Home Theater Shack Forums
Epik Subwoofers manufactures world-leading high performance subwoofers for die-hard home theater and music enthusiasts who won't settle for anything less than the best.
PacParts, Inc.: Since 1969, PacParts has been supplying quality replacement parts & accessories from the most recognized manufacturers in the Consumer Electronics Industry.
GIK Acoustics: Home audio acoustics at its best... especially when you have help from the owners right here at the Shack!  Check out their very affordable acoustic panels!
Discount Merchant:  If you need a replacement bulb for your video device... look no further... save big!
ReliableHardware.com: A Reliable Source for Case, Cabinet and Acoustical Hardware!
Fi Audio: Infinitely amazing balanced high end musicality designed drivers!
SVSound: The Sound Authority in speaker and subwoofers as well as the astounding AS EQ1 Subwoofer Equalizer!
Elite Screens offers the finest in affordable projection screens.
Creative Sound Solutions: Loudspeaker kits and components for subwoofers, midwoofers, woofers and full range speakers!
Emotiva is your Home Theater Component Source for Audiophile Quality Home Theater Equipment at Factory Direct Prices
RAM Electronics: Audio, Video, Home Theater and Computer Cables.
Ultimate Home Entertainment: Providing home theater seating and accessories such as popcorn machines and signage... at very affordable prices!
Go Back   Home Theater Systems - Electronics and Forum - HomeTheaterShack > DIY Speakers and Subwoofers > SoundSplinter
Room EQ WizardBFD Guide
Forgot Password?
Favorites Home Theater Links Donations Image Gallery

SoundSplinter

Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?

Discuss Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter? in the DIY Speakers and Subwoofers forum; Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter? I was wondering if the LLT or SLLT subs that people have been constructing here require a subsonic filter? My ...

SoundSplinter

 Reply     Post New Thread
Views: 1750 - Replies: 40  
Thread Tools
Old 03-23-07, 12:02 PM   #1
Shack Administrator
Platinum Supporter
Alias: brucek
User: #6
Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,181
  brucek is offline    
Re: IB makeover..........


I was wondering if the LLT or SLLT subs that people have been constructing here require a subsonic filter?

My thinking came from a feeling that a lot of electronics have very good low end response and can't be counted on as a natural rolloff at the extreme low frequencies < 10Hz......

I guess the prevailing sentiment is never.

The following posts are moved from the IB Makover thread. We were getting off track there.



brucek

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
This project is looking like a huge success, you not only are getting more headroom, lower distortion, a flatter and deeper extending natural FR, and more impact, you are also minimizing the bass spillage into the rest of your home. Hopefully some will take the concept more seriously now
Basically, this is a large ported sub built into the wall, similar to Sonnies Behemoth, except its fixed by the fact that the wall is where the drivers are mounted, so it can't be moved.

Are you saying that conventional IB just isn't the way to go, because from the results here, it sure looks like it?

brucek


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Alt Advertisement
Old 03-23-07, 04:34 PM   #2
Shack Hillbilly
Owner

Alias: Sonnie
Sonnie's Avatar
Loc: L.A. (Lower Bama)
User: #1
Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 13,158
  Sonnie is offline    
Re: IB makeover..........


Quote:
Are you saying that conventional IB just isn't the way to go, because from the results here, it sure looks like it?
At this point, that would sure be my conclusion. You could probably do just as well with a pair of drivers vs. four and more than make up for the extra expense of the wood. Of course Rodny is going for the super kill and I don't blame him, I would to if I had his setup.


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-07, 07:16 PM   #3
Elite Shackster
Alias: Steve
SteveCallas's Avatar
User: #263
Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,963
  SteveCallas is offline  
Re: IB makeover..........


Yeah, I recently measured my reciever's sub out to be dead flat to 3.5hz - I'm going to have to revise that part of my LLT expained thread. So far though, I haven't heard any reports of bottoming from LLT owners, and this includes the ones straddling the upper limits with tunings in the 15-16hz range. In the designing stages of my sub, I thought a highpass was essential. I was going to buy an HK receiver because their EQ systems include a selectable highpass based on sub size. When I noticed my sub didn't bottom with really low bass scenes, I figured it was because it used an 18" driver, had plenty of headroom, and I didn't listen at reference levels in my apartment. As I started helping others design sus, some would opt to go for no highpass. Chuck (chasw) really stepped things up by using a ~17hz tune and 1400 watts with no highpass, a double whammie so to speak Yet even at levels as loud as he could handle, he reported no bottoming (after about a year of use he did report it was able to bottom when going to extremes). So after observing this with a few subs, I made the requirements of the LLT design such that I felt there was more than enough safety in play. It's kind of like a car manufacturer setting the hash mark for an empty gas tank when there are still a couple gallons of gas left.


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 02:51 AM   #4
Senior Shackster
Alias: Ilkka
Ilkka's Avatar
Loc: Finland
User: #991
Since: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,480
  Ilkka is offline  
Re: IB makeover..........


Quote:
brucek wrote: View Post
I know you said the electronics will handle the rolloff, but I wouldn't count on it. The BFD has a flat response down to 5Hz and is only off a bit at 2Hz.......
That's strange, my measurements show much worse performance. Check below.

Quote:
SteveCallas wrote: View Post
Yeah, I recently measured my reciever's sub out to be dead flat to 3.5hz - I'm going to have to revise that part of my LLT expained thread.
If your receiver is truly that flat - congratulations (could you show us the measurement?). But don't assume that every AVR is alike. Here's a recent measurement showing the roll-off profile for my NAD T743 receiver (digital in - sub out) + Behringer DCX2496 (alone the DCX is similar to BFD), for the BDF, and for one pro amp that I have.

So for example my own system is 12 dB down at 5 Hz. That's similar to a 1st order L-R high pass at 10 Hz.



Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 10:40 AM   #5
Shack Administrator
Platinum Supporter
Alias: brucek
User: #6
Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,181
  brucek is offline    
Re: IB makeover..........


Quote:
(could you show us the measurement?).
I have two BFD's. One 1100P and one 1124P.

I took a REW measure of two cables connected with an in-line short from 2Hz to 23KHz.

Then I removed the in-line short and inserted my 1100P with the signal passing through one channel (with the filters off). This eliminates all variables except the BFD response.
BFD set to -10dBV operating level.
Input level -10dB LED VU lit.

I'd say the response is pretty good. Only down a dB at 2Hz....

Here's two graphs.

The first graph is with a vertical scale of 45dB to 105dB as a reference showing the cable measure and the BFD response.

The second graph is the same with a much zoomed vertical scale to see small differences.

Name:  bfd response and cable loopback.jpg
Views: 251
Size:  57.4 KB
ZOOMED IN.........
Name:  bfd response and cable loopback expand.jpg
Views: 251
Size:  57.5 KB

So all that's standing between near DC response would be the processor. I'll bet my $6000 processor goes fairly low, but I've never measured it. If I had one of these LLT's, I would have be very careful. (I don't, I have a Servo-15.)

I suspect it's probably the source equipment and media that usually provides the protection. but, I think you have to be careful without a subsonic filter if you create one of these monsters.

brucek


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 11:27 AM   #6
Senior Shackster
Alias: Ilkka
Ilkka's Avatar
Loc: Finland
User: #991
Since: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,480
  Ilkka is offline  
Re: IB makeover..........


Quote:
brucek wrote: View Post
I have two BFD's. One 1100P and one 1124P.
Could you measure the 1124P too? It would be nice to see whether it matches with my measurement.


Quote:
So all that's standing between near DC response would be the processor. I'll bet my $6000 processor goes fairly low, but I've never measured it. If I had one of these LLT's, I would have be very careful. (I don't, I have a Servo-15.)

I suspect it's probably the source equipment and media that usually provides the protection. but, I think you have to be careful without a subsonic filter if you create one of these monsters.

brucek
Don't forget that you would a pro amp for the LLT. That would be another variable in the chain.

I'm not into betting, so if you can measure your processor, please do.

But in any case, different units definitely have different roll-off profiles. Some have more, some have less, best to measure them if you want to know.


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 07:10 PM   #7
Shack Administrator
Platinum Supporter
Alias: brucek
User: #6
Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,181
  brucek is offline    
Re: IB makeover..........


Quote:
Could you measure the 1124P too? It would be nice to see whether it matches with my measurement.
.....................................
I'm not into betting, so if you can measure your processor, please do
You're making work for me.

Anyway, I measured my 1124P and indeed it's not as good as my 1100P, but it still has quite a good response.

I labelled the actual measurements on a zoomed graph to show how far down the 1124P was at the low end.

I overlayed the 1100P on the graph for visual comparison to show that it was somewhat better.

CABLE vs 1100P vs 1124P RESPONSE
Name:  cable vs 1100p vs 1124p.jpg
Views: 259
Size:  64.0 KB


------------

With respect to processors, there can be various results depending on the internals that are used in the measurement.

With my processor (Bryston SP2) there are three possiblities.

1) Analog input - signal must pass through analog to digital convertor (ADC), DSP, then digital to analog convertor (DAC). This would be considered worst case response.

2) Digital input - signal must pass through DSP, then digital to analog convertor.

3) Analog input - signal passes through internal analog preamplifer. This would be considered best case response.

I only tested condition 1) and 3) to show worst and best.

I tested from 2Hz to 200Hz for these tests, not interested above that.

I tested both the SP2 alone (bypass and ADC/DAC mode) and showed those graphs for interest and then continued the looped signal through the BFD1124P to show the overall response with the SP2 + BFD 1124P together in both SP2 BYPASS and ADC/DAC mode.....................

The BFD had the IN/OUT GREEN LED Filters engaged on with all 12 filters in OF mode. I also tested with the IN/OUT GREEN LED OFF and the responses were identical, so I only show with the IN/OUT LED ON and filters OF. The signal passes completely through the BFD circuits, but with no filters entered.

The SP2 certainly tracked the target 60Hz crossover that REW layed down.

BRYSTON SP2 SUB OUT RESPONSE 60Hz crossover using internal ADC & DAC. (75dB target shown)
Name:  cable vs sp2 SUB OUT adc-dac.jpg
Views: 256
Size:  51.2 KB

BRYSTON SP2 SUB OUT RESPONSE IN BYPASS MODE. No digitization.
Name:  cable vs sp2 SUB OUT in bypass.jpg
Views: 254
Size:  53.2 KB

BRYSTON SP2 + BFD1124P together (both Bypass and ADC/DAC shown)
Name:  cable vs sp2 + bfd1124p.jpg
Views: 254
Size:  62.0 KB

I guess my conclusion would be that if 5Hz was below the tuning of an LLT without a subsonic filter, I wouldn't want to feed it too much material because I'm only down a bit better than -3dB at 5Hz...... agree, disagree?

brucek


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 08:16 PM   #8
Senior Shackster
Alias: Ilkka
Ilkka's Avatar
Loc: Finland
User: #991
Since: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,480
  Ilkka is offline  
Re: IB makeover..........


Quote:
brucek wrote: View Post
You're making work for me.

Anyway, I measured my 1124P and indeed it's not as good as my 1100P, but it still has quite a good response.

I guess my conclusion would be that if 5Hz was below the tuning of an LLT without a subsonic filter, I wouldn't want to feed it too much material because I'm only down a bit better than -3dB at 5Hz...... agree, disagree?

brucek
Thank you! It's interesting that the 1124P is so much worse. I wonder how's the FBQ2496 then...?

While your processor doesn't have much roll-off, combined with the BFD it already provides quite considerable protection against over-excursion.

Here's a simulation of two subwoofers. Both are tuned to 15 Hz, the gray one has dead flat electronics, the yellow one has electronics similar to yours. You can see that with the same input power, the yellow excursion curve barely exceeds the Xmax (but stays well below ~40mm Xmech) while the gray one bottoms mechanically. One can safely input ~2x more power even with as little roll-off as your system has.



Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 08:30 PM   #9
Shack Administrator
Platinum Supporter
Alias: brucek
User: #6
Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,181
  brucek is offline    
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


Quote:
the yellow excursion curve barely exceeds the Xmax (but stays well below ~40mm Xmech) while the gray one bottoms mechanically
Huh, I'm surprised, but there it is in black and white yellow.

Steve will likely be interested in this stuff......

brucek


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 09:09 PM   #10
Senior Shackster
Alias: Hakka
Loc: australia
User: #2510
Since: Sep 2006
Posts: 397
  Hakka is offline  
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


Steve, what AVR do you use? My Denon 3803 rolls off at around 16hz.


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 10:22 PM   #11
Elite Shackster
Alias: Steve
SteveCallas's Avatar
User: #263
Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,963
  SteveCallas is offline  
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


I use a Yamaha HTR 5890 and I knew I should have just saved a jpeg of the measured FR - why I didn't I don't know I'll probably get around to doing it again tommorrow.

Quote:
brucek wrote:
Steve will likely be interested in this stuff......
It's looking like the FR linearity of electronics will vary from brand to brand and model to model. In the grand scheme of things, it has yet to be an issue though - I think we'll be fine.


On to more pressing matters - I believe Rodny put the S in front of LLT for "super"....I wonder if it should be for "structural"?


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-07, 11:23 PM   #12
Senior Shackster
Platinum Supporter
Alias: Rodny
Rodny Alvarez's Avatar
Loc: Millbrook AL
User: #158
Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 818
  Rodny Alvarez is offline    
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


Here is a graph of the two IB purple, SLLT green to 5Hz no EQ...........................


Name:  IBVSSLLT.jpg
Views: 223
Size:  60.4 KB


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 08:49 AM   #13
Shack Administrator
Platinum Supporter
Alias: brucek
User: #6
Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,181
  brucek is offline    
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


Quote:
to 5Hz
What are you using for a meter/microphone calibration file below 10Hz?

Quote:
IB purple, SLLT green ...........................
Yeah, your graphs have made the point I was trying to get at Rodny. The new SLLT ported design is acting just like a ported versus sealed would act.

Below the tuning frequency, the port has quickly unloaded and the driver cones are free to move as if there was no enclosure at all. At that point, you can drive those cones to their limit fairly easily. Any normal ported design would have a subsonic filter protecting it, but because these LLT's are tuned so low, the theory (as I understand it), is that the electronics will roll off the power to the driver by the nature of their own poor low end response.

Steve and Ilkka seem assured it won't happen. Since I know almost zero about speaker design, I would defer to their thoughts on this.

brucek


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 12:54 PM   #14
Shackster
Alias: willy-be
Loc: Hawaii
User: #4092
Since: Nov 2006
Posts: 51
  willy-be is offline  
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


The choice of an infrasonic Fb, in and of itself affords no special protection to a vented alignment. If the electronics pass frequencies below Fb to the driver it will unload. So it's a bit naive to claim these designs need no supplementary protection.

Threads where the rotary subwoofer is discussed, illustrate the amount of very low frequency content studios currently encode in DVD soundtracks. It's logical to assume trend will continue if not expand with the potential of the newest formats used on HD/BR DVD soundracks.

So it's probably unwise to make blanket statements to the effect that all infrasonic Fb vented designs are inherently protected by a combination of Fb and electronic roll-off.

Aloha,
Willy


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 03:03 PM   #15
Elite Shackster
Alias: Steve
SteveCallas's Avatar
User: #263
Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,963
  SteveCallas is offline  
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


Quote:
brucek wrote:
Any normal ported design would have a subsonic filter protecting it, but because these LLT's are tuned so low, the theory (as I understand it), is that the electronics will roll off the power to the driver by the nature of their own poor low end response.
That is one form. Available headroom and amp limiting is another. If we were using something like an average commercial 12" ported sub that happened to be tuned as low as a LLT, max headroom would be considerably less than the high excursion 15 or 18" drivers most of us use. It would be far easier to completely tax and bring to bottoming such a commercial sub without a highpass. And keep in mind that in Ilkka's model, that's probably at full power. If you model a 15" driver LLT tuned to 15hz and include something like a 1st order 10hz highpass to account for electronics rolloff, try lowering the power to obtain more common levels, as one's demands on a sub aren't always gonna be ~113db or so With the common RL-p15 LLT design for instance, if we take a look at 400 watts, which equates to an average ~109db levels, max excursion is never reached, let alone xmech. In Rodny's case, with 4 drivers, I wouldn't waste 1 second worrying.

Additionally, if an amp is rated for ~1000 watts and the design is made to keep the driver pretty much within xmech with 1000 watts, amp limiting comes into play. It's not that the amp can't pump out any more than 1000 watts, but the clipping lights should be activated when it's taxed that much and you should be able to hear distress from the sub. If you notice that amp clipping is even a semi common occurrence, you need to build another sub to both keep you better protected and eliminate compression.

You bring all these things together and you have protection to the point where bottoming just hasn't been an issue.

Quote:
willy-be wrote:
The choice of an infrasonic Fb, in and of itself affords no special protection to a vented alignment.
Sure it does. If we have two subs in roughly the same size enclosure with the same power, one with a 14hz tune and one with a 25hz tune, and neither with a highpass, which is more likely to bottom with low bass movies? Powerful 10-20hz bass is much more common than powerful single digits bass.

Quote:
willy-be wrote:
If the electronics pass frequencies below Fb to the driver it will unload. So it's a bit naive to claim these designs need no supplementary protection.
Again, we get back to headroom. Was Rodny's ported sub bottoming at 7hz at 80db? With 4 ported drivers, he can achieve ~122db in room from about 10hz on up without ever exceeding xmech at any frequency....probably even louder than that.


Last edited by SteveCallas; 03-25-07 at 03:10 PM..

Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 03:25 PM   #16
Senior Shackster
Platinum Supporter
Alias: Rodny
Rodny Alvarez's Avatar
Loc: Millbrook AL
User: #158
Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 818
  Rodny Alvarez is offline    
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


I played the scene "Irene" from Black Hawk Down, volume at -10db, at this volume it's pretty loud to me and this is with one box only! with the IB 103db and the SLLT 106db, the subs did not bottom out at all!( NO EQ) I read somewhere that on this scene it goes down to 7hz.
I'm using my ECM8000 and the UB 1002 and the REQW spl meter, I know that my ECM is not calibrated to 5Hz, maybe when Sonnie gets his mic back I can get a real measurement!!


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 04:29 PM   #17
Senior Shackster
Alias: Ilkka
Ilkka's Avatar
Loc: Finland
User: #991
Since: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,480
  Ilkka is offline  
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


Quote:
willy-be wrote: View Post
The choice of an infrasonic Fb, in and of itself affords no special protection to a vented alignment. If the electronics pass frequencies below Fb to the driver it will unload. So it's a bit naive to claim these designs need no supplementary protection.

Threads where the rotary subwoofer is discussed, illustrate the amount of very low frequency content studios currently encode in DVD soundtracks. It's logical to assume trend will continue if not expand with the potential of the newest formats used on HD/BR DVD soundracks.

So it's probably unwise to make blanket statements to the effect that all infrasonic Fb vented designs are inherently protected by a combination of Fb and electronic roll-off.

Aloha,
Willy
Steve already covered it pretty well, but I just want to say that the common rule that all ported subs MUST HAVE a high pass below the tuning frequency dates back to the days when 10mm was a huge Xmax value and anyone using more than a single 12" driver was considered crazy.

It should be noted that it isn't that easy to mechanically bottom a system having four or so long-throw 15"-18" drivers, especially with a program signal. Below the tuning frequency, those drivers behave like an IB subwoofer. And it's not like every IB would bottom when anything lower than 20 Hz is being present. It takes a lot more power to mechanically bottom those drivers than the simulation program shows. That's because the program assumes that the driver's suspension is perfectly linear when in reality it's far from it. Some drivers have so much Cms at the ends of the excursion envelope (=progressive suspension) that it is impossible to mechanically bottom the driver.


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 08:44 PM   #18
Elite Shackster
Alias: Steve
SteveCallas's Avatar
User: #263
Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,963
  SteveCallas is offline  
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


Quote:
Ilkka wrote:
It should be noted that it isn't that easy to mechanically bottom a system having four or so long-throw 15"-18" drivers, especially with a program signal.
Yeah, that brings up a good point. I'm not trying to say that these subs are immune to bottoming no matter what - if you sit there with something like a sine wave generator and progressively turn up the volume with a 5hz sine wave, yeah, it will probably bottom if you don't fry the coil first. With actual material though, as in real music, movies, videogames, etc., one is quite safe.


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-07, 10:37 PM   #19
Elite Shackster
Alias: Bob
Loc: Shueyville, Iowa
User: #25
Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,051
  bobgpsr is offline  
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


Quote:
SteveCallas wrote: View Post
With actual material though, as in real music, movies, videogames, etc., one is quite safe.
Except for monster pipe organ music -- played very loud. Granted that is not likely for most.


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-07, 12:50 AM   #20
Elite Shackster
Alias: Steve
SteveCallas's Avatar
User: #263
Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,963
  SteveCallas is offline  
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


Are there very many in the world that go lower than 16hz? I've read of a 64 footer that can do 8hz, but from my very limited knowledge on the matter, I thought 16hz was typically as low as they go


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-07, 01:21 AM   #21
Shackster
Alias: willy-be
Loc: Hawaii
User: #4092
Since: Nov 2006
Posts: 51
  willy-be is offline  
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


Quote:
Ilkka wrote: View Post
It should be noted that it isn't that easy to mechanically bottom a system having four or so long-throw 15"-18" drivers, especially with a program signal. Below the tuning frequency, those drivers behave like an IB subwoofer.
When the driver in a vented alignment unloads it oscillates, no such behavior is seen in sealed alignments.
Quote:
Ilkka wrote: View Post
Some drivers have so much Cms at the ends of the excursion envelope (=progressive suspension) that it is impossible to mechanically bottom the driver.
Correct, with that type of design over excursion typically results in the suspension separating from the cone and voice coil.


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-07, 02:42 AM   #22
Senior Shackster
Alias: Ilkka
Ilkka's Avatar
Loc: Finland
User: #991
Since: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,480
  Ilkka is offline  
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


Quote:
bobgpsr wrote: View Post
Except for monster pipe organ music -- played very loud. Granted that is not likely for most.
I have quite a few of those, and 16 Hz is the lowest I've seen. Anything lower than that is extremely rare.


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-07, 02:58 AM   #23
Senior Shackster
Alias: Ilkka
Ilkka's Avatar
Loc: Finland
User: #991
Since: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,480
  Ilkka is offline  
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


Quote:
willy-be wrote: View Post
When the driver in a vented alignment unloads it oscillates, no such behavior is seen in sealed alignments.
I didn't mean sealed, I meant an infinite baffle. The Vb is so large (more than 10xVas) that there is no counter pressure from the enclosure. The same thing happens below the tuning frequency in a vented alignment.

If a vented alignment would bottom that easily below the tuning, so would an exact (same # of drivers) IB too (actually even earlier since the port reduced the excursion around the tuning frequency).

Here's a simple simulation. Gray is a ported subwoofer tuned to 15 Hz, yellow is an IB sub. Input power 500W. Which one is more likely to bottom out?



Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-07, 02:09 PM   #24
Banned!
Alias: Bosso
Loc: Charlotte, NC
User: #1597
Since: Jul 2006
Posts: 57
  bossobass is offline  
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


Hey, I just stumbled upon this thread...it's a tough one to track down to this point

Points of interest for me:
1. Interesting info re: the Behringer digital EQ products and early roll off. There seems to be no roll off problem in the graph with no EQ. You really have to question the heavy over use of digital PEQ over the past few years, IMO. This is just one reason to avoid it with some source material.
Name:  2713d1174792813-does-s-llt-require-subsonic-filter-ibvssllt.jpg
Views: 157
Size:  60.4 KB

2. I wish the measurements could have been shown from 2Hz to 100Hz. The graphs that are cut off at 10Hz are a bit frustrating. Of note, it seems by this thread that suddenly, 10Hz is very important whereas a year ago, 10Hz was not viewed as important at all.

The graph partially shows that by an octave below 10Hz, the advantage has flipped back to the sealed sub, which clearly displays the flatter response when viewed further down. Maybe by this time next year we'll lower our threshold another octave.

3. In the discussion regarding excursion/HP, no HP, etc., I just wanted to mention that there is a marked difference between the ported sub's contributions below tune than a sealed sub's excursions down low.

The ported sub's driver unloads abruptly, but there is also cancellations from the port. This results in much more in the way of distortion vs THD from the sealed sub's over excursion, though in an IB, the drivers are virtually in free air, so the comparo is a bit closer.

I'll note again that it's very difficult to know when these latest generation drivers have exceeded Xmech vs older versions (which would CLACK when the former hit the backplate) because they all have a bottomless, or soft bottoming design. I've pushed many drivers to Xmech just to see where it is and it's just not worth ending up with a torn spider (which is impossible to know unless you remove the driver, etc.) by believing that you're safe when you're not really safe.

Looking at the graphs without EQ, for example, show me that the drivers would be in danger in both alignments, as configured, without HP protection...YMMV.

4. Since I've never been a big fan of the IB, for several reasons that I've mentioned over the years, I think this is a great comparo because the 2 alignments a much closer match than a boxed sealed sub would be, but I have to say that the ported sub is just that in this case...a huge ported sub that's recessed into a wall. I got the impression from the beginning of the thread(s) that it was being discussed as some sort of ported IB?

5. As I've said many times, having looked at the differences very carefully at great length, to retain the advantages of the sealed sub and match the output (in this case from 7Hz to 14Hz) just double the displacement and power, keeping in mind that excursion can be controlled by the box.

6. It would be too cool if we could get a spectral contamination graph of each, even though they are in-room, again, it's a rare chance to compare the 2 alignments this closely.

I hope some more measurements and SQ comparos can be done before the second IB is gone forever, as this is a rare opportunity to explore some of the differences.

If more measurements are taken, please graph the subs to alower point?

Cool stuff...give us MORE.

Bosso


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-07, 02:59 PM   #25
Senior Shackster
Platinum Supporter
Alias: Rodny
Rodny Alvarez's Avatar
Loc: Millbrook AL
User: #158
Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 818
  Rodny Alvarez is offline    
Re: Does an (S)LLT require a subsonic filter?


Here is the tread...........http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...html#post29568


Forum Rules Reply With Quote
 Reply     Post New Thread

« Home Theater Shack > DIY Speakers and Subwoofers > SoundSplinter »

« Previous Thread   Next Thread »

Bookmarks
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads... You may not post replies... You may not post attachments... You may not edit your posts

BB code is On... Smilies are On... [IMG] code is On... HTML is not allowed!




Parts Express: The #1 Internet source for all your DIY and electronics needs!

Ultimate Home Entertainment

This site is best viewed with a screen resolution of 1280 x 1024 or higher!

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57 AM.



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Vendor Tools vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.

Copyright ©2006 - 2009, Home Theater Shack, LLC.
John Mulcahy and Sonnie Parker - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED!



Projector Screens   AV Carts   Lectern   WhiteBoards   Audio Video   HDMI Cables   Multimedia   AV Blog
Massage Chairs   Wall Fountains   Bath Vanities   Electric Fireplaces   Bunk Beds
Dish Network     Dish Network deals




Sponsor/Vendor Ad Rates

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331