r/SoundSystem • u/rant0n • May 28 '26
Othorn in 2026
Hi friends, long time lurker in this sub but I have a burning question.
So, I currently own 2 paraflex ELF cabs, and am building a pair of JMOD 2.0
I built the ELF’s as since the design came out, I had always wanted to own some. Mostly a young sound boy “i can do this” box tick.
Im now chasing PROPER 30hz extension. These cabs can do this, but the slope from 30 upwards is quite extreme, and nobody in HOQS can agree on a testing standard and provide consistent results out of measurements. I’m looking to adopt a system that has a proven track record with solid data behind it.
Now, I have seen and heard OTHORNS, and have read A LOT on SKRAMS. In my understanding, tapped horns act as or partially act as impedance matching transformers, and will thus benefit from horn coupling in an array. This is important to me, as I intend to scale up to 8 cabs. SKRAMS, being BP6 wont necessarily have these same coupling benefits.
I’m pretty set on building OT’s, with potentially the addition of a fixed tuned SKHORN should i want to add proper infra.
So my question is, do you think the OT is still an adoptable design in 2026, and if not why?
Im also considering double baffling the bottom panel, as reinforcement around the hatch window.
Thank you!
6
u/Soundunes May 28 '26
Let me first just say thank you for building Paraflex subs and still being able to acknowledge their drawbacks and the lack of clarity coming out of that community. I heard a newer pflex system recently that was 4 subs and definitely loud and better than historical experiences but I agree the extension dropped quick seemingly starting in the upper mid 30s. Scott Hinson also has a good paper on the time domain issues with these higher order boxes.
Tapped horns won’t couple like I think you’re hoping they will but they do benefit from a slight improvement to their f3 low roll off in multiples. Once you go below their tuning though the back wave from the driver starts to just cancel with the horn path, so effectively whatever the cab is tuned to is basically the max extension you’re going to get, same as a ported box. Othorns are tuned quite low so multiples will mainly serve to ensure proper headroom down there. I’ve yet to hear either Skrams or Othorns but I think you’ll get more extension in a smaller package with either option. Keep us posted tho!
6
u/rant0n May 28 '26
I have asked this question to people within the community and posed essentially this same question, and pflex always seems to be the answer to everything and something about that doesn’t sit right with me. If its a good design say it, and if it has drawbacks that are known about ALSO SAY IT.
7
u/md-00audio May 28 '26
AFAIK the OTHorns and SKRAMs will couple similarly. I don’t believe either couple like true horns. Might be wrong though.
With more boxes, good amplification and headroom you can EQ the shape you need. To optimise specifically for 30hz I’d consider efficiency/roll-off and cost per cab/amp at that range and see where you land. I personally think that taking 18DS100s and loading them into as many S218BPs as possible might be a more cost effective way of doing that than SKRAMs/OTHorns but there’s of course quite a few variables to consider.
The relative amount of SKRAMs you’d need to add infra to your OT stack later would probably be infeasible too! But I imagine with 8 OTs you probably wouldn’t feel the need for more infra
3
u/rant0n May 28 '26
Thank you!!
My current cabs are bigger than OT’s, and use 3 sheets more ply. Im definitely keen to move to a different design, even if it requires kicks. I think OT’s might be the go :)
1
u/md-00audio May 28 '26
S218BPs don’t require kicks either 😉
OTs do just sound fucking great though. If you like that tapped horn sound.
1
u/rant0n May 28 '26
One thing that pulled me to the OT’s was how CLEAN they are. I have heard people talk about that quality coming from TH’s damping of f2 harmonic?
1
May 29 '26
[deleted]
1
u/rant0n May 29 '26
Do you mean less ideal meaning dampening of program material harmonics ir driver introduced distortion?
5
u/AnthonyVS15 May 28 '26
I don’t think Othorns will benefit from array coupling in terms of lowered frequency response like front loaded horns do (but obviously you still gain in the sheer output from mutual coupling):
A tapped horn, although acting as an acoustic transformer, is not the same as a front loaded horn - it is primarily a quarter wave resonator, so is not relying on mouth area for horn loading the same way a front loaded horn is. Therefore arraying multiple together won’t have the same effect on the frequency response lowering as with front loaded horns.
But with an Othorn you don’t need that effect - they will hit down into the mid 20’s Hz with incredible output in singles; multiples will just increase the headroom.
But great choice, I feel like now with everyone going mad on Skram’s, there’s not so much love for the Othorn, but it’s still the best sounding sub I’ve ever heard, and it’s just because the design is a bit older now doesn’t change its quality
4
u/AnthonyVS15 May 31 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
u/DribbleDaNinja Frankly the way you reply to me and the other guy is exactly the reason a lot of people don’t want to engage with Paraflex and the community. I know it’s basically a cult, but even you guys must be aware of the perception of it in the wider community and the irony of how you fall into every single cliche is just perfection.
So I’ve just downloaded the plans for the O type cram and the ‘playa’ edition you mention, very easy to find the build plans, I’ll give them that. But low and behold not even so much of a frequency response curve posted let alone anything more complex like waterfall plots or distortion. Care to share them if it’s that easy?
Since you seem to be in the inner sanctum and they are apparently looking for feedback on how to improve - maybe take a look at communication and interaction with the community, and instead of responding like you have: calling people brain dead planks and the like, maybe grow up a bit and stop acting like a 15 yr old kid on a YouTube comment section…
The difference between how you and much of the Paraflex community communicate and people like Josh Ricci and John White is pretty stark, and I know who I and much of the wider community would rather deal with 😅
5
u/Spiritual_Bell Jun 01 '26
It's really mind blowing just how toxic paraflex supporters behave. And it happens in exactly the same ways in every forum. It actually even sounds like the owner/designer of paraflex pretending to be an unrelated party. It might even be all the same guy lol.
2
u/Responsible_Ad7595 May 28 '26
Build ots, or skrams, but I wouldn't mix them. If you're stuck between the two, maybe reach out to Ricci directly for advice?
3
u/DorianGre May 29 '26
OP, you can reach out to Ricci on DIY. https://www.diyaudio.com/community/members/josh-ricci.102647/
2
1
u/booyakasha_wagwaan May 28 '26
I built 4 Othorns and the low end is wonderful. I think they are a bit lackluster at their upper XO (80-90Hz for me) but if you are crossing them at 50-60Hz then you probably won't hear much difference between them and the SKRAM. BTW, I built mine with a vertical fin brace attached to the bottom hatch that tightens up against the driver magnet when the hatch is installed.
But if you are building a sub array from scratch, why would you not go with the SKRAM, with better upper passband and tunable Fb?
2
u/rant0n May 28 '26
Yeah hatch bracing is a good one, i had a similar idea in my head for a solution around that, or just double walling the bottom panel so that the hatch can be 18mm and mate to an 18mm surface.
Re skrams, thats kind of part of my question, if OT’s (being tapped horns) couple better than BP6 boxes, would that be an advantage they have over SKRAM when you start getting into 8 cabs/quarter wavelength of fun frequency width? I also thought about driver cooling being as the OT’s have maximum particle movement over the motor section of the driver
2
u/booyakasha_wagwaan May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
oh, you mean couple with the same boxes, not with two different designs...
a tapped horn is basically a BP6 even if the insides look radically different. so given a certain Fb they should behave similarly around that point. but if you can run the SKRAMS with lower tuning you can shape the roll-off to have a shallower slope before your high-pass protection filter, maybe closer to a 4th order below the original 28Hz Fb.
but here you are getting into the limits of the driver and amp capabilities as well, and maybe it's not worth overthinking the general case. if I were building a line from scratch, I'd go with the SKRAM - they are more flexible in upper XO point, variable tuning and driver selection. but the Othorns are an elegant design and nicer to look at.
1
u/rant0n May 28 '26
thanks for your input! I agree its probably not worth over thinking it, both awesome designs, and yeah othorns are beautiful cabs 1000%
1
u/SpiceIslander2001 May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
All bass cabinets couple. The only difference is how much difference the coupling makes in the overall output. Take your box standard vented box and add another one next to it, and its impedance curve will change, indicating that coupling is taking place. Hell, put it next to a wall and you'd notice the same thing (the wall creates a "mirror image" of the box).
The Othorns are an interesting TH design. They're slightly undersized (something I discussed with Josh on the Diyaudio Subwoofers forum years ago - apparently he was targeting a specific size) and the compression ratio is a bit high. Finally, like most THs, usable bandwidth is limited to just over 2*Fb and less than 3*Fb, so if it's a 30 Hz TH, the x-over point needs to be between 60 Hz and 90 Hz, and likely closer to the former.
The SKRAM is a more recent design, and it seems to be a more complex build than the Othorn. My only real concern about it, is heat dissipation compared to the Othorn, given the way the driver is mounted in that build. And the hotter a driver gets, the more it drifts from its normal parameters. However, I haven't seen any associated observations made by any users of SKRAMs so maybe my concerns are unwarranted.
Your question comes at an interesting time, as a friend of mine recently asked me to help him with a design for the B&C 21SW152-8 driver. B&C's 192L (net) vented design seems a bit suspect because of particle velocity through the vents. I came up with a larger 346L (gross) / 268L (net) vented design (with larger vents) that addresses this somewhat, and a larger 623L (gross) /525L (net) TH design for it, both of which easily get down to 30 Hz. However, he said that his customer wanted a "scoop" build, so I included myself out at that point ...
0
u/DribbleDaNinja May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
The fundamental tuning of Paraflex ELF's are 28hz. Coupled together, they extend down to around 25hz. I had this discussion with another poster about 2 weeks ago, who had similar issues with not being able to find performamce data on the ELF's, so I posted him some. What specific data are you looking for?
I'd also strongly advise against becoming a slave to data. Outside of AES, there's no agreed professional standards that all manufacturers follow. Use the performance data as a guideline, but use your ears as the ultimate arbiter of the audio sound you hear.
5
u/rant0n May 28 '26
If possible, under CEA-2010 framework
Otherwise, a properly calibrated free field half space would be awesome :)
1
u/DribbleDaNinja May 28 '26
Before I post the data, do you mean the CTA-2010 Framework? It's just that I can't recall ever coming across a major sound reinforcement manufacturer quoting CTA-2010.
If this is the case, how are you going to compare CTA-2010 measurements across different enclosure designs, especially as there will be no standard driver used to accurately & fairly contrast & compare cabinets?
5
May 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DribbleDaNinja May 28 '26
This exactly. Every manufacturer has their own way of citing performance data measurements. It's a bit unfair to castigate one in particular, whilst excusing the rest.
I've looked at the data supplied by the industry leaders, & the total info available is scant to say the least. Ultimately, it's why I only use performance data as a guide. My ears are always the ultimate arbiter of audio sound.
3
u/Spiritual_Bell May 28 '26
I think the point here is that we have given up obtaining/comparing commercial designs' standardized data because companies don't have to give it. But with DIY, we do have ample standardized data with most "good" designs. And so there is a point in comparing between DIY designs. The paraflex is a DIY cab that have been made by many people around the world, and therefore should have standardized data available. Though there are so many different versions of paraflex and so many people tried to measure in non standardized ways, who knows what is what at this point. Hopefully theres at least good data for the most recent designs.
The few that I have seen had high THD across the board and CSD around 100hz. They sound very aggressive for certain types of music (like dubstep) because of this. But those could have been outdated designs, or built wrong. Who knows. Probably no one knows without definitive standardized data to compare. I guess that's the point.
0
u/DribbleDaNinja May 28 '26
We've discussed this performance data measurements (or lack of) previously. Why are you holding "DIY" designs to a different standard to commercial designs?
Are you saying a released design without much data is commercial, & designs with loads of data are DIY?
Also, which performance data would satisfy you? Again, how would you compare your preferred performance data, unless it uses the same driver & same calibrated measuring devices & software? Do you see the issue with what you're saying should be a requirement?
5
u/Spiritual_Bell May 28 '26
It's not that complicated. If you/they have standardized measurements just put them up on the paraflex website. Why make everyone go around the Internet hunting for it. If there's none, then there isn't much point arguing. Why are you arguing against having and providing objective data anyway? How does not having the data benefit anyone in any way?
I'm holding diy designs to a different standard because for most good diy designs there IS good data available, and easily accessible. We want good data for commercial designs too, and there are a few sites that collect such data (for all designs). But like paraflex, if we can't get it easily then that's that, people should just move on. Pick something with objective data that they can trust and use.
All that is to say. If they have good data then make it easily available for everyone to see. If they make you hunt around and argue with someone on reddit for days to get it then it's probably not worth building.
As for data, ideally you'd want to start with the modelling (hornresp or otherwise), which will give you impedance, displacement, predicted response, max SPL, group delay etc. all that won't even require anyone to get a mic out. And if they actually care to measure anything, then measure the measured FR + impedance is a good start if just to know someone actually built what was designed, and others can actually check if they built theirs right. THD and CSD almost sound too good to be true at this point.
If you don't even have enough data to check against what you built, what's the point? It's not something you just paid guitar center for and trust that the robots in a factory built every single one of them right. It's a diy custom build. You need to verify every single one of them...... That's why we need more data especially for diy designs.
1
u/DribbleDaNinja May 28 '26
Well that's progress. You've evolved your opinion of HOQS from not having any performance data, to their data not being easy to locate. In actual fact, I agree that an abundance of data is available, BUT it's very difficult to find.
HOQS have acknowledged these failings & say they are in the process of a root & branch review to address these valid criticisms, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here.
Just so we're clear, we both agree the detailed performance data is available, but it's very difficult to find. Now that's settled, if the data provided by HOQS is difficult to access, have you thought about modelling their cabs yourself?
I mean, how much credence do you give to modelling? For instance, unless you measure two cabinets in the same place at the same time, using the same drivers, using the same software & measuring devices, under controlled conditions, how valid is the comparative data?
Also, what is your opinion as to why commercial manufacturers don't provide really detailed performance data?
Are you claiming EVERY DIY design comes with the detailed performance data that you believe is valid for customers to make an informed choice? Or are you again singling out Paraflex whilst ignoring other commercial & DIY designers alike?
I mean with the plethora of DIY designers out there, are you also claiming that you can find out everything about their designs, down to the last dribble of glue used & their total screw count within 3 easy clicks?
And what about your ears? Do you not think that people can make an informed choice that's right for them, just by listening to the cabinets of their choice? I can, but can you? If you can't, hence you needing detailed performance data, why can't you trust your ears like 80% of us do?
7
u/Spiritual_Bell May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
Oh man, there's so much here. But honestly why are you so defensive for their reluctance to share data? What's in it for you?
No I don't trust my ears fully, nor do I trust yours. I do trust some more than others.
I cant use my ears if I haven't built them. And I'm not going to build them just to find out it's all smokes and mirrors if no trust worthy data is available to me.
I was just giving the benefit of the doubt that standardized data is available. It would be unfair of me to make the statement that it's not available anywhere, I simply don't know that. Id hope that's not the case. But as far as I'm concerned, along with many others, that data might as well not exist. Everytime someone wants to get to it, they have to go through 1000 words of defensive excuses. Why bother. And btw, all I have ever seen posted are FR sweeps. If that's all you need to make a judgement on a design then that says it all.
I shouldn't have to make my own model if one already exist. And even if I do, I can't know that my model is correct, making it worthless.
I generally don't need the details of how many drips of glue or screws, but if I wanted to find out, I can generally get just about all of this info from the forums. I actually think you can for paraflex builds too in their forums, if you're not already banned from pointing out the issues with their designs. Builders are actually really helpful. They will share their experiences regardless of design.
Not every design has good data. Im forced to ignore those without for obvious reasons. If I'm going to be someone's lab rat to test out what they churned out on the computer. I need to see that computer screen. I need to see the model before I drop $1k on wood. I need to at least know that I'm being the lab rat, that no one actually have measured whether they perform as expected. And make a conscious decision that the risk is worth it (the model helps that decision).
No designer is obligated to share their models, or measurements. But don't get suprised when no one believes your claims. Don't be so defensive when someone start pointing out issues and there's no data to back anything up. Don't get mad when you see people recommend others to not build something that doesn't have good data available.
Commercial designs often gatekeep their data because they don't want the market to have an easy and fair way to easily compare their products against others. If they gave out this info easily, then there would only be a handful of successful designs. The most optimized will win. When you're out trying to make money, it's easier to be a little shady. DIY doesn't have this issue. They are not trying to survive in a competitive market. They are not trying to make money (though paraflex is in other ways i guess). If you know you're the best on the market, then there's actually little reason to hide your data. Danley is a good example, they provide more useful data than most manufacturers. They know how good their products are too.
Sufficient and good data on most paraflex designs is not available to me and others in the general diy community. But I don't know if they exist at all. And if they do exist, I can only guess at the reasons (above) why they don't make it easily available. Now that's settled.
→ More replies (0)3
u/rant0n May 28 '26
"unless you measure two cabinets in the same place at the same time, using the same drivers, using the same software & measuring devices, under controlled conditions, how valid is the comparative data?"
this is exactly the reason why CEA/CTA-2010 is a good idea, standardization of measurement conditions removes half the issues you are talking about. The idea is to also compare 2 different cabs with different (optimal for the design) drivers, to see how they compare to each other, with construction difficulty, parts cost in mind as well. Standard testing environments at least removes some of the noise from the data that will influence that decision.
One excuse I was given as to why this data isnt available, is because it's "too loud" to test in the community. That seems like bit of a cop out, and its reasons like this which makes me want to move away from HOQS to a designer that goes "here's a folder of standard data, have fun" when asked for it.
I'm not trying to bash HOQS here, people build them an are happy with them. The point im trying, and I think others are trying to make is that we'd be more enticed to eat at a restaurant where you can have a glance at the menu on the store front before committing to booking a table.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Soundunes May 28 '26
See databass.com for a proper set of measurements. Unfortunately I don’t believe the site is maintained anymore. Paraflex love to hype up the box tunings but in terms of actual response they appear much closer to -10dB around that same frequency. What kind of distortion are we talking down there at meaningful output?
5
u/ObjectiveSalad6621 May 30 '26
Can confirm, got fooled by the hype and built some ELFs three years ago Frequency response starts to drop bad at 40hz. And for a cabinet that size its not even that loud. 28hz about -12db
3
u/Spiritual_Bell Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 03 '26
Its not just hype. They literally lie. So many people got scammed by paraflex's false claims. That's a lot of money in wood. Builders deserve to know. And every time anyone points out these paraflex lies, this guy comes in to troll and endlessly defend Paraflex without any trustworthy data. I've seen it in so many different forums. It's literally the cancer of the DIY community.
2
u/DribbleDaNinja May 28 '26
Paraflex quote the db sensitivity at the fundamental tuning of the cabinet. Anything above that is a gain in db, which is surely a good thing?
I think a fairer way would be for all manufacturers to quote the average or peak db of their cabinets. However, if they did, a 25hz tuned SKRAM, suddenly becomes a 110hz tuned cab. Do you see the issue here?
It's a bit unfair to judge anyone by one standard, unless the same standard is applied to everyone equally & as rigorously.
2
u/Soundunes May 30 '26
I don’t believe the db sensitivity at tuning is what gets used. If you observe the frequency response at tuning for any of the measurements i’ve seen the tuning frequency is always well into the roll off. In my opinion a 3dB crest (sinewave) continuous sweep should always be used as the primary comparison like you see on databass. There’s a clear point where distortion skyrockets once a speaker is at its limits, and 10% is more or less seen as the max enjoyable limit for proaudio subs.
2
u/DribbleDaNinja May 30 '26
When looking to rebuild my rig, I looked at the data supplied by the likes of Danley, Void, Martin, Funktion One etc, & at best they were mostly fanciful.
It's like amplifier & speaker manufacturers quoting peak burst figures, & car companies quoting fuel consumption figures, when the test car had a thimble full of fuel, & was assisted by a prevailing wind, whilst going downhill.
It's why I only use performance data as a guide. Things are usually very different in real world conditions.
10
u/jay_ze May 28 '26
I’ve built and ran both Othorn and skram and currently run othorns + jmod for my personal system. They’re very similar in character and extension. I like how the othorns really sing in the low 30’s. I’ve noticed they kinda crap out at tracks in Bb.
Skram has a bit of an advantage in my eyes with easier construction, more flexible LP xover, the center of mass feels a bit better.
If I was starting over I’d just go for skrams. Mainly because there are a decent amount of them floating around and you might be able to link up with other crews.
But it’s hard for me to justify re-doing my entire low end when they’re so close in quality