Subwoofer Quandary


Hello forum members. I'm in search of a good subwoofer driver for a potential DIY project.

For the last 4 years I've been using an NHT SW3 12" passive subwoofer at times with an NAD 214 amp bridged and more recently with the companion NHT SA-3 amp. This has been used for both my music system and home theater. Up 'til now the results have been satisfactory, but I am now in search of something better.

I'm in the process of buying a Bryston 7B to use as the new amp to drive whichever driver I choose, but I've also entertained the possibility of getting the active Revel B15 or REL Stadium instead. I thought of getting the passive Revel Sub 15 to use with the Bryston and a Paradigm X30 crossover I have lying around, but Revel tells me I won't get the most out of the sub without using their $7000 LE-1 crossover/amp. I'm wondering if this is all marketing or if there is some substance to the claim. I was told that the Sub 15 besides the amp and crossover needs equalization which the LE-1 provides, and that authorized Revel dealers have equipment to fill these needs. What equipment I don't know.

I'm open to the idea of a DIY, especially if I can find a driver better than the NHT 1259 for the project. But should I be looking into the Revel and REL options more carefully?

Thanks for your opinions.
gunbei

Showing 1 response by audiokinesis

Gunbei -

There is a trade-off relationship between efficiency, bass extension, and enclosure size (some money gets traded off as well).

Most people want the maximum bass extension and loudness in the smallest possible enclosure, which means you have to trade off lots of efficiency. Since very powerful amplifiers are relatively inexpensive, that makes sense, right?

Well, maybe not. You see those compact, ultra-long-throw, low-efficiency woofers suffer much more from dynamic compression than a higher efficiency woofer does. Which doesn't really matter on movie soundtracks, but it does matter on music. In my opinion, for music you need a sub with a fairly efficient woofer to minimize dynamic compression. The only way to get deep extension and good efficiency is to use a big box. This is what I've gravitated towards after years as an amateur speaker builder.

Also, sealed boxes are almost universally considered to have better transient response than vented enclosures, but there are vented alignments that rival the transient response of a Qtc = .5 sealed box, yet give you better extension for a given enclosure size.

And the thing is, higher efficiency woofers (for minimal dynamic compression) naturally have parameters that are best suited to vented enclosures.

OF course, if you want a sub primarily for movies, then you'd want a bass alignment that maximizes output rather than transient reponse.

For music, if at all possible, I suggest stereo subs. The reason is, very low frequency out-of-phase information is present on many recordings, and gives a sense of the size of the hall the recording was made in. This is picked up by the widely-spaced microphones. When the bass is summed for a single subwoofer, that out-of-phase information is cancelled and lost.

I'm a dealer for a very musical line of woofers, namely Lambda Acoustics (www.lambdacoustics.com). I've been building speakers as a hobby since the late 70's, and these are the best-sounding large woofers I have found. They are fairly expensive and tend to be of higher efficiency than most woofers, which means a bigger box for a given -3 dB point, but their dynamic impact is very lifelike.

If you're interested, let me know what you can live with in the way of box size, and I'll let you know what Lambda might have to offer you.

Best of luck with your project!

Duke