Lambda Acoustics New SAL SB12 sealed box woofers (1 Viewer)

[Jones_Rush]

Does anyone has any experience with this driver ?

I was set to go with the Adire Shiva driver,
In the Stryke.com site they say that the SB12 was
specifically built to play in a 2-4 liter sealed
enclosure, which cannot be said on the Shiva.
Can the SB12 give some real improvement over the Shiva ?
Here is the link : http://www.stryke.com/
Who the heck cares if the SB12 has usable information
above 1khz ?! the SB12 surely wins the IMAGING contest against the NHT1259...

 

[Mark Hayenga]

Hi,
I have some experience with a Lambda 15" driver. How will the sub be used and what are your intended goals for it? Also, the HF response of the driver will likely matter to people mating them to ribbon systems, which is probably where a lot of Lambda's/Stryke SAL drivers will end up. That particular plot is only modeling the electrically induced HF roll-off of the woofer though, not the actual response.
Mark

 

[Jones_Rush]

"How will the sub be used and what are your intended
goals for it?".
The sub will be used in a sealed 3-4 liter cabinet,
It will be used for HT only (movies and concerts)
(The room I will use it in is small.)

 

[John E Janowitz]

Hello,
The SB12 will have the same superior build quality as all of the Lambda Acoustics woofers made for us. There are a few differences between these woofers and the regular SAL PL drivers. The SB drivers use a roundwire copper coil to get the Qts up. They also do not have the basket venting under the spider, or the small vent holes in the backplate. Other than that, they will be the same as the PL drivers. What sets them apart from other drivers is that they feature the highly regarded Lambda copper faraday.
As far as box use goes, they are designed specifically for sealed box use. A heavily stuffed 3-4 cubic foot enclosure will give an F3 of about 32Hz, and F10 of around 19-20Hz.
The graph comparing the SB12 and NHT woofer is not intended to show that the SB12 will have better response than the NHT, but that it will have similar response to the highly regarded sealed box woofer. Response on the low end is very similar, and because of the copper faraday the SB12 has much more useable high frequency response if you need it. It is this high bandwidth that is typically the reason for people describing a woofer as being "fast". The speed of the bass is actually the frequency, cycles per second. If a woofer can reproduce a signal at 1KHz, accurately moving in one direction, stopping and reversing direction 1000 times per second, then it will easily be able to do so with lower frequencies. The SB12 also has higher Xmax than the NHT woofer, and is $1 lower price. So in terms of output vs the NHT it is similar, but it has many other advantages.
John

 

[Jack Gilvey]

The sub will be used in a sealed 3-4 liter cabinet,

That's really small.
------------------
Link Removed

 

[Greg Monfort]

>I was set to go with the Adire Shiva driver,
In the Stryke.com site they say that the SB12 was
specifically built to play in a 2-4 liter sealed
enclosure, which cannot be said on the Shiva.
====
Or the SB12. The site says 1.25-4ft^3, and they need to be 100% stuffed at that, IMO. Actually, once you factor in VC heating it needs to be considerably larger, 5-8ft^3 depending on the in-room response. For a similar response, the Shiva only needs ~3-4ft^3 due to its much lower Qes.
Also, the Shiva has greater excursion/sensitivity, so will play louder down low. The SB12 should be able to handle transient peaks better in the >50Hz BW, but this would only be beneficial with music, or special effects CDs, as HT is limited to +15dB.
====
>Can the SB12 give some real improvement over the Shiva ?
====
Yes, but probably not when used strictly as a HT sub, unless its higher Q blends better with a particular room. It's more suited for use in fullrange mains/center/surrounds. In these apps where a higher XO point/lower order filter is desired it will blow the doors off any of the current 'sub' drivers, and most other LF drivers for that matter based on its specs (and knowing Nick's knowledge/QA).
====
>Can anyone please explain what the heck does this
graph suppose to mean :
====
Nothing WRT HT subs. It just shows that the SB12 has a similar FR and wider BW than an NHT1259. Since the XO determines a subs BW, the extra is moot.
GM
------------------
Loud is beautiful, if it's clean

 

[Jones_Rush]

Greg,
So you are actually saying that I can safely choose
the Shiva over the SB12 in my situation (for HT of course), and be completely sure that I have made the right choice ?

 

[Jack Gilvey]

...and be completely sure that I have made the right choice ?

That will never happen in this game.

While it's tempting to seek some "hand-holding", at some point you just try to learn what you can, look at the evidence, and choose. I can't imagine you wouldn't be quite happy with a sealed Shiva, if sealed is what you think you want. Very nice Q in a sealed,stuffed 90l box.
------------------
Link Removed

 

[John E Janowitz]

GM writes:
"Also, the Shiva has greater excursion/sensitivity, so will play louder down low. The SB12 should be able to handle transient peaks better in the >50Hz BW, but this would only be beneficial with music, or special effects CDs, as HT is limited to +15dB."
The difference in excursion between the SB12 and Shiva is pretty much negligible. The SB12 has a 14mm overhang and we are expecting DUMAX results to show aroung 15mm Xmax. As for the sensitivity, this is one of the issues that is not important in producing low bass. It only applies above the resonant frequency of the enclosure. If you compare the two drivers, above 50Hz the shiva will have more output than the SB12 in the same box size, up to about 3dB more at 100Hz. The SB12 on the other hand will have a much flatter response in the same enclosure size, and a much lower F3.
The driver was designed to compete with the NHT1259 both in price and output, but with superior sound and build quality. It's intent was to have a flat response and low F3 point at the expense of some higher output.
John

 

[Greg Monfort]

>The difference in excursion between the SB12 and Shiva is pretty much negligible. The SB12 has a 14mm overhang and we are expecting DUMAX results to show aroung 15mm Xmax.
====
Well, I didn't specify how much, and have only published specs to go by, not expectations, so for now the statement is valid WRT sims.
Regardless of what folks think of sims, until accurate EQUIVALENT measurements are made, it's all we have available to make a semi-informed judgment call.
====
> As for the sensitivity, this is one of the issues that is not important in producing low bass. It only applies above the resonant frequency of the enclosure.
====
For a given alignment/power it applies down to the point where excursion is the limiting factor.
====
>If you compare the two drivers, above 50Hz the shiva will have more output than the SB12 in the same box size, up to about 3dB more at 100Hz. The SB12 on the other hand will have a much flatter response in the same enclosure size, and a much lower F3.
====
Yes, but this isn't the best way to compare them, as has been hashed over on previous threads. Better to compare alignments, which makes for radically different sized cabs in this case.
Another consideration is in-room response. For subs, a lower F3 often isn't the best solution.
====
>The driver was designed to compete with the NHT1259 both in price and output, but with superior sound and build quality. It's intent was to have a flat response and low F3 point at the expense of some higher output.
====
Understood, as I obliquely noted here, and bluntly on a similar thread.

GM
------------------
Loud is beautiful, if it's clean

 

[Greg Monfort]

>Greg,
So you are actually saying that I can safely choose
the Shiva over the SB12 in my situation (for HT of course), and be completely sure that I have made the right choice ?
====
Of course not, Silly! ROTFLMAO!

I haven't measured your room, etc.. All I've done is express my opinion based on prior experience, and the minimal amount of info made available to me.
Hopefully, it's useful enough to help YOU make at least a semi-informed decision. No more, no less.
You want guarantees, hire a HT designer/contractor.
Caveat Emptor,
GM
------------------
Loud is beautiful, if it's clean

 

[John E Janowitz]

GM writes:
"Well, I didn't specify how much, and have only published specs to go by, not expectations, so for now the statement is valid WRT sims.
Regardless of what folks think of sims, until accurate EQUIVALENT measurements are made, it's all we have available to make a semi-informed judgment call."
Yep, I guess so. I was just pointing out that the SB12 should have more than 14mm Xmax. The original Shiva was Dumaxed at 15.1mm, but their site now states 15.9mm. It also says that "Well soon have full DUMAX results available as well." This would lead me to believe that the 15.9mm is an estimate based on the driver improvements and not verified by DUMAX yet. Dan, if you're reading have you received DUMAX results on the MKII Shiva yet?
"For a given alignment/power it applies down to the point where excursion is the limiting factor."
I'm not sure I quite agree on that one. It only applies until the box becomes the limiting factor, not necessarily the excursion. This shows an efficient driver, the Lambda and a rather inefficient driver, the Solobarik. Both have almost identical low end output at any given input power. The excursion does not become the limiting factor until very high drive levels:
Link Removed
"Yes, but this isn't the best way to compare them, as has been hashed over on previous threads. Better to compare alignments, which makes for radically different sized cabs in this case."
I agree comparing alignments is the best option if this is possible. In many cases though people are limited in the size enclosure they can build. They want to know what will give the flattest response and lowest F3 point in the space they have available, regardless of system Q. Also since the box size is the main issue that determines low frequency output, comparing a driver in a 2 cubic foot enclosure to a driver in an 8 cubic foot enclosure with the same Qtc is also not a fair comparison.
"Another consideration is in-room response. For subs, a lower F3 often isn't the best solution."
Not always, but it is easier to pull down a peak with EQ than to have to boost because you don't have enough room gain.
John

 

[Greg Monfort]

>Yep, I guess so. I was just pointing out that the SB12 should have more than 14mm Xmax. The original Shiva was Dumaxed at 15.1mm,
====
This is the value I used. I haven't been to their site in quite awhile. I wasn't aware there was a MkII.
====
>I'm not sure I quite agree on that one. It only applies until the box becomes the limiting factor, not necessarily the excursion. This shows an efficient driver, the Lambda and a rather inefficient driver, the Solobarik. Both have almost identical low end output at any given input power. The excursion does not become the limiting factor until very high drive levels:
====
When an extreme example is used, such as yours, it has little real world value IMO. I guess we could debate what came first, the chicken or the egg, as the cab volume can, but not necessarily, set the output/excursion limits.

====
>I agree comparing alignments is the best option if this is possible. In many cases though people are limited in the size enclosure they can build. They want to know what will give the flattest response and lowest F3 point in the space they have available, regardless of system Q.
====
Yeah, you got me on this one. In responding to several similar threads one right after the other, I forgot the goals of JR on this one. Still, I strongly disagree with the 'regardless of sys Q' bit. I've yet to see a single thread where Qtc is of no concern. Indeed, when posed with a high Q situation they invariably accept at least some increased cab volume to keep Q acceptable, or go with a lower output driver to keep Vb down.
====
> Also since the box size is the main issue that determines low frequency output, comparing a driver in a 2 cubic foot enclosure to a driver in an 8 cubic foot enclosure with the same Qtc is also not a fair comparison.
====
Yes it is, if they have the same Qtc, as Qtc sets Vb. To do otherwise is unfair IMO. But if someone sets Vb, max Q limits, then you're way is correct, though that hasn't been the situation in the threads I've read, but I doubt I've read the majority of them since joining.
====
>Not always, but it is easier to pull down a peak with EQ than to have to boost because you don't have enough room gain.
====
Depending on the situation, the reverse could be true. Anyway, it seems we come from different philosophical backgrounds. It's been my experience that folks prefer the 'sound' of a boost Vs a 'cut', particularly in the 50-100Hz BW, hence my recommendation preferences.
A good thread, as it gives a bit of interpretive insight.

GM
------------------
Loud is beautiful, if it's clean