Audioholics Reviews their first DIY Subwoofer, the CSS SDX12 Sealed Kit!

[lovinthehd]

well in this case the driver really likes a small box. The advantage is you get hiHF output density. The negative is it’s not very efficient and it’s hard to make a ported box for it. Not sure what else to say? Want me to post some alternative designs for it?

as for amps. I can’t go a lot bigger. Too much bigger will chance popping the breaker. We already use a 10 gauge 250’ cord. Imagine what an 8 gauge would cost.

I have two amps and each had a similar rating. About 1700-2000 watts into 4 ohms. The Crown can be bridged to produce ~4000 watts into 4 ohms. I used the Behringer because it’s more in line with how that driver and kit would be used. The crown makes me nervous. I don’t want to blow a manufactures driver, pop a breaker (it’s a huge pain to reset it), etc. it’s the one thing Josh does that I both admire and have little desire to replicate.

No my comments are more for going forward in future reviews as extra info. Or not. It's your review. Are you already using 20A circuits?

 

[SwedishChef]

Thanks for taking the time to do these test and reviews!

 

[Verdinut]

I have that driver but in a sealed box. We could maybe play around with a ported version and do tests. It should have more midbass output than the CSS maybe, but doesn’t have anywhere near the excursion to compete down low. I’ve tested the sub before and bad issues with it but I think it was a noisy plate amp. It’s on my todo list to retest with an external amp.

As a matter of fact, a few years ago, I built a pair of 3 way enclosures using that subwoofer driver as a woofer crossing over at 270 Hz to a pair of SB Acoustics 5¼ inch mid-bass drivers . I got amazing results with it in a ported 3¼ cf cabinet.

 

[TLS Guy]

Sorry, but I'm going to be the grinch here. My view is hardening against this sort of approach.

A sealed sub woofer with its inherent inefficeincy is a terrible idea unless you absolutley don't have room for a bigger one.

To devote so much amp power to such a small part of the audio spectrum is absurd. Talk of popping breakers is ludicrous.

As I have said many times, a loudspeaker cone is a terrible and highly inefficient acoustic instrument. Practically it really does need an acoustic transformer to convert waves of pressure to waves of displacment. Every natrual instruement on earth does that, including and especailly the human voice.

If you can use science to efficiently convert sound pressure to sound movement (air displacement, which is moving air) then insane xmax, expensive massive motor sytems, and breaker tripping amps need not be considered.

Personally I could not give fig how a speaker performs in the middle of a field unless it is for something like an outdoor rodeo commentary.

What I want to know is how it couples and fills a room with sound. How evenly will it do it. This is where the encicling nature of pipes becomes of specail importance. This is a phenomenon well known to organ builders, and was first made aware of it by one. I have verfied it myself on many occassions.

Now we have not even touched on the one size fits all "off the shelf" crossover in AV systems. I have posted about this already today. So that is one area where I agree usually supplemting a speaker with a sub rather then full crossover is generally the prefered approach.

However my plea is that we consder how to get as good a qaulity sound thoughtout the listening area and stop obsessing about the last octave, which is such a small and relatively trivial portion of the audio spectrum.

I'm becoming more convinced that this obsession with resources devoted to subwoofers consuming insane amounts of power has to a large extent been a retrograde step in achiving faithful and pleasing reproduction in the home in many if not most situations. What I'm getting at is that this obsession, and I belive that is what it is, has diverted precious financial resources away from areas where they would be better spent.

The essence of my argument is that audio systems have to be considered as a total system design, of which subs are just one small cog in the wheel.

I have been an advocate for DIY since I was a child, and have not used a speaker I did not design and build. But the speakers still are one part of the whole project.

Of my three systems only one of them actually uses what one would consider a modern sub driver. I really would encourage members sitting on the fence about DIY to take the plunge. Speaker building is in so many ways akin to organ building, in that organs really do have to be designed for the space in which they will be installed.
So learnig to build for your needs and environment pays enormous dividends. Now with readily available design software it is so much easier than it was such a short time ago. I was an early adopter and first used box and crossover software to build a speaker in 1984. The thirty years of bulding and design prior to that was real work!

I have recently done three posts on the systems here in this new home

The new AV room/studio.

My wife's in wall system.

2.1 channel family room system.

I hope that helps illustrate the points I have made here.

 

[shadyJ]

Sorry, but I'm going to be the grinch here. My view is hardening against this sort of approach.

A sealed sub woofer with its inherent inefficeincy is a terrible idea unless you absolutley don't have room for a bigger one.

To devote so much amp power to such a small part of the audio spectrum is absurd. Talk of popping breakers is ludicrous.

As I have said many times, a loudspeaker cone is a terrible and highly inefficient acoustic instrument. Practically it really does need an acoustic transformer to convert waves of pressure to waves of displacment. Every natrual instruement on earth does that, including and especailly the human voice.

If you can use science to efficiently convert sound pressure to sound movement (air displacement, which is moving air) then insane xmax, expensive massive motor sytems, and breaker tripping amps need not be considered.

Personally I could not give fig how a speaker performs in the middle of a field unless it is for something like an outdoor rodeo commentary.

What I want to know is how it couples and fills a room with sound. How evenly will it do it. This is where the encicling nature of pipes becomes of specail importance. This is a phenomenon well known to organ builders, and was first made aware of it by one. I have verfied it myself on many occassions.

Now we have not even touched on the one size fits all "off the shelf" crossover in AV systems. I have posted about this already today. So that is one area where I agree usually supplemting a speaker with a sub rather then full crossover is generally the prefered approach.

However my plea is that we consder how to get as good a qaulity sound thoughtout the listening area and stop obsessing about the last octave, which is such a small and relatively trivial portion of the audio spectrum.

I'm becoming more convinced that this obsession with resources devoted to subwoofers consuming insane amounts of power has to a large extent been a retrograde step in achiving faithful and pleasing reproduction in the home in many if not most situations. What I'm getting at is that this obsession, and I belive that is what it is, has diverted precious financial resources away from areas where they would be better spent.

The essence of my argument is that audio systems have to be considered as a total system design, of which subs are just one small cog in the wheel.

I have been an advocate for DIY since I was a child, and have not used a speaker I did not design and build. But the speakers still are one part of the whole project.

Of my three systems only one of them actually uses what one would consider a modern sub driver. I really would encourage members sitting on the fence about DIY to take the plunge. Speaker building is in so many ways akin to organ building, in that organs really do have to be designed for the space in which they will be installed.
So learnig to build for your needs and environment pays enormous dividends. Now with readily available design software it is so much easier than it was such a short time ago. I was an early adopter and first used box and crossover software to build a speaker in 1984. The thirty years of bulding and design prior to that was real work!

I have recently done three posts on the systems here in this new home

The new AV room/studio.

My wife's in wall system.

2.1 channel family room system.

I hope that helps illustrate the points I have made here.

A couple of points:
True that conventional loudspeaker diaphragm are not efficient, but that doesn't matter. Most systems have all the dynamic range that their users need. Power and amplification are cheap. Unless you are building a system intended for THX reference levels in a large room, it is not a serious concern. Most people I know would not even tax typical bookshelf speakers. Your point only stands for dedicated listening spaces, not shared living spaces, but dedicated listening space are like 0.01% of where people normally listen in. It's a luxury that only a few people enjoy. And a sub like this is not something that most people would turn to for a dedicated space.

Also, do you have anything to back up the claim that pipes are somehow better able to cope with room acoustics? I would want to see some research. As far as I can see, pipes like transmission lines are still a monopole source, and that wouldn't have any advantage in room acoustics over traditional subwoofers.

Also, how a subwoofer performs out in a field is how a subwoofer performs unaffected by room acoustics. There is no way to know how subs compare doing in room measurements unless you had both the subs and mic in the exact same place, and even then that would only be valid for that room and that placement. I know you know this, so I can't understand why you would mention that.

 

[shadyJ]

One note-worthy aspect of the SDX12 driver is its very wide bandwidth. It is basically flat out to 800 Hz. It can easily be used as the low-frequency driver in a 3-way design since it can be crossed over at like 400 Hz and it doesn't need a lot of internal space. It's a great choice for a true full-range speaker.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Sorry, but I'm going to be the grinch here. My view is hardening against this sort of approach.

A sealed sub woofer with its inherent inefficeincy is a terrible idea unless you absolutley don't have room for a bigger one.

To devote so much amp power to such a small part of the audio spectrum is absurd. Talk of popping breakers is ludicrous.

As I have said many times, a loudspeaker cone is a terrible and highly inefficient acoustic instrument. Practically it really does need an acoustic transformer to convert waves of pressure to waves of displacment. Every natrual instruement on earth does that, including and especailly the human voice.

If you can use science to efficiently convert sound pressure to sound movement (air displacement, which is moving air) then insane xmax, expensive massive motor sytems, and breaker tripping amps need not be considered.

Personally I could not give fig how a speaker performs in the middle of a field unless it is for something like an outdoor rodeo commentary.

What I want to know is how it couples and fills a room with sound. How evenly will it do it. This is where the encicling nature of pipes becomes of specail importance. This is a phenomenon well known to organ builders, and was first made aware of it by one. I have verfied it myself on many occassions.

Now we have not even touched on the one size fits all "off the shelf" crossover in AV systems. I have posted about this already today. So that is one area where I agree usually supplemting a speaker with a sub rather then full crossover is generally the prefered approach.

However my plea is that we consder how to get as good a qaulity sound thoughtout the listening area and stop obsessing about the last octave, which is such a small and relatively trivial portion of the audio spectrum.

I'm becoming more convinced that this obsession with resources devoted to subwoofers consuming insane amounts of power has to a large extent been a retrograde step in achiving faithful and pleasing reproduction in the home in many if not most situations. What I'm getting at is that this obsession, and I belive that is what it is, has diverted precious financial resources away from areas where they would be better spent.

The essence of my argument is that audio systems have to be considered as a total system design, of which subs are just one small cog in the wheel.

I have been an advocate for DIY since I was a child, and have not used a speaker I did not design and build. But the speakers still are one part of the whole project.

Of my three systems only one of them actually uses what one would consider a modern sub driver. I really would encourage members sitting on the fence about DIY to take the plunge. Speaker building is in so many ways akin to organ building, in that organs really do have to be designed for the space in which they will be installed.
So learnig to build for your needs and environment pays enormous dividends. Now with readily available design software it is so much easier than it was such a short time ago. I was an early adopter and first used box and crossover software to build a speaker in 1984. The thirty years of bulding and design prior to that was real work!

I have recently done three posts on the systems here in this new home

The new AV room/studio.

My wife's in wall system.

2.1 channel family room system.

I hope that helps illustrate the points I have made here.

The popping breakers bit has nothing to do with sealed subs. It has to do with how you test a high output subwoofer. We could take a TLS or horn or whatever subwoofer using high sensitivity pro audio drivers, a system that far exceeds the bass sensitivity of a typical high mass subwoofer. It would be a bigger challenge. Such subs can absorb absurd amounts of power.

NSW6021-6 21

Arguably the best 21-inch subwoofer on the market. Eminence implemented advanced measurement systems and FEA optimization tools on this next generation of Tour Grade worthy subwoofers. The result is absurd, unrivaled displacement and exceptionally high power handling with top-of-the-line...

www.eminence.com

take this driver, one that is very popular amongst DIYer right now. This insane pro audio subwoofer driver is very sensitive, has huge amounts of xmax for such a driver, and can absorb 5000 watts program power. In fact, for dynamic peaks, its more like 7000+. That means that if I am to test this subwoofer such that the conclusion is that my numbers of the maximum output of the subwoofer and not my amp, I need an amp capable of more than the sub can handle, and that amount more should be a certain number of dB's headroom. Let's call it 3dB. If I think I need 5000 watts to test this sub, then I need a 10,000 watt amp for this. They exist, but are very expensive. It also means I need a 240 volt 30 amp line. This is what Josh Ricci does, but it's not something James or I have access to, nor are we too interested in doing this.

It has nothing to do with what people would do or want in their own rooms, nothing to do with what is rationale for domestic spaces. It's just a requirement for accurately scientifically testing high output DIY subwoofers. I would argue (and I think @shadyJ would agree) that any test that falls much short of this isn't really a useful or valid test.

To conduct these tests we use a public park field that is within my planned community. I have an agreement with the village to allow us to do this testing as long as we get a permit each time and that the testing does not lead to widespread complaints nor that the noises we produce exceed legal limits in community areas. What that means, as I understand it, is that the SPL levels near the sub can be whatever they are, that is on us. However, the SPL levels at any home must not be at illegal levels. Like many communities, our law doesn't name an SPL, it just says that I can't produce a nuisance level of sound. That is at the discretion of the police. I could get a permit for outdoor sound reproduction, like a concert, but to do that you need permission from 80% of the neighbors (each time we test), insurance that names the village, and I have to pay fees for having someone from the village working with us. Not an option.

So what we do is use this field, borrow electricity from a neighbor friend of mine whose home is on the edge of the field (it's a 120-20amp outlet) and do what we can. That us sufficient for 99% if not more of commercial domestic subwoofers. It's not adequate for these crazy pro based high output DIY subs. I've thought about options to expand this, but its really a big jump.

I'm saying all this to also try to temper any hopes of Audioholics becoming the next Data-Bass. I'm not against the idea in theory, but I know it's unrealistic for us right now. I love doing this and I want to do this for all of you to have the information, but without pay and help, its just hard to justify.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

No my comments are more for going forward in future reviews as extra info. Or not. It's your review. Are you already using 20A circuits?

I see. So are you against that kind of information being placed in a forum post instead? I guess I'm worried about making these articles too technical.

We use 20amp and its been fine so far. You would think 2000-4000 watts would be more than sufficient for this testing, no? Crazy how this process can explode. Outside this testing, I have no need for a 10,000 watt pro amp so unless we get some payment to cover the costs, I don't see upgrading like Josh has. He had a reason to own that amp outside of testing. I was offered a really good price on such an amp, but @shadyJ talked me out of it. You can blame him!

 

[Matthew J Poes]

One note-worthy aspect of the SDX12 driver is its very wide bandwidth. It is basically flat out to 800 Hz. It can easily be used as the low-frequency driver in a 3-way design since it can be crossed over at like 400 Hz and it doesn't need a lot of internal space. It's a great choice for a true full-range speaker.

The bandwidth of the sub kind of shocked us. The vast majority of the subs we test are finished products and have fixed low pass filters even with an LFE input. At some point, say 200hz, the bass rolls off. On top of that, most high output subwoofers have high inductance and naturally roll-off and break up by 200-500hz. This crazy little driver operated cleanly into the midrange such that you could use it easily in a 3-way and even 2-way speaker. Any tweeter that could be crossed over at 800hz or so could be used to turn this into a 2-way speaker. That's kind of bonkers for a high excursion subwoofer driver. The Peerless and Dayton subs can do this too, but none of them have as much xmax or high power handling.

 

[lovinthehd]

I see. So are you against that kind of information being placed in a forum post instead? I guess I'm worried about making these articles too technical.

We use 20amp and its been fine so far. You would think 2000-4000 watts would be more than sufficient for this testing, no? Crazy how this process can explode. Outside this testing, I have no need for a 10,000 watt pro amp so unless we get some payment to cover the costs, I don't see upgrading like Josh has. He had a reason to own that amp outside of testing. I was offered a really good price on such an amp, but @shadyJ talked me out of it. You can blame him!

Were we not able to link forum posts to reviews recently due some googlish problem? I think in the review would be a better diy type consideration but supplemental info is good, too.

As to the amp having 20A circuits available, that could be more than most people at home have anyways. Nice to see how far a potent amp can push a sub, tho. What, you're not just oozing with R&D money? I don't know if raising funds with this bunch would be sufficient !

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Were we not able to link forum posts to reviews recently due some googlish problem? I think in the review would be a better diy type consideration but supplemental info is good, too.

As to the amp having 20A circuits available, that could be more than most people at home have anyways. Nice to see how far a potent amp can push a sub, tho. What, you're not just oozing with R&D money? I don't know if raising funds with this bunch would be sufficient !

We think we figured out the problem and have it resolved. We can link them as long as they no longer have the same title or content in the thread. We still need to monitor the situation because the Google search Algo constantly changes and might cause problems again.
As for power, I’ll admit that James and I are perfectionists when it comes to this kind of scientific testing. We don’t like to do it if we feel it can be questioned. In this case, the idea that the amp could become a limiting factor is worrying. Manufacturers of drivers don’t love it when their product doesn’t test as expected simply because our testing ability is inadequate. It’s also not as useful for you all as consumers. It might look like a $350, $550, and $750 drivers all perform the same, when in fact there are sizable differences.

 

[Jon AA]

Thanks for the excellent review, Matthew. Nice to see some DIY love. Posting about those GSG Marty flatpacks and Eminence drivers hits close to home as that's the direction I'm most likely headed. If you test one of those, I'll help pay the medical bills if you throw out your back!

My problem is I'm not really sure that there are savings to be had (or that the savings are so small as not to be significant or be readily offset by factors such as warranty.

As with many things, the bigger and more numerous you go, the more savings there are to be had. Let's run through an example:

Four of the excellent GSG Marty flatpacks (if you don't have room for all four, split the order with somebody in your area--there are threads about doing this all the time). You're at $280 for each, including shipping.

Add a 21DS115-4 for each, another $600.

1/2 an Inuke6000 (using one amp to power two), that's $300 each.

Another $100+ for paint, wire, connectors, glue, etc.

That's $1300 total for each sub.

the HSU ULS-15 mk2 and the Outlaw X13 Ultra (which seems to go on sale for $1,000 or $1,100 on a regular basis)!. I am not sure a DIY sub can hang with either of these!

While I'm not aware of any published testing of that exact combo, for a rough idea of the capabilities of such a sub, Ricci did test a combo not too far off from that (similar sized box, slightly higher tuning) so it won't be exactly the same but will give you a ballpark idea ( https://data-bass.com/#/systems/5afdc4a68a2a8000041c7999?_k=eu9vw6 ) :

Another $150 each to use the Eminence NSW driver Matthew posted about above will outperform this driver by a good amount in the lower frequencies. But this gives you an idea. Those B&C drivers have actually been on sale recently for much less than $600 so a budget minded shopper may save even more if he looks for a deal.

Compare those numbers with the HSU ULS-15 mk2 you mention, measured by Shady https://www.audioholics.com/subwoofer-reviews/hsu-uls-15-mk2/measurements . The HSU is a very nice sub, and a good one for the money, but as you can see it's not even on the same planet performance-wise. If you can find a commercial sub that rivals the above numbers of the $1300 combo for less than double the price, please do tell us all what it is! A JTR Captivator 4000 will best it in some areas, but for three times the price.

Multiply that by four (we all need at least four, right?) and you can see many, many thousands of dollars saved going the DIY route for similar performance.

 

[TLS Guy]

A couple of points:
True that conventional loudspeaker diaphragm are not efficient, but that doesn't matter. Most systems have all the dynamic range that their users need. Power and amplification are cheap. Unless you are building a system intended for THX reference levels in a large room, it is not a serious concern. Most people I know would not even tax typical bookshelf speakers. Your point only stands for dedicated listening spaces, not shared living spaces, but dedicated listening space are like 0.01% of where people normally listen in. It's a luxury that only a few people enjoy. And a sub like this is not something that most people would turn to for a dedicated space.

Also, do you have anything to back up the claim that pipes are somehow better able to cope with room acoustics? I would want to see some research. As far as I can see, pipes like transmission lines are still a monopole source, and that wouldn't have any advantage in room acoustics over traditional subwoofers.

Also, how a subwoofer performs out in a field is how a subwoofer performs unaffected by room acoustics. There is no way to know how subs compare doing in room measurements unless you had both the subs and mic in the exact same place, and even then that would only be valid for that room and that placement. I know you know this, so I can't understand why you would mention that.

Well of course a monopole is unidirectional above the baffle step, but transitions to full space at the baffle step.

So a TL speakers only output from the port at a frequency where they are omnidircetional radiators.

It is well known that pipes have a further reach than speakers used in electronic organs. Whether this has been didactically studied I don't know, but I have verified it for myself on location recording sessions.

This from pipe organ.com

[MOVING THE AIR MASS
(Sonic Disturbance)

Electronic organ speakers do not distribute sound in the same manner as organ pipes. The latter send out sound waves in all directions. Except for very low tones, speakers (including exponential horn types) are directional.

Experimentation in large cathedrals, where enormous amounts of air have to be moved, has proven that pipes can project their tone much farther than electronic speakers. It is also evident that the larger the building, the more apparent are the shortcomings of the electronic organ.]

I do know that the bass of TL speakers where port radiation is dominant gives more even coverage. The sound of a good TL is very different from other speakers. It is more diffuse even and natural. I recently installed a coupe of HSU ported subs in my old studio. I set Q at 0.5 and had both ports open. They were 12" subs. The bass was nothing like my TLs in the same room on pipe organ. It definitely sounded like a speaker reproducing a pipe organ and not a near perfect facsimile of the pipe organ. This is so hard to describe in words. It is that TLs have authority but lightness of touch at the same time. Standard subs seem to lack that sensitivity. They do sound different and I am not the only one to have noticed that.

The TL with the single 10" driver has no trouble filling my large great room, and in fact that whole lower level with bass down to 20 Hz without breaking a sweat.

I was listening to Choral Evensong from the BBC last week down there. The organ was beautifully reproduced and the choir to. I had cause to move down the corridor to the front door and into the office. It was just as if I had moved from the nave to one of the outer aisles.

I don't recall that I have ever bottomed a woofer. I certainly have never damaged a woofer from over excursion.

I just find the whole concept of bunging a huge woofer in a closed box with what I regard as insane power a solution that lacks any elegance or sophistication what so ever.

When all is said and done what matters is how a unit will function in the space it is going to be placed. I remain to be convinced and open field response had a lot of relevance except I suppose as a point of comparison. But I agree I'm not about to fork out dollars on a factory sub.

 

[Pogre]

Thanks for the excellent review, Matthew. Nice to see some DIY love. Posting about those GSG Marty flatpacks and Eminence drivers hits close to home as that's the direction I'm most likely headed. If you test one of those, I'll help pay the medical bills if you throw out your back!


As with many things, the bigger and more numerous you go, the more savings there are to be had. Let's run through an example:

Four of the excellent GSG Marty flatpacks (if you don't have room for all four, split the order with somebody in your area--there are threads about doing this all the time). You're at $280 for each, including shipping.

Add a 21DS115-4 for each, another $600.

1/2 an Inuke6000 (using one amp to power two), that's $300 each.

Another $100+ for paint, wire, connectors, glue, etc.

That's $1300 total for each sub.


While I'm not aware of any published testing of that exact combo, for a rough idea of the capabilities of such a sub, Ricci did test a combo not too far off from that (similar sized box, slightly higher tuning) so it won't be exactly the same but will give you a ballpark idea ( https://data-bass.com/#/systems/5afdc4a68a2a8000041c7999?_k=eu9vw6 ) :

View attachment 34267


View attachment 34268

Another $150 each to use the Eminence NSW driver Matthew posted about above will outperform this driver by a good amount in the lower frequencies. But this gives you an idea. Those B&C drivers have actually been on sale recently for much less than $600 so a budget minded shopper may save even more if he looks for a deal.

Compare those numbers with the HSU ULS-15 mk2 you mention, measured by Shady https://www.audioholics.com/subwoofer-reviews/hsu-uls-15-mk2/measurements . The HSU is a very nice sub, and a good one for the money, but as you can see it's not even on the same planet performance-wise. If you can find a commercial sub that rivals the above numbers of the $1300 combo for less than double the price, please do tell us all what it is! A JTR Captivator 4000 will best it in some areas, but for three times the price.

Multiply that by four (we all need at least four, right?) and you can see many, many thousands of dollars saved going the DIY route for similar performance.

I got a pair of VTF-3 MK5s for ~$1700 shipped (caught them on a small special). When I was looking into building a pair it was a challenge to do it for less. I coulda saved maybe a couple hundred dollars building them myself, but there's the time investment, finishing work and I still need to buy some of the tools for the job which adds even more to the expense of a first build.

I'm not dissing diy at all tho. I very much want to tackle a project like this. I think I have the chops to do an excellent job on everything except the actual finish.

 

[Verdinut]

I came close to building my own ported subs but after I priced it all out, as you point out, the savings were pretty small. Then when you factor in the work that goes into a nice finish... I called Dr Hsu, lol. Going with multiples and using the same amp will realize a little better value tho. For me the finishing work would be the most challenging part of the build.

And then there are transmission line speakers. I've seen a couple of flat packs that looked really nice. I know that's a pretty ambitious build for a newbie tho, but cutting my teeth on a kit or 2 I think would be invaluable experience. I dunno. Still think about it. If I could be confident in the finish I probably already would have. Subwoofers I think you can get away with a little more, but main speakers I'd definitely wanna get right.

Another option is to figure out the exact construction, dimensions etc. and get a reliable cabinet maker to build the enclosure for a very satisfactory good finish to your liking. That is what I did when I decided to go into business to sell speakers several years ago. Of course, it increases the whole building cost, but you don't have to worry as much as to how a cabinet will finally look.

This is one of the only two 3 way speakers that I built in 2015 and that I sold. I decided to close shop afterwards because of difficulty in finding a certain clientele for my products. By the way, I had those speakers auditioned by a group of audiophools in Montreal. As a matter of fact, one of them told me that, in his opinion, my speakers were top performers with only one other pair of speakers. Unfortunately, I forgot to ask him what were the other speakers which were performing similarly to mines:

 

[GO-NAD!]

If anyone is interested, here's my build thread. As already suggested, a ported enclosure would have been huge. I went the PR route.

CSS SDX12 Build Thread

imagine what you will be getting if you crank the master volume control up? I got something like 119 dB on my Trio12 at 20 Hz with volume around -6 on my receiver. (SPL meter at about 10 feet) from woofer cone. I think you should pick a "base frequency" that will be inside the curve that you...

forums.audioholics.com

 

[SoundUp]

One note-worthy aspect of the SDX12 driver is its very wide bandwidth. It is basically flat out to 800 Hz. It can easily be used as the low-frequency driver in a 3-way design since it can be crossed over at like 400 Hz and it doesn't need a lot of internal space. It's a great choice for a true full-range speaker.

Are there any plans for a DIY 3-way with the SDX12 that you know of? I'd be very interested.

 

[shadyJ]

Are there any plans for a DIY 3-way with the SDX12 that you know of? I'd be very interested.

No plans for that, sorry. It would be a good project for a DIYer. This really is a very good all-around 12".

 

[KEW]

If anyone is interested, here's my build thread. As already suggested, a ported enclosure would have been huge. I went the PR route.

CSS SDX12 Build Thread

imagine what you will be getting if you crank the master volume control up? I got something like 119 dB on my Trio12 at 20 Hz with volume around -6 on my receiver. (SPL meter at about 10 feet) from woofer cone. I think you should pick a "base frequency" that will be inside the curve that you...

forums.audioholics.com

Your link goes to post #41!
I suspect you meant to go to post #26? (or can go to post #1 for some preliminary discussion)
FWIW, here is a link to post #26.

CSS SDX12 Build Thread

I'll take a crack at this one in a day or so. Been too tied up as of late. In the last two-three months I have had a promotion, relocation, house hunting, a new baby and volleyball tournaments for my (oldest) daughter to boot. It looks to me like you don't have your priorities straight - you...

forums.audioholics.com

I don't know how many days you can still edit a post. If you fix it, PM me and I will delete this post (as it will serve no purpose) otherwise I will leave it here.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Your link goes to post #41!
I suspect you meant to go to post #26? (or can go to post #1 for some preliminary discussion)
FWIW, here is a link to post #26.

CSS SDX12 Build Thread

I'll take a crack at this one in a day or so. Been too tied up as of late. In the last two-three months I have had a promotion, relocation, house hunting, a new baby and volleyball tournaments for my (oldest) daughter to boot. It looks to me like you don't have your priorities straight - you...

forums.audioholics.com

I don't know how many days you can still edit a post. If you fix it, PM me and I will delete this post (as it will serve no purpose) otherwise I will leave it here.

Oops! I haven't logged in for a few days and missed your post. And yes, I believe it's too late to edit mine. Sorry about that.