AudioKinesis Cabs Part VI...

[tombowlus]

Ooooo.... How does the Brandywine play with the Hathors?

Very, very nicely!

 

[TrentB]

Well, here's the old version next to a 1203 and then grouped with the 1505 and 1203 stack. The 1505 is 18" wide, I think.
Maybe it's perspective/geometric distortion, but it looks like there is more space on either side of the 18" in the picture of the new version. Could it be wider than the 1855?

@TrentB , I'm guessing you want one to run alongside your 212.

Edit: These are pics saved to my computer (not mine). I think they were taken by Tom Bowlus.

Well my 212 is great with my Quilter on top but with any larger amp it just doesnt look right. I’ve been using my Orange 4 Stroke 500 with the 212 and it sounds amazing but I put it on the floor to avoid the dreaded T bone look. See pic. I’m thinking the new Hathor 18 might play nice with the Orange or my SVT.

 

[Handyman]

Since it came up, I had to find a picture of the beast.

View attachment 2806362

Whoa! The bottom looks like my 1855 but... cool!

So Duke, is that the same 18" driver as the 1855 but with new and improved mid drivers?

 

[svtb15]

wow.... I guess that can push some air?

Since it came up, I had to find a picture of the beast.

View attachment 2806362

 

[nutdog]

Hmmmm, that gets me to thinking.....would a pair of 18633's be overkill for bookshelf speakers?

Depends on the bookshelf

 

[Handyman]

wow.... I guess that can push some air?

Ha! If that's the same 18" driver as the old 1855 it has slightly more displacement than an Ampeg fridge.

 

[winegamd]

It rattled an entire warehouse with all the ports plugged, with ease. That was using Passinwind's amp that I think is 800 watts at 4 ohms, and I am a light plucker. So, it moves some air.

 

[geowis]

I'm the happy owner of a beautiful Hathor 1203, but reading everyone's comments on other great AK Cabs is stirring my gas.

 

[dave64o]

Hmmmm, that gets me to thinking.....would a pair of 18633's be overkill for bookshelf speakers?

Depends on the bookshelf

View attachment 2806764

It would have to be a mighty big bookshelf. An 18633 doesn't sound like a speaker, it sounds more like a ZIP Code!

 

[wagdog]

Ha! If that's the same 18" driver as the old 1855 it has slightly more displacement than an Ampeg fridge.

Hmmm, my son uses a fridge. Maybe we can go halfsies on one of these where I get to keep it when he's not on the road. Duke, any specs on the 18633?

 

[svtb15]

My ONLY wish is that the woofer be made to fit Flush to the cab front.. Similar to the Mids and high drivers that sit behind the small grill and flush to the cab face. .. .
That is my only wish. . I worry about the speaker getting damaged in a lateral shift if it's in a truck with other equipment in a tight pack getting hit by another piece of gear and shearing off a hold down bolt or worse ..

 

[DukeLeJeune]

It would have to be a mighty big bookshelf. An 18633 doesn't sound like a speaker, it sounds more like a ZIP Code!

Actually I'm calling it the Hathor 1863... five digits is one too many imho. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

Alright, Duke, time to fess up. You're the one shipping sonic weapons to Cuba, aren't you?

I regret that I can neither confirm nor deny that allegation.

Ugh, why do 18"s have to bee so big....

Maybe it's perspective/geometric distortion, but it looks like there is more space on either side of the 18" in the picture of the new version. Could it be wider than the 1855?

Theoretically I could make the cab 2" narrower... it's 22" wide for rack-mounted amps, but it could be made 20" wide, the latter being the width of the 1855 (good catch, McFarlin!). The height is set by driver dimensions, and the depth is set by the port length + woofer magnet depth.

I actually read a review of a Fountek 2" full range on parts express that made me appreciate your use of the threes even more. Have you talked with any manufacturers about custom 3" drivers since they are so popular in your cabs? I am just curious what could be done if they were no built as so much of a full range and had a higher FS with more focus on even top end extension.

I have not investigated custom 3" cones because the one I'm using works pretty well. The limiting factor as far as useful top-end extension goes is probably the cone diameter more than anything else. The 3" Faital has extension out to 20 kHz "on axis", but I only claim 12 kHz because of beaming, and because to my ears it sounds more like a 12 kHz top end than a 20 kHz top end. You can see the factory curve at this link, and it's pretty close to my own measurements:

Invalid Link Removed

Whoa! The bottom looks like my 1855 but... cool!

So Duke, is that the same 18" driver as the 1855 but with new and improved mid drivers?

Yes, its the same 4-ohm 18" woofer, the Faital 18HP1060. I can also use the 8-ohm version of that woofer, which wasn't available yet back in the day, for anyone using a bridged amp that would rather see an 8 ohm load.

The 6" cone mid is actually the 18Sound 6NM410B, which has a nasty 9 db spike just north of 4 kHz (which somehow never made it into the published curves... hmmm...). So I throw a bunch of crossover parts at it and now there's a slight dip at 4 kHz. The advantage of the 18Sound mid is, its combination of efficiency (even after killing the spike) and power handling gives it more max SPL capability than the two 5" mids that I was using in the 1855. This matters because I want the mid to start helping out the woofer way down around 300 Hz, and I don't want the mid to be the "limiting factor" from a power handling standpoint. I think the 1863 offers a small but hopefully worthwhile increase in output down in the 300-500 Hz region. Also, in the spirit of "if you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough", the openings in the mid-chamber of the 1863 are dimensioned to deliberately tune the chamber to a little less than 300 Hz.

Having killed everything the mid is doing north of 4 kHz, the pair of 3" cones are needed to give us some top end. Instead of a top-end rolloff switch, the top switch just opens the circuit going to the tweeter's section of the crossover board, effectively disconnecting it.

My ONLY wish is that the woofer be made to fit Flush to the cab front.. Similar to the Mids and high drivers that sit behind the small grill and flush to the cab face. .. .
That is my only wish. . I worry about the speaker getting damaged in a lateral shift if it's in a truck with other equipment in a tight pack getting hit by another piece of gear and shearing off a hold down bolt or worse ..

That's a valid concern, dangit. I'd have to increase the cabinet depth by about an inch, because otherwise we'd start bumping into the port tubes. It would either require multiple layers of plywood to recess the woofer, OR I'd have to use a "conventional" baffle with the large "lip" around the perimeter... probably not an issue for the woofer, but I think it would be for the mids.

Thus far, to the best of my knowledge, NONE of my cabinets have suffered that kind of damage despite the woofer grille pooch-outage. I figure that the high prices I charge make people more careful than they might otherwise be. So my cabs' first line of defense isn't the grille or the plastic corners, it's that big-@$$ check you guys had to write for the privilege of owning a "boo-teek" bass cab...

 

[svtb15]

What i LOVE about the way you do business, design and post specs. You do it conservatively.
Much like the way that you explained why you use that certain 3" driver ... YOU spec it to 12k and not 20k because of beaming. That is very important and not something the casual user would consider.
I appreciate the honesty and integrity of what you do.. We don't see much of that on planet earth these days and especially not in bass Gear /speakers /amplification world . So many amp makers HYPE their 700 watt amps that may really be 300 if it were measured with a standard spec of yesteryear .. ..

Actually I'm calling it the Hathor 1863... five digits is one too many imho. Gotta draw the line somewhere.



I regret that I can neither confirm nor deny that allegation.





Theoretically I could make the cab 2" narrower... it's 22" wide for rack-mounted amps, but it could be made 20" wide, the latter being the width of the 1855 (good catch, McFarlin!). The height is set by driver dimensions, and the depth is set by the port length + woofer magnet depth.



I have not investigated custom 3" cones because the one I'm using works pretty well. The limiting factor as far as useful top-end extension goes is probably the cone diameter more than anything else. The 3" Faital has extension out to 20 kHz "on axis", but I only claim 12 kHz because of beaming, and because to my ears it sounds more like a 12 kHz top end than a 20 kHz top end. You can see the factory curve at this link, and it's pretty close to my own measurements:

Invalid Link Removed



Yes, its the same 4-ohm 18" woofer, the Faital 18HP1060. I can also use the 8-ohm version of that woofer, which wasn't available yet back in the day, for anyone using a bridged amp that would rather see an 8 ohm load.

The 6" cone mid is actually the 18Sound 6NM410B, which has a nasty 9 db spike just north of 4 kHz (which somehow never made it into the published curves... hmmm...). So I throw a bunch of crossover parts at it and now there's a slight dip at 4 kHz. The advantage of the 18Sound mid is, its combination of efficiency (even after killing the spike) and power handling gives it more max SPL capability than the two 5" mids that I was using in the 1855. This matters because I want the mid to start helping out the woofer way down around 300 Hz, and I don't want the mid to be the "limiting factor" from a power handling standpoint. I think the 1863 offers a small but hopefully worthwhile increase in output down in the 300-500 Hz region. Also, in the spirit of "if you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough", the openings in the mid-chamber of the 1863 are dimensioned to deliberately tune the chamber to about 300 Hz.

Having killed everything the mid is doing north of 4 kHz, the pair of 3" cones are needed to give us some top end. Instead of a top-end rolloff switch, the top switch just opens the circuit going to the tweeter's section of the crossover board.



That's a valid concern, dangit. I'd have to increase the cabinet depth by about 1.5 inches, because otherwise we'd start bumping into the port tubes. It would either require multiple layers of plywood to recess the woofer, OR I'd have to use a "conventional" baffle with the large "lip" around the perimeter... probably not an issue for the woofer, but I think it would be for the mids.

Thus far, to the best of my knowledge, NONE of my cabinets have suffered that kind of damage despite the woofer grille pooch-outage. I figure that the high prices I charge make people more careful than they might otherwise be. So my first line of cabinet protection isn't the grille or the plastic corners, it's that big check you guys had to write for the privilege of owning a "boo-teek" bass cab...

 

[John D Harris]

Actually I'm calling it the Hathor 1863... five digits is one too many imho. Gotta draw the line somewhere.



I regret that I can neither confirm nor deny that allegation.





Theoretically I could make the cab 2" narrower... it's 22" wide for rack-mounted amps, but it could be made 20" wide, the latter being the width of the 1855 (good catch, McFarlin!). The height is set by driver dimensions, and the depth is set by the port length + woofer magnet depth.



I have not investigated custom 3" cones because the one I'm using works pretty well. The limiting factor as far as useful top-end extension goes is probably the cone diameter more than anything else. The 3" Faital has extension out to 20 kHz "on axis", but I only claim 12 kHz because of beaming, and because to my ears it sounds more like a 12 kHz top end than a 20 kHz top end. You can see the factory curve at this link, and it's pretty close to my own measurements:

Invalid Link Removed



Yes, its the same 4-ohm 18" woofer, the Faital 18HP1060. I can also use the 8-ohm version of that woofer, which wasn't available yet back in the day, for anyone using a bridged amp that would rather see an 8 ohm load.

The 6" cone mid is actually the 18Sound 6NM410B, which has a nasty 9 db spike just north of 4 kHz (which somehow never made it into the published curves... hmmm...). So I throw a bunch of crossover parts at it and now there's a slight dip at 4 kHz. The advantage of the 18Sound mid is, its combination of efficiency (even after killing the spike) and power handling gives it more max SPL capability than the two 5" mids that I was using in the 1855. This matters because I want the mid to start helping out the woofer way down around 300 Hz, and I don't want the mid to be the "limiting factor" from a power handling standpoint. I think the 1863 offers a small but hopefully worthwhile increase in output down in the 300-500 Hz region. Also, in the spirit of "if you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough", the openings in the mid-chamber of the 1863 are dimensioned to deliberately tune the chamber to a little less than 300 Hz.

Having killed everything the mid is doing north of 4 kHz, the pair of 3" cones are needed to give us some top end. Instead of a top-end rolloff switch, the top switch just opens the circuit going to the tweeter's section of the crossover board, effectively disconnecting it.



That's a valid concern, dangit. I'd have to increase the cabinet depth by about an inch, because otherwise we'd start bumping into the port tubes. It would either require multiple layers of plywood to recess the woofer, OR I'd have to use a "conventional" baffle with the large "lip" around the perimeter... probably not an issue for the woofer, but I think it would be for the mids.

Thus far, to the best of my knowledge, NONE of my cabinets have suffered that kind of damage despite the woofer grille pooch-outage. I figure that the high prices I charge make people more careful than they might otherwise be. So my cabs' first line of defense isn't the grille or the plastic corners, it's that big-@$$ check you guys had to write for the privilege of owning a "boo-teek" bass cab...

I guess nobody does this anymore, but would it be possible to rear-mount the woofer to the baffle & increase the depth as needed?
I don't know if the woofers have built-in gaskets for front-mounting or what or if it would make the cab too bulky.
I'm just taking a crap-shoot in the dark.

 

[3rdcurve]

Sooo, if my math is correct the Vd for the Hathor 18 is right around 1400cc. I would love to try this beast out with and Icepower 1000 unit!

 

[svtb15]

1400cc? Wowowowi!!

 

[Passinwind]

Sooo, if my math is correct the Vd for the Hathor 18 is right around 1400cc. I would love to try this beast out with and Icepower 1000 unit!

I have a 1000ASP based amp and we did try that at the last Seattle GTG. There was some pretty stout competition there SPL-wise, but the 1863 definitely held its own IMHO.

 

[winegamd]

I think the only thing in the room that could overpower it was the Fearful 1515/66/1. With the same power at around 1000 watts, they would be pretty equal. The lows of the 1863 are quite a bit more controlled, though. The mids are also nicer, at least to me. I really like the small format cones for the 2k-8k region. Horns always seem to have a dry, almost honky quality to me in that region. The 3's are just smooth. Plus, cpmpared with the compression drivers spec'd for the Fearful stuff, the 3's have about the same top end response. Both the Eminience ASD1001 and 18Sound XD125 roll off above 15k.

 

[3rdcurve]

Pound for Pound, its gotta be the champ...

 

[winegamd]

Duke, are you having to attenuate the 18 for use with the 3's. I am just curious, since on paper their sensitivities are not equal. I know the 1863 sounds even.