So - no folds in the cabinet?
But will it sound the same as the other TLs?
When I listened to the QWTL w/the folds and the slot opening (without seperate smaller vent tube) it seemed like there was a distinctively more punchy and tight sound/feel to the bass.
EDIT: I'm familiar with the ~1/4 positioning to produce mutually disruptive resonances - but I'm not sure how to design the layout of tapered folds in the cabinet...
A similar benefit can be achieved by dividing the internal space in the enclosure with an acoustically resistive barrier.
But will it sound the same as the other TLs?
When I listened to the QWTL w/the folds and the slot opening (without seperate smaller vent tube) it seemed like there was a distinctively more punchy and tight sound/feel to the bass.
EDIT: I'm familiar with the ~1/4 positioning to produce mutually disruptive resonances - but I'm not sure how to design the layout of tapered folds in the cabinet...
A similar benefit can be achieved by dividing the internal space in the enclosure with an acoustically resistive barrier.
critofur,
It will be a good exercise to simulate a tapered line in order to compare the results.
I guess both would have to be built and compared...maybe we have a sub-agenda for the next diyDayton?
I'll work up a tapered line. In the meantime, do you have any thoughts about:
--the parameters to use in the design?
&
--the "target slope" desired in the output?
Regards
It will be a good exercise to simulate a tapered line in order to compare the results.
I guess both would have to be built and compared...maybe we have a sub-agenda for the next diyDayton?
I'll work up a tapered line. In the meantime, do you have any thoughts about:
--the parameters to use in the design?
&
--the "target slope" desired in the output?
Regards
another (better) view
Up against the wall, metaphorically...I just can't make the response of a tapered line approach that of a MLTL. Today I found this:
MLTL vs. ML TQWT
which contains a link to a post by Brines which brings the situation into focus:
Single Driver Speakers Forum
which means, at least to me, that a properly executed MLTL is better and smaller than an ML TQWT.
Up against the wall, metaphorically...I just can't make the response of a tapered line approach that of a MLTL. Today I found this:
MLTL vs. ML TQWT
which contains a link to a post by Brines which brings the situation into focus:
Single Driver Speakers Forum
which means, at least to me, that a properly executed MLTL is better and smaller than an ML TQWT.
Oops - I guess I got it wrong again in my reply to that other thread.
I keep thinking that M*** Loaded in B]ML[/B]TL refers to the STUFFING lining the TL, not to a BR type port...
So then, how exactly does a MLTL differ significantly from a BR???
edit : DOH - I guess the censorbot is not so smart, the M*** above is Mass, and why is *** censored anyway? That's more silly than putting diapers on dogs!
I keep thinking that M*** Loaded in B]ML[/B]TL refers to the STUFFING lining the TL, not to a BR type port...
So then, how exactly does a MLTL differ significantly from a BR???
edit : DOH - I guess the censorbot is not so smart, the M*** above is Mass, and why is *** censored anyway? That's more silly than putting diapers on dogs!
Re: Re: Vifa P17WJ + D27TG-35-06 TL (non MTM)?
Specs:
88db sensitivity
40 W Nominal Power
150 W Long Term Max Power
350 W Short Term Max Power
and
120 W Music Power
Low?!? Those actually seem moderately high, to me. I would think what's more likely is that you'll run out of x-max before you run out of power handling, unless they were tuned at about 80 hz or higher?
I should go ahead and build a simple sealed cabinet and see how loud they will play in my garage... My Onkyo TS-DX787 reciever is good for about 120 watts.
00940 said:...combined with the low power rating of the p17wj means you cannot get very loud listening levels (which is perfect for my parents
Specs:
88db sensitivity
40 W Nominal Power
150 W Long Term Max Power
350 W Short Term Max Power
and
120 W Music Power
Low?!? Those actually seem moderately high, to me. I would think what's more likely is that you'll run out of x-max before you run out of power handling, unless they were tuned at about 80 hz or higher?
I should go ahead and build a simple sealed cabinet and see how loud they will play in my garage... My Onkyo TS-DX787 reciever is good for about 120 watts.
Hi critofur,
The resistance to flow (movement) created by the port is the mass loaded portion of the design.
On the surface, a BR and a MLTL appear the same...they have the same components. The difference is in how those components are positioned wrt each other.
Martin's software brings the ability to evaluate changes in the position of the elements. This is used to optimize the response and eliminate standing wave reinforcements and/or nulls.
The resistance to flow (movement) created by the port is the mass loaded portion of the design.
On the surface, a BR and a MLTL appear the same...they have the same components. The difference is in how those components are positioned wrt each other.
Martin's software brings the ability to evaluate changes in the position of the elements. This is used to optimize the response and eliminate standing wave reinforcements and/or nulls.
LOL ...never a good idea until they poop in the wrong place
For 1 watt input;
5 mm excursion for ~18 watt input yields ~99dB output
This sim is for a MLQW
Internal height: 36.0", by 9.0" deep x 7.5" wide
Distance of driver from top: 10.6"
Port from top: 29.95"
2.0" port dia. x 5.0" long
Stuffing: ~ 0.17 pounds, evenly distributed in the top ~14"
I have been working on other projects. My preference is for a drooping response which will be compensated for by room gain. YMMV The above describes the one I will build.
The TL sim's I did were not as smooth. Also, a TL doesn't provide as favorable (to me) low frequency profile. This is explained in links earlier in the thread.
Is that really true? It seemed so to me from what I heard, but, I did no A/B comparison to make a fair assessment.
critofur, did you get around to building your set? I've seen Ed's sim charts and the design looks promising. I was just curious on about how it actually turned out. Also, what crossover plans did you use. I already have a set of John K's x-overs built that I was gonna try. I currently have a set of MTM's designed by Kai Stark which turned out descent. They have pretty good low end bass but the mid-bass and high-end is lacking. I wanted to try something with a shorter cab and better clarity.
xylium, You make me smile...you remind me of me
I'll start with an assumption that both the single or double flaired ports you have in mind would be sized to be equivalent to the 2 x 5 port called out in the sim...then I would expect the sim to be close to the constructed results.
I would expect a single 5" port to do well in a 9" deep cabinet. To maintain an effective 5" length, only half of the flare length is considered.
If the flare radius is 1", the equivalent length of the flared section is 1/2". If both ends are flared, you have a port with flares that is 6" overall, effective length 5".
Consider the space remaining for the port inside the case. This still leaves 3" plus the front baffle thickness. Using 3/4" for a baffle, there would be 3 3/4" between the end of the port and the inside back wall of the case. Relative to the diameter of the port, 2", this is sufficient.
If the results were to be tweaked further, the results from measurements need to be considered. An area I intend to study is that of using slightly different port diameters, with appropriate changes in length.
I want to better understand the effects of changes in path length in addition to the mass loading accomplished by the port. There is a fine balance to be struck between the internal resonances of the system and the driver output. This balance, I believe, requires measurements from a prototype.
HTH
I'll start with an assumption that both the single or double flaired ports you have in mind would be sized to be equivalent to the 2 x 5 port called out in the sim...then I would expect the sim to be close to the constructed results.
I would expect a single 5" port to do well in a 9" deep cabinet. To maintain an effective 5" length, only half of the flare length is considered.
If the flare radius is 1", the equivalent length of the flared section is 1/2". If both ends are flared, you have a port with flares that is 6" overall, effective length 5".
Consider the space remaining for the port inside the case. This still leaves 3" plus the front baffle thickness. Using 3/4" for a baffle, there would be 3 3/4" between the end of the port and the inside back wall of the case. Relative to the diameter of the port, 2", this is sufficient.
If the results were to be tweaked further, the results from measurements need to be considered. An area I intend to study is that of using slightly different port diameters, with appropriate changes in length.
I want to better understand the effects of changes in path length in addition to the mass loading accomplished by the port. There is a fine balance to be struck between the internal resonances of the system and the driver output. This balance, I believe, requires measurements from a prototype.
HTH
I think I'm gonna give this plan a whirl this fall after I'm done with all my outside house projects. I built a set of John K's monitors that have great imaging but terrible bass response and my wife always thought the Kai Stark V3's were too big. Hopefully I can get it started soon all turns out well.
Ed, is it possible to do a MLTL in a MTM configuration with these drivers? I'm thinkin the answer is no but I thought I'd ask. I know some people have tried to do an MTM with a tapered pipe but because of the characteristics of a pipe, it creates two different wave lengths that can kill each other. I don't know if it's possible because I'm not sure how changing the dimensions affects the acoustics but I'd like to keep the height around 36", the depth can be what ever as long as it's not out of hand. I do have an alignment table from quarter-wave.com but it looks to be only for tapered tl's.
The reason I started this thread was because I saw plenty of MTM designs with this woofer, but not many good single woofer TL designs and I have just one pair of them. Have you searched the net for MTM TL designs yet? I can dig some up when I get home later if you haven't found some.
David Burke and Andy G "Pipes"
Hello,
I recently found the "Pipes" article at Parts-Express.com - Speakers, Speaker Building, Home Audio and Video, Pro Audio, Electronic Parts & Accessories PARTS EXPRESS, Speakers, Speaker Parts, Guitar speakers, Bass speakers, Woofers, Drivers, speaker upgrades and replacement speakers. Emine however the link at the bottom of the page for the plans does not work. I have searched all over the web trying to find these plans, even using "the wayback machine" and I keep coming up empty handed.
Does anybody here have these plans or a link to a page that does?
Many thanks!
Jeff
Hello,
I recently found the "Pipes" article at Parts-Express.com - Speakers, Speaker Building, Home Audio and Video, Pro Audio, Electronic Parts & Accessories PARTS EXPRESS, Speakers, Speaker Parts, Guitar speakers, Bass speakers, Woofers, Drivers, speaker upgrades and replacement speakers. Emine however the link at the bottom of the page for the plans does not work. I have searched all over the web trying to find these plans, even using "the wayback machine" and I keep coming up empty handed.
Does anybody here have these plans or a link to a page that does?
Many thanks!
Jeff
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.