Speakerplans.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Plans > Ported Enclosures
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 2 ohms woofers is this the future for cabinets
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

2 ohms woofers is this the future for cabinets

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
Message
Elliot Thompson View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc
Avatar

Joined: 02 April 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5172
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Elliot Thompson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2017 at 11:51am

Originally posted by Ricci Ricci wrote:

We'll just have to disagree on a lot of this. Call it maturity or a mentality or whatever but it is not a negative thing to push the boundaries in any field in my opinion. That is called progress. Just because it does not make sense for you or cannot see the reasons driving the trend does not mean the same holds for everyone else.

 

I don't recall saying it was a negative thing to push the boundaries in any field.

 

This is what I stated,

 

Originally posted by Elliot Thompson Elliot Thompson wrote:

Have you noticed only the little guys or those just getting in the business have that kind of mentality and not the ones that understand the importance of proper coverage using quantity in order to maintain the longevity of their woofers when reinforcing to the masses?

 

It is called maturity. Having a good understanding on what is needed in order to get the job done properly with no casualties (blown woofers) before the event is over. So logically, before we invest, we need to make sure the item in question will offer benefits far greater than what we currently use to justify such expenditure. 

 

 

Originally posted by Ricci Ricci wrote:

 

You are way off base with your comment that only the little guys or inexperienced are looking for maximum output from minimum space and weight. Are B&C, 18Sound, Martin, or Powersoft little companies? This list could go on and on into other audio fields (micro transducers in your phone etc.)...The R&D departments of these companies are the ones putting out the products, patents etc. Their products are engineered the way they are for a reason.

 

As I mentioned previously, I don't recall calling a company or companies little in any shape size and form. Nor, did I say that their products are not warranted. If it is a lack of understanding on your behalf regards to my reply all you need to do is ask. 

 

The little guys or those just getting in the business push their system harder because they usually find themselves in a situation where they do not have enough Rig for the Gig. The mature guys generally do not push their systems hard for they carry enough Rig for the Gig.

 

Originally posted by Ricci Ricci wrote:

Look at the driver and speaker parameters of 70, 50, 30 years back compared with today. Every few years the new product line rolls out and what do they claim? It's lighter, smaller, handles more power, has more excursion, is louder, goes a bit deeper, has lower distortion, etc... Drivers like these are the next generation enabling that. Yes the drivers model slightly different than a traditional driver but that does not mean they cannot be made to have a voltage response every bit as flat in a bandpass or horn alignment. It is not that hard. There are very few modern pro audio subwoofers on the market that have a truly flat response without signal processing. These can be made to work in a standard size vented cab with a high pass, low pass, which are standard anyway and perhaps one band of broad mild EQ.

 

 

The driver in question offers a Q of 0.14 so rightfully so you are going to need heavy equalisation in order to attain low frequency extension in a reflex box. If you are going to take a driver with a Q of 0.14, install it in reflex box, and place it in a corner, you will lower the chances of using a lot of equalisation. Add the room gain in the equation, it is pretty much ideal for Home Audio.

 

However, in Professional Audio, we cannot rely on corners or room gain to help extend the bass response. We can only rely on the ground the sub cabinet resides on when we are hired to reinforce sound at various venues. The driver in question would be ideal for a horn however this is the Bass Reflex forum so my comments are solely based on Bass Reflex designs.

 

Originally posted by Ricci Ricci wrote:

 

The 21 you keep referencing takes LESS power to produce low bass and has higher maximum low bass headroom on top of that due to the higher xmax. It reproduces low frequencies better not worse.

 

This is where you and differ greatly on how we would operate our sound systems. The driver in question offers a 2 ohm nominal load with a Re of 1.3 ohms. This tells me instantly that any amplifier that offers a 2 ohm load minimum in stereo mode is going to be under severe pressure driving such a load.

 

Headroom is what many of us quest for when we select an amplifier to drive our loudspeakers. I am one out of the few that goes a step further by making sure the driver's nominal load is not the same as the amplifier's minimum load. 

 

So the only amplifier I can think of that would offer a minimum load lower than the 2 ohm load of the driver in question would be the Crown Macro-Tech configured to Parallel-Mono. Parallel-Mono on Crown Macro-Tech amplifiers offers a 1 ohm minimum load. That is the only way I can think of not running my amplifiers ragged using woofers offering a 2 ohms nominal load.    

 

As I stated in a previous post,

 

Originally posted by Elliot Thompson Elliot Thompson wrote:

This speaker may be ideal for a small area where you need to extract every bit of SPL out of a single loudspeaker such as a vehicle or household. However in the Pro Audio world, when you start calculating how much money is going to be invested in acquiring the proper amount drivers to attain the correct coverage in addition to running your amplifiers ragged under a 2 ohm load, it is not worth it.

 

Best Regards,



Edited by Elliot Thompson - 26 May 2017 at 11:52am
Elliot Thompson
Back to Top
fatfreddiescat View Drop Down
Young Croc
Young Croc
Avatar

Joined: 15 October 2010
Location: N.E.Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 1081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fatfreddiescat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2017 at 12:25pm
Originally posted by Elliot Thompson Elliot Thompson wrote:




<p ="msonormal"="">
Originally posted by Ricci Ricci wrote:



<p ="msonormal"="">We'll just have to disagree on a lot of this. Call it
maturity or a mentality or whatever but it is not a negative thing to push the
boundaries in any field in my opinion. That is called progress. Just because it
does not make sense for you or cannot see the reasons driving the trend does
not mean the same holds for everyone else.



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">I don't recall saying it was a negative thing to push the boundaries
in any field.



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">This is what I stated,



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">
Originally posted by Elliot Thompson Elliot Thompson wrote:



<p ="msonormal"="">Have you noticed only the little guys or those just getting
in the business have that kind of mentality and not the ones that understand
the importance of proper coverage using quantity in order to maintain the
longevity of their woofers when reinforcing to the masses?



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">It is called maturity. Having a good understanding on what
is needed in order to get the job done properly with no casualties (blown
woofers) before the event is over. So logically, before we invest, we need to
make sure the item in question will offer benefits far greater than what we
currently use to justify such expenditure.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> 
</span>



<p ="msonormal"=""><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">
Originally posted by Ricci Ricci wrote:



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">You are way off base with your comment that only the little
guys or inexperienced are looking for maximum output from minimum space and
weight. Are B&C, 18Sound, Martin, or Powersoft little companies? This list
could go on and on into other audio fields (micro transducers in your phone
etc.)...The R&D departments of these companies are the ones putting out the
products, patents etc. Their products are engineered the way they are for a
reason.



<p ="msonormal"=""><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>



<p ="msonormal"="">As I mentioned previously, I don't recall calling a company
or companies little in any shape size and form. Nor, did I say that their
products are not warranted. If it is a lack of understanding on your behalf
regards to my reply all you need to do is ask. 



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">The little guys or those just getting in the business push
their system harder because they usually find themselves in a situation where
they do not have enough Rig for the Gig. The mature guys generally do not push
their systems hard for they carry enough Rig for the Gig.



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">
Originally posted by Ricci Ricci wrote:



<p ="msonormal"="">Look at the driver and speaker parameters of 70, 50, 30
years back compared with today. Every few years the new product line rolls out
and what do they claim? It's lighter, smaller, handles more power, has more
excursion, is louder, goes a bit deeper, has lower distortion, etc... Drivers
like these are the next generation enabling that. Yes the drivers model
slightly different than a traditional driver but that does not mean they cannot
be made to have a voltage response every bit as flat in a bandpass or horn
alignment. It is not that hard. There are very few modern pro audio subwoofers
on the market that have a truly flat response without signal processing. These
can be made to work in a standard size vented cab with a high pass, low pass,
which are standard anyway and perhaps one band of broad mild EQ.



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">The driver in question offers a Q of 0.14 so rightfully so
you are going to need heavy equalisation in order to attain low frequency
extension in a reflex box. If you are going to take a driver with a Q of 0.14,
install it in reflex box, and place it in a corner, you will lower the chances of
using a lot of equalisation. Add the room gain in the equation, it is pretty
much ideal for Home Audio.



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">However, in Professional Audio, we cannot rely on corners or
room gain to help extend the bass response. We can only rely on the ground the
sub cabinet resides on when we are hired to reinforce sound at various venues.
The driver in question would be ideal for a horn however this is the Bass
Reflex forum so my comments are solely based on Bass Reflex designs.



<p ="msonormal"=""><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>



<p ="msonormal"="">
Originally posted by Ricci Ricci wrote:



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">The 21 you keep referencing takes LESS power to produce low
bass and has higher maximum low bass headroom on top of that due to the higher
xmax. It reproduces low frequencies better not worse.



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">This is where you and differ greatly on how we would operate
our sound systems. The driver in question offers a 2 ohm nominal load with a Re
of 1.3 ohms. This tells me instantly that any amplifier that offers a 2 ohm
load minimum in stereo mode is going to be under severe pressure driving such a
load.



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">Headroom is what many of us quest for when we select an
amplifier to drive our loudspeakers. I am one out of the few that goes a step
further by making sure the driver's nominal load is not the same as the
amplifier's minimum load. 



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">So the only amplifier I can think of that would offer a
minimum load lower than the 2 ohm load of the driver in question would be the
Crown Macro-Tech configured to Parallel-Mono. Parallel-Mono on Crown Macro-Tech
amplifiers offers a 1 ohm minimum load. That is the only way I can think of not
running my amplifiers ragged using woofers offering a 2 ohms nominal load. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">As I stated in a previous post,



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">
Originally posted by Elliot Thompson Elliot Thompson wrote:



<p ="msonormal"="">This speaker may be ideal for a small area where you need to
extract every bit of SPL out of a single loudspeaker such as a vehicle or
household. However in the Pro Audio world, when you start calculating how much
money is going to be invested in acquiring the proper amount drivers to attain
the correct coverage in addition to running your amplifiers ragged under a 2
ohm load, it is not worth it.



<p ="msonormal"=""><o:p> </o:p>



<p ="msonormal"="">Best Regards,



Your rational makes sense but not in the context of what THIS driver was designed for, maybe read the AES papers?


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.06
Copyright ©2001-2023 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.