I posted a while back with questions regarding the Dayton PA130 and whether it could be substituted into an existing and popular design. I got a few responses, but not what I was looking for, so I decided to go out on my own (first mistake). I modelled a double-chamber vented design (second mistake) and came up WAY short. I tried using very long and narrow ports in an attempt to emulate a semi-aperiodic design (third mistake), but ended up with no low end and slow, distorted high bass. In trying to salvage the enclosures, different combinations of polyfill, foam, and felt were employed to no success. BSC brought in some bass, but blew the sensitivety and power handling. I know that these are only 5 inches, but I've gotten suprising results with a number of Tang Band 3 and 4 inchers. They were, of course, in traditional and easily modelled enclosures. BTW, from the third octave up, these are formidable drivers for the money.
I had high hopes for this cheap driver, and I know it's only one attempt, but I need guidance. The specs are almost on top as those of the Fostex FE107, so if anybody out there has had success with them, please let me know! Also, I'll beg the question about doubling these again- will two PA130s combined act like they have the T/S parameters of one FE127 (two drivers summing up to twice the Vas)? I'll jump all over the PAWO or Mileva based solely on my love of the monolithic appearance, plus I can be the first kid on my block to do it in a dipole. Or, am I better off with a simple (less terminally unique) bass-reflex to get a better idea of their capability, if any? Phase plugs, cone treatment, unusual cabinet... could be a $15 hero. Or not.
Thanks in advance, guys. I appreciate any input / speculation / laughing criticism.
I had high hopes for this cheap driver, and I know it's only one attempt, but I need guidance. The specs are almost on top as those of the Fostex FE107, so if anybody out there has had success with them, please let me know! Also, I'll beg the question about doubling these again- will two PA130s combined act like they have the T/S parameters of one FE127 (two drivers summing up to twice the Vas)? I'll jump all over the PAWO or Mileva based solely on my love of the monolithic appearance, plus I can be the first kid on my block to do it in a dipole. Or, am I better off with a simple (less terminally unique) bass-reflex to get a better idea of their capability, if any? Phase plugs, cone treatment, unusual cabinet... could be a $15 hero. Or not.
Thanks in advance, guys. I appreciate any input / speculation / laughing criticism.
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/psho...R=dayton pa130&CFID=26790099&CFTOKEN=85132619
* Power handling: 50 watts RMS/100 watts max
* Voice coil diameter: 1"
* Nominal impedance: 8 ohms
* Re: 7.1 ohms
* Frequency range: 90-15,000 Hz
* Magnet Weight: 20 oz.
* Fs: 84.1 Hz
* SPL: 90.0 dB 2.83V/1m
* Vas: .15 cu.ft.
* Qms: 3.65
* Qes: .53
* Qts: .46
* Xmax: 1.5 mm
* Net weight: 3.0 lbs.
* Dimensions: Overall Diameter: 5-1/4", Cutout Diameter: 4-1/2", Mounting Depth: 2-1/2", Magnet Diameter: 4", Magnet Height: 1-1/16".
* Power handling: 50 watts RMS/100 watts max
* Voice coil diameter: 1"
* Nominal impedance: 8 ohms
* Re: 7.1 ohms
* Frequency range: 90-15,000 Hz
* Magnet Weight: 20 oz.
* Fs: 84.1 Hz
* SPL: 90.0 dB 2.83V/1m
* Vas: .15 cu.ft.
* Qms: 3.65
* Qes: .53
* Qts: .46
* Xmax: 1.5 mm
* Net weight: 3.0 lbs.
* Dimensions: Overall Diameter: 5-1/4", Cutout Diameter: 4-1/2", Mounting Depth: 2-1/2", Magnet Diameter: 4", Magnet Height: 1-1/16".
For $15 the Dayton driver is probably something worth designing a good box for if they do perform as well as some of the cheaper Fostex drivers. If i could get the Parts Express website to open faster i would like to take a look at the driver. Is anyone else having trouble with the PE site being slow?
I will look at WinISD and see about a simple ported box for these.
Godzilla
I will look at WinISD and see about a simple ported box for these.
Godzilla
How about a BiB? Nice, simple build just to see if they're worth messing with.
So anyway, I see the PA130 as a more rugged, drop in replacement for the Pioneer A11 which I and many others have used in a BiB. I've build floor loaded ones with about 102" line length which they had trouble driving. Gychang and others have use the original suggestion of 120", normal loaded, which was generally described as effortless sounding. I have also seen a set of DiYer measured T/S parameters for the A11 which had the Fs way up over 100Hz instead of the 70Hz (I think) that the PE site lists for them, so its hard to say where to tune an enclosure without being able to test the drivers yourself.
Lets assume it can drive a BiB at least as long as a Pio A11. That gives you:
line length = 120"
mouth area = 33"^2
zDriver = 26"
enclosure Vb = 32.2 l
I'm willing to bet, though, that it wouldn't stretch things too far build BiBs for the PA130 from mostly stock, 6' lumber giving:
line length = 144"
mouth area = 27.25"^2
zDriver = 31.25"
enclosure Vb = 32.2 l
If the PA130 sounds better than the A11, then I think it would replace the Pioneer unit as the cheapest unit you'd want to go for in a BiB with some decent bass.
Kensai
So anyway, I see the PA130 as a more rugged, drop in replacement for the Pioneer A11 which I and many others have used in a BiB. I've build floor loaded ones with about 102" line length which they had trouble driving. Gychang and others have use the original suggestion of 120", normal loaded, which was generally described as effortless sounding. I have also seen a set of DiYer measured T/S parameters for the A11 which had the Fs way up over 100Hz instead of the 70Hz (I think) that the PE site lists for them, so its hard to say where to tune an enclosure without being able to test the drivers yourself.
Lets assume it can drive a BiB at least as long as a Pio A11. That gives you:
line length = 120"
mouth area = 33"^2
zDriver = 26"
enclosure Vb = 32.2 l
I'm willing to bet, though, that it wouldn't stretch things too far build BiBs for the PA130 from mostly stock, 6' lumber giving:
line length = 144"
mouth area = 27.25"^2
zDriver = 31.25"
enclosure Vb = 32.2 l
If the PA130 sounds better than the A11, then I think it would replace the Pioneer unit as the cheapest unit you'd want to go for in a BiB with some decent bass.
Kensai
It's been awhile, but I believe it's Max Andrews over at the P.E. list that did something with that driver and had good results.
I see it as having potential and lurking here and there have seen a few guys doing things with it.
Were it not for too many projects going I'd be serious over it as well.
Bluto
I see it as having potential and lurking here and there have seen a few guys doing things with it.
Were it not for too many projects going I'd be serious over it as well.
Bluto
Thanks for the responses, guys.
Caferacer- I meant the Daytons. Not spectacular sound, but above average.
Godzilla- I modelled simple ported boxes using WinISD. In fact, I modelled complicated ported boxes; probably my downfall.
Kensai- I keep coming back to the BiB as well for simplicity of construction and potential for higher bass output. Placing these close enough to a wall might be a little too difficult in my case, though. As for the PA130 sounding better than the A11, I cannot say having not heard the Pioneer. Based upon the good feedback on the 4", I can assume these may be competitors for bottom dollar champs.
Bluto- I can't remember exactly who it was, but someone did have a successful design, an MTM. I would simply take my cues from that and call it a day, were it not for my new found fascination with fullrangers.
Again, can anyone attest to the idea of doubling the drivers and in turn doubling the Vas, to facilitate going into the PAWO or Mileva?
Thanks again, all.
Caferacer- I meant the Daytons. Not spectacular sound, but above average.
Godzilla- I modelled simple ported boxes using WinISD. In fact, I modelled complicated ported boxes; probably my downfall.
Kensai- I keep coming back to the BiB as well for simplicity of construction and potential for higher bass output. Placing these close enough to a wall might be a little too difficult in my case, though. As for the PA130 sounding better than the A11, I cannot say having not heard the Pioneer. Based upon the good feedback on the 4", I can assume these may be competitors for bottom dollar champs.
Bluto- I can't remember exactly who it was, but someone did have a successful design, an MTM. I would simply take my cues from that and call it a day, were it not for my new found fascination with fullrangers.
Again, can anyone attest to the idea of doubling the drivers and in turn doubling the Vas, to facilitate going into the PAWO or Mileva?
Thanks again, all.
You'll have combing issues unless you low pass one of them. Give you kind of a 1.5-way.
The BiBs I did with the Pioneers were floor loaded to the rear. In test and in their new homes they're sorta close to the wall, both sorta loading back into the same corner. They're not perfect, or even identical boxes (mouth openings ended up different somehow; I've got no real tools and I was a huge rush), but they've got tons of energy down to 50Hz, tailing into the low 40s. Running test tones, I was able to get a clean 20Hz tone. It was 18-20dB down, but clean, unlike trying to get such a tone out of my OB stuff. The BiB seems to keep them under decent control, and since the Pio only specs with an Xmax of 1.1mm and the Dayton is 1.5mm excursion shouldn't be an issue. Anyway, I think if you floor load them, you'll get plenty of bass for music without having them jammed into corners. Some folk running larger fullrangers, like Fostex have shown good results with normal top loaded BiBs pulled a couple feet away from any wall. If you're an HT nut and are going to demand high performance under 40Hz, you're going to need a sub regardless, so at that point it won't matter where you set these.
Kensai
The BiBs I did with the Pioneers were floor loaded to the rear. In test and in their new homes they're sorta close to the wall, both sorta loading back into the same corner. They're not perfect, or even identical boxes (mouth openings ended up different somehow; I've got no real tools and I was a huge rush), but they've got tons of energy down to 50Hz, tailing into the low 40s. Running test tones, I was able to get a clean 20Hz tone. It was 18-20dB down, but clean, unlike trying to get such a tone out of my OB stuff. The BiB seems to keep them under decent control, and since the Pio only specs with an Xmax of 1.1mm and the Dayton is 1.5mm excursion shouldn't be an issue. Anyway, I think if you floor load them, you'll get plenty of bass for music without having them jammed into corners. Some folk running larger fullrangers, like Fostex have shown good results with normal top loaded BiBs pulled a couple feet away from any wall. If you're an HT nut and are going to demand high performance under 40Hz, you're going to need a sub regardless, so at that point it won't matter where you set these.
Kensai
GM- I knew that the Vas would sum, but I was aprehensive about the "particulars" as you say. I just don't want to find out the hard way that there's a hidden or unexpected interference found in a horn or ML-TQWP when using two drivers. The more I think about it, what's the worst that could happen if the PAWO or Mileva don't like the PA130? Cover the back hole, buy a set of Fostex, be happy.
Kensai- I had completely forgotten about bottom loading a BiB! If they were built correctly, they could be reversible without any major modifications. Seems like a great way to get back some of the benefits when not close to a wall, but then I suspect that BSC might need to be employed. I'm not into HT, but I am into heavy music (Ministry, High on Fire, Clutch, etc.), so there has to be a bass presence but not any massive amount below 40Hz.
Between the BiB and the Plant 10 designs, the only difference I can observe without actually hearing them is size. My listenning room is fairly small. If anyone can convince me that the BiB is the way to go, I can live with big enclosures (no spouse to enforce WAF). If the other designs have sonic advantages, I'd like to know that as well. I will be building this weekend, so I need to settle soon. Hell, maybe I'll have to build all three...
BTW, I'm always impressed at the exchange of ideas and guidance lent on these types of forums. I know that is what's expected here, but I just want to express my gratitude to those who know better than me and are willing to speak up and help out.
Kensai- I had completely forgotten about bottom loading a BiB! If they were built correctly, they could be reversible without any major modifications. Seems like a great way to get back some of the benefits when not close to a wall, but then I suspect that BSC might need to be employed. I'm not into HT, but I am into heavy music (Ministry, High on Fire, Clutch, etc.), so there has to be a bass presence but not any massive amount below 40Hz.
Between the BiB and the Plant 10 designs, the only difference I can observe without actually hearing them is size. My listenning room is fairly small. If anyone can convince me that the BiB is the way to go, I can live with big enclosures (no spouse to enforce WAF). If the other designs have sonic advantages, I'd like to know that as well. I will be building this weekend, so I need to settle soon. Hell, maybe I'll have to build all three...
BTW, I'm always impressed at the exchange of ideas and guidance lent on these types of forums. I know that is what's expected here, but I just want to express my gratitude to those who know better than me and are willing to speak up and help out.
Don't forget, you can turn the BiB 90 degrees so that the driver is mounted on the longer side (off center, of course), and then you can have the mouth fire to the side at the floor. For a single fold design, you can use 0.416 for the zDriver calculation to get the driver position up and have good ripple performance. This way you'll have a fairly flat, slightly wide enclosure that could easily be placed up against a wall, which would effectively corner load the mouth without needing an actual corner.
As for the other designs, I've not heard them. They look great. They've got good commentary around here. What I think we're going to see among all cabinet types we've mentioned hear will be absolute extension and gain at the bottom versus absolute detail. The BiBs should win on extension and gain, but the P10 designs will sacrifice various amounts of bass for a bit more refinement in bass presentation (look at the BiB sims in these posts and see the various bits of ripple in the mid and upper bass; gonna bet any P10 design will be significantly smoother through that region).
Anyway, I think that go get solid presence to 40Hz, you're going to need a BiB, probably with a line length of at least 120", though I am just making a sorta educated guess there.
Kensai
As for the other designs, I've not heard them. They look great. They've got good commentary around here. What I think we're going to see among all cabinet types we've mentioned hear will be absolute extension and gain at the bottom versus absolute detail. The BiBs should win on extension and gain, but the P10 designs will sacrifice various amounts of bass for a bit more refinement in bass presentation (look at the BiB sims in these posts and see the various bits of ripple in the mid and upper bass; gonna bet any P10 design will be significantly smoother through that region).
Anyway, I think that go get solid presence to 40Hz, you're going to need a BiB, probably with a line length of at least 120", though I am just making a sorta educated guess there.
Kensai
"The BiBs should win on extension and gain, but the P10 designs will sacrifice various amounts of bass for a bit more refinement in bass presentation..."
Gain is important here. Once I can establish a quantity, I'll worry about quality. I think I'll go with the BiB for ease of building and low-end extension, then do one of the P10 designs shortly down the road. It's a good opertunity to A/B the different designs; i have enough drivers to run all three in the same sitting.
Kensai, you say something to the effect of using 0.416 to determine Z. With a line length of 144", that would put the driver at 60", a little high for my liking. GM's Bib calculator is telling me 31", a little low when turned upside down. 40-50" driver height is about where I'd like to be. Is there an acceptable range for this 0.416? Also, when putting the mouth on the side instead of the end of the enclosure, does the length need to be changed to account for an earlier exit of the wave? In my estimation, it shouldn't matter much since we're trying to tune much lower than driver Fs anyway, but i've been wrong (grossly wrong) before.
I promise to make these the last questions before I hit the saw...
Gain is important here. Once I can establish a quantity, I'll worry about quality. I think I'll go with the BiB for ease of building and low-end extension, then do one of the P10 designs shortly down the road. It's a good opertunity to A/B the different designs; i have enough drivers to run all three in the same sitting.
Kensai, you say something to the effect of using 0.416 to determine Z. With a line length of 144", that would put the driver at 60", a little high for my liking. GM's Bib calculator is telling me 31", a little low when turned upside down. 40-50" driver height is about where I'd like to be. Is there an acceptable range for this 0.416? Also, when putting the mouth on the side instead of the end of the enclosure, does the length need to be changed to account for an earlier exit of the wave? In my estimation, it shouldn't matter much since we're trying to tune much lower than driver Fs anyway, but i've been wrong (grossly wrong) before.
I promise to make these the last questions before I hit the saw...
144" may be more than these drivers can handle, though I've not been made aware of what happens when you tune one of these suckers too low.
Anyway, 144" gives you an enclosure about 6' tall, so there shouldn't be any reason to invert them, unless you're ceilings are like 12'. The 31" from GM's calculator will put the driver at about 40" when built to fire upward. It can be hard to get the driver height in a good place when designing these. I think the .416 position is supposed to minimize the response ripple the most, while the position from the standard calc is the next best option. Anyplace inbetween will be some sort of compromise, and since there hasn't been many made that weren't really close to one of those points, I don't think we can say what real world effect might be audible. As long as you're not tossing much money away on the cabinet materials here, I'd say put the driver right where you'd want them to be and see what you get.
As for determining the effective line length of any given design, you measure following a path that passes down the direct middle of the line, including as that path goes around any bends, so in the case of a side firing mouth, that line measurement will go to the point in the center of the line area that is level with the middle of the mouth and then curve 90 degrees to exit, which will add some length as the line curves and travels to the side, mostly making up for not traveling all the way to the bottom of the cabinet.
Anyway, good luck, and we want pics ;-p
Kensai
Anyway, 144" gives you an enclosure about 6' tall, so there shouldn't be any reason to invert them, unless you're ceilings are like 12'. The 31" from GM's calculator will put the driver at about 40" when built to fire upward. It can be hard to get the driver height in a good place when designing these. I think the .416 position is supposed to minimize the response ripple the most, while the position from the standard calc is the next best option. Anyplace inbetween will be some sort of compromise, and since there hasn't been many made that weren't really close to one of those points, I don't think we can say what real world effect might be audible. As long as you're not tossing much money away on the cabinet materials here, I'd say put the driver right where you'd want them to be and see what you get.
As for determining the effective line length of any given design, you measure following a path that passes down the direct middle of the line, including as that path goes around any bends, so in the case of a side firing mouth, that line measurement will go to the point in the center of the line area that is level with the middle of the mouth and then curve 90 degrees to exit, which will add some length as the line curves and travels to the side, mostly making up for not traveling all the way to the bottom of the cabinet.
Anyway, good luck, and we want pics ;-p
Kensai
"144 inches may be more than these drivers can handle, though I've not been made aware of what happens when you tune one of these suckers too low."
I would imagine the net result of tuning too low would be loss of output and cone control. Upon further consideration, I'll shoot for 55Hz (120" or so) instead of 45Hz (144" or so). I seem to remember that 70% of Fs being the absolute minimum for tuning, and that might be with a healthy X-max driver- a characteristic which these drivers don't have. 55Hz puts me around 80% of Fs.
"...so there shouldn't be any reason to invert them..."
Remember that the enclosures will probably end up too far from any wall, hence the desire to use the floor for loading. You're right, though, MDF is cheap and a BiB is not labor-intensive, so Z height can be experimental without huge consequences. Again, once I start getting ideas, they can sometimes quickly get out of hand (the double chamber bass reflex that I started with for instance), so I'm a little gunshy without some encouragement.
There will be pictures. I had planned on listenning to these guys in a new cab by Sunday, but my job is so market-driven that when there's weekend work to do, I can't say no. There will be some free time during the beginning of this next week to fiddle around...
I would imagine the net result of tuning too low would be loss of output and cone control. Upon further consideration, I'll shoot for 55Hz (120" or so) instead of 45Hz (144" or so). I seem to remember that 70% of Fs being the absolute minimum for tuning, and that might be with a healthy X-max driver- a characteristic which these drivers don't have. 55Hz puts me around 80% of Fs.
"...so there shouldn't be any reason to invert them..."
Remember that the enclosures will probably end up too far from any wall, hence the desire to use the floor for loading. You're right, though, MDF is cheap and a BiB is not labor-intensive, so Z height can be experimental without huge consequences. Again, once I start getting ideas, they can sometimes quickly get out of hand (the double chamber bass reflex that I started with for instance), so I'm a little gunshy without some encouragement.
There will be pictures. I had planned on listenning to these guys in a new cab by Sunday, but my job is so market-driven that when there's weekend work to do, I can't say no. There will be some free time during the beginning of this next week to fiddle around...
Actually, according the the DIYer measured specs I have, the Pioneer had an Fs of 109.14Hz rather than the 70Hz listed on the PE site. We do, however have proof, built and listened to cabs using the Pioneer in 120" BiBs, so we know they can handle that. If the PA130 given specs are more realistic, then who knows, perhaps it can handle the 144" line.
Kensai
Kensai
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.