Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
"John Durbin" wrote in message ... Resonant frequency of the box changes the output of the system at that frequency, also affects the driver's impedance as it appears to the amp driving the system, etc. If you sweep the driver impedance curve in free air & then again in the box and compare the two, you will see a large change. Think about it this way: in open air the driver compliance is a combination of factors that includes the relative stiffness of the spider and the surround. When you put it in a box, the effect of the air mass (air spring if you will) changes that compliance and your system tuning changes with it. This happens in a vented box too but is more complicated because the air mass behaves differently at port resonance than it does above it. And I thaught I was asking a simple question. :-) I've been following the debate with interest. I think I can now waffle with the best of them, even though I wouldn't know what I was talking about. :-) Mike. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
"John Durbin" wrote in message ... Resonant frequency of the box changes the output of the system at that frequency, also affects the driver's impedance as it appears to the amp driving the system, etc. If you sweep the driver impedance curve in free air & then again in the box and compare the two, you will see a large change. Think about it this way: in open air the driver compliance is a combination of factors that includes the relative stiffness of the spider and the surround. When you put it in a box, the effect of the air mass (air spring if you will) changes that compliance and your system tuning changes with it. Yes, I know that, but common sense would say that putting ANYTHING in the enclsoure would mean LESS air therefore a tighter "spring", like a SMALLER BOX, NOT A LARGER BOX. I guess this is why this saying "putting fill in a box will make it seem like a larger box" just seemed to go against common sense to me. But I do understand the first part of your explanation. By adding fill you change the resonant frequency of the volume of air in the enclosure. This will have an effect (small I would imagine) on the frequency response of the system. This makes sense. Thank you for that explanation. MOSFET This happens in a vented box too but is more complicated because the air mass behaves differently at port resonance than it does above it. JD MOSFET wrote: If you've made a box with an internal volume of .75 cu ft, as recommended by the manufacturer of the subwoofer you're using (let's assume that the basket volume is a non-issue here), then adding polyfill stuffing would essentially increase the intermal volume of the box - lowering the desired tuned frequency. Yes, Tony, but the tuned frequency of what? The volume of air inside the enclosure? In a sealed enclosure, what effect does the tuning frequency of the volume of air inside the enclosure make any difference to anything? That has been my entire point this whole thread. My understanding has always been that in a sealed enclosure, the volume of air inside a box acts as a spring to the woofer. That's it. I would think that in a well constructed enclosure the volume of air inside a box would have the same air pressure as the outside air. How would the resonant frequency of this volume of air have any bearing on anything! I'm sorry, I just don't understand. I'm so confused! Nick |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
Actually, the effect is not "small" at all. In theory the effect is like
having a 40% larger box. In practice, however it comes out to closer to 20%. - RG "MOSFET" wrote in message ... "John Durbin" wrote in message ... Resonant frequency of the box changes the output of the system at that frequency, also affects the driver's impedance as it appears to the amp driving the system, etc. If you sweep the driver impedance curve in free air & then again in the box and compare the two, you will see a large change. Think about it this way: in open air the driver compliance is a combination of factors that includes the relative stiffness of the spider and the surround. When you put it in a box, the effect of the air mass (air spring if you will) changes that compliance and your system tuning changes with it. Yes, I know that, but common sense would say that putting ANYTHING in the enclsoure would mean LESS air therefore a tighter "spring", like a SMALLER BOX, NOT A LARGER BOX. I guess this is why this saying "putting fill in a box will make it seem like a larger box" just seemed to go against common sense to me. But I do understand the first part of your explanation. By adding fill you change the resonant frequency of the volume of air in the enclosure. This will have an effect (small I would imagine) on the frequency response of the system. This makes sense. Thank you for that explanation. MOSFET This happens in a vented box too but is more complicated because the air mass behaves differently at port resonance than it does above it. JD MOSFET wrote: If you've made a box with an internal volume of .75 cu ft, as recommended by the manufacturer of the subwoofer you're using (let's assume that the basket volume is a non-issue here), then adding polyfill stuffing would essentially increase the intermal volume of the box - lowering the desired tuned frequency. Yes, Tony, but the tuned frequency of what? The volume of air inside the enclosure? In a sealed enclosure, what effect does the tuning frequency of the volume of air inside the enclosure make any difference to anything? That has been my entire point this whole thread. My understanding has always been that in a sealed enclosure, the volume of air inside a box acts as a spring to the woofer. That's it. I would think that in a well constructed enclosure the volume of air inside a box would have the same air pressure as the outside air. How would the resonant frequency of this volume of air have any bearing on anything! I'm sorry, I just don't understand. I'm so confused! Nick |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
BTW, the "spring" effects of air are not constant. Refer to my previous post
on adiabatic versus isothermal. This changes the "characteristic" of the air considerably. Just remember, the earth is not flat .... - RG "MOSFET" wrote in message ... "John Durbin" wrote in message ... Resonant frequency of the box changes the output of the system at that frequency, also affects the driver's impedance as it appears to the amp driving the system, etc. If you sweep the driver impedance curve in free air & then again in the box and compare the two, you will see a large change. Think about it this way: in open air the driver compliance is a combination of factors that includes the relative stiffness of the spider and the surround. When you put it in a box, the effect of the air mass (air spring if you will) changes that compliance and your system tuning changes with it. Yes, I know that, but common sense would say that putting ANYTHING in the enclsoure would mean LESS air therefore a tighter "spring", like a SMALLER BOX, NOT A LARGER BOX. I guess this is why this saying "putting fill in a box will make it seem like a larger box" just seemed to go against common sense to me. But I do understand the first part of your explanation. By adding fill you change the resonant frequency of the volume of air in the enclosure. This will have an effect (small I would imagine) on the frequency response of the system. This makes sense. Thank you for that explanation. MOSFET This happens in a vented box too but is more complicated because the air mass behaves differently at port resonance than it does above it. JD MOSFET wrote: If you've made a box with an internal volume of .75 cu ft, as recommended by the manufacturer of the subwoofer you're using (let's assume that the basket volume is a non-issue here), then adding polyfill stuffing would essentially increase the intermal volume of the box - lowering the desired tuned frequency. Yes, Tony, but the tuned frequency of what? The volume of air inside the enclosure? In a sealed enclosure, what effect does the tuning frequency of the volume of air inside the enclosure make any difference to anything? That has been my entire point this whole thread. My understanding has always been that in a sealed enclosure, the volume of air inside a box acts as a spring to the woofer. That's it. I would think that in a well constructed enclosure the volume of air inside a box would have the same air pressure as the outside air. How would the resonant frequency of this volume of air have any bearing on anything! I'm sorry, I just don't understand. I'm so confused! Nick |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
Actually, the effect is not "small" at all. In theory the effect is like
having a 40% larger box. In practice, however it comes out to closer to 20%. - RG By small, I meant small change in the overall performance of the system (frequency response curve for instance). But I see your point. MOSFET |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
Nick,
Check out http://www.bcae1.com under chapter 115, Speaker Respose Curves. There's graph (and explanation) about 3/4 of the way through the chapter that shows the response curve for an unstuffed box vs. a stuffed one. Just FYI. Tony |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
Thanks Tony. Aren't you a fountain of information!!!
The two curves (box with Polyfill and box without) are nearly identical so, again, this seems to prove what I believe you said before (and what I said), Polyfill makes very little difference. I think we can now put this one to bed thanks to you. Nick "Tony F" wrote in message ... Nick, Check out http://www.bcae1.com under chapter 115, Speaker Respose Curves. There's graph (and explanation) about 3/4 of the way through the chapter that shows the response curve for an unstuffed box vs. a stuffed one. Just FYI. Tony |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
Correct, it is not a huge effect but measurable & audible if you use
stuffing that has enough mass. People tend to use polyfill because it's readily available but wool or fiberglass will give you better results. If you put too much in you actually interfere with the resonance of the air & stuffing mass & it works against you instead of helping squeeze a little more LF extension from the system. JD MOSFET wrote: "John Durbin" wrote in message ... Resonant frequency of the box changes the output of the system at that frequency, also affects the driver's impedance as it appears to the amp driving the system, etc. If you sweep the driver impedance curve in free air & then again in the box and compare the two, you will see a large change. Think about it this way: in open air the driver compliance is a combination of factors that includes the relative stiffness of the spider and the surround. When you put it in a box, the effect of the air mass (air spring if you will) changes that compliance and your system tuning changes with it. Yes, I know that, but common sense would say that putting ANYTHING in the enclsoure would mean LESS air therefore a tighter "spring", like a SMALLER BOX, NOT A LARGER BOX. I guess this is why this saying "putting fill in a box will make it seem like a larger box" just seemed to go against common sense to me. But I do understand the first part of your explanation. By adding fill you change the resonant frequency of the volume of air in the enclosure. This will have an effect (small I would imagine) on the frequency response of the system. This makes sense. Thank you for that explanation. MOSFET This happens in a vented box too but is more complicated because the air mass behaves differently at port resonance than it does above it. JD MOSFET wrote: If you've made a box with an internal volume of .75 cu ft, as recommended by the manufacturer of the subwoofer you're using (let's assume that the basket volume is a non-issue here), then adding polyfill stuffing would essentially increase the intermal volume of the box - lowering the desired tuned frequency. Yes, Tony, but the tuned frequency of what? The volume of air inside the enclosure? In a sealed enclosure, what effect does the tuning frequency of the volume of air inside the enclosure make any difference to anything? That has been my entire point this whole thread. My understanding has always been that in a sealed enclosure, the volume of air inside a box acts as a spring to the woofer. That's it. I would think that in a well constructed enclosure the volume of air inside a box would have the same air pressure as the outside air. How would the resonant frequency of this volume of air have any bearing on anything! I'm sorry, I just don't understand. I'm so confused! Nick |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
"Standing waves are not usually a big problem in a subwoofer because it is
usually crossed over. In other situations, like home speakers, poly-fill can be used to damp standing waves. In home speakers, the woofer is often used to reproduce a wider frequency range than it would be in a subwoofer. This creates the opportunity for standing waves to create problems. The wavelength is too long in the lowest frequencies to cause a problem but frequencies above 300 or 400hz will start to cause problems." I reckon so .... There goes YOUR theory and validation on what polyfill does or doesn't do in a subwoofer box .... right from the fountain of information itself :-) - RG "MOSFET" wrote in message m... Thanks Tony. Aren't you a fountain of information!!! The two curves (box with Polyfill and box without) are nearly identical so, again, this seems to prove what I believe you said before (and what I said), Polyfill makes very little difference. I think we can now put this one to bed thanks to you. Nick "Tony F" wrote in message ... Nick, Check out http://www.bcae1.com under chapter 115, Speaker Respose Curves. There's graph (and explanation) about 3/4 of the way through the chapter that shows the response curve for an unstuffed box vs. a stuffed one. Just FYI. Tony |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
In article ,
John Durbin wrote: If you put too much in you actually interfere with the resonance of the air & stuffing mass & it works against you instead of helping squeeze a little more LF extension from the system. JD I concur. There have been instances where I have had to play with certain amounts of stuffing in an enclosure to get my desired response, whether in my head or not. This seems moreso with midbass/mid drivers. -- -Cyrus *coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough* |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
I concur. There have been instances where I have had to play with
certain amounts of stuffing in an enclosure to get my desired response, whether in my head or not. This seems moreso with midbass/mid drivers. This may have more to do with standing wave cancellation than anything else as RG has pointed out (in a snippy way) that standing waves become more of a problem in the midrange-midbass region (300-400 Hz). Just a thought. MOSFET |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
That's funny because there sure are a WHOLE LOTTA FOLKS out there who seem
VERY concerned about standing waves in their sub enclosure. For instance: http://www.the12volt.com/caraudio/boxes2.asp I guess they are all wrong according to you as standing waves are not a problem below 300-400Hz. So, to be honest, you HAVE NOT convinced me RG. MOSFET "RG" wrote in message ... "Standing waves are not usually a big problem in a subwoofer because it is usually crossed over. In other situations, like home speakers, poly-fill can be used to damp standing waves. In home speakers, the woofer is often used to reproduce a wider frequency range than it would be in a subwoofer. This creates the opportunity for standing waves to create problems. The wavelength is too long in the lowest frequencies to cause a problem but frequencies above 300 or 400hz will start to cause problems." I reckon so .... There goes YOUR theory and validation on what polyfill does or doesn't do in a subwoofer box .... right from the fountain of information itself :-) - RG "MOSFET" wrote in message m... Thanks Tony. Aren't you a fountain of information!!! The two curves (box with Polyfill and box without) are nearly identical so, again, this seems to prove what I believe you said before (and what I said), Polyfill makes very little difference. I think we can now put this one to bed thanks to you. Nick "Tony F" wrote in message ... Nick, Check out http://www.bcae1.com under chapter 115, Speaker Respose Curves. There's graph (and explanation) about 3/4 of the way through the chapter that shows the response curve for an unstuffed box vs. a stuffed one. Just FYI. Tony |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
Check again .... those were actually Perry Babin's words (direct quote).
- RG "MOSFET" wrote in message m... That's funny because there sure are a WHOLE LOTTA FOLKS out there who seem VERY concerned about standing waves in their sub enclosure. For instance: http://www.the12volt.com/caraudio/boxes2.asp I guess they are all wrong according to you as standing waves are not a problem below 300-400Hz. So, to be honest, you HAVE NOT convinced me RG. MOSFET "RG" wrote in message ... "Standing waves are not usually a big problem in a subwoofer because it is usually crossed over. In other situations, like home speakers, poly-fill can be used to damp standing waves. In home speakers, the woofer is often used to reproduce a wider frequency range than it would be in a subwoofer. This creates the opportunity for standing waves to create problems. The wavelength is too long in the lowest frequencies to cause a problem but frequencies above 300 or 400hz will start to cause problems." I reckon so .... There goes YOUR theory and validation on what polyfill does or doesn't do in a subwoofer box .... right from the fountain of information itself :-) - RG "MOSFET" wrote in message m... Thanks Tony. Aren't you a fountain of information!!! The two curves (box with Polyfill and box without) are nearly identical so, again, this seems to prove what I believe you said before (and what I said), Polyfill makes very little difference. I think we can now put this one to bed thanks to you. Nick "Tony F" wrote in message ... Nick, Check out http://www.bcae1.com under chapter 115, Speaker Respose Curves. There's graph (and explanation) about 3/4 of the way through the chapter that shows the response curve for an unstuffed box vs. a stuffed one. Just FYI. Tony |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
In article 0W2ng.81736$iF6.11013@pd7tw2no, Matt Ion wrote:
MOSFET wrote: There is another effect of course, a very important one. In that stuffed enclosure the manufacture may have specified a volume, and the stuffing acts to increase that volume.If you don't stuff that enclosed box, it may be too small. Stuffing is all very different and has different effects at different frequencies. I make use of cotton, wool, fiberglass, and Dacron, and very important, FOAM. greg OK, this might be a gap in my knowledge, but I have ALWAYS been confused by the assertion that in a box "stuffing acts to increase that volume" to use your words. To me, that defies the laws of physics and I flat out refuse to use that term. I have ALWAYS believed that this was just a shorthand way of describing the effects stuffing can have (reduced acoustical interchange that causes problems like standing waves) which I DID address in my explanation. By reducing sound waves bouncing around in a box, THAT IS like having a larger box. So in a sense, I did cover that in my explanation. Is there something else I'm missing? Nope, you pretty much nailed it. The stuffing DOES have the effect of slowing down the sound waves as well, which makes the box "appear" larger to the driver (internal waves take longer to reflect back). Stuffing does slow sound waves. Reflecting back, really has nothing to do with anything. It just a pressure- contraction of the box, period. I breifly read some of the posts, and its seems very strange the reason most any speaker book might explain the most accepted version has not been addressed. When the air is pressurized, it heats up. When it contracts, it cools down. If you add fiber, the fiber absorbs these transistion somewhat. When the transistions of temperature are minimized the net effect is a reduction of pressure and contraction. Bigger box!! Polyfill has limited effect in this area. Fiberglass works much better as well as foam. I have got up to the theroetical increase in box size of 40% but much less is the norm. You can also use a heavier gas inside which will accomplish the same bigger box effect. greg |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
In article ,
"MOSFET" wrote: I concur. There have been instances where I have had to play with certain amounts of stuffing in an enclosure to get my desired response, whether in my head or not. This seems moreso with midbass/mid drivers. This may have more to do with standing wave cancellation than anything else as RG has pointed out (in a snippy way) that standing waves become more of a problem in the midrange-midbass region (300-400 Hz). Just a thought. MOSFET I try to keep my ideas/help vague and open for a reason. Some are very serious about their audio addictions. Wave lengths are shorter at higher frequencies. There's more of a chance of standing waves happening with midbass/mid drivers, as has I'm sure been beaten to death by now. Then again there are too many factors to even know whether or not its happening while communicating with someone via usenet. In any case, its just audio. I say enjoy the gear you have, your hearing and knowledge. Nobody really cares about this sorta thing except us, as evidenced by the last wedding reception I was at and its 'dj'. -- -Cyrus *coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough* |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
In article , Cyrus wrote:
In article , "MOSFET" wrote: I concur. There have been instances where I have had to play with certain amounts of stuffing in an enclosure to get my desired response, whether in my head or not. This seems moreso with midbass/mid drivers. This may have more to do with standing wave cancellation than anything else as RG has pointed out (in a snippy way) that standing waves become more of a problem in the midrange-midbass region (300-400 Hz). Just a thought. MOSFET I try to keep my ideas/help vague and open for a reason. Some are very serious about their audio addictions. Wave lengths are shorter at higher frequencies. There's more of a chance of standing waves happening with midbass/mid drivers, as has I'm sure been beaten to death by now. Then again there are too many factors to even know whether or not its happening while communicating with someone via usenet. In any case, its just audio. I say enjoy the gear you have, your hearing and knowledge. Nobody really cares about this sorta thing except us, as evidenced by the last wedding reception I was at and its 'dj'. Most of the time when things sound bad, people don't say mnuch. When it sounds good, they say more. At least thats my experiance. Midbass and midranges. Midranges have the most effect. Its like trying to have a speaker in the door with no sound treatment in back of it. Its the pits. OEM speakers usually don't have anything, but us hifi persons know better. greg |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
"John Durbin" wrote in message ... Resonance is wasted energy? Jeez, I better dump my JBL L150A's with passive radiators & L112's with vents, cause they rely on WASTED ENERGY to extend the usable LF response a good half-octave and that's apparently a BAD THING. Nice! You don't see the L150A's too often! I too, Own a set of L112's Chad |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
Nice pair of L150's going on ebay for $721 with a few hours left... you
gotta love the way these things have held their value, not to mention how damn good they still sound. I'm up to 3 pair of the 150A and 1 pr. of L112. One of the pair of 150A's got aborted by someone with eyebolts through the back (4 per cabinet) so I figured I'd hang them in a dead space above the doors in the garage, that should be sufficient to screw with the neighbors :-) May also try throwing together a 5.1 surround system upstairs just for the hell of it, think about three L150A's for L/C/R and a pair of L112's on orig. JBL stands for rear surround, with 300W bridged Sony TA-55ES amps on each of the front channels & a Sansui 717 to drive the rear surround. Only problem is what to use for a sub to keep up with all that - maybe the 18 some guy was selling in a 6 cu. ft. enclosure recently. Probably cost me a wife if I build this thing & fire it up, but might be worth it! JD Chad Wahls wrote: "John Durbin" wrote in message ... Resonance is wasted energy? Jeez, I better dump my JBL L150A's with passive radiators & L112's with vents, cause they rely on WASTED ENERGY to extend the usable LF response a good half-octave and that's apparently a BAD THING. Nice! You don't see the L150A's too often! I too, Own a set of L112's Chad |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
That's frankly amazing. $721 for a pair of 25 year old JBL speakers (let's
face it, JBL is no Martin Logan) which appear to be banged up a bit. Holy cow! Those must be REALLY good speakers. Some of those older JBL speakers are really great. I own a pair of JBL P10 bookshelf speakers that I bought about 15 years ago and I have NEVER yet heard a speaker of it's size that I felt sounded better. I used to use them (with a subwoofer, of course) on 4' sand-filled stands in my "listening room" and the imaging was ABSOLUTELY STARTLING. To show them off I used to play the beginning of Pink Floyd's "Time". I remember for most of my friends, this was the first time they had ever heard two speakers "disappear" and TRULY create a near 360 degree soundfield. Those speakers are now relegated to surround duties in my home-theater, but they are still going strong AND they handle all the power my Denon AVR-3600 can dish out (on a full range setting!). I believe JBL continues to produce high-quality speakers, but I agree there was something great about those older ones (especially when considering what they compared to at the time). MOSFET "John Durbin" wrote in message ... Nice pair of L150's going on ebay for $721 with a few hours left... you gotta love the way these things have held their value, not to mention how damn good they still sound. I'm up to 3 pair of the 150A and 1 pr. of L112. One of the pair of 150A's got aborted by someone with eyebolts through the back (4 per cabinet) so I figured I'd hang them in a dead space above the doors in the garage, that should be sufficient to screw with the neighbors :-) May also try throwing together a 5.1 surround system upstairs just for the hell of it, think about three L150A's for L/C/R and a pair of L112's on orig. JBL stands for rear surround, with 300W bridged Sony TA-55ES amps on each of the front channels & a Sansui 717 to drive the rear surround. Only problem is what to use for a sub to keep up with all that - maybe the 18 some guy was selling in a 6 cu. ft. enclosure recently. Probably cost me a wife if I build this thing & fire it up, but might be worth it! JD Chad Wahls wrote: "John Durbin" wrote in message ... Resonance is wasted energy? Jeez, I better dump my JBL L150A's with passive radiators & L112's with vents, cause they rely on WASTED ENERGY to extend the usable LF response a good half-octave and that's apparently a BAD THING. Nice! You don't see the L150A's too often! I too, Own a set of L112's Chad |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
"MOSFET" wrote in message m... I believe JBL continues to produce high-quality speakers, but I agree there was something great about those older ones (especially when considering what they compared to at the time). MOSFET Their best stuff is the older stuff because that's when the consumer and professional division ACTUALLY got along. There WAS a lot of shared engineering. Not anymore Chad |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
"John Durbin" wrote in message ... Nice pair of L150's going on ebay for $721 with a few hours left... you gotta love the way these things have held their value, not to mention how damn good they still sound. I'm up to 3 pair of the 150A and 1 pr. of L112. One of the pair of 150A's got aborted by someone with eyebolts through the back (4 per cabinet) so I figured I'd hang them in a dead space above the doors in the garage, that should be sufficient to screw with the neighbors :-) May also try throwing together a 5.1 surround system upstairs just for the hell of it, think about three L150A's for L/C/R and a pair of L112's on orig. JBL stands for rear surround, with 300W bridged Sony TA-55ES amps on each of the front channels & a Sansui 717 to drive the rear surround. Only problem is what to use for a sub to keep up with all that - maybe the 18 some guy was selling in a 6 cu. ft. enclosure recently. Probably cost me a wife if I build this thing & fire it up, but might be worth it! JD That will be a nice theater! Most of my power at the ranch comes from Crown, with spatterings from Carver (Clair Bros. Modified) and Phase Linear (FlameLinear). For A sub I use an Electro Voice EVX180B in a big TL enclosure and it will shake your bones and play flat VERY low. For aesthetics may I suggest 1-2 JBL 2245's in a big-ol enclosure? They are great drivers and will play very L-O-W! They were used mostly in theatres as effect drivers, you will need to find original baskets and have them reconed. Most of them have foam-rot. Recone Kits are available. The part is C8R2245. Orange county speaker can hook you up. I THINK the 2240 baskets are the same but I can't remember. 2240's will be easier to come across as they sold an ass load of them. The 2245 is not a power handling monster and care must be taken in setting the HP filter for the box tuning. They have mass rings and when they unload they go a-bounding! Don't worry about the handling though. They are quite efficient and can handle the peaks with ease. I'm sure you know what you are doing Chad |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic wadding.
Closed at $990... and this is the L150, which I think is not quite the
equal of the 150A due to difference in tweeter design plus with some cabinet damage. That's damn near 0% depreciation regardless... Newer JBL speakers lack any of the unique and special qualities that make that kind of resale value stand up, my opinion. Not that they suck, but they just lost the aura they had back then when the guys in engineering had the reins instead of the sales & marketing dept's. JD MOSFET wrote: That's frankly amazing. $721 for a pair of 25 year old JBL speakers (let's face it, JBL is no Martin Logan) which appear to be banged up a bit. Holy cow! Those must be REALLY good speakers. Some of those older JBL speakers are really great. I own a pair of JBL P10 bookshelf speakers that I bought about 15 years ago and I have NEVER yet heard a speaker of it's size that I felt sounded better. I used to use them (with a subwoofer, of course) on 4' sand-filled stands in my "listening room" and the imaging was ABSOLUTELY STARTLING. To show them off I used to play the beginning of Pink Floyd's "Time". I remember for most of my friends, this was the first time they had ever heard two speakers "disappear" and TRULY create a near 360 degree soundfield. Those speakers are now relegated to surround duties in my home-theater, but they are still going strong AND they handle all the power my Denon AVR-3600 can dish out (on a full range setting!). I believe JBL continues to produce high-quality speakers, but I agree there was something great about those older ones (especially when considering what they compared to at the time). MOSFET "John Durbin" wrote in message ... Nice pair of L150's going on ebay for $721 with a few hours left... you gotta love the way these things have held their value, not to mention how damn good they still sound. I'm up to 3 pair of the 150A and 1 pr. of L112. One of the pair of 150A's got aborted by someone with eyebolts through the back (4 per cabinet) so I figured I'd hang them in a dead space above the doors in the garage, that should be sufficient to screw with the neighbors :-) May also try throwing together a 5.1 surround system upstairs just for the hell of it, think about three L150A's for L/C/R and a pair of L112's on orig. JBL stands for rear surround, with 300W bridged Sony TA-55ES amps on each of the front channels & a Sansui 717 to drive the rear surround. Only problem is what to use for a sub to keep up with all that - maybe the 18 some guy was selling in a 6 cu. ft. enclosure recently. Probably cost me a wife if I build this thing & fire it up, but might be worth it! JD Chad Wahls wrote: "John Durbin" wrote in message ... Resonance is wasted energy? Jeez, I better dump my JBL L150A's with passive radiators & L112's with vents, cause they rely on WASTED ENERGY to extend the usable LF response a good half-octave and that's apparently a BAD THING. Nice! You don't see the L150A's too often! I too, Own a set of L112's Chad |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
Guitar and panning | Pro Audio | |||
Help with home recording classical guitar! | Pro Audio | |||
Doppler Distortion - Fact or Fiction | Pro Audio | |||
Whats the deal with wadding in a sub enclosure | Car Audio |