Hi guys,
What are the +/- of TQWT shown in the following thread vs. ML TL that was chosen here. I now the first difference would be that this one uses two speakers.
T?he reason I'm asking is if I were to build a single driver speaker the design offered here needs stands and the one below is a floor stander and there's no need for stands.
http://www.vicdiy.com/products/tqwt/tqwt.html
Sorry it's in Japanese, but if you scroll down you'll see the box configuration and dimensions for FE127 driver.
Thanks a lot!
/Greg
What are the +/- of TQWT shown in the following thread vs. ML TL that was chosen here. I now the first difference would be that this one uses two speakers.
T?he reason I'm asking is if I were to build a single driver speaker the design offered here needs stands and the one below is a floor stander and there's no need for stands.
http://www.vicdiy.com/products/tqwt/tqwt.html
Sorry it's in Japanese, but if you scroll down you'll see the box configuration and dimensions for FE127 driver.
Thanks a lot!
/Greg
What I see quite often is the attempt to tune the cabinet below the driver Fs (which I have been guilty of in the past also). Thanks to new research into transmission line behavior this has been proven to be ineffective and even detrimental to the performance of the system. Voigt's design criteria is extremely out of date.
FE127E Bi-pole (shorter)
In an attempt to get approval from the lady of the house, I need to consider reducing the overall length of the original design. By placing the driver only 4" from the top, I can cut 12" from the overall height of the design and can likely get the nod for this project.
I have attached results of my model using the www.quarter-wave.com worksheets. Changing the height from the top to 4" from 16" requires more stuffing and as such, there appears to be a very small loss in the lower end response and a very small bump and dip, but for the most part, the results look similar to me. I would appreciate it if some of the experts could look over the results and comment on potential improvements. I want to keep the driver about 36" from the ground and want the total height close to about 40".
TIA,
Gio.
In an attempt to get approval from the lady of the house, I need to consider reducing the overall length of the original design. By placing the driver only 4" from the top, I can cut 12" from the overall height of the design and can likely get the nod for this project.
I have attached results of my model using the www.quarter-wave.com worksheets. Changing the height from the top to 4" from 16" requires more stuffing and as such, there appears to be a very small loss in the lower end response and a very small bump and dip, but for the most part, the results look similar to me. I would appreciate it if some of the experts could look over the results and comment on potential improvements. I want to keep the driver about 36" from the ground and want the total height close to about 40".
TIA,
Gio.
I am looking at a slightly modified plan. The CSA is is the same as the MLTL bi-pole. I am moving the driver up to reduce the overall height of the speaker at the listening height.
Details of the dimensions and results of the worksheets can be found in http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=700302#post700302
Details of the dimensions and results of the worksheets can be found in http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=700302#post700302
Re: Re: Back on track
Hi Dave,
There are two questions that I've been meaning to ask you for some time.
The first is RE a parenthetical comment that you made over 35 pages back:
I wonder simply if you might elucidate a bit when you've got a minute.
I might be wrong about this second question, but it seems to me that you have expressed a tendency toward choosing the golden proportiion in cabinet design when it worked out to do so. If this is correct, again, I'd love to hear anything you felt like saying about it.
I'm not looking for lengthy or in-depth explanations in either case; any little bit of elucidation/elaboration—food for thought, whatever—would be most welcome and appreciated. (Fact is, I've learned so much from you already from numberless posts you've made in this and other threads that it feels almost presumptious to ask!)
Thank you,
Don
Hi Dave,
There are two questions that I've been meaning to ask you for some time.
The first is RE a parenthetical comment that you made over 35 pages back:
planet10 said:
I wonder simply if you might elucidate a bit when you've got a minute.
I might be wrong about this second question, but it seems to me that you have expressed a tendency toward choosing the golden proportiion in cabinet design when it worked out to do so. If this is correct, again, I'd love to hear anything you felt like saying about it.
I'm not looking for lengthy or in-depth explanations in either case; any little bit of elucidation/elaboration—food for thought, whatever—would be most welcome and appreciated. (Fact is, I've learned so much from you already from numberless posts you've made in this and other threads that it feels almost presumptious to ask!)
Thank you,
Don
Re: Re: Re: Back on track
My preference is towards thin, stiff, well braced enclosures. A box is going to resonate so lets make it resonate way up where there is little or no energy to excite them. As a consequence, the box has very little energy storage.
I am also now taking any opportunity to push-push drivers so as to have active vibration cancelation further decrease the energy that gets into the cabinet.
Actually i didn' start using the golden ratio till recently, but i have used other irrational numbers from time memorial. If you have to build a rectangular box then a set of ratios with irrational numbers should support lower Q resonances. Anywhere there is the possibility of a standing wave, edge resonance, etc i'll choose a convienient irrational number (ie root(2), root(3), pi, e...)
dave
DMD said:
My preference is towards thin, stiff, well braced enclosures. A box is going to resonate so lets make it resonate way up where there is little or no energy to excite them. As a consequence, the box has very little energy storage.
I am also now taking any opportunity to push-push drivers so as to have active vibration cancelation further decrease the energy that gets into the cabinet.
Actually i didn' start using the golden ratio till recently, but i have used other irrational numbers from time memorial. If you have to build a rectangular box then a set of ratios with irrational numbers should support lower Q resonances. Anywhere there is the possibility of a standing wave, edge resonance, etc i'll choose a convienient irrational number (ie root(2), root(3), pi, e...)
dave
looks greek to me
set of ratios with irrational numbers should support lower Q resonances. Anywhere there is the possibility of a standing wave, edge resonance, etc i'll choose a convienient irrational number (ie root(2), root(3), pi, e...).......
i read..well i flipped through the pages of the speaker cookbook,,,,i didnt see one page i could make any sense out of. and now you guys talking the same language..sheesh.
im sure there must be a way to say what your saying in nice hobbiest english. im not one to be dense,,,,,, but this stuff just seems incomprhensible to me. ive been reading alot of diy loudspeaker stuff for well over a year,,and other than following some other guys recipy,,,im as ignorant as i was the first day i found out people actualy built their own speeks.
like alot of things,if you(or me) read enough about anything,some of it will stick and eventualy ill get at least a basic understanding......but not with this stuff.
im not complaining about you guys per say......more or less venting about my confusion thats all.
ahhhh, i feel better
roy
set of ratios with irrational numbers should support lower Q resonances. Anywhere there is the possibility of a standing wave, edge resonance, etc i'll choose a convienient irrational number (ie root(2), root(3), pi, e...).......
i read..well i flipped through the pages of the speaker cookbook,,,,i didnt see one page i could make any sense out of. and now you guys talking the same language..sheesh.
im sure there must be a way to say what your saying in nice hobbiest english. im not one to be dense,,,,,, but this stuff just seems incomprhensible to me. ive been reading alot of diy loudspeaker stuff for well over a year,,and other than following some other guys recipy,,,im as ignorant as i was the first day i found out people actualy built their own speeks.
like alot of things,if you(or me) read enough about anything,some of it will stick and eventualy ill get at least a basic understanding......but not with this stuff.
im not complaining about you guys per say......more or less venting about my confusion thats all.
ahhhh, i feel better
roy