Ian23 Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) Hi there, Long time reader, first time poster.. Looking for people who have built either of the 12/15 inch versions of these subs, or the smaller Marty subwoofers (can't have larger ones because of the WAF factor) and your thoughts either good or bad? I'm looking at building at least one of these (or two) for a home theatre system, but also listen to plenty of music. Also looking at the minidsp 2x4 HD for multiple sub control. I'm not an engineer so please be gentle, but i do know how to spell AV. Reading lots of info and seems rew and calibration Mic are also on my list to buy. But mainly after people experiences on which they built and if they are still happy with it. Cheers. Edited February 20, 2020 by Ian23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wozza_Lee Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 Martycube for the win, have built quite a few. As well as a ported 15" peerless and 4 sealed 15" which are my current home theatre subs. Bang for buck cannot beat the martycube (the mico is a little to high in the tuning for home theatre imo). Definitely get a minidsp and a umik-1. Lots of learning and fun times ahead. Go to the minidsp forums and there is a great write up about integrating and tuning. Also go to redspade audio and read his post on multiple sub integration as well. Happy building! Need anything post it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian23 Posted February 23, 2020 Author Share Posted February 23, 2020 Hello Wozza_lee, Thanks for replying, but if i can ask why you recommend the Marty but not using them now? We're you able to get better or lower response from 15" subs instead? I have been given the "do whatever you want" from the minister, but don't quite think she knows what that actually means in regards to the size of these things.. I built a 15" housewrecker ages ago and that didn't quite go down so well.. The loudspeaker website has specs for sealed and ported for the Dayton, but the Marty does seem a little bit bigger.. Cheers.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wozza_Lee Posted February 23, 2020 Share Posted February 23, 2020 By the time you add in drivers displacement and bracing etc in my experience the box for dayton ultimax ends up being very large. I went away from the martycube purely for waf, and I would definitely still be using them if I had the room. we move into our new house (bigger) next week so hopefully i can bargain. Personally i would have 2x dayton 390ho in a martycube corner loaded (depending on room modes etc) and be a very happy boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian23 Posted February 23, 2020 Author Share Posted February 23, 2020 Yes, I saw the pics on the Marty site and probably looking at either the Marty cube or the mini Marty version for the waf factor.. the full Marty is a bit too big especially if I make two of them.. I was looking at the UM18-22 if going all out.. and either what loudspeaker recommends for the enclosure or the Marty depending on delivery charges? Or if I can get exact dimensions building my own box. Go hard or go home I say.. especially before she finds out.. or is it ask for forgiveness not permission? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wozza_Lee Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 Martycube would be my recommendation. Best compromise between size, output and price. Can get away with a 15", the larger ones really are made for a 18" which are hard to come by and expensive over here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian23 Posted February 25, 2020 Author Share Posted February 25, 2020 Yes.. i think your recommendation might be the go.. Did you have the 15" or 18" sub? I had a look at some more sizes and the 18" enclosure recommendation is about 8 cu ft.. a little on the bigger size in case of the waf.. Now I just need the specs of the Marty cube.. and hide some money from the missus.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wozza_Lee Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 I had 15"(s). Reading another recent thread here sb acoustics seems to have gone/going into pro drivers (sb audience) . They have a 18" with 11mm xmax (30mm xdamage) for $300 Might be worth modelling to see if it works in the martycube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maz4bz Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 12" Alpine, S, R or X - you can't go wrong with these. If you can find a 15" Alpine second hand jump on it quick! Alpine SWR-1540 Budget Build Alpine SWR-1522D budget build Alpine SWR-1223D budget build Alpine SWX-1243D Build If WAF wasn't a problem then a few tapped horns are hard to beat... Alpine 12" tapped horn home theatre subwoofer build Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian23 Posted February 28, 2020 Author Share Posted February 28, 2020 Hi Maz4bz, Yes.. I do like the Alpine.. I come from a car steteo interest before home theatre.. also loved the JL Audio and Focal subs.. But I think I might go the Marty route this time.. only confusion is that I have found different dimensions for the MartyCube.. being either 2 ft x 2 ft x 25.5 inch OR 2ft x 24 inch base? One saying net volume of 4.75c.f and one with 5.1c.f.. and larger port as well.. I assume they are tweaking for slightly different tuning and results.. and going from everything I have read so far.. bigger is better by the looks of it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maz4bz Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) The Marty's are a very highly respected design, for the intended drivers. Certainly you will get great results with these and if size is no object then go big for sure! The only trade off is that the midbass efficiency will be reduced as ultra low bass is improved. For me I've built my latest sub, I big tapped horn for less extension as I've found I really like a visceral midbass punch. My room really extends the effective low bass my subs produce so I get best of both worlds by not tuning too low. Edited February 28, 2020 by Maz4bz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marten Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 9 hours ago, Maz4bz said: The only trade off is that the midbass efficiency will be reduced as ultra low bass is improved. Interesting insight - can you expand a little on why this is? I realise that, if you apply EQ to shift a subwoofer's -3db cut-off point lower, you typically sacrifice attainable SPL over the whole LF freq region (not just the mid-bass). Is that what you're referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maz4bz Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 Everything is a compromise. Try using a modelling tool - pop your driver specs in and play with the box size & tuning frequency. I'm in the process of building some nice floor stand two ways. The 15" woofers have the following response in these modelled box size and port tunings.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marten Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 11 hours ago, Maz4bz said: Everything is a compromise. Try using a modelling tool - pop your driver specs in and play with the box size & tuning frequency. I'm in the process of building some nice floor stand two ways. The 15" woofers have the following response in these modelled box size and port tunings.... Don't have a project or drivers at the moment, but plan one in future, so I'm trying to learn from you builders as much as I can. Thanks for the graphs; looks like you have a reputable driver there in the Faital 15", which Paul Spencer may well characterise as a "high sensitivity pro audio driver". Your plots show the variation in LF cut-off for different box volumes, but then, using EQ one could make any of them more usefully flat. Thus the key issue may be one of max SPL available from each option without excessive excursion. Are these four plots normalised to the same SPL for each alignment (e.g. does the 0dB red line represent a common SPL value across all four plots)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marten Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 (edited) On 29/02/2020 at 1:59 PM, marten said: Your plots show the variation in LF cut-off for different box volumes, but then, using EQ one could make any of them more usefully flat. Thus the key issue may be one of max SPL available from each option without excessive excursion. Are these four plots normalised to the same SPL for each alignment (e.g. does the 0dB red line represent a common SPL value across all four plots)? Is it something I said - everyone's run away? I was genuinely interested in the answer. Maybe my social skills are lacking ... just didn't realise it's all that offensive. Edited March 3, 2020 by marten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Spade Audio Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 Just now, marten said: Are these four plots normalised to the same SPL for each alignment (e.g. does the 0dB red line represent a common SPL value across all four plots)? He is looking at the default view in Win ISD which shows the small signal bass extension. You are zooming in on the bass extension you would see with 1w input if you measured the speaker outdoors ground plane or nearfield indoors. Move across to the SPL tab with 1w input and you will see that 0 dB equals the sensitivity of the driver as modelled by Win ISD. Often it will be lower than the spec sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marten Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 (edited) Thanks for chipping in, Paul. Given the plots show "small signal" responses, my takeaway is that, if you choose to apply EQ to your finished sub, then these plots do not tell you enough. You need the equivalent of a type of "max practical SPL" plot to know what -3dB point you can achieve for each box volume with EQ added. Edited March 3, 2020 by marten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wozza_Lee Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 Correct, once you eq you can adjust the response. Generally at the cost of sensitivity (ie more power needed to make same spl) Get winISD and have a play, its great software and will help you get your head around different box styles and characteristics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts