News about the new Ultra

Hungry Horace

Active Member
From avsforum

The new Ultra driver is:

1. still in prototype, development
2. will be close to 14"...it will not be a swap out for current ultra drivers
3. it will likely not have all the tuning options currently on the Ultra, if SVS decides to maintain the box/cylinder sizes close to what they are now.
4. they are hoping to have it ready to show by CES

In an earlier post by Tom V you could by reading between the lines tell that the new Ultra would get a new amp, and it all seems to fit. CES is 8-11 January

:clap:
 

Nimby

Distinguished Member
14" Ultra drivers?

Don't larger drivers usually mean larger enclosures to maximise the potential benefits?

I'm a 16 cu.metres man myself. :devil:
 

Hungry Horace

Active Member
I'm no expert at this, but yes I do belive that a larger driver requires a larger enclosure (actually I'm pretty sure ; )

Then again with an almost 14" driver and other improvements it will certainly place itself someplace in between the Ultra and the Ultra/2 when it comes to performance, and maybe also when it comes to size?

I think it's very exciting that they (maybe) have started entirely from scratch with the new design, I guess that will give Tom and the other more options in what directions to go.
 

AngelEyes

Distinguished Member
Maybe the lack of tuning options (I guess meaning less ports), will free up enough space in the existing enclosures? Can anyone think of any good reasons to remove the tuning options? ...to be replaced by the room compensation widget maybe?

Someone feel free to correct my innept ponderings? ;)
 

AngelEyes

Distinguished Member
eviljohn2 said:
I can't think of any real reason to keep the tuning options. There are far more important aspects to subwoofers than how far down they're tuned. :)

I guess not having had a real sub without tuning options, that never really occured to me :rotfl:
 

AngelEyes

Distinguished Member
John, sorry if you misread my post I was talking about me not you and your subs :)

...i would never be so insulting *cough*
 

Hungry Horace

Active Member
The lack of tuning options could be because they are using either 1 very large port, or 2 larger ones compared to the 3 3" ports they are using today
 

Nimby

Distinguished Member
Hungry Horace said:
The lack of tuning options could be because they are using either 1 very large port, or 2 larger ones compared to the 3 3" ports they are using today

I always thought the smaller multiple ports was a bad idea from the sound quality point of view.

For absolute performance one large port (like the PCI) must surely offer lower distortion due to the lower port velocity.

(A larger port does, of course, have to be longer to achieve the same tuning point)
 

Hungry Horace

Active Member
Would not both port length and velocity be the same for 1 large or several smaller ports that combined have the same port area? I'm no DIY'er because I'm no friend of the saw, just thinking from a logical standpoint.
 

Nimby

Distinguished Member
There must be increased air friction with the three narrow ports over a single larger one.

It may be that three smaller ports offer slightly broader tuning than a single large port when all three are open.

The real problem is with the lower tuning modes where a single narrow port must try and do the same as a single large port.

A reflex port drives the air in front of it in an expanding horn shape until the expansion grows so large that the pressure wave is dissipated. The analogy must exist between port size and smaller drivers and a larger ones.

A small port will produce a smaller diameter effect but with much more violent linear air movement. For the same SPL a larger port will produce the same effect but with more gentle air vibration. PB10 v Monolith is a good example.

I would rather have a larger driver moving a short distance than a smaller driver thrashing away producing masses of distortion. Quality VLF is not about violent air movements. Otherwise smaller drivers would be just as effective as larger ones in producing deep, low distortion bass. Unless you achieve the same cone area by using multiple smaller units you haven't a chance of achieving the same effect.

If all you are worrried about is sheer volume then it doesn't matter what diameter port (or driver) you use. As long as you can achieve sufficient air movement by using very long driver strokes. Just don't expect to get low distortion VLF by that route.
 

Hungry Horace

Active Member
I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of physics is rather thin because I've studied economics and IT. So if I sat down in the bathtub, and the water splashed out over its edges I would not shout Heureka, but rather dang nab it! because I knew that it would be me cleaning up the mess :D

Most comercial subs are underported, and tuned to high because the small enclosures can't fit any decent sized tubes. The Plus that I have is considered underported when in 12hz tune with only one port open. And I'll agree that for movies at loud levels you will experience a lot of port noise, but for music it sounds just great in 12hz tune. (I'm listening to The Eagles as I type). While in 12hz tune the driver will of course have to do more of the work, but i think that it still is far within its limits simply because it sounds so sweet :)

If the new Ultra turns up without any tuning options I hope that they at least makes it possible to bypass the HP filter, and also that they keep the single tune below 20hz. Someplace between 16-18hz would be fine.
 

micb3rd

Active Member
Nimby said:
There must be increased air friction with the three narrow ports over a single larger one.

It may be that three smaller ports offer slightly broader tuning than a single large port when all three are open.

The real problem is with the lower tuning modes where a single narrow port must try and do the same as a single large port.

A reflex port drives the air in front of it in an expanding horn shape until the expansion grows so large that the pressure wave is dissipated. The analogy must exist between port size and smaller drivers and a larger ones.

A small port will produce a smaller diameter effect but with much more violent linear air movement. For the same SPL a larger port will produce the same effect but with more gentle air vibration. PB10 v Monolith is a good example.

I would rather have a larger driver moving a short distance than a smaller driver thrashing away producing masses of distortion. Quality VLF is not about violent air movements. Otherwise smaller drivers would be just as effective as larger ones in producing deep, low distortion bass. Unless you achieve the same cone area by using multiple smaller units you haven't a chance of achieving the same effect.

If all you are worrried about is sheer volume then it doesn't matter what diameter port (or driver) you use. As long as you can achieve sufficient air movement by using very long driver strokes. Just don't expect to get low distortion VLF by that route.

A larger driver often have will more sd (cone area + some surround) but depending on the linear one xmax may not actually have more displacement than a smaller size model.

As for ported boxes and vent noise it is all about ratio's:

Driver displacement, power used, box size and port CSA (cross sectional area).
 

Kazman

Well-known Member
Wonder if they will do a cylinder? :) The diameter on that beast will be huge :eek:

Shame it won't be a swap out jobbie. Not much wrong with the current PCU to be honest, especially for the price :) STILL one of the most impressive 12" drivers around :D
 

The latest video from AVForums

Star Wars Andor, Woman King, more Star Trek 4K, Rings of Power & the latest TV, movies & 4K releases
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom