• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Xsonics Club

#221
I'm familiar with those Eminence reference designs. They are very useful to build directly or as a starting point when you want to alter it a bit for personal preference. The TS parameters were taken from their literature and the other details you refer to are of course needed for a detailed design but I wasn't providing one, just doing a rough comparison of 3 drivers for a particular tuning which seems to be at least in the ballpark for the XSonics and Glasstone cabs.
 
#224
What's the fuss all about? I've explained a thing or two about this kind of design in post #41, #45, #54 and #67.

To be short, in the low-end (up to one octave above the Fb) the Xsonics designs just act as regular ported cabs. The opening of the sidechamber is to big to have any influence(resistance) on the Fb of the drivers mounted in that cab. The only thing the sidechamber does is act as a sort of bandpass filter, depending on the dimensions of it, it can increase the SPL in the lowermids but it will do nothing on the low-end. This is what probably causes these cabs to sound "huge" in relation to their size. In reality they will actually not produce any more low-end, there's no magic here....
Clear?
 
#226
These cabs sound great...
Is Xsonics going to be at the Gerald Veasley bass boot camp expo?

Revsound is and I know David and crew area always up to checking out the other boutique cab companies.
 
#228
I'm just throwing this out there for everyone to consider...

I'm all for innovation. I love people thinking outside the vented box and trying to do things better.

I say this from experience (in real live performance, and on TB in general)...

The reason some people wants graphs, charts and specs has nothing to do with proving anything, nor drawing conclusions about tonal satisfaction. It has to do with NOT being able to hear a cab with our own ears. It has everything to do with surmising abilities about a cab based on data, because if one can't hear it in person, all that's left is opinion. When it comes to opinions, one man's trash is another man's treasure, to be sure.

I've read glowing, drooling reviews on cabs (with no data to back up any claims) where once I heard them in person, just plain sucked (couldn't handle low end, output in some areas was weak no matter how I EQ'd, etc.).

Conversely, I've heard cabs that were every bit as good as the data suggested. I can take (truthful) data and logically conclude a cab's ability to...handle low end without crapping out, output across a wide frequency spectrum, harshness in mids or highs, etc. None of which says I will or won't like the basic tone, but at least with a certain amount of data provided, I can draw some substantiated conclusions about what it could do, never even having heard it.

Tone is subjective. Ultimately, the proof is in hearing it perform live...i.e.-"if it sounds good, it is good". If you can't hear one first hand, what use is opinions without useful data to go with it?

Try and take it easy on those who want some data. Some of us have been in this "New cab no one has heard before" boat already, and trust me the ride can get pretty rough.

I'm digging what I'm reading about these thus far. May not be what I'm into, but I'm interested in new endeavors all the same. Best of luck.
 
#229
Sundogue said:
The reason some people wants graphs, charts and specs has nothing to do with proving anything, nor drawing conclusions about tonal satisfaction. It has to do with NOT being able to hear a cab with our own ears. It has everything to do with surmising abilities about a cab based on data, because if one can't hear it in person, all that's left is opinion. When it comes to opinions, one man's trash is another man's treasure, to be sure.

I've read glowing, drooling reviews on cabs (with no data to back up any claims) where once I heard them in person, just plain sucked (couldn't handle low end, output in some areas was weak no matter how I EQ'd, etc.).

Conversely, I've heard cabs that were every bit as good as the data suggested. I can take (truthful) data and logically conclude a cab's ability to...handle low end without crapping out, output across a wide frequency spectrum, harshness in mids or highs, etc. None of which says I will or won't like the basic tone, but at least with a certain amount of data provided, I can draw some substantiated conclusions about what it could do, never even having heard it.

Tone is subjective. Ultimately, the proof is in hearing it perform live...i.e.-"if it sounds good, it is good". If you can't hear one first hand, what use is opinions without useful data to go with it?

Try and take it easy on those who want some data. Some of us have been in this "New cab no one has heard before" boat already, and trust me the ride can get pretty rough.
Click to expand...

+1 ;)
 
#232
Sundogue said:
Try and take it easy on those who want some data. Some of us have been in this "New cab no one has heard before" boat already, and trust me the ride can get pretty rough.
Click to expand...

There are some core basic specs that are helpful but other then that nothing is going to tell you what something is like then your ears.
 
#234
basswave said:
There are some core basic specs that are helpful but other then that nothing is going to tell you what something is like then your ears.
Click to expand...

Not trying to start up the tired old debate between data and hearing. It's pointless. We read data with our eyes and hear sound with our ears.

The ONLY thing that matters is what's going on between our ears and behind our eyes.

Carry on. I'll bow out now and just keep reading the thread.
 
#235
Thanks Sundogue, for writing what I was thinking.

Skeptics are under-appreciated around here. This forum would be a poorer place without them, and without people who understand the connections between technical data and what we hear.

Back to lurking...
 
#236
Sundogue said:
Not trying to start up the tired old debate between data and hearing.
Click to expand...

You're right Sundogue and I totally share your thoughts on this. Nonetheless I would like to say that there are people(like myself) who actually can pretty much "imagine" in their head how something sounds when enough data is available. Like I told before, this is something called "experience". I've build/designed lots of loudspeaker (hifi/pa/studio) and have seen (and measured) lots of charts and heard these loudspeakers. I can "see" the correlation between measurements and how something sounds.
When I design a new system I can imagine it for 90% in my head, the rest is doing simulations, measurements and listening.
About the xsonics design I can imagine how it sound up to the lowmids, but not the mid/highs, I need more data for that.....
 
#237
Arjank said:
You're right Sundogue and I totally share your thoughts on this. Nonetheless I would like to say that there are people(like myself) who actually can pretty much "imagine" in their head how something sounds when enough data is available.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what Xsonics is doing, but I for folks like yourself and Sundogue Revsound is handing out cutsheets at some of the events that they will be at (GV boot camp, NAMM, ect) that they are going to be at, however David and Mark are asking you listen to the cabinets first and then grab one...If you still like it then I suggest you try to pick one up of the floor.

If you think about it most of the companies specs are not going to look radically different on paper, as compared to the tone of the boxes themselves.
 
#238
Just to add one more point on the sharing of data.

I think some folks look at cabinet building like its a freeware software...(Hey man, share the 'wealth of knowledge')

When Rev was did the first generation of ultra light cabinets my inbox was flooded with 'what is the material?', 'how did you do it?', ect...

Well is college free?
Does Microsoft give away their software?

Some things are intellectual property and thats that.

Like I said, some core specs I think are a giving but nobody owes anybody a complete breakdown. Period.
 
#239
basswave said:
If you think about it most of the companies specs are not going to look radically different on paper, as compared to the tone of the boxes themselves.
Click to expand...

There's more to it then only a frequency-response-graph measured on-axis.... That's only a small part to visualize how a system sounds.
And such a graph is what most companies will show you(if they have one that is).

If two system have the same frequency response, same power response and dispersion, same distortion behavior(in the broadest sense) they will sound the same ;)
 
#240
basswave said:
Just to add one more point on the sharing of data.

......

Some things are intellectual property and thats that.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse, people don't have to share all data.

Though I did show the frequency-response(on- and off-axis) of my cab(the coaxial mid/high driver) here on TB I did not show you how the crossover works. It took me a lot of experimenting/tuning to get it where I wanted it to be so I do not share it since it's a bit more complex then a regular crossover.
But that's other data then measurement graphs...thats design data.
I wish I could put a patent on my design but there's nothing "new" in it, the only thing thats different is the combination of all parts. The same as for cooking, all the ingredients and theory how to cook are available.....but the outcome is greater then the sum of all parts if you know what you're doing.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back