fire pinch Posted September 1, 2003 Author Share Posted September 1, 2003 Sure, the Tempest doesnt look like an insane performer. Still, even with its none impressive motor structure, it can beat some woofers with a big magnet structure. I just have to take the Sadhara 12 for an example... very imposing woofer But on papers, it diplaces less air than the Tempest, a bit less (2.35 liters). I was too, so not impressed by how the Tempest look likes. But today, I know that if I can build a medium to large box, Im gonna simply choose the Tempest and the amp which go with it for the total price. But Im not the one who have a lot of money, so its why Otherwise, the Sadhara would be so tempting for a woofer which can displace 1/4 of 10 liters of air Moreover, you dont get good SPL but insane sound quality with that XBL2 motor technology. But if you compare the Tumult VS the Sadhara and that your first criteria is the best bang for the buck, I think that the Tumult would be a better choice. BTW theEar, do you own a Velodyne HGS-15? If oui, how loud can it go at 16,20 and 25 Hz? Just wondering as Im aware than the Tempest is really close of that subwoofer in performance... not the HGS-18 althought -> maybe below 25 Hz the Tempest can have an advantage but hmm I doubt it. You are better placed to tell me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire pinch Posted September 1, 2003 Author Share Posted September 1, 2003 KEEP THE POSTS GOING!!! ROFL!! Im reaching 1000 views! Wohooo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Even though I also have a weak spot for a nicely designed/built drivers too... I actually like the "no frills" design of the tempest... given that this is supposed to be a "bang for buck" driver. I say this in light of some of the car audio drivers which are the opposite extreme and are all show but no go... and continue the sacrilege by being installed in Plexiglas covered band-pass boxes. Given the performance of the tempests we can see where the money saved on the cast baskets and copper cones went to a good cause. After all ---------------- To me as long as it sounds good its all good ---------------- Sorry about quoting you L'oreille, but you have to admit it was tempting... Later... Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 ---------------- On 9/1/2003 12:56:03 AM fire pinch wrote: I just have to take the Sadhara 12 for an example... very imposing woofer But on papers, it diplaces less air than the Tempest, a bit less (2.35 liters). I was too, so not impressed by how the Tempest look likes. But today, I know that if I can build a medium to large box, Im gonna simply choose the Tempest and the amp which go with it for the total price . ---------------- I think you hit it on the head as one of the Tumults main design criteria was enclosure size... and several tradeoffs were made to keep this down. The new Sadhara 12 also follows the same design thinking. So if size doesn't count (unlike all the email headers I get in my hotmail ) in theory a pair of more modest drivers like the Tempest or AV15 will perform as well with less power and less excursion (distortion). Unfortunately not everyone has room for a refrigerator in their music/HT room. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Pincette a Feu, The Tempest in the optimal size vented cabinet with only a 250W RMS power amp bests any HGS sub down low.You say WOW,no you see HGS subs are sealed and use heavy EQ boots down low to compensate and this means even if the HGS18 can reach to below 16Hz its weak down there.As a Tempest in a large box and tuned low will perform much better. I know this and it does not shock me,as most movies and music dont have any real cotent below 25Hz. Yes you have a few with earth moving material below 16hz but its not mandatory for me,as long as a sub has guts to 25Hz its fine. When decide to get a real large sub(like the Acoustic Visions Everest),it needs to dig to 16Hz and create a 110dB SPL at listening position.For now I am very happy with the subs I have.Any anyone who would realise the sub bass might would be too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire pinch Posted September 3, 2003 Author Share Posted September 3, 2003 Holly cow!!! With an Acoustic Visions Everest, I guess that you would be near 125 dB SPL at 16 Hz, at listening position, if not more!!! 10 liters of woo***e displacement! This would be crazy! And who wouldnt be satisfied to have all your army of subwoofers? When you will have the Everest sub, and a B4 or two, do you have the idea to crank up at the maximum all your subs at the same time? LOL!!! House destruction! Now, Im reading some documentations about horn loaded subwoofers. The LAB12 horn loaded sub project seems very interesting. But instead of buying an Eminence Lab 12 sub, I would buy instead one or two Adire DPL12 to reach lower frequencies with more authority. I know that these type of subs roll of rapidly below 30 Hz most of the time, but with some EQing, the final results wouldnt look that bad. But Im wondering if a LAB12 sub can be very potent in the bass quality department... For sure, I would get insane sound pressure level at a low cost (very sure about at least 130 dB from 25 Hz and up with proper placement). However, it will be kinda very complicated to build And also, they dont look so beautifull. So its why that Im really just thinking about it now, and no more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabulousfrankie Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 ---------------- On 9/3/2003 11:33:56 PM fire pinch wrote: Now, Im reading some documentations about horn loaded subwoofers. The LAB12 horn loaded sub project seems very interesting. But instead of buying an Eminence Lab 12 sub, I would buy instead one or two Adire DPL12 to reach lower frequencies with more authority. ---------------- I've read from people who know much more about subs than me that the Eminence sub was beefed up because horn loading puts more stress on the driver than normal. Just somethign to consider if you want to change drivers. I think the roll off at 30hz is mainly a function of the horns design, not the driver. I'm not even gonna pretend to know about horn loaded subs though, this is just what I know(or think I know) from what I've read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire pinch Posted October 6, 2003 Author Share Posted October 6, 2003 I just finished completely my Tempest sub (I mean applying the finish on it)! So here are some pictures for you Here is the first one... (logitech name stand for the cam I used for taking a picture) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire pinch Posted October 6, 2003 Author Share Posted October 6, 2003 Another one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire pinch Posted October 6, 2003 Author Share Posted October 6, 2003 and the last one where you can see its back... It is quite blurry on the class D amp but cant do better with an Intel camera The most sad thing part there is that this sub will be for sale when I'll have the Tumult woofer. Have a nice day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easylistener Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Looks great. You did a real nice job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fivelitermustang Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Here is my baby: It punches really tight and there is no boominess or distortion. 3CF sealed... lacks nuts under 30Hz cause it's 3CF sealed with only 250W RMS but I'm going to built a 9CF box with a 60 square inches of slot port. I don't know if I really need that low extension since I listen to music and I'm not a movie nerd. http://members.shaw.ca/fivelitermustang/tempest1.jpg http://members.shaw.ca/fivelitermustang/tempest2.jpg http://members.shaw.ca/fivelitermustang/tempest3.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire pinch Posted October 8, 2003 Author Share Posted October 8, 2003 Oh well... if you dont need so much bass below 20 Hz, Id say go for a 6 or 7 cubic ft enclosure instead. Because a 9 cubic ft box depending of the tuning, will just be less punchier in the mid-bass region and the power handling would be a tad worse. This is not what you want? Mid-bass impact? 9 cubic ft Tempests are better suited to use EBS alignments. If you want more punch and you care less about ultra low bass then I would suggest you to go with a smaller box and a tuning of around 18 Hz (would still go very low). This is what I have now and Im fully satisfied of the bass: punchy, powerfull and earthquakes lol!. And its quality too is stellar: very flat to an impressive 16 Hz in my room, no boost at all or just a LITTLE without EQing -> see the results I posted in this tread . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabulousfrankie Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 ---------------- On 10/8/2003 7:37:47 PM fire pinch wrote: Oh well... if you dont need so much bass below 20 Hz, Id say go for a 6 or 7 cubic ft enclosure instead. Because a 9 cubic ft box depending of the tuning, will just be less punchier in the mid-bass region and the power handling would be a tad worse. ---------------- Fire Pinch, I just want to make one comment about the power handling issue you mentioned. Increasing the internal enclosure volume increases efficiency. With a larger enclosure it will take less power to reach the same SPL as the same woofer in a smaller enclosure. A Tempest is capable of ~16mm of one way excursion, it doesn't really matter how much power it takes to get there just as long as you get there. Whether you reach 16mm of excursion with 100W or 800W, the SPL will be the same. So while excursion limited power handling decreases, I wouldn't say it's "worse". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire pinch Posted October 8, 2003 Author Share Posted October 8, 2003 Yeah thats right... but not worse between lets say 20 and 120 Hz. Gotta give an example before coming to the conclusion. Its just that I didnt explained correctly what I thought... Suppose you take two Tempest enclosure tuned to 18 Hz of 7 and 9 cubic ft and you feed them with 300W of power. We will see easily that the 9 cubic ft box will be more efficient in the deep bass region, because with the same power, it will reach higher excursion in that deep bass region. In that case, 300W of power is pretty the maximum you can use if you dont want to bottom out the 9 cubic ft Tempest, theorically. BUT, because the 7 cubic ft box is a bit less efficient, it has a little bit less excursion down low, so you can add it a bit more power to reach its maximum excursion. So with with the 7 cubic ft box, by adding a bit more power, you can get a little more mid-bass impact (the overall SPL curve goes up). The 7 cubic ft box with the same power than the 9 cubic ft box, having a bit more mid-bass impact originaly due to their respective alignment (7 cubic ft box is more peaky in room in mid-bass), would have even a little more mid-bass impact with little more power. You dont get more efficiency accross ALL the frequency range: by enlarging the enclosure, you begin to loose some mid-bass power, but you gain power below 30 Hz... or 40 Hz well, depending of what type of woofer. So in a resume: "So while excursion limited power handling decreases, I wouldn't say it's "worse": Worse in the mid-bass region. Its what I meant and I think I wasnt enough accurate in what I said... I talked while having in mind the mid-bass and impact, because I think that its what Mustang like. Sorry about that Thank you for your post Frankie, next time I should spend more time posting message so I would be more accurate in my statements Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swerv Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 although extremely off topic, someone made a reference to the 5.1 promedia sub earlier! I thought i would share my results with you MAX SPL in a small room with a 53.83 Hz generated test tone small room in an optimal corner with a sub loaded in my closet i was able to get over 126 db from my radioshack meter Although its a joke compared to these subs you all talk about, im sure it would cause smoke and fire if i left it for more than a minute! not bad for a PEE SEE speaker eh EARS??!!! by the way im very curious to hear your impressions of the new 5.1 ultra sub for its price/performance I heard it was designed by the klipsch reference team cheeerS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire pinch Posted October 10, 2003 Author Share Posted October 10, 2003 Waow impressive number for that PM sub! Whats your room volume? Where did you measure this output? Beside the sub or at listening position? Because well... the PM 5.1 sub isnt magic and I guess that with a sub like the RSW-15 or a DIY sub would get your SPL meter over 130 dB if it could measure it!!! But Im curious to know the maximum SPL of your sub between 25 and 40 Hz, just to know if your SPL will still be over 110 dB or with music, lets say a boom boom song, whats the max SPL at each boom? This sub is for sure fantastic for you in that room The PM Ultra sub... hmm I dont think it will be stellar if we talk about the shake value (at 20 Hz). But for overall, Im sure that this will be a sub which will bring a lot for your money. The best sub ever made for PC! Still, its hard to beat SVS and Paradigm (for Canadians) for the cost/performance ratio. I wonder how would stack the new PDR series from Paradigm against any PM subs, they are not very expensive... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire pinch Posted October 10, 2003 Author Share Posted October 10, 2003 Oh my god!!! When Im looking at how many people viewed this topic, this is one of the most if not the most viewed topic on this forum in the subwoofer section! Keep bumping up the number of posts! heheeh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabulousfrankie Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 ---------------- On 10/10/2003 12:31:25 AM Swerv wrote: although extremely off topic, someone made a reference to the 5.1 promedia sub earlier! I thought i would share my results with you MAX SPL in a small room with a 53.83 Hz generated test tone small room in an optimal corner with a sub loaded in my closet i was able to get over 126 db from my radioshack meter Although its a joke compared to these subs you all talk about, im sure it would cause smoke and fire if i left it for more than a minute! not bad for a PEE SEE speaker eh EARS??!!! by the way im very curious to hear your impressions of the new 5.1 ultra sub for its price/performance I heard it was designed by the klipsch reference team cheeerS! ---------------- I haven't heard 5.1 Ultra's, but if my old SVS CS Ultra can't max out my RS SPL meter I doubt the 5.1 Ultra can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire pinch Posted October 10, 2003 Author Share Posted October 10, 2003 Yeah, maxing out a a Radio Shack SPL meter with a PM 5.1 sub is pretty unbeleivable! I really wonder how he got this kind of SPL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.