Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I currently have two DIY 1259 sealed in 3.5 ft^3 each. Each one is powered by a Parts Express Bash 500 plate amp. I built them in 1998, when they were powered by a home audio Carver M-500t, but later upgraded the Bash plate amps. I have enjoyed them, but really NEED more and deeper output in my new, larger HT room. So, I am considering building one or two higher performance subwoofers.

Any sub I build will likely use an EP4000 amp. That is probably the cheapest way to get big power. No plate amp at the same price level is going to do what I want, or work with the impedance combination I'll have.

I have two 10" Eclipse SW8102DVC drivers that I used in my pickup until recently. They are aluminum cones and I believe were manufactured by TC Sounds. I could use these for my HT and essentially be using what I've got. They model in winisd as delivering strong performance in a 4.2 ft^3 vented enclosure for each 10" tuned to 21 Hz. This is not quite as low as the Maelstrom 18", but not bad for 10" drivers! The driver file and the project file are attached. They are dual 4-ohm VC, so they as a pair would be a 4-ohm bridged load for the EP4000 (with the gains held back...).

Some quickie specs for the 10" drivers"
Qts 0.47
Vas 1.994 ft^3
Fs 26 Hz
Xmax 33 mm one-way (these things move a lot!)
Power max 500W

I guess my question is - even though these 10" drivers model out as a pair to deliver lower performance and not quite the extension of a single Maelstrom 18", is there an advantage to having better dispersed sound by having two smaller subwoofers. Of course, if money, space, and wife acceptance were not a factor, I'd buy 2 EP4000's and 2 Maelstroms, but that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Other question - would there be any point to keeping the NHT's after getting the new subwoofer built? Would the tonal/extension difference make having the NHT's actually harm the overall sound?

Any guidance folks can give would be appreciated.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
As far as I know, the specs are correct. Those are the specs that are in the owners manual that came with the speakers. Perhaps Eclipse overstates the specs? I really don't know much about spec inflation by one manufacturer versus another.

The build quality on the drivers is very high and they would make excellent boat anchors :). When I bought them, I wanted the best driver I could get for sound quality that had a mounting depth under 6". These were pretty expensive (about $225 each with significant discount in 2003). I ran them on a HiFonics Zeus with 450 watts per driver, and later a Rockford Fosgate BD1501 with about 375 watts per driver in 0.85 ft^4 of volume.

My truck sounded really good. I don't remember ever hearing them run out of excursion, but I was using a 30 hz HPF.

I did use one very briefly in my living room when I first bought them. I ran it 0.85 ft^3 sealed on my Carver M-500t receiving 250 watts. The Carver clipped well before the speaker bottomed out. However, qualitatively, I'd say the output was much greater than one of my 1259's in 3.5 ft^3 with 350 watts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,625 Posts
As far as I know, the specs are correct. Those are the specs that are in the owners manual that came with the speakers. Perhaps Eclipse overstates the specs? I really don't know much about spec inflation by one manufacturer versus another.

The build quality on the drivers is very high and they would make excellent boat anchors :). When I bought them, I wanted the best driver I could get for sound quality that had a mounting depth under 6". These were pretty expensive (about $225 each with significant discount in 2003). I ran them on a HiFonics Zeus with 450 watts per driver, and later a Rockford Fosgate BD1501 with about 375 watts per driver in 0.85 ft^4 of volume.

My truck sounded really good. I don't remember ever hearing them run out of excursion, but I was using a 30 hz HPF.

I did use one very briefly in my living room when I first bought them. I ran it 0.85 ft^3 sealed on my Carver M-500t receiving 250 watts. The Carver clipped well before the speaker bottomed out. However, qualitatively, I'd say the output was much greater than one of my 1259's in 3.5 ft^3 with 350 watts.
They are perfect for a home sub. I like 5.1 cuft tuned to 16.45 hz. But they are very versatile with the high xmax. Though I suspect that may be the xmech. Either way it is still insanely high for a 10 inch driver. You could use a 500 watt amp on this if you go with your build you could probably use an even more powerful amp, but to get an audible difference you would need 1000 watts. I'd not risk it with a well used voice coil on such a rare sub. I'd suggest the 500 watt bash amp if you want to try a plate amp out. they are nearly 80 percent efficient and offer a subsonic filter. You can really hit low with authority using this sub. With a pair mid wall placement on opposing sides is preferred for the most even response according to modeling done by Sean Olive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I could tune lower, that would work fine. I'm considering building a sonotube this time around. I like the idea of the lighter weight and simplicity.

The problem/challenge with using one of the Bash 500's that I have is that the driver is 4 ohm DVC. A single driver could be connected as 8 ohm or 2 ohm load to the Bash amp. I would assume the Bash amp is probably only ~200 watts into an 8 ohm load. It wouldn't be enough to do the driver justice, but I don't want to put a 2-ohm load on the Bash. The driver is 500 watts continuous rating, 1000 watts "music".

I'm kinda tempted by the EP4000 anyhow. 2000 watts for <$350 is amazing!

Should I keep the 1259's? Does anyone have experience with using two dramatically different tuned subwoofers in the same room?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,625 Posts
I could tune lower, that would work fine. I'm considering building a sonotube this time around. I like the idea of the lighter weight and simplicity.

The problem/challenge with using one of the Bash 500's that I have is that the driver is 4 ohm DVC. A single driver could be connected as 8 ohm or 2 ohm load to the Bash amp. I would assume the Bash amp is probably only ~200 watts into an 8 ohm load. It wouldn't be enough to do the driver justice, but I don't want to put a 2-ohm load on the Bash. The driver is 500 watts continuous rating, 1000 watts "music".

I'm kinda tempted by the EP4000 anyhow. 2000 watts for <$350 is amazing!

Should I keep the 1259's? Does anyone have experience with using two dramatically different tuned subwoofers in the same room?
Is the 1259 a different driver or commercial sub? An EBS -3 would be louder than a jack hammer at full tilt. Just make sure you get a subsonic filter. The EP is a solid amp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
The NHT 1259 subs are DIY. They are sealed with a 3db down of ~30 Hz in 3.5 ft^3. I have two separate enclosures, each driven by a Bash 500. The NHT 1259 was "the bomb" for DIY subwoofers in the late 90's. Things have changed a lot since then...

What is an EBS-3?

The other thing pushing me toward the EP4000 is that it would be sufficient for any future project should I not be happy with the end result of using my two 10" drivers. It could power at least one 18" or 21" in the future with an EP4000.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,625 Posts
The NHT 1259 subs are DIY. They are sealed with a 3db down of ~30 Hz in 3.5 ft^3. I have two separate enclosures, each driven by a Bash 500. The NHT 1259 was "the bomb" for DIY subwoofers in the late 90's. Things have changed a lot since then...

What is an EBS-3?

The other thing pushing me toward the EP4000 is that it would be sufficient for any future project should I not be happy with the end result of using my two 10" drivers. It could power at least one 18" or 21" in the future with an EP4000.
It's an extended bass shelf maximizing the extension of a sub for the -3db mark. It operates under the guise that a 3 db difference is required for audibility especially in the bass range.


Here is a WinISD comparison of the 2 subs in ported and sealed alignments. The NHT might actually be decent in an IB with 3 others. It has a nice extension. But headroom wise it is destroyed by the Eclipse Even the sealed eclipse is louder than the ported NHT at tuning.


Here is a WinISD comparison of some various build options for the eclipse xmax limited. If music is your primary use definitely go with the top alignment if home theater is your use you might give the gray a go. If you want extension primarily then the red would do the trick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Thanks for the ideas and the modelling. I was originally thinking I'd tune to 21 Hz, but the 16 Hz tune would probably be more what I'd want for movies. I'd probably give up 3 db above 40 Hz to pick up almost 10 db @ 15 Hz.

You said the plots are Xmax limited - does that mean you put an extremely high Pe? I didn't see the Eclipses hitting Xmax at 500 watts.

I am very impressed by what these 10's model out to deliver. I was very pleased when they were sealed, but vented looks to be extremely impressive. Only thing I don't like is a pretty large box for only a 10". 5 ft^3 net is on par with what an 18" would need for similar depth of extension.

So, should I build it? Does the performance (gut feel) seem just too good to be true from a 10" driver? I have no problem building something to just play with, since I don't have another application for the 10's anyhow, just want to make sure I'm not expecting too much from them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,625 Posts
Thanks for the ideas and the modelling. I was originally thinking I'd tune to 21 Hz, but the 16 Hz tune would probably be more what I'd want for movies. I'd probably give up 3 db above 40 Hz to pick up almost 10 db @ 15 Hz.

You said the plots are Xmax limited - does that mean you put an extremely high Pe? I didn't see the Eclipses hitting Xmax at 500 watts.

I am very impressed by what these 10's model out to deliver. I was very pleased when they were sealed, but vented looks to be extremely impressive. Only thing I don't like is a pretty large box for only a 10". 5 ft^3 net is on par with what an 18" would need for similar depth of extension.

So, should I build it? Does the performance (gut feel) seem just too good to be true from a 10" driver? I have no problem building something to just play with, since I don't have another application for the 10's anyhow, just want to make sure I'm not expecting too much from them.
there is nothing greater than 1000 watts and these SPLs are maxes not something you should be aiming for. 100 db is probably the highest you will every go in a home environment. They are also used drivers so keep that in mind. If this sub was built by TC Sounds then the performance is spot on. Make very sure you use a high pass filter with any ported build. You can use sonotube or prism style with this sub. Prism style will require the use of a slot port while sonotube will require some long ports to maximize performance

I personally prefer prism style builds and feel they are easier if you have the tools already available. I've tried working with sonotube and it's not my cup of tea because I love building things out of wood.

Sonotube subs are very simple to build and take up the smallest amount of floorspace. Plus all you need is a router and the tube. They are the ideal build for a newb and great for large builds.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top