Search results for query: *

Sure you wired up the DCX with crossover correctly?

That does not sound right. Do you have a picture of the measured response? Also: -What was your measurement setup? -How did you hook ups the DCX464? -What kind of 100H and 650Hz crossovers? -Is the ECM8000 calibrated?

For sale: 4x modified cubo sub/21 -Lavoce SAN214.50 -18mm birch ply -cnc cut -dual baffle -2 wheels -m20 polemount -6 handles -Raptor liner coating -custom metal connector panel Price: 1200,- per piece. 2x 6th order bandpass -B&C 15DS115-8 -18mm birch ply -cnc cut -4 wheels with brake -m20...

Okay, nice to hear that you like them. Different question: How do you like the handles while stacking? I am currently playing with a similar handle, but I am not sold yet.

Any updates on this project?

Getting the portlength right in practise is not that easy because to my knowledge, not one simulation program can design for example a shelved port right. You will end up with a correction that needs to be done in practise, hence the multiple versions. -I would say truck pack dimesions are...

Whats pessimistic about it? KS28 is from what I have read, pretty much the benchmark. Chuffing would also be low compared to other dual 18 competitors. What dual 18 would be your starting point?

Also watch out with setting the HPF to high. Some extra excursion below tuning (though not really used for sound reproduction) could be beneficial for cooling the VC some more.

You can design something similar to the KS28, only be ready for extensive testing and probably multiple test cabinets.

At the moment there is no version of the PM60/90 with a passive XO between the LF and MF/HF section. So you have to (at least) bi-amp the cab. 2x12NDL76-16 will give you 8 Ohm nominal when parallel. 1x DCX464-8/16 with a passive XO between the MF and HF will give you either 8 Ohm or 16 Ohm...

Looks awesome!

Note that don't necessarely need FIR. You can get decent results with IIR also (that even means you can get it to work with a dcx). Though, FIR filtering will give you that extra which can make a box just that bit better then most others.

All eminence options are definately not optimal. The one thing that could come close to working in the PM60/90 is probably their new N314X HF driver (I'm also curious about that one, but its so damn expensive in the EU). They claim a 800Hz possible crossover like various other offerings that do...

What's the approximate budget per driver. For a good ferrite model, i would consider the 18TBW100.

Think you're talking about the 18TBW100. Its a proven driver in de keystone, and will work fine. 18SW115 will have a nudge over the TBW100, but not that noticable probably.

Maybe something like the Paraflex Type-C? Even easier to build then the Keystone, and have read many positive reviews.

You could go for a cheaper HF driver. DE1090Tn and ND950 1.4. Would also do the job, at the cost of some soundquality against the BMS/B&C coax.

The 15DS115 would do the job I think. I have tried in in a 6th order BP design. Net volume of the rear chamber was around 80L and first tuning was 37Hz. While 40Hz was the aim (so I have to shorten the port), the 15DS115 was still underdamped at Fb. If interested, I am selling the 15DS115-8's...

Besides the used horn, what are you gonna use below it? Just some settings for a 494HE won't get you far if you want to do it right.

If I recall correctly, the MB12N405 would work nicely. Main disadvantage would be it immense weight for a neo 12" driver (which defeats the original's purpose of the design). Plans should be available in the main two topics about the PM60/90.