my new WE style 5 cu ft wedge.

[Old Guy]

The 411 will work in a huge ported box.

411A versus 3154 as subwoofers

[Phil-G]

The 411 will work in a huge ported box.

411A versus 3154 as subwoofers

i really like the sound of the 411s. Gm sent me drawings for a simple mltl for 411s. i wonder how making it a double would affect the cubic foot volume?
i just need a mono sub. but at sub levels it's pretty much mono anyway. right? so technically i could just use two electronic threeway crossovers and run the sub in stereo off of those instead of the 5.1 sub output?

i have a pair of 3154s also

- - - Updated - - -

right now my 5.1 theater set is a 40x60' room, a 16x9' screen, two 828s with 515 8gs and 299s with 5124 mantas for mains (biamped), an 816IV with a 5158ghp with a 931-12/902 crossed over at 2k for a center, and i'm planning on using my glorified Santanas for the rear surrounds. this leaves me with finalizing the sub. i really want to use the 411s. this is after all going to be an Altec voice of the theater system.

[Alien_Shore]

Nice job on those cabs, Phil!
Do you happen to have a measurement tool like DATS? If you can get the T/S from those 411s, you wouldn't have to guess at all; you could sim the box.

[Phil-G]

Nice job on those cabs, Phil!
Do you happen to have a measurement tool like DATS? If you can get the T/S from those 411s, you wouldn't have to guess at all; you could sim the box.

thank you!!

no i sure don't. i just went for 5 CF. this box is 5.26 before i put in all the bracing and corner cleat stock. so it comes out to about 5.1 and with the speaker right at 5.0. or close to. somehow i don't see a cu inch one way or another makes much difference in the grand scheme.
like AB says 5 CF is the recommended volume for a 411. but i don't think i was getting as much low end as they seem capable of in free air. or by noting how it reacted with the air in various size enclosiers.
computer models are nice, but to me they rely on too many variables. that if not entered correctly will give you GIGO. and even still it would be a ball park and i would end up having to play with the actual enclosier to get it right.

[GM]

i really like the sound of the 411s. Gm sent me drawings for a simple mltl for 411s. i wonder how making it a double would affect the cubic foot volume?
i just need a mono sub. but at sub levels it's pretty much mono anyway. right? so technically i could just use two electronic threeway crossovers and run the sub in stereo off of those instead of the 5.1 sub output?

To maintain the same frequency response, then doubling the number of drivers doubles the Vas spec = doubling the net Vb; otherwise you wind up with a big mid-bass ?hump? [or efficiency gain match to a horn] and much reduced deep bass similar to an A7?s step response except with a sharp slope roll-off.

Assuming the sub is limited to a standard THX 80 Hz XO, both can be in a single cab, though you?ll need to lay it on its side to get the same floor loading as two singles. Also, consider adding baffle wings on both sides and top if not hard up against a wall.

In earlier times, bass was usually summed mono below ~150 Hz, but nowadays a lot of music has stereo bass, though movies are all mono below 120 Hz if THX hasn?t changed the spec in recent years.

If you mean running a stereo sat/sub system, then the sub must be centered between the sats wired reverse polarity from them unless you use some form of digital time/phase delay and within a ? WL of 80 Hz/~3.5 ft c-t-c to get good summation, though some folks seem happy with up to one WL/~14 ft c-t-c. Bottom line, you'll have to experiment with placement in-room.

GM

- - - Updated - - -

thank you!!

no i sure don't. i just went for 5 CF. this box is 5.26 before i put in all the bracing and corner cleat stock. so it comes out to about 5.1 and with the speaker right at 5.0. or close to. somehow i don't see a cu inch one way or another makes much difference in the grand scheme.
like AB says 5 CF is the recommended volume for a 411. but i don't think i was getting as much low end as they seem capable of in free air. or by noting how it reacted with the air in various size enclosiers.
computer models are nice, but to me they rely on too many variables. that if not entered correctly will give you GIGO. and even still it would be a ball park and i would end up having to play with the actual enclosier to get it right.

Yeah, Altec recommended 5 ft^3 sealed [0.85 Qtc] with a < 8 ft^3 limit, but the Barcelona 873 and its 9846 studio monitor variant was ~6 ft^3 [0.79 Qtc] IIRC and a T/S max flat [critically damped 0.707 Qtc] is ~7.35 ft^3, which yields the flattest response to the lowest F3, meaning the other two have higher F3 roll-offs with some peaking [under-damped], so the alignment most 'HIFI' folks would use today. The most bass, i.e. has the lowest cut-off [Fs] is a transient perfect 0.5 Qtc, which yields the highest F3, ergo is best suited for corner loading or when only the best damped alignment will please. http://www.lansingheritage.org/image...ign/page12.jpg

This is based on published specs though, so if GPA is off as much as with some other drivers in the past, then these could be way off, though sealed alignments are very forgiving of spec variance if not way off, like Qts is 2x published like has happened on occasion, so as you noted, GIGO applies if you don't measure specs, especially if vented.

Note that all of Altec?s alignments were slightly under-damped, so that when combined with near/at wall locations it offset a recording?s bass roll-off until T/S alignments became so prevalent that they were forced to at least ?pay lip service? to using them in prosound apps in the ?80s onward.

GM