Well it seems the only way to get a worth while reduction is to make a port that is square and longer than my box depth will allow. This means meaning new face plate, and cutting a hole in the top, and building a square vent that is much longer.
ALSO I guess I have to recalculate the box volume and subtract the larger volume of the port because Win ISD does not account for this when I make the port size change ?
Thanks for you help so far guys.
ALSO I guess I have to recalculate the box volume and subtract the larger volume of the port because Win ISD does not account for this when I make the port size change ?
Thanks for you help so far guys.
Attachments
However I do live in an apartment right now, and probably won't be turning it up this loud except when doing a test. So maybe its fine with 25 ft/s at 200 w at 30 hz
Also, without having an exact box volume I have been cutting a few slightly different length bass ports from PVC and testing the results to fine tune.
If I go with a square port cut from MDF that would not be practical anymore. I would have to choose one tuning build it and live with it.
If I go with a square port cut from MDF that would not be practical anymore. I would have to choose one tuning build it and live with it.
Considering this driver is going to be dedicated to the bottom range of 20 to 35/40 hz, I don't think I can let it go and leave this chuffing so high.
Especially because I will be equalizing and boosting the bottom end, and this will only make the chuffing worse.
I guess I will have to build the big ports and put them down through the top.
Especially because I will be equalizing and boosting the bottom end, and this will only make the chuffing worse.
I guess I will have to build the big ports and put them down through the top.
Are you sure you need all these woofers? Have you considered
building a sealed box + boosting? If you are gonna LP the woofers
low enough, you might not need any box damping at all.
building a sealed box + boosting? If you are gonna LP the woofers
low enough, you might not need any box damping at all.
Yes I was considering just taking the damping out, but even so the cabinets are only 18 inches deep, minus a few inches for front and back baffle. So really 16 inches, and then at least an inch of play/air space..
Gives me 15 inches max depth for a bass port. Thats not really enough to make any port that will make a worth while difference from the 13 inches I just cut, even if I go square larger opening single port.
The only dimension that looks worth while is top down because the cabs are almost 4 feet tall.
Gives me 15 inches max depth for a bass port. Thats not really enough to make any port that will make a worth while difference from the 13 inches I just cut, even if I go square larger opening single port.
The only dimension that looks worth while is top down because the cabs are almost 4 feet tall.
Of course I don't need all these woofers. 🙂
But I already have them. And I am damn well gonna build boxes for them ! haha
I wanted to make something like a grand utopia, this is going to be in the ball park, maybe it a bit better in ways because its active and has an extra pair of woofers.
But I already have them. And I am damn well gonna build boxes for them ! haha
I wanted to make something like a grand utopia, this is going to be in the ball park, maybe it a bit better in ways because its active and has an extra pair of woofers.
FOCAL AUDIOM 15WX, VB = 250.0 L, FB = 20.0 Hz
would require 2 ports minimum 4" diam (for ~P.200W) and length 39.13cm = 15" 13⁄32in. consider distance between cent./ports 20cm/8". Consider at the end 3-4" free from the port/tube to the back baffle.
Surface Sd of the 2x Ports: 162.15 cm2
F-3 dB (in room/simulation): 21 Hz
some inspiration link
would require 2 ports minimum 4" diam (for ~P.200W) and length 39.13cm = 15" 13⁄32in. consider distance between cent./ports 20cm/8". Consider at the end 3-4" free from the port/tube to the back baffle.
Surface Sd of the 2x Ports: 162.15 cm2
F-3 dB (in room/simulation): 21 Hz
some inspiration link
Attachments
I know it seems odd, but its going to do a couple good things.
It will limit the working range of the 12", increasing power handling of the 12"
Also the transient response of the 10 inch is better because its smaller, and it will also be in a sealed cabinet.
On top of all this the woofers will each have their own channel of amplification without any passive crap in the way.
The frequency ranges will be determined by ear but have been somewhat dictated by the response plots shown in the graphs on the earlier pages of this post.
It will limit the working range of the 12", increasing power handling of the 12"
Also the transient response of the 10 inch is better because its smaller, and it will also be in a sealed cabinet.
On top of all this the woofers will each have their own channel of amplification without any passive crap in the way.
The frequency ranges will be determined by ear but have been somewhat dictated by the response plots shown in the graphs on the earlier pages of this post.
don't forget, impedance doesn't matter, time relationships don't matter, amplifier load will be simple all over. All the usual design constraints of a passive speaker do not apply here. Time alignment will be done by ear with berhinger DCX 2496, I have gotten very good at this over the last two years.
their is an auto phase alignment method with the behringer mic, I will do this, and then from their prefect it by ear manually.
their is an auto phase alignment method with the behringer mic, I will do this, and then from their prefect it by ear manually.
PA application requires daisy chaining of multiple speakers. Concerts can have dozens of pairs of speakers spread out through a stadium and they keep them in time by exercising an auto alignment feature in the active x overs.
In HiFI we get used to seeing certain configurations over and over and we think its wrong to deviate from these.
The main reason you see the same speaker configuration over and over is passive x overs require you come out with a decent phase relationship, and impedance of the overall speaker. None of that is a concern with an active setup. So you can do whatever you want, and correct it digitally before its even DA converted from music files played off my hard drive.
In HiFI we get used to seeing certain configurations over and over and we think its wrong to deviate from these.
The main reason you see the same speaker configuration over and over is passive x overs require you come out with a decent phase relationship, and impedance of the overall speaker. None of that is a concern with an active setup. So you can do whatever you want, and correct it digitally before its even DA converted from music files played off my hard drive.
Last edited:
passive covers exist in HIFI but they do not exist in PA anymore.
The main reason they exist in HIFI is product marketing requires a speaker to be separate from an amp to meet certain price points, upgrade paths, and separate markets for amps and speakers. Also audiophiles like to mix and match amps. Its a product constraint, it is not a design constraint , to have active vs passive.
So all that being said. I can make this however I want to , it doesn't need to be a grand utopia. Its just going to have a lot of the same drivers, and similar sound quality when its done.
The main reason they exist in HIFI is product marketing requires a speaker to be separate from an amp to meet certain price points, upgrade paths, and separate markets for amps and speakers. Also audiophiles like to mix and match amps. Its a product constraint, it is not a design constraint , to have active vs passive.
So all that being said. I can make this however I want to , it doesn't need to be a grand utopia. Its just going to have a lot of the same drivers, and similar sound quality when its done.
So, how come you care about brand name wires and not
about doing appropriate measurements? I understand
you will do all the work by listening. That does not sound
reasonable.
about doing appropriate measurements? I understand
you will do all the work by listening. That does not sound
reasonable.
It's the first time I hear this. We got a human that can match phases by listening.
It never worked out. I hope you are a pro.🙂
It never worked out. I hope you are a pro.🙂
Last edited:
I will graph the response with REW to get me in the ball park.
I will then run the time alignment feature on the DCX crossover.
This is all the measuring you can do. I will do that. I always have in the past. But the real quality sound comes from changing it from here by ear. Listening slowly over months.
Don't forget that listening to music is not a measurement. Listening to music is LISTENING.
🙂
Do you play the guitar? Have you ever tuned a guitar with a guitar tuner? Have you ever tuned a guitar with your hearing?
Which one sounds better?
Have you ever DJ? Have you matched two beats of different songs with a computer? Have you matched two beats of a song with your hearing?
Which is better?
Measurements get us in the ball park. In the end its you that has to decide yes or no with your ears.
Try using a Behringer DCX 2496, auto aligning the phase with the mic, and then moving the time delay between driver by a few ms forward and backward. The real unified sound comes from this final step that you do by listening.
Just to be clear gentlemen.
🙂
I will then run the time alignment feature on the DCX crossover.
This is all the measuring you can do. I will do that. I always have in the past. But the real quality sound comes from changing it from here by ear. Listening slowly over months.
Don't forget that listening to music is not a measurement. Listening to music is LISTENING.
🙂
Do you play the guitar? Have you ever tuned a guitar with a guitar tuner? Have you ever tuned a guitar with your hearing?
Which one sounds better?
Have you ever DJ? Have you matched two beats of different songs with a computer? Have you matched two beats of a song with your hearing?
Which is better?
Measurements get us in the ball park. In the end its you that has to decide yes or no with your ears.
Try using a Behringer DCX 2496, auto aligning the phase with the mic, and then moving the time delay between driver by a few ms forward and backward. The real unified sound comes from this final step that you do by listening.
Just to be clear gentlemen.
🙂
I guess I didn't mention that I will do some measuring . You guys must think Im crazy lol.
I studied Engineering Physics at McMaster, and Audio Acoustics Masters at Salford.
I know some of my idea might sound funny to you. Thats OK.
I could talk about speakers made from Carbon Nano tubes if you like.
Or how I built electrostats in high school and derived the relationship of a damped driven harmonic oscillator to its mass from first principles. Won the communications award from Bell Canada at 18.
Or you could make fun of me some more ?
🙂
I studied Engineering Physics at McMaster, and Audio Acoustics Masters at Salford.
I know some of my idea might sound funny to you. Thats OK.
I could talk about speakers made from Carbon Nano tubes if you like.
Or how I built electrostats in high school and derived the relationship of a damped driven harmonic oscillator to its mass from first principles. Won the communications award from Bell Canada at 18.
Or you could make fun of me some more ?
🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.