Diminutive full-range on a beer budget needed. - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22nd March 2009, 09:42 PM   #21
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
Default Re: Re: the brick

Quote:
Originally posted by G
The 871S is no longer available.
I have a stash that is larger than i'll be able to use.

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2009, 09:49 PM   #22
G is offline G  United States
diyAudio Member
 
G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Belleville, IL.
Default Re: Re: Re: the brick

Quote:
Originally posted by planet10


I have a stash that is larger than i'll be able to use.

dave
The only thing off with the 3" Bamboo is the vas. It's .01 liters too much so I would imagine that the dimensions of the cabinet would have to be changed. I love that little cabinet. Is there anyone that would be kind enough to model one with the W3-1364SA as the driver?
__________________
Gavin
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2009, 09:55 PM   #23
Henkjan is offline Henkjan  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Henkjan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Berkel en Rodenrijs
Quote:
Originally posted by raypalmer
... But if you could calculate the TL for this driver that would be awesome!
can you give a link to the FE103 datasheet (I'm lazy...), this link is to another design...
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2009, 09:57 PM   #24
Henkjan is offline Henkjan  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Henkjan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Berkel en Rodenrijs
Quote:
Originally posted by kristleifur
What T/S parameters would you try to find a match to, in another driver, for the box to look similar?

In other words, what are the most significant T/S parameters for the size/shape of your simmed box?
I'd say fs, qt, vas, BL... but rather compex, best is to run it throug my excel sheet to see if it gives similar dimensions
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2009, 10:18 PM   #25
diyAudio Member
 
HareBrained's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally posted by planet10


Hold-on... damping does not significantly slow down the speed of sound. Further the TL in the MArk Audio plans is an ML-TL so isn't in Martin's tables. ML-TLs are shorter for the same tuning. You are assumming that the line is tuned to Fs -- a good trick to get more bass, particularily with a small driver like the CHR, is to tune the box higher than Fs. So the shorter line is better explained by it being an ML-TL tuned above Fs. Given that there is essentially no damping in the box already, this makes a lot more sense.

dave

Quote:
Originally posted by Scottmoose
Right. http://www.quarter-wave.com/TLs/Damping_Coefficient.pdf
Note that even with quite high stuffing densities of 0.9lbs ft^3 of dacron (which is higher than required for many ~aperiodic lines) the attenuation is nothing like approaching the kind of massive reduction in the s-o-s suggested above. Only about 18% of the way in fact.

As Dave points out, an MLTL is not a TL in the strict sense of the word. It's a highly resonant line, with some resistive loading to lower Fp; the little damping is present merely to attenuate the higher harmonic resonances while leaving F0 intact.
It was my understanding that a ML-TL (mass loaded transmission line) used a TL form but a much smaller "open area" or an actual port, which is not the case with the Pensil which is a line with an equal open end. Everything about the Pensil points to the QWTL. I'm obviously missing something. Perhaps you could provide a link that would identify the distinction differently so I could understand why the Pensil is not applicable to MJK's tables.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2009, 10:32 PM   #26
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by HareBrained
It was my understanding that a ML-TL (mass loaded transmission line) used a TL form but a much smaller "open area" or an actual port, which is not the case with the Pensil which is a line with an equal open end. Everything about the Pensil points to the QWTL.
An ML-TL is a TL with a restricted terminus. The Pensil line is 90 x 130, the terminus is 78 x 130. That is a restriction. Not as dramatic as on some, but it still counts.

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2009, 11:21 PM   #27
diyAudio Member
 
raypalmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Burlington
Sorry Henkjan that link I posted was completely wrong:S

This is what I meant to link you to
__________________
Wherever you go there you are.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2009, 03:47 AM   #28
diyAudio Member
 
AdamThorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally posted by loninappleton


I thought of these too since they are getting some play on the forum.


Well, I've searched "LKO-120WFF" and "299-280" and "Peerless India" but it looks like I'm going to have to ask Lon (or anyone else) to point me in the direction of other discussions of these drivers.

Looking forward to improved search after the forum upgrade...
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2009, 05:01 AM   #29
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Appleton, WI
Quote:
Originally posted by AdamThorne



Well, I've searched "LKO-120WFF" and "299-280" and "Peerless India" but it looks like I'm going to have to ask Lon (or anyone else) to point me in the direction of other discussions of these drivers.

Looking forward to improved search after the forum upgrade...

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/show...number=299-280


Parts Express is in Ohio... no need to go to India as far as I know.

PE also has a forum for their stuff. If a more detailed data sheet is needed than the specs in the description, some leads may be gotten there. In their a-b-c measurement system, B is usually the size of the cutout needed.

More than that I don't know myself.

If the link doesn't work right, go to www.partsexpress.com
and put the number 299-280 in their search box.

Report back with anything else you need.

  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd March 2009, 05:48 AM   #30
diyAudio Member
 
HareBrained's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally posted by planet10


An ML-TL is a TL with a restricted terminus. The Pensil line is 90 x 130, the terminus is 78 x 130. That is a restriction. Not as dramatic as on some, but it still counts.

dave
Barely smaller, and no length to it. I'll defer to your knowledge but I don't see how it can have a difference at 1W.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Recomendation needed, small cheap full range. internecine Full Range 26 27th May 2009 08:36 AM
Frequency range of the human voice & full range center channel speakers jwmbro Multi-Way 31 20th January 2008 03:07 PM
First DIY Single-Full-Range-Driver Help Needed GregGC Full Range 19 24th February 2004 06:13 PM
MTM Design needed on a budget kRaZeDcHiCkEn Multi-Way 41 29th September 2003 04:59 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:57 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2