Hi Bill,
Full space measurement above 70 Hz, half-space below 70 Hz but shifted down and spliced to match. So this measurement represents what you get in full anechoic space.
A single unit on the floor has plenty of extension; you tend to get a good 1/3rd octave extension as well as a gain below ~600 Hz.
We're not trying to dumb it down, but looking at the bass cabs out there - precious few have more than a listed (often 1 kHz) efficiency and bandwidth rating; how many actually show measured responses? It's a pretty accurate expression of what a person will hear.
We are using drivers that borrow a lot from the HiFi world; however, our take is that the cab isn't really where the "magic" happens in terms of sonic creation. Our concept is that the cab shouldn't be part of the instrument - but the device to hear your instrument. The bass, the head, the effects, the player - that's where the music is made, and the cab should just let that come through.
Given that idea/concept, neutrality of sound and flat frequency response is a logical step for the driver. It's not for everyone, but for those who see logic in that approach, it's a good step.
Hi Arjank,
The XO is different - the 10" (or the 8", in the case of the bigger unit) is run full-range! It's a VERY well damped cone with no breakup mode, and with the very low inductance (even with the 3" voice coil) bandwidth on the 10" is usable to 6 kHz. We bring the CD in at that point with a 2nd order XO. That also helps immensely with the power handling of the CD.
IMHO, motional-based IMD from a single cone really isn't much of an audible issue; I've been doing transducer design professionally for the better part of 2 decades, including many well-regarded recording monitors (for example, the Event Electronics Opal) as well as too many full-range speakers to count (Audience, CSS, etc), and in my experience a lot of the "bad sound" associated with wider bandwidth speakers that is attributed to IMD is actually cone breakup, not motional based IMD. Limiting bandwidth of the driver fixes the sound not by reducing the IMD but reducing the cone breakup to start with.
Consider the prevalence of 2 way recording monitors - every single one "suffers" from measurably high motional IMD, yet none have the sonic issues that most MI speakers exhibit from just 4-5mm of excursion - the cones are better damped. Ringing and nonlinear frequency response issues are the big challenge in dynamic operation of the cone.
Now, well damped cones and surrounds can tame your resonances - but they come with a cost: efficiency. Higher mass. If you're chasing every dB of efficiency, then you get stuck between the rock and hard place of efficiency and good cone behavior, and are pretty much forced to compromise between the two. Eliminating one of those as a consideration greatly alleviates the issue.
We chose to eliminate efficiency - if we're going to play low in a small box, then there simply is no way to maintain high efficiency. So use this fact to spend the mass on better damped drivers and allow cleaner response overall. Leverage your limitations to enhance the overall package.
KJung,
Precisely - it's not for everyone and we make no claim to it. We were, in fact, quite vocal about this. If you need more than 118-120 dB SPL peak, then by all means look at bigger cabs. We think you should consider the house PA at that time, but that's for the user to ultimately choose.
But if you want a very compact, extremely wide bandwidth rig without a real "sound" of its own, I think a person would be hard-pressed to find an alternative.
I'm the engineer who designed the drivers and cabs perhaps I can shed some light on what we're doing - and clarify that it's not smoke and mirrors and nothing to be seen through. It is pretty rare to see actual measured frequency responses for bass cabs posted, but that response is accurate - measured in an anechoic chamber (anechoic down to 45 Hz), spliced near-field at 70 Hz, good equipment used, etc.
