Hi:

I have a NAD S100 pre-amp, a Rotel 965BX and this venerable HK 870 100
wpc power-amp connected to Mageneplanars. Opinions sought about
matching a sub are sought.

I am leaning toward two *small* subs per channel.

Thanks

"Andy G" wrote in message
...
Hi:

I have a NAD S100 pre-amp, a Rotel 965BX and this venerable HK 870 100
wpc power-amp connected to Mageneplanars. Opinions sought about
matching a sub are sought.

I am leaning toward two *small* subs per channel.

Conventional wisdom is that a corner is the way to go. Crossover point is
considered 80 Hz or lower in order to keep the sub from being localized.
Experiment if you desire, but odds are you will wind up with the sub in the
corner. The bigger the room the bigger the sub should be.

To really get the kind of bass that packs a punch you might need more than
one driver, but you will still want to keep it in a corner

The best bang for the buck IMO is Adire Audio's subs, either DIY or finished
products from them will give truly deep accurate bass into the 20 Hz range
and even below. Another good choice is Hsu subwoofers, I personally have a
DIY sub with a 12" driver from Adire and I think it is one of the best
purchases I've made. Check out their product line at www.adireaudio.com

"Michael McKelvy" said:

I have a NAD S100 pre-amp, a Rotel 965BX and this venerable HK 870 100
wpc power-amp connected to Mageneplanars. Opinions sought about
matching a sub are sought.

I am leaning toward two *small* subs per channel.

Conventional wisdom is that a corner is the way to go. Crossover point is
considered 80 Hz or lower in order to keep the sub from being localized.
Experiment if you desire, but odds are you will wind up with the sub in the
corner. The bigger the room the bigger the sub should be.

To really get the kind of bass that packs a punch you might need more than
one driver, but you will still want to keep it in a corner

The best bang for the buck IMO is Adire Audio's subs, either DIY or finished
products from them will give truly deep accurate bass into the 20 Hz range
and even below. Another good choice is Hsu subwoofers, I personally have a
DIY sub with a 12" driver from Adire and I think it is one of the best
purchases I've made. Check out their product line at www.adireaudio.com

I agree with Mike on this one.
Subs are the DIY thing par excellence, just make sure they're built
very solid.

I tried matching 2 REL quakes with my Maggies, but couldn't get a good
match between them in my room, despite the adjustable crossover in
them. The solution I have now is another pair of Maggies driven by a
separate amplifier.

DIY-ing subs has the advantage of tweaking them according to your
needs.
You could start with passive versions, and add line-level filters and
amplifiers afterwards. This way, you can adjust them for optimum
response in your listening room.

For matching sub amps and filters, see www.hypex.nl

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Hi:

Thanks for the responses. It's the sheer velocity of electrostats that
makes me want to go for small sub drivers so that they can keep up.
Hence two drivers to make them move more air. Thanks for the advice
gentlemen.

AG

"Andy G" wrote in message
...
Hi:

Thanks for the responses. It's the sheer velocity of electrostats that
makes me want to go for small sub drivers so that they can keep up.
Hence two drivers to make them move more air. Thanks for the advice
gentlemen.

AG

Simply no truth to there being such a thing as faster subwoofers.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
k.net
"Andy G" wrote in message
...
Hi:

Thanks for the responses. It's the sheer velocity of electrostats
that makes me want to go for small sub drivers so that they can keep
up. Hence two drivers to make them move more air. Thanks for the
advice gentlemen.

AG

Simply no truth to there being such a thing as faster subwoofers.

Agreed. Almost all subwoofers are driven through electrical low-pass filters
with roll-offs in the 60 to 140 Hz range. They set the speed, not the woofer
driver itself.

A "Fast subwoofer" would be a midrange driver.

"Michael McKelvy" said:

Simply no truth to there being such a thing as faster subwoofers.

What about lower cone mass?
Say 2 x 10" instead of one 15"-er?

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Michael McKelvy" said:

Simply no truth to there being such a thing as faster subwoofers.

What about lower cone mass?
Say 2 x 10" instead of one 15"-er?

F=MA went over your head, right Sander?

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
k.net...

Simply no truth to there being such a thing as faster subwoofers.


Righto! There are only slower ones.

Sander deWaal wrote in
:

"Michael McKelvy" said:

Simply no truth to there being such a thing as faster subwoofers.

What about lower cone mass?
Say 2 x 10" instead of one 15"-er?


Less cone mass will result in a higher resonant frequency, not 'faster'
movement, given a constant suspension/box compliance. If the driver is a
faithful transducer the physical speed will be a function of dV/dT. A
smaller cone might have better transient response, but 'faster' isn't the
way to describe that.

Tim

--

"The strongest human instinct is to impart information,
and the second strongest is to resist it."

Kenneth Graham

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 10/11/2004 2:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net
"Andy G" wrote in message
...
Hi:

Thanks for the responses. It's the sheer velocity of electrostats
that makes me want to go for small sub drivers so that they can keep
up. Hence two drivers to make them move more air. Thanks for the
advice gentlemen.

AG

Simply no truth to there being such a thing as faster subwoofers.

Agreed. Almost all subwoofers are driven through electrical low-pass filters
with roll-offs in the 60 to 140 Hz range. They set the speed, not the woofer
driver itself.

A "Fast subwoofer" would be a midrange driver.









Are you guys new to audio? Have you not figured out that fast bass is a
figurative description? Do you think bright speakers are simply finished in a
lighter color?

"The Devil" wrote in message
news:gcdmm0lbol0qqnreciquq3jknnc2rtrp9l@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:58:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

F=MA went over your head, right Sander?

It's usually written (for rather specific reasons) as F=ma, but I'm
sure an expert scientist such as yourself has a totally valid reason
for screwing with Newtonian physics.

As usual Devil, you're demonstrating your arrogance and ignorance. The
meaning of the expression is in the letters, not the capitalization.

Here's a source that writes it just like I do:

http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Fa...th.summary.htm

This poor guy obviously needs to be kicked right off the faculty of the
university for as you quaintly put it, "screwing with physics".

Here's a source ( one, The Department Of Energy Of The United States Of
America) that writes the same expression

f=ma

(no capitalization at all).

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00333.htm

So does this guy:

http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.baker10/force.htm

Deil, I suggest that you throw all of your considerable energies to force
them to, as you quaintly put it, to "stop screwing with physics".

OTOH most people know that the meaning of the expression is in the letters,
not the capitalization.

browntimdc said:

Simply no truth to there being such a thing as faster subwoofers.

What about lower cone mass?
Say 2 x 10" instead of one 15"-er?

Less cone mass will result in a higher resonant frequency, not 'faster'
movement, given a constant suspension/box compliance. If the driver is a
faithful transducer the physical speed will be a function of dV/dT. A
smaller cone might have better transient response, but 'faster' isn't the
way to describe that.

Thanks for the explanation, I'm kind of new to loudspeakers.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 10/12/2004 5:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"The Devil" wrote in message
news:gcdmm0lbol0qqnreciquq3jknnc2rtrp9l@rdmzrnews txt.nz
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:58:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

F=MA went over your head, right Sander?

It's usually written (for rather specific reasons) as F=ma, but I'm
sure an expert scientist such as yourself has a totally valid reason
for screwing with Newtonian physics.

As usual Devil, you're demonstrating your arrogance and ignorance. The
meaning of the expression is in the letters, not the capitalization.

Here's a source that writes it just like I do:


http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Fa...hap01.Physics%
20of%20the%20Earth.summary.htm

This poor guy obviously needs to be kicked right off the faculty of the
university for as you quaintly put it, "screwing with physics".

Here's a source ( one, The Department Of Energy Of The United States Of
America) that writes the same expression

f=ma

(no capitalization at all).

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00333.htm

So does this guy:

http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.baker10/force.htm

Deil, I suggest that you throw all of your considerable energies to force
them to, as you quaintly put it, to "stop screwing with physics".

OTOH most people know that the meaning of the expression is in the letters,
not the capitalization.








You actually spent time researching this? That's funny.

In article z,
The Devil wrote:

LOL!

I love winding you up, Arnii.

Clyde would be along with a 'touche' but you write in understandable
English...

Stephen

"The Devil" wrote in message
news:filnm0tjt1ibdl8igahlo059s8n2utdvms@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:47:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"The Devil" wrote in message
news:gcdmm0lbol0qqnreciquq3jknnc2rtrp9l@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:58:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

F=MA went over your head, right Sander?

It's usually written (for rather specific reasons) as F=ma, but I'm
sure an expert scientist such as yourself has a totally valid reason
for screwing with Newtonian physics.

As usual Devil, you're demonstrating your arrogance and ignorance.
The meaning of the expression is in the letters, not the
capitalization.

Here's a source that writes it just like I do:

http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Fa...th.summary.htm

This poor guy obviously needs to be kicked right off the faculty of
the university for as you quaintly put it, "screwing with physics".

Here's a source ( one, The Department Of Energy Of The United States
Of America) that writes the same expression

f=ma

(no capitalization at all).

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00333.htm

So does this guy:

http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.baker10/force.htm

Deil, I suggest that you throw all of your considerable energies to
force them to, as you quaintly put it, to "stop screwing with
physics".

OTOH most people know that the meaning of the expression is in the
letters, not the capitalization.


LOL!

I love winding you up, Arnii.

I got you first, Devil when you posted your idiotic response. This was just
my coup de gras.

Sander deWaal wrote in message . ..
browntimdc said:

Less cone mass will result in a higher resonant frequency, not 'faster'
movement, given a constant suspension/box compliance. If the driver is a
faithful transducer the physical speed will be a function of dV/dT. A
smaller cone might have better transient response, but 'faster' isn't the
way to describe that.

Thanks for the explanation, I'm kind of new to loudspeakers.

Just wanted to show that I can post about audio occasionally....

Tim Brown

(Tim Brown) said:

Thanks for the explanation, I'm kind of new to loudspeakers.

Just wanted to show that I can post about audio occasionally....

I've seen more of that recently, thanks.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


I got you first, Devil when you posted your idiotic response. This was
just my coup de gras.

More like a coup de gas.