John Warren Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpg Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Hmm... what are the plans for this thing? It looks pretty hefty... What kind of sensitivity rating does it have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 That McCauley seems to have a great build quality... and has quite a "niche" following on some of the DIY forums. It's unfortunate that it requires such a large enclosure... but I guess that's the price to pay for it's efficiency and bass extension. I thought my 6ft3 box was big!... I'm hoping you'll keep us posted on your planned project... Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael hurd Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Very nice indeed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Warren Posted October 22, 2004 Author Share Posted October 22, 2004 k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 isn't that the same woofer used on the wilson xs subwoofer, but the wilson has two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v3spitfire Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Speaking of big woofers, has anyone actually ever seen the 30 inch woofer in the Patrician 800? My uncle has the speaker, but its sealed (and believe can't be opened without a crowbar...). I've always been curious of that monster. The speaker specs says it goes to 15hz (but doesn't say +/-xx db, nor does it give the SPL, but its got to be 104+? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Not bad at all,lets see how much air this woofer cam move(linear tavel). Jay, No,Wilson XS uses AURA 18" woofers capable of moving more air than this woofer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 ---------------- On 10/22/2004 10:00:24 PM TheEAR wrote: Not bad at all,lets see how much air this woofer cam move(linear tavel). Jay, No,Wilson XS uses AURA 18" woofers capable of moving more air than this woofer. ---------------- Thanks for the info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Warren Posted October 23, 2004 Author Share Posted October 23, 2004 d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Warren Posted October 23, 2004 Author Share Posted October 23, 2004 Moving on, Acoustic power (W) is proportional to Xmax squared. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> The thermal dissipation limit for both drivers is 800W. At this limit the McCauley has a 5.3W acoustic output and the Aura has 1.8W acoustic output. The ratio of the acoustic power of the two drivers is ~ 3. Xmax is proptional to the sq-root of the acoustic power. Take the sq-root of the ratio (=1.7) yields the displacement ratio of the two drivers at 800W. So, in a nutshell, the Aura has to move about 2X further in it's linear range to get the same acoustic power output of the McCauley at 800W. So much for comparing Xmax values. Also, FWIW, the 6174 would require ~10dB of gain to match the output of a Klipschorn which is about 10X the power. The Aura requires ~ 18dB (gulp!) of gain or about 60X. Having said all that, I consider the 6174 a better driver for the simple fact that the 1/2-space efficiency is better which (always means) better engineering especially when the Fs values are identical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 "In other words, the Aura has to have 3X MORE power to have the same acoustic output as the McCauley at 20Hz." Sure thing,no question as the numbers show. This is not a problem with today's high power and low cost plate amps a la Bob Carver. Now build a DIY sub and show us how this superiority will translate into output down low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Warren Posted October 23, 2004 Author Share Posted October 23, 2004 s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-Man Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 John and I got to meet each other in Lake George NY back in August. While boating around the lake John sprang this subwoofer idea of his on me. I was a bit surprised, I was used to discussing bass horns and midrange horns with him and didn't think he had much interest in subwoofers. I mentioned this to him and he said someting like this. " What's the matter, you don't think I want to hear that bottom octave or two"? I should have know better. I'm thinking that the 6174 and that amp may be capable of 124db at 20 to 25hz in the right enclosure. Am I right in figuring this? I think that the new Klipsch subs are rated around 120db at 20 hz. To me this isn't good enought for use with the Klipschorns. The Klipschorns are rated at 124db and I feel they need a sub to match that. That means the two Klipsch THX subs will also fry, because they too will need twice the power to reach 123db of output. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpg Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 I agree with having a sub that can match your speakers' output. That is why I went to the Blueprint 1503 (that and it looked evil). Finding a sub that is so capable, though, is not such an easy task. Most are fairly inefficient, unless you get to some 15" and most 18". Now, I wish I had the 1803 or some similar 18". The 15" is amazing, though, considering the circumstances (its not in the right box and isn't even tuned right). I think my next step will be some kind of massive (24"+++) custom sub. Just a thought... but doesn't the amount of air volume the woofer can sweep also determine how capable it is down low (Sd (in cm^2) * Xmax (in cm))? Or is that just a number for show purposes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Warren Posted October 23, 2004 Author Share Posted October 23, 2004 s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-Man Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Darn you guys! You have me in here again with the calculator when I should be in the shop trying to make a living. I'm making a guy some oak beams for his ceiling and I can't get this subwoofer out os my head. So I'll share a couple of ideas with you. 1) Second thought, it may take two of the 6174's to reach 124db. 2) Size of the box shouldn't matter. Why not build a coffee table sub. Most everyone has a coffee table in front of their listening area. Maybe one problem. The height shouldn't be any higher then 16" for a coffee table to be comfortable. Coffee tables can be huge. I see a lot of 4' X 4' ones. They can be up to 6' long in front of an 8' sofa. Something this size could easily fit two drivers. John, How deep is the 6174? (front to back). It would also now have to be down firing. John, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-Man Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 I just went to the McCauley web site and the 1674 is 10" deep. That means a coffee table cabinet will work, back to the drawing board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 ---------------- On 10/23/2004 10:03:21 AM John Warren wrote: ---------------- On 10/23/2004 9:44:52 AM TheEAR wrote: This is not a problem with today's high power and low cost plate amps a la Bob Carver. Now build a DIY sub and show us how this superiority will translate into output down low. ---------------- For the same continous acoustic power output at 800W from the McCauley, I would need 2400W with the Aura. That would fry it. Besides, 2400W amps don't necessarily grow on trees. Ear, your a good contributor to this board and I like the stuff you post. But here I think your off base. The McCauley has better numbers and is about 6 lbs heavier than the Aura (based on the data I read from the Madisound website). My guess it's in the motor. ---------------- I am not questioning the numbers you give,looks like you have a great woofer.No question a VC capable of 800W input cannot take 2400W,as the wire would overheat and BURN. Looks like your "little" McCauley is quite capable Off base...I was being sarcastic.Hello don't you know TheEAR is sarcastic...sometimes. I prefer the hightech Sunfire and Velo HGS/DD subs to the classic monsters.Its just me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Warren Posted October 23, 2004 Author Share Posted October 23, 2004 ---------------- On 10/23/2004 2:32:19 PM Q-Man wrote: I just went to the McCauley web site and the 1674 is 10" deep. That means a coffee table cabinet will work, back to the drawing board. ---------------- Altec did something like this in the early 80s. I have the literature on it somewhere. It was a large 4ft x 4ft x 2'ft high sort of thing with an amp. 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.