What interests you?

[BoredSysAdmin]

That subwoofer is a beast. Yeah, it's crazy expensive, and huge, and impossible to move by yourself, but it definitely cuts the mustard. I'm curious to see if copy cats of this type of design will start showing up, maybe with 3 drivers instead of 6. And if they can get them to be more efficient (don't know if the extra power is from number of drivers, efficiency, or because it's a sealed system) they could make one that would still be very good for a lot less. Again, my speculation, I have no idea what physics related limits you would see trying to build one

Not so much as copycat, but "inspired by" designs are already made (half the drives and only a THIRD the price )

POWER SOUND AUDIO — Triax Home Audio Subwoofer

 

[Basshead81]

^note that the Triax will punish the Sub2 for a fraction of the price. The drivers account for 150lbs of the subs weight.

 

[crossedover]

^note that the Triax will punish the Sub2 for a fraction of the price. The drivers account for 150lbs of the subs weight.

Not sure if Id use the term "punish"

 

[TheHills44060]

...For me personally, I've always had a thing for the SPL/SPL-R line. Played with a couple at A&B Sound back in the day, one day hoping to get one.
SheepStar

Hi sheep I share the SPL-R interest too. I picked up the 1500R in 2007 and have been happy ever since. I not a huge bass enthusiast like many others here but I appreciate low end so the Velodyne fits the bill. I run a pre/pro two channel setup with no means of equalization so the on-board EQ is very nice although I don't know how it stacks up to EQ's in AV receivers. I also love the remote control which has proved to be more than handy.

 

[Sheep]

Hi sheep I share the SPL-R interest too. I picked up the 1500R in 2007 and have been happy ever since. I not a huge bass enthusiast like many others here but I appreciate low end so the Velodyne fits the bill. I run a pre/pro two channel setup with no means of equalization so the on-board EQ is very nice although I don't know how it stacks up to EQ's in AV receivers. I also love the remote control which has proved to be more than handy.

I completely forgot they made a 15inch version of that subwoofer. Something along those lines would be my idea subwoofer I think. All the lunacy and power of a 15 inch (plus the amp was no slouch) in a smaller package that didn't punish your space with either an ugly box, or a huge ugly box. However, I see some of the nicely finished larger ported subwoofers and then start looking at the frequency response. I really need to push my Velo and see where it gives up the ghost so I know the minimum requirement for a future subwoofer.

SheepStar

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I have no desire for big heavy powerful subwoofers. Even if I were a billionaire, the big heavy powerful subs just don't interest me.

What interests me is having no subwoofer at all - a tower loudspeaker that can output bass like a good punchy dynamic subwoofer.

 

[shadyJ]

I have no desire for big heavy powerful subwoofers. Even if I were a billionaire, the big heavy powerful subs just don't interest me.

What interests me is having no subwoofer at all - a tower loudspeaker that can output bass like a good punchy dynamic subwoofer.

The problem with that is the best place for the mains is rarely the best place for the subs, unless your are very lucky with your room acoustics. Multiple subs optimally located through the room is the best solution for performance, as the ideal is not having to use equalization at all, and even then equalization doesn't do much for nulls. Which is why I don't understand why you are selling your Funk subs, whatever you get to replace them is not going to top their performance and will likely be a substantial downgrade.

 

[crossedover]

The problem with that is the best place for the mains is rarely the best place for the subs, unless your are very lucky with your room acoustics. Multiple subs optimally located through the room is the best solution for performance, as the ideal is not having to use equalization at all, and even then equalization doesn't do much for nulls. Which is why I don't understand why you are selling your Funk subs, whatever you get to replace them is not going to top their performance and will likely be a substantial downgrade.

Well if he has five of the speakers he keeps mentioning with a 16hz-20kz and lfe to each one, he may end up better off.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The problem with that is the best place for the mains is rarely the best place for the subs, unless your are very lucky with your room acoustics. Multiple subs optimally located through the room is the best solution for performance, as the ideal is not having to use equalization at all, and even then equalization doesn't do much for nulls. Which is why I don't understand why you are selling your Funk subs, whatever you get to replace them is not going to top their performance and will likely be a substantial downgrade.

Having five SX-T2 towers around the room is having five SX-1010 subs around the room.

My goal isn't to achieve 125dB output. Well, actually, five SX-1010 subs could produce ~ 126dB @ 40Hz. But regardless, my goal is to achieve strong dynamic punchy musical bass that can also shake my room like an earthquake. The five SX-1010N subs are doing exactly that right now w/o the Funk subs. All I'm doing is adding five SX-T1 to "create" the five SX-T2 towers.

But you know that statement about "best subwoofer placement" is so banal. As if anyone is going to place his subwoofers smack in the middle of his room because it's the "best subwoofer placement".

And besides, I like being "different". I think five SX-T2 towers (MSRP $18,750) is sort of different.

 

[shadyJ]

How is your bass management being handled? In that sort of setup you could run each SX1010/ SX-T1 stack as a full range speaker and not have to worry about bass management as much if Audyssey is being implemented.

 

[Sheep]

How is your bass management being handled? In that sort of setup you could run each SX1010/ SX-T1 stack as a full range speaker and not have to worry about bass management as much if Audyssey is being implemented.

He has Audyssey, he never shuts up about it.

SheepStar

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

He has Audyssey, he never shuts up about it.

SheepStar

I thought you were taking a break from your normal barrage of dry wit and backhanded sarcasm?

 

[Sheep]

I thought you were taking a break from your normal barrage of dry wit and backhanded sarcasm?

SheepStar

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

How is your bass management being handled? In that sort of setup you could run each SX1010/ SX-T1 stack as a full range speaker and not have to worry about bass management as much if Audyssey is being implemented.

I set my speakers up as monitors (set to small, XO 80 Hz) and SX-1010 as LFE. I run Audyssey for speakers and subs. Then I use Audyssey Bypass L/R + Dynamic EQ.

So I actually BYPASS Audyssey. But I use DEQ. If I could have just Sub EQ + DEQ without Audyssey altogether, I would do it.

Assuming I get five SX-T2 towers, I would still do the same. The 5 top cabinets (treble & midrange/ SX-T1) are set to Small. The bottom 5 cabinets (bass/ SX-1010) are LFE. That means a total of 10 channels of amps.

I like this better than 5 full range towers configuration because I get 5 subwoofers around the room.

So in effect, I'm really doing 5 monitors + 5 subs. But aesthetically, they just look like 5 full range towers and zero subwoofers.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

SheepStar

LOL.

We are who we are.

 

[shadyJ]

How is your response at listening position? Five subs should go pretty far to flatten the response, even if they are not optimally placed. Do you know how much Audyssey flattens the response vs no Audyssey?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

How is your response at listening position? Five subs should go pretty far to flatten the response, even if they are not optimally placed. Do you know how much Audyssey flattens the response vs no Audyssey?

Audyssey Flat:


Audyssey Regular:


I guess I don't have a graph of no Audyssey (bypass).

Bottom line, it is the best sound I have heard. But I also realize it is 100% subjective.

 

[shadyJ]

That does not look bad, looks about +/- 3 dB. You might take some REW measurements of it just to see what you have. I bet it would be interesting to compare the measurements of 1 sub, vs 2 subs, vs 3, etc. with and without Audyssey.

 

[walter duque]

I set my speakers up as monitors (set to small, XO 80 Hz) and SX-1010 as LFE. I run Audyssey for speakers and subs. Then I use Audyssey Bypass L/R + Dynamic EQ.

So I actually BYPASS Audyssey. But I use DEQ. If I could have just Sub EQ + DEQ without Audyssey altogether, I would do it.

Assuming I get five SX-T2 towers, I would still do the same. The 5 top cabinets (treble & midrange/ SX-T1) are set to Small. The bottom 5 cabinets (bass/ SX-1010) are LFE. That means a total of 10 channels of amps.

I like this better than 5 full range towers configuration because I get 5 subwoofers around the room.

So in effect, I'm really doing 5 monitors + 5 subs. But aesthetically, they just look like 5 full range towers and zero subwoofers.

This is just a question now. How low do your top modules go? Are you using top modules and subs? I have modular towers too, so I am just wondering how you're gonna set your system up. Does your system come with tops-bottoms+subs, or just with tops and subs??

 

[crossedover]

This is just a question now. How low do your top modules go? Are you using top modules and subs? I have modular towers too, so I am just wondering how you're gonna set your system up. Does your system come with tops-bottoms+subs, or just with tops and subs??

Down 3db @ 50hz, so with roll of and limited crossover functions on the 5308 ( yes I'm prodding you to up your setup) he will probably stay with an 80hz crossover. Maybe Mr. Linkiwitz will design you a perfect active system. No harm in asking