Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Peerless SLS 6.5" vs. quad Tympany LAT250 Midbass Testing

  1. #1
    Senior Member cvjoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    801
    Real Name
    George

    Peerless SLS 6.5" vs. quad Tympany LAT250 Midbass Testing

    I've been wanting to do this comparison for months now. It's my birthday on Sunday and if my friend is willing to loan out the garage I will try to install the LAT250 IB in doors and see how they compare with a very potent and conventional 7" SLS midbass setup. That's the only way I can rationalize spending a day on car audio nowadays and butchering my doors at the same time.:o

    Some of the material that comes next will look familiar but for completeness sake I will try to make the thread self-sufficient on this forum.


    The toughest job in car audio is arguably the midbass. Upfront placement, box requirements, inductance control, as well as mechanical and thermal demands make it the weakest link in nearly every setup. Subwoofers have higher mechanical and thermal demand but the adequacy of inductance control can be downplayed and placement saves the day since it unleashes the vast room of the trunk. Speakers in general are the mass distortion producers in the chain, and midbass in particular is the worst as they go.

    In my S2000 I am limited to 180mm or so in one dimension by the door mechanisms so even a complete door creation would not relax this constraint. No matter what the speaker cannot be more than that, so I'm limited to 7" speakers. This presents an opportunity to test the common 7" size woofers for the top midbass award. The incumbent is the Peerless SLS 6.5", a favorite for pure midbass applications. I have previously tested the SLS against another popular high end driver, the B&C 6ndl44 here: DIYMA Car Audio Forum - View Single Post - Check out pics. Let me know what you think. 2010! and DIYMA Car Audio Forum - View Single Post - Check out pics. Let me know what you think. 2010!

    SLS 6.5"


    Well, I bet the SLS 6.5" or Illuminator 7" won't sound better than 4 of these per side:


    Will the 4 pack of LATs kick conventional speaker butt?

  2. #2
    Indecisive Tuner BowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Central, NY
    Posts
    749
    SLS is a very nice driver. Going to be interesting how this plays out.
    2010 Fusion Sport: SQ Install w/Dash Sub - Build Log of the Month Winner | July 2011


    Nexus 7 | DAC | miniDSP | Aura MR2150 x 3 | NRT18-8 | RS180-4 | neo8-s

  3. #3
    Founding Member Subwoofery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    353
    Real Name
    Kelvin
    Since depth comes from midbass freqs, why not install the LAT drivers on the underdash panel? How much airspace do those need?
    I'm planning for my next project to install my midbasses there and believe I can get 0.7cuft without having it look like tumors :p

    Kelvin

  4. #4
    Senior Member cvjoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    801
    Real Name
    George
    Quote Originally Posted by Subwoofery View Post
    Since depth comes from midbass freqs, why not install the LAT drivers on the underdash panel? How much airspace do those need?
    I'm planning for my next project to install my midbasses there and believe I can get 0.7cuft without having it look like tumors :p

    Kelvin
    I think depth and well width should be talked about at the same time. Both cues come from 80hz-1600hz or so. So if your midbass driver is also your midrange driver than you would want it as far forward and wide as possible. Small airspace may be made up through more power+EQ for the most part. Underdash may give you a bit more depth but at the expense of width and efficiency(smaller box). I presume baffle stiffness and resonance is equally poor in door as it is in the dash. It is ambigious whether underdash location is better than a door, mostly a width vs. depth tradeoff.

    For an ideal soundstage I would say a Scan Speak Illuminator 7" in the kickpanel or corner firewall would be ideal. Presumably with chassis venting it can get airspace so efficiency stays high enough to not overheat the coil, mounted on the car frame there would be no vibration, width and depth would be maximized, dispersion would be matched with a beefy tweeter, and no crossovers would be made in the important passband. Going to an 8" will put the crossover (and therefore depth and width) and dispersion in peril without any gain in dynamics (since the Illuminator 7 can outdo almost all 8's by virtue of it's motor). Push-pull would also not bring much benefit since the footwell is thick metal and would not rattle. I should put this in my for sale thread lol.

    4 LATS should be a heck of a lot more dynamic than one Illuminator and the door will boost efficiency even more. The downside is depth, but the majority of my depth comes from the pillar mounted midrange. In my setup I'd rather try to mount the midrange deeper somehow. I'm also hoping to get rid of the midbas node in the car by spanning the entire door width.

  5. #5
    Founding Member Subwoofery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    353
    Real Name
    Kelvin
    Yeah, if you're using it in a 2-way - as far forward and wide is the best solution (kicks for eg.)
    But if you're limitting it to being a pure midbass (like you do 60Hz-500Hz), wouldn't underdash be a better location?

    Agree that box size might be a problem especially seeing that LAT don't have monstruous BL. Do you have anything installed in your quarter panel? Might be a good idea to install 2 underdash panel and 2 in the quarter panel (4 on each side) and therefore use T/A to have a nice "cone of confusion" yet help with your midbass node... Might be too much work though :p

    Kelvin

  6. #6
    Senior Member cvjoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    801
    Real Name
    George
    I would think there are still width cues in that region so there is a tradeoff. This car doesn't actually have any room on the passenger side of the dash, and the driver's side is taken up buy some wiring. Kickpanels are tough too, unless you are willing to cut the chassis and reinforce it some other way.

    There is no point in putting midbasses in the quarter panels, the subs are there, might as well use them as midbasses too. The cone of confusion seems to be left or right. Underdash speakers on the left seem to be dangerously close to center. The cone of confusion doesn't work very well on the left-right axis. I would think you could do rear doors, front doors or kickpanels but not rear tray or underdash.


  7. #7
    Founding Member Subwoofery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    353
    Real Name
    Kelvin
    Probably right on that part - need to search a bit more on the subject.

    Kelvin

  8. #8
    Senior Member cvjoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    801
    Real Name
    George
    Quote Originally Posted by Subwoofery View Post
    Probably right on that part - need to search a bit more on the subject.

    Kelvin
    Ok found it, apparently to prevent that cone of confusion from being to close implement (L-R) stereo difference. That's according to an old post by Lycan. That's a lot of work on top of the TA requirements.

  9. #9
    Senior Member cvjoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    801
    Real Name
    George
    Anyway, I generally shy away from these theories. If I understand correctly they rely on TA to do what it's supposed to do but in a car it's frequency dependent, then there are always rattles to some degree, suspension noise, chuffing noises, early reflections, and head movements to give away the location and to some extent phase abnormalities that may arise from signal manipulation (L-R). The trick is more of necessary condition to achieve the cone of confusion than sufficient condition.


    Besides, if (L-R) can work to widen the stage with rear deck mounted midbasses, what can it do with rear door mounted midbasses? Wouldn't it make the stage even wider?

  10. #10
    Founding Member Subwoofery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    353
    Real Name
    Kelvin
    Quote Originally Posted by cvjoint View Post
    Anyway, I generally shy away from these theories. If I understand correctly they rely on TA to do what it's supposed to do but in a car it's frequency dependent, then there are always rattles to some degree, suspension noise, chuffing noises, early reflections, and head movements to give away the location and to some extent phase abnormalities that may arise from signal manipulation (L-R). The trick is more of necessary condition to achieve the cone of confusion than sufficient condition.
    Yup, for this trick to work you need low distortion (= big Sd), solid enclosure (= minimize rattles that could give the location away), T/A and some overlapping (= for a smooth response and minimal phase problems) and keep your eyes forward (easy to do :p).


    Besides, if (L-R) can work to widen the stage with rear deck mounted midbasses, what can it do with rear door mounted midbasses? Wouldn't it make the stage even wider?
    How the L7 works, sides are helping with width and rears (rear deck) are helping in adding some depth.
    If your mids are located in the doors (already wide), can rear deck mounted midbasses really make your stage wider? I know though that tweeters in the front stage can add acoustic width.
    Kelvin

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •