sub experts opinion needed

[InVeNtOr]

okay guys, i am helping a freind in his first ht. now i think i am winning the war because he initally wanted some type of "Orb" speaker set. as it stands, even though i don't think it will work, he wants a 5.1. there is a few options i am showing him. first set up is the RSX series. the second option is an RB-61 series. i think with the rb-61 series the surrounds will be the rsx-4 (or 5) due to living room constraints.

so that's the basic speaker packages.

heres where i need help. he just told me for a sub he wants something to rock the foundation but be good for music. i am not a muisc fan. i almost never listen to music and i don't know which type of sub is good for it. i can say this, my eD A2-300 sub didn't sound as good as my Sunfire true sig 12". there is also a huge price difference there. i don't think he is understanding the price gap either.

so for now, i need some suggestions on what sub would work the best regardless of price. i'll then let him know the price range and see what he says.

the reason why i am confused is i was under the impression that a "music" sub is suppose to be smaller so the bass is "tigher." i guess that way the woofer doesn't have as long to move in and out. if you could give me an explaination i would appreciate it, just so i know.

i was first thinking the eD A5-350 would be the best choice, but again, that's a guess.

thanks again.

[jason str]

If you truly want to hear the bass notes and not the high distortion levels associated with direct radiator designed subwoofers i urge you and your friend to build the Tuba HT from bills websight. The folded horn design greatly reduces distortion levels as Klipsch lovers know all too well.

After countless days of shopping and hours and hours of comparison nothing quite matches up.

The one downfall i must note is the size of this unit (3ft x 3 ft x 24")

While not an expert with only 7 or 8 subwoofer builds under my belt i do have good ears and high end tastes when it comes to my beloved music.

[CECAA850]

This would do nicely.

http://community.klipsch.com/forums/p/132628/1346854.aspx#1346854

[TxEvo8]

I have the SVS PB13 Ultra if y'all want to come by and demo it one day. I live in Mansfield, just south of Arlington.... To say that it shakes the house, is a bit of an understatement. []

Jim

[superedge88]

I second the Tuba HT recommendation, and would also agree with you (inventor) for the RSX-5 speakers, a very good speaker dollar for dollar. Keep an eye on ebay for the RSX-5's, Klipsch sells refurbished pairs that go for under $200 (a pair!!!!!) directly on ebay which is how I purchased mine (~ $160 shipped) The RSX-5's will match up perfectly with the Tuba HT with a crossover point of 100 hertz. I built my Tuba HT with the help of a friend and I am so very happy with it's crazy efficient (under 200 watts for crazy bass) design.

[CECAA850]

not the high distortion levels associated with direct radiator designed subwoofers

Explain?

[superedge88]

Compared to direct radiators horn subs have less audible distortion

[CECAA850]

Compared to direct radiators horn subs have less audible distortion

Based on what? Is this subjective or do you have some sort of proof, charts, graphs plots? I enjoy a good read.

[superedge88]

I don't have any links to studies, but this is one of the great benefits of horns in general- low distortion at higher spl with less power needed

[CECAA850]

I don't have any links to studies, but this is one of the great benefits of horns in general- low distortion at higher spl with less power needed

I'll agree that there is less distortion at the driver with less power and excursion than there would be at that same driver with more excursion. The distortion at the mouth of the horn is dependant on the design and implementation of the horn. I then would argue that there can be a flatter frequency response in a direct radiating subwoofer (depending on design and implementation) than a horn loaded subwoofer. It's also easier to get a direct radiating sub to go lower, flatter than a horn loaded sub. It's much easier to build a conventional box tuned to 16 Hz than it would be to build a horn sub tuned to 16 Hz due to the size of the mouth and length of the horn needed. Painting with a broad brush and saying this design is better than that design is rarely accurate. There are trade offs to each design. "Better" is usually "sub"jective.[]

[jason str]

All i have to go on is other peoples testing with the design that is in plain sight on Bills web page, i welcome any testing for nay sayers and also welcome anybody to come by and hear with their own ears as i can plainly hear the difference in sound from any other subwoofer i have heard in my years, all for the better.

My subwoofer is not for sale because i don't like it, its for sale because i liked the sound so much i plan to build some of the other designs featured on the pages. Don't knock it till you try it.

[superedge88]

CECAA850

I won't defend other horn designs that may have some major issues with frequency response, or have issues going anywhere below 20 hertz. The points you bring up seem perfectly accurate.

I will however defend the specific application of the Tuba HT, There are many people that have posted their graphs using REW on avsforum.com. The frequency response in most of the posted graphs drops off anywhere between 12 hertz- 16 hertz depending on the rooms they are in and placement of the sub.

The DTS subwoofer sounds like an awesome sub, but the price is more than double what a THT is, so it is out of my league. For my applications I will be using Transducers to mimmic frequencies below the frequency response of the Tuba subwoofer. As far as flattening the bass response of a horn subwoofer, this is a nothing that Audyssey along with a parametric EQ can't flatten out to be similar to a direct radiating subwoofer.

Thank you for not flaming me, and having a very civil conversation, I appreciate it. This is a great forum of mature people.

[CECAA850]

Don't knock it till you try it.

I'm not knocking your sub. I don't disparage anyone's equipment. I took issue with your statement that the direct radiating sub design is inherently distorted. I haven't read anything to back up your claim yet. I'm certainly open to the possibility of my being wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. I enjoy learning about subwoofer theory. When someone makes a statement such as yours, I'd enjoy reading the facts behind the statement.

[CECAA850]

This is a great forum of mature people.

I certainly can't argue that point.[Y]

[CECAA850]

There are many people that have posted their graphs using REW on avsforum.com. The frequency response in most of the posted graphs drops off anywhere between 12 hertz- 16 hertz depending on the rooms they are in and placement of the sub.

Taking room gain into effect, that sounds correct.

[Thaddeus Smith]

This is a great forum of mature people.

I certainly can't argue that point.

nuh uhhh...

[superedge88]

Here is a good link, helps explain some horn vs. direct radiator differences, fun read.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/Magazine/manufacture/zingali.htm

[CECAA850]

For some reason the link doesn't work. I'll see if I can find it by the address.

[superedge88]

if you copy and paste the link it works

[Chris A]

the reason why i am confused is i was under the impression that a "music" sub is suppose to be smaller so the bass is "tighter."

This is an interesting concept that I've never bought into. I think a better way of saying this is "I don't want to spend money on an accurate subwoofer that can accurately reproduce the lf tracks of movies, versus a subwoofer that is more accurate, but has a higher cutoff frequency, thus making for a poorer subwoofer in terms of performance at the lowest frequencies that are typically found on digital media." Nowadays, you can have it all - extreme lf performance and accuracy for a low price, but the solutions don't look like boxes with huge direct-radiating woofers mounted to them.

If you're handy with wood (including having and using a table saw, etc.), and you don't mind the finished subwoofer being the size of a very small dining table without the legs, then there are some inexpensive (i.e., less than $250 US) horn-loaded sub solutions available that are very efficient and accurately reproduce the lf information, plus the woofers do not have to move very far. There are conventional horn-loaded subs, mentioned above, that will work but the cabinets are bigger than a least one unit that I'm familiar with, and you likely will need to pay for the plans. There are also another solution which is even more efficient, the finished design is smaller, and are even cheaper to build than the ones referenced.

However, if your aim to buy-and-plug-in, then there are a myriad of box-type direct radiator speakers on the market (literally hundreds of products).

i guess that way the woofer doesn't have as long to move in and out.

This has got little to do with a "music sub" or any other kind of sub. It has everything to do with subwoofer sensitivity. That's what you get when you go to horn-loaded subs.

i was first thinking the eD A5-350 would be the best choice, but again, that's a guess.

If you are going to pay that much for a subwoofer, then the following solution is much, much more cost- and performance-effective. Note that you only need simple tools to assemble the unit, and you can refinish to your own needs.

Chris