greater Sd, even though they are calling it a 22". That refers to the frame, not the driver's swept area.
In terms of usable parameters.... I'd like to see what someone measured for the T/S parameters. Surely someone has measured one.
-
You don't need T/S parameters to get one-note bass... :)
-
You don't need T/S parameters to get one-note bass... :)
Car audio is all about power handling where they want to run MASSIVE amounts of power into the device for short burst in SPL competitions. The large coil is a benefit, as it increases short-term power handling. The inductance of these long massive coils though is extremely problematic in real use. Not only does it limit high frequency extension, Le based flux modulation can cause eddy currents in the motor itself and the larger the coil inductance, the higher the power, the bigger the problem. We get around it with active Le cancellation via the counter coil. They probably are using some sort of shorting ring to at least keep it manageable at lower power.
I'd like to see the parameters though so I can model their recommended boxes. I'm just curious.
-
Try these for starters:
Fs = 16.76 Hz
Qms = 5.19
Vas = 239.1 liters
Cms = 0.063 mm/N
Mms = 1428 g
Rms = 29.04 kg/s
Xmax = 2.5 in
Xmech = 3 in
P-Dia = 17.95 in
Sd = 1642 sq.cm
P-Vd = 0.366 cu.ft
Qes = 0.6
Re = 1.66 ohms
BL = 20.39 Tm
Qts = 0.538
no = 0.181 %
2.83V SPL = 91.55 dB
That's all they offered in the owner's manual.
-
Not as bad as I thought.
Note... that the sensitivity is listed at 2.83V. That is a 2-ohm load so its actually about 85dB/1W/1M for a fair comparison. The 1500g of moving mass and that stiff as a rock suspension are the problem there so the Sicko has it by about 4dB which more than makes up for any additional power handling of the 6.5" coil. You need more than twice the power to get the same output.
Our TOTAL weight is in the 85lbs territory. So....we are at 1/5 the cost, 1/4 the weight, almost twice the linear stroke (110mm versus 63mm) and 2.5 times the efficiency.
I'm shaking in my boots. :lol:
-
I enjoyed their description of the two prefabricated 55lb boxes as "specifically designed to maximize the sound potential".
Looks like a slot in the front baffle with an open back
(see 1:23 and 2:13 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ecC5LOabPY&feature=related)
so we're talking OB in effect, it would seem.
Moving mass of 1.5 kg? That's 3.3 lb! Insane.
-
I enjoyed their description of the two prefabricated 55lb boxes as "specifically designed to maximize the sound potential".
Looks like a slot in the front baffle with an open back
(see 1:23 and 2:13 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ecC5LOabPY&feature=related)
so we're talking OB in effect, it would seem.
Moving mass of 1.5 kg? That's 3.3 lb! Insane.
Yea... they probably tuned it up around 35Hz. With drivers like this ports become a real problem. Do the simulation and you will quickly see that we reach the point where port velocity and noise is by far the first limitation in output. You can only realistically go so big with the port. Hell.... even with the Maelstrom-X the port is the limiting factor and that is why I have the PR-18s on the way.
The size and cost and the shear magnitude of amplification required make a great show though. I like the part with the forklift bringing in the two drivers. Most people don't understand the numbers but they see that big beastly looking thing that requires a forklift and that HAS to be the ultimate. :lol:
-
I guess that's what they were looking to do to market to a specific demographic. Bigger, heavier, costlier must mean it's the best, right??? I guess if you like your audio in an Escalade rolling on Dub Dubs....
Just imagine what carrying 600 extra pounds per pair would do for your fuel mileage!!
I'll take my audio clean, pure and on the couch and I'll give the floor joists a rest...
-
i'd really like to recommend these in a theater design we have coming up. when will the first units be rolling off the production line? kevin, are you saying it's basically 1 driver and 2 passive radiators per recommended subwoofer enclosure, totalling about $2,000/subwoofer in raw parts?
thanks,
-
Do I see 3 magnetic gaps in the motor? So I'm assuming the suspension is going to be the limiting factor in excursion on that monster. That is if you call 110mm one way "limiting". :green: You know you could dye the surround on that thing pink and it still would be the toughest subwoofer out there.
-
i'd really like to recommend these in a theater design we have coming up. when will the first units be rolling off the production line? kevin, are you saying it's basically 1 driver and 2 passive radiators per recommended subwoofer enclosure, totalling about $2,000/subwoofer in raw parts?
thanks,
Don't make plans yet. I'm projecting November this fall but we have a bit of design work to do (suspension & tooling) before we go into production. Like all projects in development it can get pushed one way or the other for many reasons.
And yes... my recommended design will use one active driver, and two PRs. The projected cost for the driver is around $1500, the PRs should be around $300 each so your pretty close in a $2000 estimate. There is nothing that will be able to touch it for any kind of money though and the amplification requirement is realistic. I'm designing around our Face Amps. The F1200-TS is able to deliver 4750W into the driver for transient purposes and still operate on a 15A breaker. It cost only $785 and it built like a rock.
Box size requirement for the Sicko-21 + x2 Sicko PR21 will be around 10 cubic feet. So you have a design that is usable in terms of amplification required, size and price that will deliver staggering amounts of output well into the low teens.
-
Do I see 3 magnetic gaps in the motor? So I'm assuming the suspension is going to be the limiting factor in excursion on that monster. That is if you call 110mm one way "limiting". :green: You know you could dye the surround on that thing pink and it still would be the toughest subwoofer out there.
Yes... three of them. :green: Since this is an all-out project we are tooling both spider & surround. The spider landing is 14"!!!! Wiggins also has something evil planned that gives us more usable throw on the surround so the suspension will be able to fully support all of that excursion.
That 110mm was just two-way x-max too. That is the 30% down point on the BL curve. If you use the standards that some companies use, the driver has around 124mm (mechanical limits) two-way. You won't be able to use it though. It takes something like 10-15KW in a box to bottom the driver so it's academic only.
-
Seems like there may be a challenge in there:-)
Do I see 3 magnetic gaps in the motor? So I'm assuming the suspension is going to be the limiting factor in excursion on that monster. That is if you call 110mm one way "limiting". :green: You know you could dye the surround on that thing pink and it still would be the toughest subwoofer out there.
Yes... three of them. :green: Since this is an all-out project we are tooling both spider & surround. The spider landing is 14"!!!! Wiggins also has something evil planned that gives us more usable throw on the surround so the suspension will be able to fully support all of that excursion.
That 110mm was just two-way x-max too. That is the 30% down point on the BL curve. If you use the standards that some companies use, the driver has around 124mm (mechanical limits) two-way. You won't be able to use it though. It takes something like 10-15KW in a box to bottom the driver so it's academic only.
-
I wouldn't blow a $1500 subwoofer to prove my manhood. Although I'm sure the process would be exhilarating!!!
-
Yes... three of them. :green: Since this is an all-out project we are tooling both spider & surround. The spider landing is 14"!!!! Wiggins also has something evil planned that gives us more usable throw on the surround so the suspension will be able to fully support all of that excursion.
That 110mm was just two-way x-max too. That is the 30% down point on the BL curve. If you use the standards that some companies use, the driver has around 124mm (mechanical limits) two-way. You won't be able to use it though. It takes something like 10-15KW in a box to bottom the driver so it's academic only.
Kevin, I'm assuming that's in your recommended 10 cu ft box with dual PR's, right? I wonder how much power it would require to bottom a driver in a sealed or IB enclosure and eq'ed flat to say, 10hz? I'm guessing a lot less. What would the SPL be at the excursion limit?
-
Yes... three of them. :green: Since this is an all-out project we are tooling both spider & surround. The spider landing is 14"!!!! Wiggins also has something evil planned that gives us more usable throw on the surround so the suspension will be able to fully support all of that excursion.
That 110mm was just two-way x-max too. That is the 30% down point on the BL curve. If you use the standards that some companies use, the driver has around 124mm (mechanical limits) two-way. You won't be able to use it though. It takes something like 10-15KW in a box to bottom the driver so it's academic only.
So this driver will have a one-way Xmax of 62mm? I thought that was about what the Jackhammer had. I'm pretty sure it had around 60mm one way excursion while the Parthenon had 80mm one way. I remember Dan commenting on how the Jackhammer had around 80% of the excursion of the Parthenon. Although I do believe the Xmax rating on the Jackhammer is obtained by the old gap height to coil height measurement and not from true large signal measurements. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.
As an academic project, do you have available the motor information for the Jackhammer? I'd love to see that information in an FEA program and see how how it fairs against it's rated specs. But then this is kind of getting away from the topic of this post.
-
Yes... three of them. :green: Since this is an all-out project we are tooling both spider & surround. The spider landing is 14"!!!! Wiggins also has something evil planned that gives us more usable throw on the surround so the suspension will be able to fully support all of that excursion.
That 110mm was just two-way x-max too. That is the 30% down point on the BL curve. If you use the standards that some companies use, the driver has around 124mm (mechanical limits) two-way. You won't be able to use it though. It takes something like 10-15KW in a box to bottom the driver so it's academic only.
Kevin, I'm assuming that's in your recommended 10 cu ft box with dual PR's, right? I wonder how much power it would require to bottom a driver in a sealed or IB enclosure and eq'ed flat to say, 10hz? I'm guessing a lot less. What would the SPL be at the excursion limit?
IB would definitely require less power. Heck I ran the Parthenon (granted cone-less) with a 250 watt amplifier free-air to make the video of it under excursion. A sealed enclosure is generally less efficient so it would require more power to reach its excursion limits.
-
Kevin, I'm assuming that's in your recommended 10 cu ft box with dual PR's, right? I wonder how much power it would require to bottom a driver in a sealed or IB enclosure and eq'ed flat to say, 10hz? I'm guessing a lot less. What would the SPL be at the excursion limit?
It takes a little over 5000W in free air to bottom it. The SPL question can only be answered a specific frequency, dependent upon the installation, room and measurement distance. It is a thorny one to answer. ;-) And yes... I'm assuming a 10 cubic foot box with a 15Hz tune.
-
Yes... three of them. :green: Since this is an all-out project we are tooling both spider & surround. The spider landing is 14"!!!! Wiggins also has something evil planned that gives us more usable throw on the surround so the suspension will be able to fully support all of that excursion.
That 110mm was just two-way x-max too. That is the 30% down point on the BL curve. If you use the standards that some companies use, the driver has around 124mm (mechanical limits) two-way. You won't be able to use it though. It takes something like 10-15KW in a box to bottom the driver so it's academic only.
So this driver will have a one-way Xmax of 62mm? I thought that was about what the Jackhammer had. I'm pretty sure it had around 60mm one way excursion while the Parthenon had 80mm one way. I remember Dan commenting on how the Jackhammer had around 80% of the excursion of the Parthenon. Although I do believe the Xmax rating on the Jackhammer is obtained by the old gap height to coil height measurement and not from true large signal measurements. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.
As an academic project, do you have available the motor information for the Jackhammer? I'd love to see that information in an FEA program and see how how it fairs against it's rated specs. But then this is kind of getting away from the topic of this post.
Actually, I don't know what the x-max of the Jackhammer is because they dance around the issue. We are designing for 55mm of x-max one way defined by the driver's 30% down point on the BL curve. Who knows what they are using. I would suspect you are right but as you say, the Jackhammer really isn't our competition. I'm not taking aim at a car audio competition subwoofer. Our original target was the LMS-5400 and we got carried away. :)
-
It takes a little over 5000W in free air to bottom it. The SPL question can only be answered a specific frequency, dependent upon the installation, room and measurement distance. It is a thorny one to answer. ;-) And yes... I'm assuming a 10 cubic foot box with a 15Hz tune.
Trouble is, in general, once you add EQ to flatten the response on the low end, the excursion runs out a lot faster with a lot less power. I have a sealed DIY sub with dual TC-2000 12" drivers. If I don't EQ it, I can push it very hard with no bottoming. But add some EQ to flatten the response down to even 20hz and suddenly I need to be quite careful of the amount of power I give it. The overall SPL it'll produce drops considerably. Of course, that's common sense - you can't get something for nothing. Increase the extension you're gonna lose SPL and increase the excursion requirement. The same is going to hold true of the Sicko. Using it sealed or IB and EQing flat to 10hz is likely to stress even that powerful driver. That's why I'm expecting to need multiples to give me the SPL and extension I'm looking for. I suppose I'll have to wait until the T/S parameters are better defined before I can model it and get some idea how many I'll actually need.
BTW, this effect is exactly the reason I was considering the huge ported enclosure. Well designed ported subs don't require EQ to flatten the response (they don't suffer from the sealed sub's 12db/octave rolloff), and the excursion requirements (and stress) on the driver are significantly lower around the tuning frequency.
-
Hi Kevin,
Any notable updates you may share?
Larry
-
Hi Kevin,
Any notable updates you may share?
Larry
Nope.... just haggling over tooling cost.
-
Here is the latest. This is the 21" basket, 14" spider landing and the motor using a 5" voice coil.
(http://www.diycable.com/main/images/sicko.jpg)
my freakin... I started to actually laugh when i saw this. I was starting to think this 21" with a 14" spider and 5" coil were a joke, a mean prank... then i saw that. Motor structure screams parthenon?
I was reading earlier about 20mm Xmax, now i'm seeing 40 on this site....looks like im draging up an old thread :(
sorry
-
pardon the thread jack . This is surely a sick project no doubt .
But please check this out . A true 22 inch monster with a 900 OZ. magnet :o And a 6.5" voice coil setup :o :o
http://www.mtx.com/caraudio/products/subwoofers/jackHammer.cfm
cityjim
It isn't usable..... notice they don't list parameters. It is a competition sub for burps and that is pretty much all it's good for.
I'm out to create a truly USABLE subwoofer with the inductance of a midrange driver, usable in sane sized enclosures that is as linear as anything ever made.
That is the design goal... not a car audio competition product although I'm sure there will be a couple guys wanting to use it as such.
As a matter of fact, kevin, I was too embarrased to ask in public so i was gonna email you... So this beast can't be ported...too many issues. But who says I'll be running her full tilt to where those issues become a problem?
I have 12 cubes for a wall, been deciding on dual 6cubes @ 20Hz or single 12, 20Hz or lower...but port area/volume probably won't permit any lower.
Is this thing still a go? Still looking at over 50mm Xmax?
The parthenon comment earlier was before starting the thread at the beginning ;) was dropped midway from another thread
-
I wouldn't blow a $1500 subwoofer to prove my manhood. Although I'm sure the process would be exhilarating!!!
I'm guessing simply doing the old wall socket, free air or not, is out on this one...
-
Right now this is vaporware. We have the design phase done but we are having difficulty finding a vendor that will build them. I'll update when I get more information.
-
You have to respect a vendor that has enough balls to post a statement like that. Thanks Kevin.
(Though I'm sad, I came up with a WAF acceptable design that would have been awe inspiring, at least modeled on paper)
Right now this is vaporware. We have the design phase done but we are having difficulty finding a vendor that will build them. I'll update when I get more information.
-
Right now this is vaporware. We have the design phase done but we are having difficulty finding a vendor that will build them. I'll update when I get more information.
Are they balking at the 21" form factor? Maybe trying to get a foot in the door by pushing the more "normal" sized 18" driver first would get things kicked off. Just a thought.
Dave
-
Right now this is vaporware. We have the design phase done but we are having difficulty finding a vendor that will build them. I'll update when I get more information.
Are they balking at the 21" form factor? Maybe trying to get a foot in the door by pushing the more "normal" sized 18" driver first would get things kicked off. Just a thought.
Dave
No... it is more a question of money. Places want minimum orders and my money is finite. I have to spread it over a lot of bread so what gets done and what doesn't is a complex choice.
I make that choice in light of a lot of factors that are not necessarily obvious to consumers.
-
Is this thing dead on the table or are you still thinking of building this monster?
-
Is this thing dead on the table or are you still thinking of building this monster?
Not dead.... I'm waiting on a couple things that will help us control cost. There is the possibility of an open-tool basket that could be usable with some modification. That significantly cuts our tooling cost.
My basic guideline is that if I cannot do it for $1500 or less, it dies. It is a "go" if I find a way of doing it in that price range. I've already tooled a cone & surround that will work with this that is getting used on the 21" version of the Maelstrom so we have that under our belt. If the open-tool basket works, then all I have to tool is the lift-ring and the spider. Both of those are <$7-8K so then it is just a matter of getting our build-house to do them in a quantity that I can afford to run.
-
Just an update on this. The Sicko isn't any closer to release (maybe a little) but the Maelstrom-21" is on track and it isn't chopped liver. From looking around, it should be one of the most potent drivers on the planet.
These are not just "output" type subs either. These are state-of-the-art drivers. There is very few if any solutions on the market that will touch a properly executed Maelstrom-21" build, regardless of price. These drivers are DEAD QUITE under full 60mm peak-peak excursion in free-air, low native inductance with very advanced inductance control via multiple shorting rings.
Sitting next to a Shiva (12" High-output subwoofer) the Shiva looks like a midrange. :lol: These things are just massive.
I'm pretty stoked. The Maelstrom-18" is a beast but these take it to another level. Availability is looking like Aug 09.
-
Kevin,
That's sick I tell you! :icon_twisted:
Of course a Maelstrom either 18 inch or 21 inch in a sealed cabinet with a Velodyne SC1250 driving it would be great, and quite affordable actually.
(http://www.diycable.com/main/images/product_giant/681/M5.jpg)
(http://media.onecall.com/Image_Products/Velodyne/SC1250large.jpg)
Anand.
-
Kevin,
That's sick I tell you! :icon_twisted:
Of course a Maelstrom either 18 inch or 21 inch in a sealed cabinet with a Velodyne SC1250 driving it would be great, and quite affordable actually.
(http://www.diycable.com/main/images/product_giant/681/M5.jpg)
(http://media.onecall.com/Image_Products/Velodyne/SC1250large.jpg)
Anand.
Yea... compared to what you would have to buy commercially to compete with it. I'm not sure you can easily find a commercial sub to compete with it. :scratch:
A JL Fathom is a good little sub. Two of them (uses the 13W7-D1.5 @ $1200 each) is about equal to a single Maelstrom 18" (693 cm^2 cone area vs. 1182 cm^2 & about the same stroke, JL may have an advantage there but wouldn't be able to use it in that small box with only 2.5KW of power). I think they run around $3K and a single 18" Maelstrom in a sealed box eats it for lunch although the little JL is a better match for highly equalized small boxes (less cone area is an advantage & coil has more power handling capability). You pay big dollars for a small decrease in size though because a single sealed Maelstrom can work pretty good in 4 cubic feet. The price isn't even comparable. The Maelstrom with an SMS-1, and a big beefy pro-amp (Face Audio F1200-TS) is only $1500. You can get a custom made box from a local cabinet maker that matches your home for a lot cheaper than you can buy a single Fathom and have about twice the headroom.
A single Maelstrom 18" with a pair of 18" Passive Radiators would demolish a 3-4 Fathoms though and occupy less space. A Maelstrom-21" with a pair of 21" Passive Radiators is yet another step up the food chain for not much more money. They are going to be around $600 each. Don't know what the PRs are going to cost yet.
I need to increase my prices. :roll:
-
Kevin would you like my money now? :drool:
I'm still a little worried about the box weight. 12 cubes (estimated). 28" cubed. Won't be my DJ sub :(
And how could one live without inverting the sub??? Maybe a plexi front with internal mirrors on the other 5 walls?
-
Kevin would you like my money now? :drool:
I'm still a little worried about the box weight. 12 cubes (estimated). 28" cubed. Won't be my DJ sub :(
And how could one live without inverting the sub??? Maybe a plexi front with internal mirrors on the other 5 walls?
Yea... it would be a heavy one to tote around. You definitely want to use Baltic Birch rather than MDF on that construction.
I'll take your money when I have drivers to ship. :lol: I could certainly use it now but those pre-order deals are a slippery slope. :wink:
-
Looks like Kevin is going to get more of my money around August
-
Hey Kevin,
firstly, my apologies for this question from a part of the world that cant get either as an option, but I cant be the only one to wonder this: But what do you expect the Sicko to do that 4 or so of the Malstrom 21's wont for about the same sort of money (except occupy a quarter or so of the space of course)?
Thanks.
And seriously would either choice be safe for use in anything not made of brick, steel, concrete or combination of all 3?? :?
-
Hey Kevin,
firstly, my apologies for this question from a part of the world that cant get either as an option, but I cant be the only one to wonder this: But what do you expect the Sicko to do that 4 or so of the Malstrom 21's wont for about the same sort of money (except occupy a quarter or so of the space of course)?
Thanks.
And seriously would either choice be safe for use in anything not made of brick, steel, concrete or combination of all 3?? :?
You nailed it. It is just more output for a given format/size. That is solely what you are paying for in extreme products.
-
Im sorry, but in this part of the world, you could call either of those puppies all manner of extreme!
Negating size of box, How many Malstrom 21's do you think should it take to be on par with the sicko?
-
Im sorry, but in this part of the world, you could call either of those puppies all manner of extreme!
Negating size of box, How many Malstrom 21's do you think should it take to be on par with the sicko?
I wish it where that simple. You can do the math and look at the Vd but that doesn't really tell you the entire story. I'd take two drivers, working at low excursion over one being pushed at higher excursion. Why? Well...as you push excursion the driver becomes progressively more non-linear. You have higher power compression, more Cms compression etc... Two Maelstrom-21"s should be better than a single Sicko-21" for those reasons. But the two Maelstroms would each take bigger enclosures so it isn't a fair comparison from an engineering standpoint. You gain a lot by adding enclosure volume so when you allow that extra latitude in the comparison you heavily weight the comparison in the favor of the two Maelstroms.
-
I hope you still are planning to build the Sicko subwoofer as I believe you underestimate the value to consumers in the home theater market who are willing to pay for a product that is cutting edge with the kind of performance you are projecting from a small enclosure. You can also use any excess weight issues as a selling point since most people associate a heavier the product with better quality. There are many designers who start out with a given price point in mind but find that they would need to make to many sacrifices in quality to meet the price point they originally intended so are forced to raise the price. That does not mean your product cannot be successful. I agree the volume will go down but your current target is not out of line with other subs that are seen as market leaders. If JL audio can set a retail of $3,600 for the F113, and look at the pricing for the F212 and G213 and you certainly are still a steal at anything close to $3K and that's besides comparing a 21" driver vs 13". I have seen another highly rated 18" subwoofer driver listed at $2K so I think you are hitting an appropriate target. Forgive my rambling here but maybe you should get a sense of demand by taking deposits toward the first order and if it ends up not happening then you make the deposit refundable. BTW put me down for two.
-
I hope you still are planning to build the Sicko subwoofer as I believe you underestimate the value to consumers in the home theater market who are willing to pay for a product that is cutting edge with the kind of performance you are projecting from a small enclosure. You can also use any excess weight issues as a selling point since most people associate a heavier the product with better quality. There are many designers who start out with a given price point in mind but find that they would need to make to many sacrifices in quality to meet the price point they originally intended so are forced to raise the price. That does not mean your product cannot be successful. I agree the volume will go down but your current target is not out of line with other subs that are seen as market leaders. If JL audio can set a retail of $3,600 for the F113, and look at the pricing for the F212 and G213 and you certainly are still a steal at anything close to $3K and that's besides comparing a 21" driver vs 13". I have seen another highly rated 18" subwoofer driver listed at $2K so I think you are hitting an appropriate target. Forgive my rambling here but maybe you should get a sense of demand by taking deposits toward the first order and if it ends up not happening then you make the deposit refundable. BTW put me down for two.
The bottom-line concerning developing anything new and pushing the limits of existing design is that it is risky. Not just because of the market conditions and the questions of how it will sell, but because you have to spend a lot up front on tooling, R&D and general expenditures that are gone... poof... out the door before you ever sell a single product. Also... a subwoofer is a moving part and people use and abuse them over time. Especially those that are designed to push the limits. As a result, there is a cost to selling subwoofers that you only pay on the backside of selling the product (warranty).
I have plenty of experience selling and developing subs and as much as I'd love to develop the coolest sub on the planet, my financial realities are otherwise. I don't have the capital to do everything I'd like to do so I have to pick and choose the projects that I think have the lowest risk, and highest chance of financial return. The Sicko isn't in that category. It is a high-risk, with what I project as modest rate of return.