# Ultimate Midbass Race - LAT vs SLS 6.5 Showdown



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

The toughest job in car audio is arguably the midbass. Upfront placement, box requirements, inductance control, as well as mechanical and thermal demands make it the weakest link in nearly every setup. Subwoofers have higher mechanical and thermal demand but the adequacy of inductance control can be downplayed and placement saves the day since it unleashes the vast room of the trunk. Speakers in general are the mass distortion producers in the chain, and midbass in particular is the worst as they go. 

In my S2000 I am limited to 180mm or so in one dimension by the door mechanisms so even a complete door creation would not relax this constraint. No matter what the speaker cannot be more than that, so I'm limited to 7" speakers. This presents an opportunity to test the common 7" size woofers for the top midbass award. The incumbent is the Peerless SLS 6.5", a favorite for pure midbass applications. I have previously tested the SLS against another popular high end driver, the B&C 6ndl44 here: http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1377151-post271.html and http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1377408-post272.html

*SLS 6.5"*









Naturally from there on I tried to find the ultimate 7" bass driver and all the roads led to the Scan Speak Illuminator 7" which I bought for the job. Surely the Illuminator will be better but will it be enough? 

*Well, I bet the SLS 6.5" or Illuminator 7" won't sound better than 4 of these per side:*









Will the 4 pack of LATs kick conventional speaker butt?


----------



## rawdawg (Apr 27, 2007)

I'm already moist...


----------



## Mirage_Man (Jun 29, 2007)

This is gonna be interesting.


----------



## strakele (Mar 2, 2009)

In for car use of line array transducers


----------



## highly (Jan 30, 2007)

8 LAT 250s vs 2 Illuminators vs 2 SLS?

I'm betting against the LATs. Who is holding the money?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

highly said:


> 8 LAT 250s vs 2 Illuminators vs 2 SLS?
> 
> I'm betting against the LATs. Who is holding the money?


Really?? That's 40 2.5" little cones against one 7" cone. Gulliver against the whole lilliput island!


----------



## highly (Jan 30, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> Really?? That's 40 2.5" little cones against one 7" cone. Gulliver against the whole lilliput island!


Yup. I'm betting the butterfly wings don't sing till they are flapping along like hummingbirds. Sometimes what looks great on paper plants its face in the dirt just the same. I could be wrong, but I'm taking the route of Devils' Advocate on this one.


----------



## danno14 (Sep 1, 2009)

dum da dum dum dummmmmmmm!!!!


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

I see they made it in once piece.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Right now based on what little experience I've had in a retail setting with the Alpine enclosures that had the LATs...I would agree with you.



highly said:


> 8 LAT 250s vs 2 Illuminators vs 2 SLS?
> 
> I'm betting against the LATs. Who is holding the money?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

bassfromspace said:


> I see they made it in once piece.


Not yet, these are just the ones that complete your set. I originally planned on 2 per side but when more were available I found a way to fit them.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Right now based on what little experience I've had in a retail setting with the Alpine enclosures that had the LATs...I would agree with you.


Well Tympany overrates them and Alpine made a junk box. The beauty to these is the push-pull design, better than I could ever design a manifold with standard speakers. 

The Lat250 is the equivalent of a 6.5" woofer, not two. Same with the larger units. Lat500 is a 10" equivalent and Lat700 a 12" equivalent. The Illuminator doubles in displacement a regular 6.5" so it is roughly equivalent to two lat250s but hopefully with little to no rattles. But I will be using 4 per side so I'm expecting to be blown away. I mean they have the surface area of an 8" but the stroke is that of a 5" speaker. The stroke is what keeps them back.

Then comes Alpine with a loud port noise design and markets them as a wonder for small boxes. They still require a conventional amount of room and vents are often loud.

You buy these babies for the push-pull, and maybe, just maybe more power handling (lots of coils). Definitely not for a small box, or because they outdisplace much larger drivers in pairs. Bad marketing.


----------



## highly (Jan 30, 2007)

I assume these will be installed 'IB' in the doors? No acoustic suspension in their passband?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

highly said:


> I assume these will be installed 'IB' in the doors? No acoustic suspension in their passband?


IB in doors. 63hz HP. 320w @4ohms (series-parallel connection). Doors are tiny however, although I haven't seen the Q move from free air on the 6.5" that are in there right now. The doors might behave as true IB or maybe not.


----------



## highly (Jan 30, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> IB in doors. 63hz HP. 320w @4ohms (series-parallel connection). Doors are tiny however, although I haven't seen the Q move from free air on the 6.5" that are in there right now. The doors might behave as true IB or maybe not.


I'll be watching intently hoping to be shown the true power and wrath of the Lilliputian Attitude Transducer!


----------



## The Baron Groog (Mar 15, 2010)

sub'd


----------



## IBcivic (Jan 6, 2009)

Sweet...
I've been contemplating on getting my hands on some, for a while, for a mid-bass app.


----------



## BowDown (Sep 24, 2009)

Definitely in for the results.


----------



## Thrill_House (Nov 20, 2008)

This is loco and I like it!


----------



## kizz (Jun 22, 2009)

This could be the event that forever changes the world!


----------



## oilman (Feb 21, 2012)

Subscribe


----------



## req (Aug 4, 2007)

in for the win


----------



## richiec77 (Sep 11, 2011)

subscribed.


----------



## 94VG30DE (Nov 28, 2007)

Interesting idea for handling a packaging constraint. The best way to get more cone in one space is generally fewer drivers, but if your "space" is anything except a square, then you might be able to find a better alternative in LAT. In for results. 

Given the form factor, what makes the LAT better than just running 4 conventional 3" speakers in a row, other than the push-pull benefit? Like dis: http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=290-210 

Heck, if the door is deep enough, make a baffle that flips two of them backwards (magnet out) for push-pull effects


----------



## southpawskater (Feb 17, 2010)

Sub'd.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

4 3s would be roughly the same as a 5.25 in regards to total cone area...I think off of the top of my head.

Push-pull would be a good, well, a great way to reduce distortion.

I am curious to see myself...I've heard the Alpine version and one of the big guys in a comp car, and, well...let's see how it works out.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

94VG30DE said:


> Interesting idea for handling a packaging constraint. The best way to get more cone in one space is generally fewer drivers, but if your "space" is anything except a square, then you might be able to find a better alternative in LAT. In for results.
> 
> Given the form factor, what makes the LAT better than just running 4 conventional 3" speakers in a row, other than the push-pull benefit? Like dis: Dayton ND90-8 3-1/2" Aluminum Cone Full-Range Driver 8 Ohm 290-210
> 
> Heck, if the door is deep enough, make a baffle that flips two of them backwards (magnet out) for push-pull effects


This is a great question. It can be posed as you did, using the high grade standard cones available or as a "what if" we took the LAT drivers and arranged them flat on a baffle with a motor for each cone.

The LAT250 measures: 258mm x89mm x 69mm deep

Three Daytons 3.5": 310.5mm x 103.5mm x 61mm deep

So the Daytons are too large, I looked for a 3" version that would be comparable but it doesn't exist and the 2.5" is too small. Hypothetically the 3" Dayton would be: 252mm x 84mm x 59mm deep.

If we ligned up 3 of the Lat drivers we would also get: 267mm x 89mm x60ish deep

So let's compare.
*Surface area: LAT 196mm, Fantasy Dayton 3"x3: 69mm, LAT 2.5"x3: 58.8mm*
The Lat has roughly 3 times more surface area than a flat baffle of 3 drivers, either using the original LAT speakers or a fantasy 3" Dayton that potentially is the best offering for displacing air. Let's see if the 3 driver arrangements can make up for the lack of surface area with stroke.

*Stroke: LAT 3mm xmax 7mm xmech, Dayton 4mm xmax 10mm xmech, LAT same driver so 3mm xmax 7mm xmech.* The result is that even if you used better parts like the Dayton you would only get 30% more stroke, linear or max. It is not enough to make up for the loss in surface area which is 200%. 

*So the LAT technology wins the efficient packing contest, packing 3 times more cone area and losing at most 1/3 times the stroke* to the best models on the market. In order to make up for the lost area, traditional 3 speaker arrangements would need to have 9mm xmax and 21mm xmech to keep up, that's roughly a Vifa NE 12" subwoofer motor so at least 6" deep not to mention the surround in a 3" speaker to keep up with that is not possible to design. 

*The secret?* The LAT's make better use of space by driving multiple cones per motor. 5 2.5" cones are driven by each motor. Instead of having 10 motors taking up space in the cylinder Tympany built two beefy motors and used the remaining space for cones. Brilliant!

I found this image of a larger LAT at CES? It's a great one for seeing the inner workings:


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

Just think what the LATs could have been with a large neo motor on each side driving the cones...

Makes me want to take one of my 700s apart and play. The only issue I would see is what happens as the cones firing toward each other get closer and closer. Do you introduce some funky nonlinearities? I'll have to ask one of the aerospace guys at work.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

SSSnake said:


> Just think what the LATs could have been with a large neo motor on each side driving the cones...
> 
> Makes me want to take one of my 700s apart and play. The only issue I would see is what happens as the cones firing toward each other get closer and closer. Do you introduce some funky nonlinearities? I'll have to ask one of the aerospace guys at work.


Reading my thoughts??  I hate the larger LAT ferrite magnets. I really wish they used two of the NE motors in my 12" sub. That would shave down at least 10lbs per LAT and make the thing up to 40% more linear. 

I would think you get coupling, which would help with total output. The problem with this manifold design is only exhibited in the upper end of the spectrum. Some guy on PE runs these to 800hz because the HD plots look really good up to there. I think that's just the partial performance of this driver, I bet the time domain behavior is really screwy up top. I wouldn't run them that high even if the HD plots look that good. 

In free air they sound kinda honky in the top of the midrange. It is not a 2 way driver in any shape or form.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

You could model that guy in hornresp I bet and see what kind of bandpass effects you get from the openings...just to see where it on paper would start to fall off at.

I don't want to sound negative...cause I really want this to work for you, maybe me later on


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

The only way to improve on this would be a servo motor(s) driving the cones. That would really reduce distortion.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> The only way to improve on this would be a servo motor(s) driving the cones. That would really reduce distortion.


Not too familiar with these but I think the LAT solves the same problem mechanically by virtue of its push-pull. Does the servo fix anything other than asymmetrical parameters?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Sort of a super servo-drive.

But I don't know if a servo motor could physically switch fast enough to work up in to the midbass...and not be noisy.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Sort of a super servo-drive.
> 
> But I don't know if a servo motor could physically switch fast enough to work up in to the midbass...and not be noisy.


Seems like the sensor picks up the output and feeds it back into some processor that pre-adjusts the signal to back out an inverse map. At least that's how I understand servo. If true, it's quite nice. It could basically increase the effective xmax to xmech, suspension noise aside. I can see why switching would need to be fast.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

Who's crazy?!, I love it! Looking forward to the results, whatever they are it's a win/win for uniqueness and learning factor


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I'm really not looking forward to this because I'll have to chop up my doors. I tried to stay away from external modifications to this car but the Illuminator and LATs are just way too damn attractive. 

*More about LAT type push-pull:*

electric, mechanic and acoustic phase LAT = ideal: electrically in phase, mechanically out of phase, acoustically in phase. This is different than traditional push-pull designs which are electrically out of phase, mechanically out of phase and acoustically in phase. 

Take two speakers, mount one forward firing and one back firing on the same flat baffle. This is the traditional push-pull: 










1.Have the same monoblock power them. This is electrically in phase, mechanically out of phase, acustically out of phase. Acoustically out of phase is bad = no output.
I actually tried these with a pair of subs in the past. They completely cancel eachother's output. I actually think this may be a great way to test suspension noise on subwoofers. A basic SPL readout should read only mechanical noise if mounted like this and wired off the same signal. So mechanically out of phase drivers mounted on the same board electrically in phase (mono signal, or dual signal in phase) do reduce vibrations but also cancel the acoustic output nearly completely. 

2.Next, you may want to wire one electrically out of phase so they work together. 
When you do that you lose the benefits of reduced vibration and cabinet excitation but at least they produce sound. Some distortion is reduced at low frequencies (even order) when speakers are out of phase and mounted in opposite directions, but the big one for car audio...vibration is still there. Actually I'm not sure push-pull of this milder form has any benefits for say dual Illuminator 7". They are so symmetric from factory I doubt there is any benefit to be had. 

In conclusion, a manifold has to be built to cancel vibration while producing acoustic output, and the LAT is the most efficient build. Additionally it has the standard push-pull decrease in distortion.

Here's a sample of what a manifold would be like:


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> Not too familiar with these but I think the LAT solves the same problem mechanically by virtue of its push-pull. Does the servo fix anything other than asymmetrical parameters?


I think jason is talking about servo motors not an accelerometer with negative feedback. True servo motor subs are capable of some SERIOUS output with little distortion but suffer issues as freq increases (high freq switching of the motor is an issue).


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Yeap like the old Servodrive systems and the PG Cyclone/Typhoon


----------



## Se7en (Mar 28, 2007)

I know that the Rythmik servo is band limited to 80hz.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Updated previous post with a home made LAT like push pull, the Linkwitz dipole design. I hope someone reads this stuff and tells me if I'm wrong lol.

Cool stuff that rotary PG Cyclone. I may try one of those if somebody resurrects the technology and makes them better.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

9 LATs in my possession so far. One of the big ones broke in transit. Pics soon.:

LAT 700, did not make it one piece:














































LAT 250s, happy to work together for the sole purpose of making fine midbass:


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

How big are those, can you put it next to a Coke can or something else familiar.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Good idea Michael, are you familiar with Georgie Boy?










The LAT700 motors look significantly larger than the SLS 6.5" which is the beefiest 6.5" I've laid my eyes on. Looks like the motor you would use on a 12" sub.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

Are you referring to the richest President we (Americans) ever had?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

michaelsil1 said:


> Are you referring to the richest President we (Americans) ever had?


But he didn't have any speakers now did he?


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> But he didn't have any speakers now did he?


No, but he had the real deal singing what we're trying to recreate.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Here's a Zaph LAT-250 tidbit for anyone that missed it.

Zaph|Audio

"Tymphany LAT-250 test results...

[Image] - LAT-250 Frequency response 
[Image] - LAT-250 Harmonic distortion 
[Image] - LAT-250 Impedance close-up 
[Image] - LAT-250 3 tone IMD @ 50Hz 
[Image] - LAT-250 3 tone IMD @ 60Hz 
[Image] - LAT-250 3 tone IMD @ 90Hz 
[Image] - LAT-250 3 tone IMD @ 150Hz 

Results are in and they are kinda strange. Not surprising, since the driver itself is kinda strange. Fs was kinda high, and not very pronounced, and this was after a substantial break-in and cool down period. It's way higher than the spec sheet says. This "subwoofer" doesn't have much low end extension at all. Note that I could not get accurate T/S numbers on this driver. With an almost non-existant Fs impedance peak, I could not get a good delta compliance Vas number. There's no way to do a delta mass on this driver either. Anyone trying to use this driver will likely need to just put it in some experimental boxes and see what works. 

With the lack of low end extension, I don't really see any effective use of this driver without active response shaping. Distortion is good above 90 Hz and excellent at 150 Hz, but slightly high lower in frequency where cleanliness is really needed. The bottom line is that this system has seriously limited usefulness - it's your only option if you absolutely must have a woofer that is 3" wide. This is essentially ten 2-1/2" woofers, but performance wise, it will be drastically outperformed in almost every way by just about any 8" woofer. 

The test results of this small version may not represent the usefulness and effectiveness of the larger versions, but I do have my expectations. I think the real problem with the LAT woofers is that they still have traditional Thiele/Small parameters. A certain volume displacement is going to require a certain cabinet volume. That renders any slim profile almost useless if it has to go in a big box anyway. The LAT has some interesting engineering and features but Hoffman's Iron Law remains in full effect."


----------



## highly (Jan 30, 2007)

> This is essentially ten 2-1/2" woofers, but performance wise, it will be drastically outperformed in almost every way by just about any 8" woofer.


Da da da Duuuuuuuuuuunnn...

My curiosity is if 4 of them can bring up the response at 50 by the 30dB you'd need for it to be useful. That sharply falling midbass response is clearly evident listening to them free air and IB. It's made more prominent by their lack of Xmax - it takes surprisingly little power to create mechanical noise as the driver approaches its limits without acoustic suspension to control the little guys in the mosh pit. All those lilitputians screaming together may get loud, but I don't expect they can get _low_ and loud. Tiny vocal chords and all...


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

highly said:


> Da da da Duuuuuuuuuuunnn...
> 
> My curiosity is if 4 of them can bring up the response at 50 by the 30dB you'd need for it to be useful. That sharply falling midbass response is clearly evident listening to them free air and IB. It's made more prominent by their lack of Xmax - it takes surprisingly little power to create mechanical noise as the driver approaches its limits without acoustic suspension to control the little guys in the mosh pit. All those lilitputians screaming together may get loud, but I don't expect they can get _low_ and loud. Tiny vocal chords and all...


Zaph is comparing it to a 8" woofer and Tympany to two 6.5" woofers. I just need it to be better than 1/4th of a 6.5". They model way louder than the Illuminator. Here are:

8 of them against 2 Illuminators
800w total power
63hp 24db/oct for the Scan
No HP for the LAT
60L (two of my doors)










I used a HP for the Scan because it surpasses it's mechanical limits (16mm below 80hz without one. With this HP it is at 15.5mm of xcursion at 70hz, near collapse. The lat is at 5mm of excursion, 2 mm below the xmech at the worst. Over the band 63hz-200hz the LATs are 4db to 5.5db louder. 

This underestimates LAT's abilities because:
LATs are rated for 800w IEC, while the Scans are only rated 300w IEC. The Scan would probably fry if it attempted this for any sustained period of time. If I lower the Scan's power to 400w, the gap is even larger, 6db to 8db. 

Then you might say that you don't care about total output but linear output. Fine, I'll restrain both to xmax (9.5mm for Scan, 3mm for LAT). I restrict the power to 300w to both the LAT and Scan, that brings them to 9.5mm of excursion for the Scan and 3mm for the LAT. The graph looks just like the SPL graph above but shifted down, so the LAT kicks ass with roughly 5db output gain. 


In either total linear output or total mechanical output (max excursion) the LATs pull ahead by 5db and that's giving the Scan the benefit of the doubt that its coil can hold 400w/pop in max output tests. 

So the LAT:
*more linear 5db extra output at 10% distortion
*more total output at least 5db extra depending on the Scan's coils
*5db more efficient (lower power draw)
*90% reduced vibration
*lower power compression


The Scan:
*can be used in 2 way setups
*better placement (lower far corner of door) whereas the LATs are spread on the bottom of the door. 

In fact with 800w I can't even exceed xmech, it's safer than running that to the scan. Throw in the SLS and the LATs pull ahead by 4db in addition to what you see them do to the Scan.


----------



## highly (Jan 30, 2007)

I agree that if the LATs would do what they model then we wouldn't be discussing it. They look awesome on paper. That's what got me interested in them in the first place.

Me, I'll wait for the pudding.

-T


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

highly said:


> I agree that if the LATs would do what they model then we wouldn't be discussing it. They look awesome on paper. That's what got me interested in them in the first place.
> 
> Me, I'll wait for the pudding.
> 
> -T


Free air they suck for sure. Little vibration + cancellation = nearly no output in free air. I dropped them in that Styrofoam holder during testing the and excursion decreased visibly and the output increased by a lot. That's in a skin tight box with gravity as a screw. I think enclosed they'll do some damage. 

The LAT 700 did shake my house if laid on the floor. Even 10% of the vibration is still a lot of vibration it seems.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Last shipment is in.




























In case no one realized this is also a LAT700 vs. VifaNE12 thread, and Illuminator vs. SLS 6.5". 

The UPS guy hated this package. He came up to 3rd floor just to check that I'm home first. Then he kept asking about elevators, which we don't have. Finally he dropped it right in front of me instead of handing it over lol. They are indeed beastly.


----------



## benny (Apr 7, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> The UPS guy hated this package. He came up to 3rd floor just to check that I'm home first. Then he kept asking about elevators, which we don't have. Finally he dropped it right in front of me instead of handing it over lol. They are indeed beastly.


I'll take "Reasons I refuse to deal with UPS" for $500, Alex.


----------



## adrenalinejunkie (Oct 17, 2010)

Gotta' love UPS.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Anybody know a way to test for rattles, to make this an objective evaluation?

I noticed before that the bass decay plots spike up after a certain level, I wonder if those are the rattles or simply that it takes longer for the sound to stop bouncing around when it is louder.

Tests starting tonight.


----------



## audioanamoly (Oct 19, 2011)

George, you've got me foaming at the mouth. Can't wait to see how this plays out!


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

audioanamoly said:


> George, you've got me foaming at the mouth. Can't wait to see how this plays out!


Haha, I'm really curious too. I hope it works out since these aren't really a direct replacement. 



First I'm going to do the *dual LAT700 vs triple Vifa NE 12" *

*Lat 700 TS specs as tested with a WT2:*
Unit 1 - Used








Unit 2 - New








Unit 3 - New









Comments:
The variation across the three samples seems very low. That means a lot of good things are happening, the test methodology is reliable, Tympany did a great job with unit to unit consistency, and the longevity of the product is really good with little parameter shift over time. 

Things that peek my interest:
* the impedance curve is smooth overall with a slight wiggle at 400hz. I take that to be some sort of resonance problem so a 200hz LP seems like a good idea. 
* the FS is nice and low at around 26.5hz like a true large sub. 
* QTS is around .56 which is ideal for pure IB. Seems to me like this LAT is not meant for a small box at all, but rather an infinitely large box. To double check my back of the envelope calculation I threw the driver in WinISD. It likes a sealed box volume of over 6 cubes for the typical .7 Q. Definitely a very large sealed box. I would compare one of these units to a single very high output 12", so it's a massive space hog compared to a typical car audio sub. Again, something about Tympany's marketing for these guys just doesn't add up.
* lastly the inductance is quite high. Given the push-pull arrangement asymmetries don't bother me that much, but the large magnitude would make me think twice about using it up to 200hz, as a midbass. As a sub the LE performance gets a pass. Clearly the large coils while they can take loads of beating also store a lot of energy. When modeled in WinISD the high LE induces a rolloff as early as 70hz, ok for a sub, not ok for a midbass.

This design can be easily improved by using the NE 12" motor, it would save weight, increase linear displacement, concentrate the BL in the gap better, and lower inductance. Since these LATs didn't work out for the company, skipping the higher end parts was probably a fine choice business wise but precludes the driver from being used as a midbass. A shame for some applications.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I'm having a really hard time getting both of the LATs to fit in the S2000. Even overlapped the two of them are 38 inches wide, .75 more than I have between my trunk arms. Secondly my infinite baffle skeleton only has an opening of 32 inches or so. I need at least 36" so I'll have to cut off some of the fiberglass tomorrow. Sigh.

On the bright side I just thought about something really cool about mechanical push-pull designs. One can decouple them entirely and achieve 100% rattle free operation, the last 10% basically. Unlike standard drivers, decoupling does not result in a loss of output, so there are no tradeoffs. Therefore I used 3 layers of gasketing tape on these guys to make the most out of it.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

> Seems to me like this LAT is not meant for a small box at all, but rather an infinitely large box


Now you get the picture. I can't for the life of me figure out what Tymphany/Alpine was thinking. These things need LOTS of air. IB in car a pair is very nice and more output than most need.

I have a pair in a music/home theater setup that are ported with around 9 cubes of box volume. I would have gone larger if I had the space. 

On vibration, the boxes do noticably vibrate  but not as much as with normal drivers. Mine are behind a couch (almost touching) next to a wall and no one has noticed where they are coming from until the sheetrock starts vibrating. It is kind of an odd experience but I did end up adding extra screws to the wall nearest the sub to keep the sheetrock from vibrating against the studs. Adding the screws was easy filling, sanding, and painting sucked.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

SSSnake said:


> Now you get the picture. I can't for the life of me figure out what Tymphany/Alpine was thinking. These things need LOTS of air. IB in car a pair is very nice and more output than most need.
> 
> I have a pair in a music/home theater setup that are ported with around 9 cubes of box volume. I would have gone larger if I had the space.
> 
> On vibration, the boxes do noticably vibrate  but not as much as with normal drivers. Mine are behind a couch (almost touching) next to a wall and no one has noticed where they are coming from until the sheetrock starts vibrating. It is kind of an odd experience but I did end up adding extra screws to the wall nearest the sub to keep the sheetrock from vibrating against the studs. Adding the screws was easy filling, sanding, and painting sucked.


I was also quite surprised at how much they still vibrate. However, what I did next was to disconnect one of the active drivers so that it's more of a traditional speaker and the vibration increased a lot. Even the frame of the LAT started shaking and that's with only 3 of the cones active. So the design does its thing there's just a lot of vibration to cancel. 

Have you tried decoupling yours? As long as you can separated front and rear waves you can mount these to a really loose baffle. A gel filled gasket or mouse pad material if you know what I mean would be killer.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

No, I used some thick gasketing foam in the initial install. They just don't cause enough issues at this point to go through the effort.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Alright so there are some big troubles. The outer and inner diameter are too big, length wise. The trunk doesn't close, the magnets don't clear the fiberglass frame and that's after I overlap them.

I think I have a solution, but it is very unconventional. I plan on removing the inner endcaps and replacing them with this:










If you all know a place to buy one that is approximately 8 inches in diameter shoot. This will allow closer placement by at least 1 inch which will easily solve my problems.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

I admire your dedication!


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

> Alright so there are some big troubles. The outer and inner diameter are too big, length wise. The trunk doesn't close, the magnets don't clear the fiberglass frame and that's after I overlap them.
> 
> I think I have a solution, but it is very unconventional. I plan on removing the inner endcaps and replacing them with this:
> 
> ...


I admire the determination but ouch. Not looking for high resale value are u?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Why? The circular bracket will simply fit over the LAT. Some foam gasketing is all it needs, that's how the original endcaps do it too. Those are removevable by unbolting the 4 allen screws. The only downside is the OEM gasketing tape has to be cut but it's just gasketing tape.


----------



## IBcivic (Jan 6, 2009)

SSSnake said:


> I admire the determination but ouch. Not looking for high resale value are u?


 That is no where near what some DIYers are capable of, when they start cutting up dashboards or creating IB baffles in the floorboards, in the quest for sonic nirvana.

Outside of the box thinking is what makes the world move forward


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

There goes the 100 pound stereo weight theory


----------



## 94VG30DE (Nov 28, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> If you all know a place to buy one that is approximately 8 inches in diameter shoot. This will allow closer placement by at least 1 inch which will easily solve my problems.


This is where I would look normally, but I am not seeing anything big enough: 
Pipe, Tube & Conduit Hold-Down Straps - Pipe, Cable & Conduit Holding | MSCDirect.com 
Pipe Straps - Pipe and Tubing - Grainger Industrial Supply 

Search "conduit strap" or "tube strap" ? 

EDIT: This is who supplied a lot of our HVAC and process tubing and hardware when I was in manufacturing. They have a lot of the larger ID stuff, so I would start there. http://www.columbiapipe.com/products/default.aspx
Start at page 139 of their catalog, and look to see if there is something that strikes your fancy. As with all bulk suppliers, you will have to call to get a quote. Pg 168 has 8" ID clamps...


----------



## alm001 (Feb 13, 2010)

Interested in seeing this


----------



## benny (Apr 7, 2008)

Your own straps would be easy enough to make with some steel flatbar bent just so and a couple holes drilled int he ends. Custom XL conduit clamps


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Thanks guys, it gives me a few leads to go on. I looked on page 168 I didn't even think of strapping that bolts at the top, that's another potentially useful design. 

As for bending I dont' think I can get that nice curvature by myself. 

The weight gains are awefull I know, let's hope the LAT doesn't work out so that I can go back to my featherweight Vifas . On the other hand the baffle will be removable again so for circuit racing the LATs can come out. Then I don't have to pour concrete in the car to make it full time heavy but rattle less.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

/End Thread


----------



## benny (Apr 7, 2008)

Oh come on now. That's like, the worst ending ever.


----------



## IBcivic (Jan 6, 2009)




----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

not here


----------



## IBcivic (Jan 6, 2009)

...surprized, thats all.
I fully understand that you have your reasons.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

IBcivic said:


>












Indeed.


----------

