sorry i'm a froggie. I did not understand
W4 1320SJ
regards
seb
Thanks!
No problem, between Google Translate and how well so many 'foreigners' 'speak' English, it's easy to forget about the language barrier.
Anyway, in Hornresp, it looks good down to ~40 Hz in the W5-1611SAF [large] TABAQ, so unless it's too large and/or don't like the driver height, see no need to look further, though may need some baffle step compensation [BSC] if the room/boundary gain doesn't boost the [mid]bass enough.
GM
OK, except for MJK's more smooth looking HF, this matches this sim: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/atta...337119-w4-1320-tl-horn-ported-tabaq-4-spl.jpg
Ditto yours, so doing nothing wrong AFAIK: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/atta...-1320-tl-horn-ported-w41320sj-no-stuffing.jpg
What's apparently making it seem like it's less bass is the different aspect ratio scales. MJK's are much 'wider' compared to Leonard's [and HR's] much lower aspect ratio, like comparing today's 16:9 HDTV screen to an old 4:3 ratio CRT, but if you look at where the plot crosses at 40, 50, etc. Hz, you'll see they're the same.
As for the differing damped smoothness, MJK's is the most accurate of these three programs, so for ported cabs, normally only damp enough to take the 'sharpness' off the cab's bandwidth [BW] defined as beginning at 2*Fs/Qts' on down.
Qts' = Qts + Rs [any added series resistance due to wire, XO components, high output impedance amp, etc.]
Calculator: mh-audio.nl - Home
Note, it's best to use Qts' to design with since it can increase the cab's theoretically optimum size [Vb], lowering tuning [Fb]; otherwise it may be necessary to add more damping to 'tighten up' its bass response, reducing acoustic efficiency as you showed when there's excessive damping.
GM
Ditto yours, so doing nothing wrong AFAIK: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/atta...-1320-tl-horn-ported-w41320sj-no-stuffing.jpg
What's apparently making it seem like it's less bass is the different aspect ratio scales. MJK's are much 'wider' compared to Leonard's [and HR's] much lower aspect ratio, like comparing today's 16:9 HDTV screen to an old 4:3 ratio CRT, but if you look at where the plot crosses at 40, 50, etc. Hz, you'll see they're the same.
As for the differing damped smoothness, MJK's is the most accurate of these three programs, so for ported cabs, normally only damp enough to take the 'sharpness' off the cab's bandwidth [BW] defined as beginning at 2*Fs/Qts' on down.
Qts' = Qts + Rs [any added series resistance due to wire, XO components, high output impedance amp, etc.]
Calculator: mh-audio.nl - Home
Note, it's best to use Qts' to design with since it can increase the cab's theoretically optimum size [Vb], lowering tuning [Fb]; otherwise it may be necessary to add more damping to 'tighten up' its bass response, reducing acoustic efficiency as you showed when there's excessive damping.
GM
Tabaq model I use has 128cm2 by 78cm length. Port = 16cm2x9.7cm. (Arguably the main enclosure should be 76.2cm long = 30 inches.).
I only ever use the stuffing presets in TL. 2/3 fill of "medium" or "heavy" and see if it look good enough.
Hi moloch
The length and the shape all determines the tuning of the cabinet.
Take a look at his from Martin J. King
http://www.quarter-wave.com/TLs/Alignment_Tables.pdf
Mass loading, the last part of the line having a smaller cross section, lower the tuning frequency. You need to sim to see the effect of that.
Bjørn
The length and the shape all determines the tuning of the cabinet.
Take a look at his from Martin J. King
http://www.quarter-wave.com/TLs/Alignment_Tables.pdf
Mass loading, the last part of the line having a smaller cross section, lower the tuning frequency. You need to sim to see the effect of that.
Bjørn
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.