i'm not going to lie, i have entirely plagiarized that design after seeing it posted a while back
why did it never make production?i wanted to play with suprabaffle shapes but i'm not sure how (if any) their use would change the predicted output of the design, given it would add an extra 5cm or so to the path length from driver to mouth. is it a highly significant increase?
i wouldn't use any design of mine, i have no idea what i'm doing. this is a fumbled attempt to make something useful for that driver whilst also seeing if i can achieve something aesthetically pleasing. its purely a practise and learning experience for a more expensive driver. as you can see from previous attempts i've posted, most my designs don't actually work. i'm lucky that GM has given me some very useful pointers for the enclosure design to follow that have subsequently given a much better looking simulated output (if i'm actually using the sheets correctly)
i'm not going to lie, i have entirely plagiarized that design after seeing it posted a while back
Good to see this inpiring someone.
The fellow that was going to make them bailed.
sB is mostly about wavelaunch in this situation.
dave
so it will not significantly alter the terminus output, or overall combined simulations? perhaps just change the ripples slightly through adjusting the baffle step and such things related to that?
there's lots of stuff to learn with this speaker lark. my respect for those who produce these things has increased exponentially now i've seen how hard it is!
do you by any chance have a simulation of what the bruce or curvy bruce looks like in the MJK sheets? the major problem i'm finding with my learning process is i don't actually know what a speaker looks like on paper. as i've said before, many of my attempts seemed like a good idea in my head, and what happened on paper usually matches what i had planned, which is a planned failure! i don't need to know dimensions and things like that should they be private, just things like the response for the terminus and stuff like phase and combined calculated SPL etc.
thanks again for persistent answering of my silly questions, its very appreciated
Last edited:
Then why do I have to repeat myself? You don’t seem to be learning the basics before moving on.
The input data that generates the plots.
Yeah, there’s some from netlingo.com and a lot of technical ones [some conflicting] and I’ve added a bunch of my own to define various subsets of basic alignments such as BVR ‘horns’.
GM
its not through being obstinate that i do this. the commands or explanations for a host of things are not entirely clear or backed up with reason (not stated with any specific reference or targeted at yourself). i've been asking so many questions to try and understand the logic behind that actions i've been asked to do, many of these actions are conflicted by other rules of thumb. doing several varying designs and comparing why they're adjudged to be wrong was an attempt to find a common denominator between designs in an attempt to find a happy medium between conflicting schools of thought.
for example the tuning frequency of 35hz goes against many posts stating you shouldn't tune something far below its Fs. upon querying this (during one of my first bouts of questions) i didn't really get a concrete answer or logic path to follow.
as such i'm still not entirely sure why your design suggestion works, i however sensed you were growing thin on patience and just did as you commanded without question. now i can see that your suggestion works a whole lot better, i'm still in the dark as to why that works when it seemingly contradicts common mantra on box tuning?
i do not expect, but rather hope that you can find time to give me a more detailed explanation of the thought process that led you to the numbers you gave me. it is not highly critical that you do, as the listed design will work for a 2nd more expensive driver i plan on using, this means i have no direct need to make another box any time soon. it would be nice however to have some closure on the entire process in order to avoid future nagging of forum memebers!
thanks again for your help, it is appreciated.
Last edited:
from a construction point of view - no matter how you do it CCM (OK I'll save you looking that one up - curves cost money), and while they can look splendid as works of art / furniture, they don't necessarily offer sonic advantages over more conventional fabrication techniques (i.e flat material stock)
Several years ago I had occasion to hear over several different sessions a pair of curvy Harvey (?) Changs locally built. The builder spent quite a bit of time, and seemed to be quite happy with the results - well, since we've not heard from Aengus for a couple of years, who knows if he's moved on, which certainly wouldn't be unheard of in this hobby. But to be completely honest, I found they had some coloration issues that weren't mitigated by chamber damping levels, and that I'd attribute in part to lack of hard corners - for reasons that Dave, Scott or others could elaborate on much more eloquently than I.
I'm fairly confident with this assessment as the driver involved was Fostex FE127E, one with which I'm very familiar in a range of enclosure types over a period of at least 6yrs.
i would like to have this explained to me as delicately as possible, as i was under the impression a horn or curved shape would be better than any possible internal reflections or turbulances cause by flat surfaces and edges.
i was also under the impression that curved surfaces suffered less from resonance modes(?) than a flat surface but also presented due to the shape of the curve, a thicker cross section to the sound wave, giving a greater ability to absorb/dissipate energies that may otherwise present themselves through the material as distortion?
asides from the aesthetic value of the curved design, i had been thinking that a curved box with a unibody design (no/few joints) would be incredibly rigid and thus provide a certain level of protection against colouration? if its actually going to increase them i'd not be overly inclined to construct them!
any further info/critique will be very well received!
Last edited:
Gaf, what you say is true for s front loaded horn where you want as much extention at the top as possible. For a back loaded horn, you do not want that HF stuff to pass. Everytime there is an expansion in the horn (as at each bend in a Nagaoka-style horn), you get an acoustic low pass filter.
dave
dave
No question as to the aesthetic merits of a sensuously curved enclosure, but fabricating one that's stiff /well enough braced to not resonate is not as easy as you'd hope.
When working with wood, curves cost money - either via techniques like stacked lamination (which is certainly wasteful of material, very time consuming, and likely the worst sounding method) or curved lamination of multiple thin (3mm or so) layers of bending veneers / rubber ply etc.
In our commercial millwork shop, when we need to fabricate curved reception walls, hanging bulkheads or column shrouds, we'll use vacuum bagging and multiple layers (usually 4 layers) of rubber ply. It often takes more material and time to build an accurate and sturdy form than to laminate the panels, but of course once that's done you can lay-up as many copies as you like.
aaaaah i did read that somewhere, just didn't join the dots here. this has thrown a spanner in the works somewhat.
so with a curved design i'd have to seriously stuff the thing to get rid of the high frequencies?
after further plagiarizing scotts designs, i had planned on placing a deflector at the back of the reflex chamber. would manipulation of this deflector, perhaps using multiple small deflectors aid in creating the low pass effect? perhaps something like random deflecting panels within the reflex chamber?
thanks for your help.
thanks for the insight, i shall have a rethink of my designs and see if i can arrive at a compromise with aesthetics and performance. form should follow function in my eyes for a speaker, and this had taken me a while to get an attractive form to follow the function i was hoping for.
the aesthetic part is to satisfy the WAF(?) part of the living arrangement.
thanks for your words of wisdom.
If your design was a horn it wouldhave, but so far i've only seen BVRs... the helmholtz action (& proer chamber damping) keep FH out of the (big) vents.
dave
ok then! i'll stick with this design and just build a single test cabinet out of MDF and see how it sounds before i plunge some serious cash into expensive plywood.
thanks again.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.