[jr1414]

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.

[Kevin Haskins]

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.   

[Russell Dawkins]

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.

[Kevin Haskins]

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.       

[jr1414]

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...

[JP78]

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,

[Steven Kephart]

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".    You know you could dye the surround on that thing pink and it still would be the toughest subwoofer out there.

[Kevin Haskins]

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.   






 

[Kevin Haskins]

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".    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.        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. 

[Larry McConville]

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".    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.        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. 

[klh]

I wouldn't blow a $1500 subwoofer to prove my manhood. Although I'm sure the process would be exhilarating!!!

[davepete]

Yes... three of them.        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?

[Steven Kephart]

Yes... three of them.        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.

[Steven Kephart]

Yes... three of them.        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 Haskins]

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.

[Kevin Haskins]

Yes... three of them.        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.     


 

[davepete]

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.

[Larry McConville]

Hi Kevin,

Any notable updates you may share?

Larry

[Kevin Haskins]

Hi Kevin,

Any notable updates you may share?

Larry

Nope.... just haggling over tooling cost.

[kryptonitewhite]

Here is the latest.   This is the 21" basket, 14" spider landing and the motor using a 5" voice coil.   

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