New Adire Audio Brahma Series Drivers (1 Viewer)

[Kyle Richardson]

Take a look here to see some very impressive drivers being introduced by Adire Audio. As you can see by the specs these drivers will not be for everybody and are more of a niche driver but you have to be impressed!
For those of you that want a small box, have lots of power, and an EQ or some other way of boosting the lower end this driver may be for you.

 

[Scott Simonian]

Wow! I cant wait til they are all out. ~30mm Xmax! EDIT: ONE WAY!!!
I just cant wait to see what new subs everyone will be making in the new year. Best be using these babies.

 

[Scott Simonian]

I sure like the look of them. Im a little disappointed in the sensitivity, about 84db/1m. And the price is steep compared to the shiva/tempest, preorder $385.

OH YEAH CANT WAIT TIL THEY ARE OUT!!!

 

[Brian Bunge]

Those look pretty damn awesome! Even with a few more mm of Xmax than the Blueprint drivers, the Blueprints are still hard to beat for the money. I paid $249 for the 1803! And I think sensitivity is around 92dB.

Actually, I got my credit card statement the other day. They must have charged me the preorder price because my total was only $247 with shipping.

Brian

 

[Seungsoo Hwang]

Arg, yet another item to pull at my empty wallets and bank accounts. Looks great.

 

[Bob Sorel]

Wow, yet another entry in the high excursion arena. We already had the Stryke HE series, then the Blueprint 03 series, and now the Adire Brahma series. Things are really looking good for the DIY subwoofer builders!

 

[Kyle Richardson]

Scott,
This driver is actually geared toward the car market (look at the ohm rating on the voice coils) but can be used in the home with the right equipment. You get to those ultra long excursion drivers designed for small boxes and your sensitivity drops accordingly. If you have 1000+ watts on tap sensitivity becomes less of an issue

 

[Scott Simonian]

If you have 1000+ watts on tap sensitivity becomes less of an issue

Yeah, no kidding. Too bad I dont. :frowning:
I had a feeling that these were meant for car audio, but they aint bad for HT. I still have to make my first DIY tempest, now this. UGH.
Great, more $$$ to pump out of the parents.

 

[Robert A]

So Kyle, when are you going to have some of those subs?

 

[Kyle Richardson]

For personal use? Probably wont since I have a Maelstrom coming
For sale? Just as soon as they become available.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

As with the Blueprints, they probably won't be quite as flexible as a Shiva or Tempest, which work well in just about anything. If you use them to take advantage of the great Xmax and power handling, like with an eq'd sealed box/Linkwitz transform, they'll likely outshine anything. The 12" also looks very good with PR's.

 

[Tom Vodhanel]

Didn't the Blueprint 1203 dumax at 26mm? I think it showed a little more Sd too....so the linear air moving is pretty much a wash(and that's assuming the xmax on this one gets near the 30mm range).The 1203 looks to have a much stronger motor (if someone considers Qes the main aspect of that .3 vs .5) too...but I don't see any info on the Xsus on the 1203...I think someone said it was in the mid 30s?

both look like great drivers...but at $199, the blueprint drivers are god awful hard to beat.

TV

 

[DanWiggins]

Hi all, perhaps I can answer a few questions...

Brahma really isn't targeted as a home audio sub. While it does have the longest DUMAX-verified Xmax of any driver out there (DUMAX verified at 27.32mm one way, nearly 1.5mm beyond the next closest driver) the rest of the driver is designed/optimized for high-SPL output in tiny boxes (anywhere from 17 liters and up). It is the current Xmax king, though.

Basically, this is a high-SPL car audio competition driver - note the dual 2 ohm voice coils, which allow maximum power draw from a variety of high-power car amps, which are typically optimized for 2 or 1 ohm loads. A pair of JBL BP1200.1s (1200W into 2 ohms) would work well with this driver, in an SPL competition (2400W total delivered to the driver). It's been beaten on with 45 second bursts of 3400W (1700W per coil, voice coils out of phase to minimize motional cooling), 10 second bursts of 1700W at 10 Hz in free-air, and several other torture tests at our lab, and came through fine.

It could work in home situations; a Qtc=0.707 box requires a miniscule 26 liters. Add in an LT with some healthy power behind it (a stout 1600W or so), and it could work out pretty well in a tiny box. For example, put it in 1 cubic foot, and use an LT with an F3 of 23 Hz, and a Qtc of 0.707, and you'll push around 100 dB SPL @ 20 Hz anechoic. None too shabby for that small of a box (14" cube).

But most of the features (dual 2 ohm voice coils, extreme power handling, tiny-box use, etc.) really aren't needed for most home apps; there are more cost-effective ways to getting the big in-room boom.

Dan Wiggins

Adire Audio

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Didn't the Blueprint 1203 dumax at 26mm? I think it showed a little more Sd too....so the linear air moving is pretty much a wash(and that's assuming the xmax on this one gets near the 30mm range).The 1203 looks to have a much stronger motor (if someone considers Qes the main aspect of that .3 vs .5) too...but I don't see any info on the Xsus on the 1203...I think someone said it was in the mid 30s?

I'm not aware of Dumax on the 1203, but here's what I have on the 1503, which uses the same motor. (Sorry about the quality, MSN is forcing me to re-size it.) Xsus is 36.18mm.
Link Removed MrtUqykSg*Rm8aGo4rjtKbGQ7E/1503Dumax.bmp
The Brahma looks exceptional in a small PR box, maybe 70L and a couple of PR-15's with an Fb of 20Hz.

 

[DanWiggins]

One thing to consider is that different cone geometries (and sizes) can affect centering of Xmag and Xsus, which can increase/reduce the DUMAX Xmax results. Most likely the 1203 would have the same DUMAX excursion capabilities as the 1503, but I've seen too many times where the same motor bolted on to a different frame/cone combination offset things enough to change the Xmax values by 10% or so.
Using the same motor is a good indicator of potential, but in my experience the results aren't directly transferrable.
Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio
BTW, here's the part of the DUMAX sheet we're posting:

Dan

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Using the same motor is a good indicator of potential, but in my experience the results aren't directly transferrable.

Noted. I figured it would give an idea, at least, in the absence of specific data.

In a given line of drivers using the same motor, can we expect that Xmag would stay relatively consistent, and that Xsus would be more subject to variability among the models?

I saw that Brahma Dumax sheet yesterday, incredible numbers. I much prefer the way it looks in a small PR system compared to the 1203 (maybe due to the higher Qts), but it does need copious power to make it worthwhile.

 

[DanWiggins]

Jack,

In general, I've seen Xmag "drive" Xmax much more than Xsus. In other words, an offset of 3mm in Xsus for either driver isn't a big deal; an offset of 2mm in Xmag directly affects the Xmax value, since Xmag is smaller than Xsus to start with.

Typically, cone topology changes (shallower/deeper overall depth) can cause you to pull the voice coil too far forward or backwards when building the driver. Often you need to change the former length and position of the voice coil on the former to compensate. I don't know of a cone series that has the same depth for a 12" and 15" diameter cone. This is where the problem comes in. So you end up with different offset potentials on the different sized drivers. In theory, all should have the same Xmag value; in practice, though, I've never seen it accomplished.

As far as the spider, it's often glued "at rest" against the former, meaning that you let the spider come to rest where it wants to against the former, prior to gluing down. This usually removes offsets, but if you get the lift on the edge of the spider wrong, then when you mount the cone you might push the spider back a bit (this is the case 99 times out of 100, when there's an Xsus offset). the solution is to either go with a shallower cone (which trades off strength), or change the lift on the edge of the spider (either a different lift ring, or a different cup depth).

As far as Brahma goes, it does look nice in smaller boxes; one I've been toying with is 2.75 cubic feet, tuned to 20 Hz with a pair of PR-15s. Goosed with 1600W, it should do in excess of 110 dB SPL from 18 Hz and up. Lots of power, but good output for a small cabinet.

IMHO, this is because of the higher Qts. It's my opinion that you can have too low of a Qts, as well as too high of a Qts. I've found that in many cases - especially smaller boxes - a mid-value Qts (between 0.4 and 0.5) can yield what I consider the best tradeoff between extension and flatness. Higher Qts values result in peaks in the midbass, lower Qts values result in peaks right at tuning.

Now, as the box size becomes larger, Fs drops, and Vas increases, I've found that I can "slide" the "ideal" Qts range down a bit, and still have good results. There really isn't a set of magic T/S parameters; each application needs to be considered on its own strengths. At least, that's what I've found playing with dozens and dozens of physical prototypes, and thousands of models.

Dan Wiggins

Adire Audio

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Higher Qts values result in peaks in the midbass, lower Qts values result in peaks right at tuning.

Exactly what I found with the 1203.

 

[Rich Kraus]

gad zukes i love these forums, how much driver education can you pack into a single thread? keep this up and we might actually learn something

 

[Jack Gilvey]

keep this up and we might actually learn something

Indeed. I've learned and incredible amount from Dan and Tom, especially during their disagreements.