[smithsonga]

This has be hashed through a few times, but I wanted to bring it up again.

As I finish up my theater, speakers is the last on the list to upgrade.

First off, my theater will be a hybrid 2 channel listening and theater....which is why I want to use 1801s for mains (probably 1801F)

I planned on using MBOW1 for rear surrounds...still good idea?

And if a center channel is necessary (heard many comments that with the 1801s, a center may not even be necessary) what would you use?  Another 1801 or MBOW1?

I prefer the sideways MTM look of centers, but I dont want to make things more difficult.  However, I think a MBOW1 could be easier for placement.

I am leaning toward the SCC300 sub option....or my schedule my dictate I have time to wait for Dave's 3-way design.

Thanks!
Jim

[Al Garay]

I recommend you stick with the 1801b for mains and have SCC300 subs for towers. Check out Randy's. I have a similar setup. I find no need for a center channel.

Get a good pro-amp like Crown or QSC. You cand find good deals in eBay. I found a Macrotech 1200 that does an excellent job driving the 1801s as well but I'm using it to drive the subs.

Al

[bubba966]

And if a center channel is necessary (heard many comments that with the 1801s, a center may not even be necessary) what would you use? Another 1801 or MBOW1?

Use another 1801. Keep it the same across the front. The more identical the front array is, the better. Same amps, same cables, etc., etc..

[David Ellis]

I prefer the sideways MTM look of centers

Yep, this is right up there with the very best efforts from the BOSE marketing department.  The horizontal MTM is only present due to some companies marketing.  While it looks nice, its theoretically and practically irritating for me.  I am not sure who started this, but the horizontal MTM is just plain wrong .  The horizontal off axis reponse from those two woofers will be ragged.  Those woofers will cancel, and it is audible to my ears.  The only "cherry" in this is most folks are very detached from the sound of real music (i.e unamplified), so the  home theater MTM center channel works just dandy.  The marketing departments win again.

The initial THX (Tomlinson Holman Experiment) specified a vertical MT in the center    .  There is good reason for this, and I agree with them.

Use another 1801. Keep it the same across the front. The more identical the front array is, the better. Same amps, same cables, etc., etc..

You assertion is fair.  It is objectively &  theoretically correct.  I have a couple of questions before I respond.  

Have you ever heard the MBOW1?

Have you ever heard the 1801?

Have you ever heard the MBOW1 and 1801 in an a/b setting?

Sincerely

[Al Garay]

I can answer for Bubba. He heard my 1801a before I had the crossover and driver problem solved. I recall not having my final pre-amp either. So, it was not representative, not even close to what it's like now.

I'll have to invite Brian over for a visit and return the DVD I've had forever.

Al

[David Ellis]

I recall you having some cold solder joint problems with Darren.  Is this when he heard your 1801s?  If so Bubba's comments make sense.  At this time the 1801s were mechanically relegated to the sound quality of an "average" speaker.  

As such, I totally agree with Bubba.  99% of speakers/systems need a center channel.  This is because their distortion is localizes the speaker very easily.  I think tweeter grunge is the worst culprit, but cruddy midwoofers/midrange follows close behind.  I such circumstances the ear can easily locat the speaker.  This is a sad set of circumstances for audio at-large.

I have some generalized thoughts about new versus old source gear.  IMO, the consumer grade manufacturers of the 1970s actually tried to make good sounding source gear.  There seemed to be some degree of effort.  While the old Marantz gear had a bunch of buttons, the internal switching, processing and circuitry was very simple compared to HT receivers built today.  I think the receivers of the 1970s were very solid units.  I don't believe this is very true anymore.   The advent of integrated circuits certainly opened some doors, but the advent of the focus on non-reference sound (i.e. Home Theater) closed many doors.  Consumer are more focused on features, and less focused on quality - IMO.  This is my own personal rant, and disagreement is certainly welcome.

On the MBOW1 issue for a center channel... The MBOW1 is a darn fine speaker, and sounds extremely similar to the 1801.  With a Diana Krall track (jazz) I honestly couldn't hear any difference between the 1801 and OW1.  They sounded identical to my ears.  This was not true with more complex symphony recordings, but this is a non-issue with regard to Home Theater.  HT sound in the midrange is very simple - like the Diana Krall Jazz.  As such, I see no problem using the MBOW1 for a center channel.

So, while I generally agree that all front channel speakers should match, I see no problem using the MBOW1 for a center channel between the 1801s.  

And, about 30-40% of my customer mention the use of 1801s for HT.  I suggested and sold a pair of 1801s 99% of these customers.  The other "1%" guy insisted on 5 x 1801s for his initial purchase.  He is the only guy using an 1801 center channel.  The other 99% of my customers remain very happy with a pair of 1801s for Home Theater - like me.

The only thing I recommend adding for HT coup de' grace is an SCC300 subwoofer.  This woofer is killer .

[smithsonga]

Thanks for the feedback.

To answer Dave's question, no I have not heard either, but given my taste and the feedback I have read over the past 1+ years, I can tell I would love the 1801s.

Now what I plan on doing is getting the 1801s first, then 2 mbow1s for rears.  I will experiment with one mbow1 as a center...if I feel in my setup it is required, I will make one more speaker...they arent really expensive.

If the 3-way is not ready when I am, I will go with a SCC300 sub.  What is the consesus on box size?  3cf? or 3.5cf?  I will research this as well but I am just thinking of it again.

Has anyone done two boxes?  I really dont want to make them box 'stands' for the 1801s...would rather have 1801Fs and the sub boxes in the corners behind speaekers.  I would start with one, but I do recall Dave commenting the best case is two SC300s in both corners.

Thanks Guys-
Jim

[Al Garay]

I was very happy with my single 4 cf sealed SCC300. But it was BIG! And I needed better coverage on the other side of my room (18'Wx22'Lx8'H).

I'm now trying out a pair of SCC300s in slightly smaller than 3.0cf. The dispersion is much better. Though, I still have to play around with the DCX2496 digital crossover to improve the tightness. It's not as tight right now.

Ideally, I would have 2 pairs on each side in either a sealed isobarik which can be about 2cf that would give the equivalent output of my old 4.0cf box. Or a W-Frame dipole subwoofer (using 2 on each side) like a friend of mine built that sounds very tight and integrates beautifully with his 2-way.

hope that helps

[David Ellis]

Al,

Could you explain the isobaric alignment?  I have never puttered with this.  How did you come up with 3 cubic feet for a pair of SCC300s?

Dave

[Al Garay]

The 3.0 cubic feet was a matter of following Dr. J's recommendation and the dimensions gave me some that looks preatty cool to the girls of the house. Thanks to mac from the Madisound board who built the cabinets and retired them after building the W-frame.

Dr. J also recommended a Isobaric (or is it isobarik, not sure and I'm feeling too lazy to check). There are multiple configurations, including back to back where one driver is hidden inside the cabinet pointing to the back of the driver that is surfaced mounted. I don't recall the technical details. The output is comparable to twice the size. Requires more power. But I can use a 2.0 cubic foot box as opposed to a 4.0 cf box.  I have not tried it yet.  

I can say that mac took 4 SCC300s in a W-Frame dipole that is amazing, flat down to 20Hz according to his in-room measurements... I don't think it was F3. But, it was very tight, impressive with his 2-way Foutek JP2 and Excel W15. It bested his Orion that he previously had especially when he used the DEQX for active crossover.

Just added pictures to the gallery. Thanks again to Mike Chapin for making the cabinets.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?action=gallery;area=browse;album=449


Al

[David Ellis]

Well,

It looks like I need to get smart on these subwoofer configurations.  I can guess at what's happening with the dipole, but am not certain.  Also, I don't have a clue about the "W" configuration.  Do you have a link for this?

Also, to clarify something.  You wrote

It's not as tight right now.

Do you mean that your 3 cubic feet sealed is inferior to your earier 4 cubic feet sealed alignment?  Or, is your quality issue related to the crossover?

Thanks,

[Al Garay]

Check out Mike Chapin's pictures especially the one with the pair of SCC300 in a W-frame alignment. The one without the outer enclosure.
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/modules.php?set_albumName=albuq09&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php


You can see a picture of the sealed cabinets I'm currently using. They're closer to 2.5 cubic feet, internal volume. I'm using a DCX2496 to integrate to the Ellis 1801b (which are still running passive crossover), crossing around 100Hz to the SCC300s, powered by a Crown Macrotech 1200 proamp. This is very different from the single 4.0 cubic feet sealed cabinet that I had a single SCC300 powered by a Hypex HS200 plate amp. I was running the 1801b full and setting the crossover at 50Hz for the SCC300. The big mono sub caused room modes. I had to keep the gain low and no boost (even though my room is fairly large, about 18'Wx22-24'L x8'H). It was helpful some for some types of music (rock, sould, rap) and very helpful for home theater. Though the Hypex did clip on the really low bass scenes. I was annoyed by the room modes and imbalance on the opposite side of the room where there was not much bass.

Then I tried a dipole setup with four 8" drivers per side in a W-frame. Traded with Mac. Introduced the DCX24996 and Crown amp and had Mac's help to integrate with the 1801s. The result was wonderful for music. Room modes were gone. Very tight bass that had good extension down to high 20s or low 30s. The trouble was the lack of impact with home theater. Thus, when Mac offered his pair of 2.5cf sealed cabinets, I jumped on that again (I'm lucky to have Mac around... I owe him big time). The result so far are good for HT but not having the level of integration I had with the dipoles (because the DCX2496 needs to be tweaked... not as easy for a beginner as it appears).  I'm going to see if I can get the integration correct. Otherwise, I will attempt to copy Mac's latest w-frame with the pair of SCC300s per side.

Dr. J has the SCC300 driver available for $99/each. Makes me want to get another pair.  Anyone want to my dipole subs?

Al

[smithsonga]

Al-

Curious on your comments on 4.0 vs. 2.5 cu ft...you say they have enough punch for HT.  When I put SCC300 specs into WinISD, 2.5 to 4.0 doesnt really change the curve that much.  F3 is at 40hz for both cases.

How can this be OK for HT?  Do you boost the input signal at 20hz to make up for this?  Or is this simulation incorrect?

By contrast, I can put one DPL12 in a sealed 2.0 cu ft box and get F3 of 29hz.

Both group delays look good etc..etc..

Just trying to understand....I sure would like a smaller box if possible...two smaller boxes potentially.

Thanks-
Jim

[Al Garay]

I can't explain it. Perhaps Dave will explain it more eloquently. Basically, the in-room response is different. I lived with the 1801s for awhile without a sub. Those have a F3 of 40Hz. And I can assure you that there was a big difference when I added the sub. I guessed the perceived bass has a lot to do with the larger displacement from the 12" driver and the large enclosure.

Like you, I went through the UNIBOX simulations. And thought about the choices really hard:
* SCC300
* Stryke AV12
* Adire DPL12

The Adire simulation results looked really promising with the low Qts making for small enclosure.  But, I was really concerned about the integration with the Excel W18 woofer. I went with Dave Ellis' recommendation as well as the feedback from several people who had success with the SCC300. Plus it came down to getting a great deal from NathanS who sold me his SCC300 (and had also tried the DPL12 and highly recommended the SCC300) as well as Jackman. I bought his.

Jon Marsh who knows a lot about drivers likes the DPL12 the best for small sealed boxes crossed over below 100Hz. TC2+ is his favorite for crossing up to 600Hz and for using with dipoles. He did not like the SCC300 as well but he did say that it was like an all-star that did sealed or dipole well just not as good in sealed as DPL12 or dipole as TC2+. I've heard the SCC300 in both and it's darn good. Currently, the better deal is the SCC300 which now is selling for $99.

I should say again, that it depends a lot on your room size and your expectations on bass. I'm not looking for chest pounding, room shaking bass or else I would buy the Adire Tumult and be done.

Go to forums in www.madisound.com or www.htguide.com to get good technical feedback.

Al

[David Ellis]

There is some excellent discussion on this matter.  I am very pleased to see this.  

Curious on your comments on 4.0 vs. 2.5 cu ft...you say they have enough punch for HT. When I put SCC300 specs into WinISD, 2.5 to 4.0 doesnt really change the curve that much. F3 is at 40hz for both cases.

This is an excellent question.  ?There is a huge quantity of discussion potential here.  However, before I address these I issues, I'd like your thoughts on these matters

What do you mean by "punch"?  

Is F3 the only thing that matters?  

Does F10 matter?  

Does sensitivity matter?  

What exactly do you think is "ideal" for subwoofer response curve?  

Does the room effect low frequency response?  

What room effects are typical at low frequency?

By contrast, I can put one DPL12 in a sealed 2.0 cu ft box and get F3 of 29hz.

What do you lose with this configuration?  What is the compromise?

How can this be OK for HT? Do you boost the input signal at 20hz to make up for this? Or is this simulation incorrect?

The simulation is correct.  I initially had bass boost on my SCC300 when setup.  I removed it.  The 5db hump at 25 hz from the Apex Sr. amp sounded... well... wrong.  It was exageraged, and the bass sounded fat due the relatively high level of the fundamental frequencies.  I suppose many boom boom HT subwoofer guys would apprecaite the 5db hump at 25hz

[smithsonga]

This is good discussion, ok:

What do you mean by "punch"?

I meant accurate bass, not 'boomy' bass BUT sufficiently low enough to represent movie soundtracks...is that 20hz?  or 25hz?  or 18hz?  Not sure. I would sacrifice some Hz to keep the accurate bass.  e.g. I would prefer accurate tight bass down to 25hz than boomy down to 20 or 18.

I only used F3 as an example....room gain is a huge unknown to me....not sure how evenly or by how many db's a corner positioned sub gains.  Regarding F10...the DPL12 and SCC300 get much closer at F10 than F3...the DPL drops off more steeply.

Analytically I would like in room response flat to 20hz....but I do not know how that sounds.  I have heard speakers that are supposedly very very accurate measured but didnt like their sound.

What do you lose with this configuration? What is the compromise?

Not sure actually.  Someone with experience with both of these woofers would have to chime in with their opinion of their sound.  In terms of their curves, the DPL12 drops off at a lower Hz but the curve drops off more steeply than the SCC300.  DPL12 is not as efficient also.

Jim

[David Ellis]

Your response is fair and good.  I really apprecaite your candor.  I will do my best to explain matters in both an objective and subjective framework.  I am not sure that I'll be able to accomplish this, but I'll do my darndest.

The first issue to consider in the realm of subwoofers is the room.  Everyone of good knowledge and hearing seem to agree that the typical room will provide bass lift about 12db beginning in the 30 - 40hz zone.  Bass lift in very small rooms starts higher.  Bass lift in rooms with very solid walls will roll-off more shallow.  These are generalizations and assumptions.  In this regard it the 12db/octave roll off sealed subwoofer provides a much better match to the 12db/octave in-room lift provided.  However, in all cases, nobody I have encountered contends that the room lift is anywhere near the 24db dump purveyed by a bass unit in a ported cabinet.  So, with regard to room lift, a sealed subwoofer provides a better match.

In this I must admit that low frequency room modes are tenacious and seating placement is critial.  Any subwoofer generating a 30 hz sine wave will spew this pile into the room and the room will develop huge dips and peaks depending on the listeners position.  In this regard both the sealed and ported subwoofers will suffer greatly.  In this regard, a measured in-room response measured flat to 20hz is like a greased pig   You simply can't get your measuring equipment completely around this issue.  The measurement varies considerably depending on measuring position.  

In this regard... you really gotta trust your ears while sitting in your listening chair.  The "trick" here is to buy a subwoofer plate amp that has variable boost in the 20-30hz region that will allow you to tune the subwoofer to your preference.  Yes, this might require some soldering, but your efforts will not be in vain.  I was pleasantly surprised at the really "correct" sound after I removed the bass boost.  The bombs in the movie Pearl Harbor really sounded like... well... bombs.  The fundamental & harmonics tones were present.  With the boost installed the fundamental frequencies were overpowering.  Some guys might think this is cool.  It is cool, but it's simply not accurate - not in my room.

I have heard speakers that are supposedly very very accurate measured but didnt like their sound.

I really like that you mention this.  It is encouraging for me when folks learn to trust their ears.  This is a step in the right direction - I think.  I believe the same is true with subwoofers.  You can trust your ears too.

Not sure actually. Someone with experience with both of these woofers would have to chime in with their opinion of their sound. In terms of their curves, the DPL12 drops off at a lower Hz but the curve drops off more steeply than the SCC300. DPL12 is not as efficient also.

I think it's great that you manage to model these drivers.  This is an excellent observation.  However, it's only a start.  There are several other issues.  Probably the most prominent other is the sensitvity.  Higher sensitivity drivers use less electricity, generate less heat, and suffer less themal compression.  When that thermal compression generates in the voice coil, the dcr rises and LESS force will be applied in the motor.  Thermal compression is real.

Have you ever noticed how those big whoppin' JBL Band monitors have very dynamic bass - especiall the kick drum.  This is because those drivers have big huge voice coils and very high sensitivity.  this works.  There are obviously many disadvantages to these drivers, but the bass is very dynamic.  Big voice coils and high sensitivity are critical to bass dynamics.

FYI, the SCC300 was not really intended to be a subwoofer by design.  It was intended to be a woofer used to 300hz.  This was the primary design goal.  The secondary design goal is the deep bass from the SCC300 would be so good that folks wouldn't want a subwoofer.  I surely think the design goal is accomplished.

I don't wish to convey the other drivers that you mention are inferior - nooo.  The other drivers you mention are very solid units.  I mention the above material so you might know some of the other issues present.  These issues are mostly a matter of compromise.  I am pretty sure all of the drivers you mention are produced at similar cost and quality.  They are all very respectable.  I really like the SCC300.  I have spoke with a few folks who maintain the TC2 driver is an extremely solid and good sounding unit.  

Hopefully I addressed matters fairly.  Please let me know if I missed anything.

[Kramer]

but the horizontal MTM is just plain wrong

Sorry to bring this up (what do expecct from a noob) but what are your thoughts on plopping an 1801 (just an MT) over horizontally? Yes, this would be for an HT center, but it would also see a lot of use with multi-channel hi-rez music.

[David Ellis]

Well, this won't suffer like the sideways MTM, but the THX guys specified an upright MT.  There will be cancellations off axis.  You could try a sideways MT.  To my ears the difference likely won't be present using HT, but my chair is dead-center on the TV.  

But... have you heard a pair of 1801s?

but it would also see a lot of use with multi-channel hi-rez music.

I honestly didn't know there were good recordings on multi-channel.  Has Reference Recordings, Chesky, Delos, Telarc executed these recordings?

Dave

[Kramer]

But... have you heard a pair of 1801s?

No (but I they are on my spring project list). I undestand the question, though. By the time I start "officially" thinking about additional speakers (ie center), I will have experience under my belt, and will be able to answer the question myself.  I was looking for some "pre-insight".

I honestly didn't know there were good recordings on multi-channel

Oh, I see how you guys are.  
Lets just say that I am happy with my MC recordings, and I definately prefer them to the 2-ch mixes (though I havent heard them on 1801s). In any case, my CURRENT thinking is that I would not want to give up the true MC mix.