That is the laws.
Want large out put from a driver you need volume or EQ.No way around it.
Over all the cabinet does not need to be that large, as a fact with room placment issues for most people location is close to a wall.The room issue can make a smaller cabinet more enjoyable.
But then some lust like low end extention
Want large out put from a driver you need volume or EQ.No way around it.
Over all the cabinet does not need to be that large, as a fact with room placment issues for most people location is close to a wall.The room issue can make a smaller cabinet more enjoyable.
But then some lust like low end extention
The cone is a lot stiffer on the SDX7 which will lower the distortion due to the cone not flexing.
Plus the newer XBL^2 motor design on the SDX7.
Anyone how has listened to them here in the one of our designs drop in no crossover change (due to the low crossover point) is shell shocked at the difference between the Extremis and the SDX7.
This comment aboe is a customer who we just sent new SDX7 woofers to for his speakers which used the Extremis.
Re: Baffle width
I REALLY like your execution... can i use that picture in the next rev of the docs?
dave
Digeridoo said:FYI, here's a photo of a version of the small aperiodic boxes I did for the FR's a while back -- I keep meaning to get around to putting these up as a thread and drafting up a set of enclosure plans, but between a new start-up business and an 18mo old start-up human, those good intentions somehow keep going by the wayside....
I REALLY like your execution... can i use that picture in the next rev of the docs?
dave
DcibeL said:
Hoffman's Iron Law.
What i really like about the SDX7 is that it will work REALLY well in a tiny sealed box. Use of room gain or a little EQ and you can feel bass (even just 1 in my big room -- that was a BIG surprise). I have designs on the table for single (17-21 litre sealed) double (28 litre aperiodic TL) & quad SDX7 (28 litre aperiodic), and am playing with the idea of a tiny aperiodic woofer (<7 litre).
And as good as it is out of the box, i think i have made it even better (stay tuned -- i'm working to get Bob & Al a pair this WE to play with and give feedback on)
dave
simon5 said:
Yes the Extremis was a XBL^2 motor.But the SDX7 is a newer designed motor than the Extremis.
Plus triple copper rings in the SDX7 motor.Along with the frame on the SDX7 woofer has a TON more venting under the spyder as well as in the posts for the frame
Just to name a few things.
The final cabinet size is a combination of getting lower frequency response from the FR on the OB, providing the volume I desired for the SDX while trying to keep it from being too wide (simple aesthetics).
It was not possible to make the speaker any shorter under these criteria due to the relatively small volume of the pipe.
The wings prevent a hump from occuring before the natural roll-off of the driver. I discovered this while working with the Tang Band W3-871S on an open baffle. I experimented with different sizes of wings before settling on these which are 4" deep (the TB W3 uses 3" deep wings).
The FR125S exhibits a beautiful curve and roll-off at 200Hz with a single cap and had my goals been different I would've considering going that direction. In this case, I wanted to stay away from the huge cap and coil values that would've been required for a passive on the SDX. Another option is going active but I wanted to stay with a single amp and passive XOs.
I'm driving this speaker with my EL34 push-pull. The FR125S mids are wonderful with this amp.
It was not possible to make the speaker any shorter under these criteria due to the relatively small volume of the pipe.
The wings prevent a hump from occuring before the natural roll-off of the driver. I discovered this while working with the Tang Band W3-871S on an open baffle. I experimented with different sizes of wings before settling on these which are 4" deep (the TB W3 uses 3" deep wings).
The FR125S exhibits a beautiful curve and roll-off at 200Hz with a single cap and had my goals been different I would've considering going that direction. In this case, I wanted to stay away from the huge cap and coil values that would've been required for a passive on the SDX. Another option is going active but I wanted to stay with a single amp and passive XOs.
I'm driving this speaker with my EL34 push-pull. The FR125S mids are wonderful with this amp.
Hi Tim -
I'm real happy to see this and don't know how I missed thread until now.
I had mentioned to Dave that I had some ideas regards what I called 'A Poor Mans Phoenix' a couple weeks back and had planned to post thoughts to gather others opinions.
The Orion is totally out of my knowledge grasp and pocketbook and even the Phoenix is pricey to me and too complex for a newbee.
You've proven what I had in mind can be done. I had been thinking the Visaton B200 for top end OB and some type of scoop horn similiar to old Altec's for bottom bass unit and wasn't sure what to use for a driver.
I'm not surprised your getting as good of sound as you're stating and I was concerned about how wide my baffle would have to be using an 8" on top and being limited by space constraints. Your design negates that concern.
Nice work.
Bluto
I'm real happy to see this and don't know how I missed thread until now.
I had mentioned to Dave that I had some ideas regards what I called 'A Poor Mans Phoenix' a couple weeks back and had planned to post thoughts to gather others opinions.
The Orion is totally out of my knowledge grasp and pocketbook and even the Phoenix is pricey to me and too complex for a newbee.
You've proven what I had in mind can be done. I had been thinking the Visaton B200 for top end OB and some type of scoop horn similiar to old Altec's for bottom bass unit and wasn't sure what to use for a driver.
I'm not surprised your getting as good of sound as you're stating and I was concerned about how wide my baffle would have to be using an 8" on top and being limited by space constraints. Your design negates that concern.
Nice work.
Bluto
UPDATE:
I felt the mids were too recessed so I've modified the crossover.
FR125S section:
Eliminate R1
C1 = 15uF
L1 = 1.0mH
C2 = 33uF
L2 = 3.5mH
SDX7 section:
L3 = 3.5mH
C3 = 45uF
L4 = 1.5mH
C4 = 10uF
This has eliminated the dip at the crossover frequency and toned down the bass just a bit. Much improved midrange now.
I'm now testing EnABLed drivers in this design courtesy of Planet 10. I'll let you know how that goes.
I felt the mids were too recessed so I've modified the crossover.
FR125S section:
Eliminate R1
C1 = 15uF
L1 = 1.0mH
C2 = 33uF
L2 = 3.5mH
SDX7 section:
L3 = 3.5mH
C3 = 45uF
L4 = 1.5mH
C4 = 10uF
This has eliminated the dip at the crossover frequency and toned down the bass just a bit. Much improved midrange now.
I'm now testing EnABLed drivers in this design courtesy of Planet 10. I'll let you know how that goes.
Tim,
Is there any chance that you could post a raw measurement of the SDX7 in your enclosure as well as woofer location on your 11 1/2" x 27" baffle? I have been playing around with some simulations for the SDX7 but generating an FRD file from the response graph on the CSS site has been giving me some odd results and I'd like to verify them.
Thanks,
Jason
Is there any chance that you could post a raw measurement of the SDX7 in your enclosure as well as woofer location on your 11 1/2" x 27" baffle? I have been playing around with some simulations for the SDX7 but generating an FRD file from the response graph on the CSS site has been giving me some odd results and I'd like to verify them.
Thanks,
Jason
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.