Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2020 subwoofer thread [updated 1/20]

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by theJman View Post
    It's not a need, it's a want; it's done deliberately for a specific purpose. And it's not snake oil, just different. Joe Rodgers found something that he believes works better. Based upon what I've heard I completely agree with him. All of his speakers and subwoofers utilize the same design to great effect.
    Yes, I have heard the 10s delivers very fast, tight, and "fun" or "surprising" bass, and owners quickly forget it is a single 10" driver. The inner cabinet bracing and venting is unique and seemingly gives great results. I've never heard one in person, but at its price point ($400 + $50 for wireless) it sets a high bar. Hoping to get similar results with the TAI-550s, which seem to have cabinet bracing galore. And weigh in at 5 pounds heavier than the 10s.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by theJman View Post

      It's not a need, it's a want; it's done deliberately for a specific purpose. And it's not snake oil, just different. Joe Rodgers found something that he believes works better. Based upon what I've heard I completely agree with him. All of his speakers and subwoofers utilize the same design to great effect.
      It sounds like it's a great performer but is it related to reduced resonance? I'm still trying to wrap my head around how that little wave redirection could have much effect on a long wavelength low frequency. And if not production costs might be better spent on cost effective well known ways to reduce speaker resonance. Sometimes people and companies promote and market expensive patent ideas they hope will wow customers or encourage the competition to license.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by kabin View Post
        It sounds like it's a great performer but is it related to reduced resonance? I'm still trying to wrap my head around how that little wave redirection could have much effect on a long wavelength low frequency.
        I have no ideas beyond what their website describes and what people have heard from it. If it gets great reviews, they must be doing something right! And keep in mind they're trying to achieve incredible performance at an incredible price point. The whole design goal was supposedly to produce something for $400 that sounds like it should cost a lot more....hey, isn't that the Chane motto?

        If I'm guessing, based on their design, they've simply used the internal cabinet bracing to mimic a giant port.

        I believe the TAI subwoofers use a more traditional design, coupled with a 4" port and massive bracing, along with an "over-designed" (i.e. stellar) driver, to achieve the same effect. That's why I expect the 300 to be as good or slightly better, and the 550 to beat it out...but until someone compares them in-room, no way of knowing for sure.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by jwskud View Post
          I have no ideas beyond what their website describes and what people have heard from it. If it gets great reviews, they must be doing something right! And keep in mind they're trying to achieve incredible performance at an incredible price point. The whole design goal was supposedly to produce something for $400 that sounds like it should cost a lot more....hey, isn't that the Chane motto?

          If I'm guessing, based on their design, they've simply used the internal cabinet bracing to mimic a giant port.

          I believe the TAI subwoofers use a more traditional design, coupled with a 4" port and massive bracing, along with an "over-designed" (i.e. stellar) driver, to achieve the same effect. That's why I expect the 300 to be as good or slightly better, and the 550 to beat it out...but until someone compares them in-room, no way of knowing for sure.
          Yep, The speedwoofer discussion is probably a conversation for another thread. Really piques the interest though. How did Jon and/or the original speaker designer address speaker resonance for the TAI/Snell? And is there any significant resonance effects remaining in the TAI, A, L, or 700 series? Jon says he uses strong heavy speaker cabinet designs.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by kabin View Post
            Yep, The speedwoofer discussion is probably a conversation for another thread. Really piques the interest though. How did Jon and/or the original speaker designer address speaker resonance for the TAI/Snell? And is there any significant resonance effects remaining in the TAI, A, L, or 700 series? Jon says he uses strong heavy speaker cabinet designs.
            Basic rules of thumb in no particular order:

            1. Resonance is a given. It's always there and one trick to a better-sounding speaker - but not the trick - is controlling and mitigating it. A cabinet can never be made completely acoustically inert, and the sound of the cabinet is always there to some degree.

            2. Random factoid: There's a difference between air simple pressure and sound pressure energy. I've worked out scores of bass designs over the last few years and had many chances to work with the figures. At the same time as a surprising amount of sound energy impacts and is transmitted through materials, an equally surprisingly low air pressure is encountered. This tends to confirm the idea that controlling panel resonance is more pertinent than making a vessel to contain great changes in air pressure.

            3. Bass energy changes at a low frequency - the time component is low. Sound pressure change in the box therefore occurs in the pressure domain, meaning there isn't a fundamental directional component to it. The Helmholtz resonator in the port tube, on the other hand, is calculated to work against the whole of that AC pressure change, and to function it needs to see the whole enclosed air mass, confirming that the AC pressure change is slow enough that no (or vestigial) directional aspect occurs.

            The TAI subs in this project are simple cubes, with 1" front baffles for strength. Of the six panels in a active subwoofer box, one is interrupted by the driver frame. These frames are arguably as strong as the MDF they're loaded into, and these drivers prevent what little is left around themselves being reinforced by much bracing anyway. The same is true of the back panel, but in this case - and in all similar amp-on-the-back subwoofers - the amplifier plate is probably less rigid than the panel it's in. At the same time, the low net air pressure change I mentioned doesn't present a problem for either the speaker diaphragm or the common amp plate. The panels surrounding them are so small in area that their contribution to total cabinet resonance is low too.

            This leaves the four large, unsupported panels at top, bottom, and sides of the box. Each of our subs includes a full-perimeter MDF brace of the same thickness as the cabinet walls, CNC relieved through four windows. This brace is sunk and glued into the four walls to split and support them across their depth. A T-brace is formed between the four windows that further supports these four larger panels, hence the term "six-way-braced".

            We use similar strategies in all of our fullrange speakers: Tower braces can have up to twelve sections, with smaller models having fewer.

            Every dime spent on a product reflects in the selling price and there is no such thing as a completely inert cabinet, although some extreme work by ultra-fi brands is truly impressive. We're trying to offer a large degree of audible realism through less costly means at the same time as our stuff tends to be about as heavy as ID product gets, dollar for dollar. I'm a proponent of quiet cabinetry as an effective means to lower a particularly obtrusive distortion but we also want to avoid severely diminished returns.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jwskud View Post
              Speaking of doing something for a specific purpose, as someone who has dialed in more subwoofers than most, what is your general recommendation regarding the gain knob setting on a sub? I have three default settings I've used over the years: 80% (too high!), 50% (i.e. 12 o'clock, a popular setting), and 35-40%, which is where my current Klipsch resides (my AVR set the sub trim to -8 with this gain knob setting, and at night I have to trim to -10 or -11; it's still a bit much).

              Obviously, we'd like to get the most out of our new sub(s), but I've also read that you want room correction (in my case, AccuEQ from Onkyo) to set the sub trim to about -10. That way you can add sub boost via the AVR without risk of clipping. Is that how you set the gain knob, i.e. you run room correction with a particular gain knob setting and see if you get about -10, and if you don't, you adjust the knob up or down a bit and re-run?
              There is no set answer I'm afraid because the gain structure from every manufacturer differs. There can actually be minor variations from the same manufacturer between different batches of amps so what was 12 o'clock for gain on the first production run might be closer to 1 o'clock on the second run. One would hope manufacturing tolerances would be closer, but it's not unheard of for such a variation to exist.

              I'm actually not a proponent of the -10 "ideal" as to me I've often found that low a setting after running room EQ can mess with dynamics. I generally shoot for a few dB more, say in the -7 to -5 range. That seems to not only handle the EQ properly but still provides for adjustment using the AVR trim should you choose to go that route. I'm not a scientist or engineer however, so my assessment is mostly empirical, but it's worked for me with literally dozens of different subwoofers over a number of years.

              If you take yourself too seriously, expect me to do the exact opposite

              Comment


              • Originally posted by kabin View Post
                It sounds like it's a great performer but is it related to reduced resonance? I'm still trying to wrap my head around how that little wave redirection could have much effect on a long wavelength low frequency. And if not production costs might be better spent on cost effective well known ways to reduce speaker resonance. Sometimes people and companies promote and market expensive patent ideas they hope will wow customers or encourage the competition to license.
                Originally posted by jwskud View Post
                I have no ideas beyond what their website describes and what people have heard from it. If it gets great reviews, they must be doing something right! And keep in mind they're trying to achieve incredible performance at an incredible price point. The whole design goal was supposedly to produce something for $400 that sounds like it should cost a lot more....hey, isn't that the Chane motto?
                Originally posted by kabin View Post
                Yep, The speedwoofer discussion is probably a conversation for another thread. Really piques the interest though. How did Jon and/or the original speaker designer address speaker resonance for the TAI/Snell?
                The waveguide works as an additional brace - so it does add to the structural integrity - but that's not the main intent, it was just a side benefit. The goal was to 'calm' the backwave and focus the energy. Because it's confined to a small rigid environment, the backwave from a driver can tend to become a bit chaotic as it bounces around looking for an exit. If the energy is channeled and focused it has more of a direct route out the port - or compression guide in the case of RSL - and therefore should sound cleaner to the human ear. That's the theory anyway, but again not being an engineer means it's an advanced concept above my pay grade. I have personally heard every subwoofer and non-ceiling speaker RSL has made and I can tell you my ears definitely like the results.

                But you're right, this isn't the thread for an RSL discussion. If it's still a topic we should take it to PM instead.

                If you take yourself too seriously, expect me to do the exact opposite

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chane M&C View Post
                  Every dime spent on a product reflects in the selling price and there is no such thing as a completely inert cabinet, although some extreme work by ultra-fi brands is truly impressive. We're trying to offer a large degree of audible realism through less costly means at the same time as our stuff tends to be about as heavy as ID product gets, dollar for dollar. I'm a proponent of quiet cabinetry as an effective means to lower a particularly obtrusive distortion but we also want to avoid severely diminished returns.
                  As with all Chane products, it seems like everything was planned and designed with true intent to deliver optimal sound; this is why I expect the TAI subs will be just like every other Chane product and deliver well beyond cost. Thanks for the explanation, Jon - always interesting to hear the theories, but even better to hear specifics about how Chane combats the various issues with specific tech/development.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by theJman View Post

                    There is no set answer I'm afraid because the gain structure from every manufacturer differs. There can actually be minor variations from the same manufacturer between different batches of amps so what was 12 o'clock for gain on the first production run might be closer to 1 o'clock on the second run. One would hope manufacturing tolerances would be closer, but it's not unheard of for such a variation to exist.

                    I'm actually not a proponent of the -10 "ideal" as to me I've often found that low a setting after running room EQ can mess with dynamics. I generally shoot for a few dB more, say in the -7 to -5 range. That seems to not only handle the EQ properly but still provides for adjustment using the AVR trim should you choose to go that route. I'm not a scientist or engineer however, so my assessment is mostly empirical, but it's worked for me with literally dozens of different subwoofers over a number of years.
                    Thanks, Jman - this is very helpful. My current sub is set for -8 and I find that works fine; I'll shoot for -5 to -7 with the 550s. If nothing else, it gives me more room to trim down when it's late at night and I don't want thundering bass waking my daughter!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by theJman View Post





                      The waveguide works as an additional brace - so it does add to the structural integrity - but that's not the main intent, it was just a side benefit. The goal was to 'calm' the backwave and focus the energy. Because it's confined to a small rigid environment, the backwave from a driver can tend to become a bit chaotic as it bounces around looking for an exit. If the energy is channeled and focused it has more of a direct route out the port - or compression guide in the case of RSL - and therefore should sound cleaner to the human ear. That's the theory anyway, but again not being an engineer means it's an advanced concept above my pay grade. I have personally heard every subwoofer and non-ceiling speaker RSL has made and I can tell you my ears definitely like the results.

                      But you're right, this isn't the thread for an RSL discussion. If it's still a topic we should take it to PM instead.
                      Agreed. The RSL SpeedWoofer sounds great. Thatโ€™s not up for debate. ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜Š

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chane M&C View Post

                        Basic rules of thumb in no particular order:

                        1. Resonance is a given. It's always there and one trick to a better-sounding speaker - but not the trick - is controlling and mitigating it. A cabinet can never be made completely acoustically inert, and the sound of the cabinet is always there to some degree.

                        2. Random factoid: There's a difference between air simple pressure and sound pressure energy. I've worked out scores of bass designs over the last few years and had many chances to work with the figures. At the same time as a surprising amount of sound energy impacts and is transmitted through materials, an equally surprisingly low air pressure is encountered. This tends to confirm the idea that controlling panel resonance is more pertinent than making a vessel to contain great changes in air pressure.

                        3. Bass energy changes at a low frequency - the time component is low. Sound pressure change in the box therefore occurs in the pressure domain, meaning there isn't a fundamental directional component to it. The Helmholtz resonator in the port tube, on the other hand, is calculated to work against the whole of that AC pressure change, and to function it needs to see the whole enclosed air mass, confirming that the AC pressure change is slow enough that no (or vestigial) directional aspect occurs.

                        The TAI subs in this project are simple cubes, with 1" front baffles for strength. Of the six panels in a active subwoofer box, one is interrupted by the driver frame. These frames are arguably as strong as the MDF they're loaded into, and these drivers prevent what little is left around themselves being reinforced by much bracing anyway. The same is true of the back panel, but in this case - and in all similar amp-on-the-back subwoofers - the amplifier plate is probably less rigid than the panel it's in. At the same time, the low net air pressure change I mentioned doesn't present a problem for either the speaker diaphragm or the common amp plate. The panels surrounding them are so small in area that their contribution to total cabinet resonance is low too.

                        This leaves the four large, unsupported panels at top, bottom, and sides of the box. Each of our subs includes a full-perimeter MDF brace of the same thickness as the cabinet walls, CNC relieved through four windows. This brace is sunk and glued into the four walls to split and support them across their depth. A T-brace is formed between the four windows that further supports these four larger panels, hence the term "six-way-braced".

                        We use similar strategies in all of our fullrange speakers: Tower braces can have up to twelve sections, with smaller models having fewer.

                        Every dime spent on a product reflects in the selling price and there is no such thing as a completely inert cabinet, although some extreme work by ultra-fi brands is truly impressive. We're trying to offer a large degree of audible realism through less costly means at the same time as our stuff tends to be about as heavy as ID product gets, dollar for dollar. I'm a proponent of quiet cabinetry as an effective means to lower a particularly obtrusive distortion but we also want to avoid severely diminished returns.
                        Thanks Jon. Sounds like you have a good solution.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by BufordTJustice View Post

                          Agreed. The RSL SpeedWoofer sounds great. Thatโ€™s not up for debate. ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜Š
                          That's for sure.

                          It's always great to pick Jon's brain and put aside concerns.

                          Comment


                          • Hello everyone! I apologize if I missed this detail someplace in the thread, but do the new subs have a high pass filter (for sending signal to the mains)? Thanks so much!

                            Comment


                            • Debating 300 vs 550

                              So 550 gets more amp headroom, 1 Hz lower F6 (negligible), and 2 dB more at 20 Hz.

                              It also sounds from Jon's description that the 300 is slightly tilted down in response from 80Hz to tuning, where as the 550 is flatter between tuning frequency and 80 Hz, so it has more ouput right about tuning than the 300 even before additional ouput due to stronger amp.

                              Is that all correct?

                              Any concern of driver overexcursion with the 550W amp?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Arthur P Dent View Post
                                do the new subs have a high pass filter (for sending signal to the mains)? Thanks so much!
                                Nope. There aren't any outputs on the amp plate. Only inputs.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X