16.75" wide, 13.5" tall (including legs), 12.5" deep (plus 1.5" for amp)
Wow...not that big at all. But that is bigger than two CBM-170's isn't it?
-curtis
|
16.75" wide, 13.5" tall (including legs), 12.5" deep (plus 1.5" for amp)
Wow...not that big at all. But that is bigger than two CBM-170's isn't it?
-curtis
a 170 is 12"h x 9"w x 10"d. If your laid it on side you'd need to add 4.75" x 4.5" x 4". That is half or less in every measure. Looking at the Force your eye really doesn't take in the legs or amp as part of the box. I'd guess the legs are at least 1.5"h. So take the legs and amp out and the cabinet itself is 4.75" longer x 3" taller x 2.5" deeper than the 170 cabinet on side.
You 340s across the front guys have already forgotten what the 170 looks like. []
LOL!!
My 170's are hanging from the ceiling beam!
That is a small sub. Let us know when you hear more of the system.
-curtis
Okay, Curtis you're right it is over twice the size over a 170. I'm not taking into account that I'm increasing all three measures. If you just take the depth being half again that would make it one and a half 170s. Going by volume the 170 is 43% the volume of the Force. It is amazing how sleep helps one to think.
It is good to be humble. []
-curtis
I still can't believe that sub is that small.
Anybody got a link to a picture of it? WAF is always important!
-Smokey.
Thanks, the Management.
http://www.audioc.com/speakers/Force/intro.htm
He got it in black and I don't think ithad any "end caps" like the wood capped one in the picture. I'll try to verify that. It's better looking than James EMB-1000 IMO.
I have seen the James sub....now that thing IS small.
-curtis
James EMB-1000 12 x 12 x 14. That is about 80% the volume of the Force. 1000 watts vs 250 watts for the Force. So the James can get about 6db louder if everything else were equal.