Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range
Home Forums Rules Articles Store Gallery Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

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 6th September 2009, 01:02 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Blog Entries: 1
Default Need help with Bipole calculations...

In my quest to design and build a destop hifi setup, I need a little help, or possibly a lot of help.

Math has never been my forte.

I'm trying to calculate Vb, but it seems for sealed enclosures I need either Qtc or the constant and Vas. (then I also need to know how to calculate Vb for two drivers in the same box)

How do I find the constant or Qtc?

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks!

I am considering a Fostex full range 3" paper cone driver: http://www.fostexinternational.com/d.../fe87erev2.pdf
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2009, 06:35 PM   #2
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Maximally flat (minimal under-damped with 12 dB/octave roll-off) = 0.707 Qtc, critically damped (transient 'perfect' with 6 dB/octave roll-off) = 0.5 Qtc.

From this we see that as Qtc goes up/down the system becomes either increasingly under-damped ('loose'/'flabby'/resonant sounding due to slower decay rate) or over-damped ('tight'/'fast' due to its inability to reach the transient's peak before decaying at a too fast rate with the amp's slew rate being the limiting factor).

Bottom line, what Qtc you use is mostly a personal preference one since we all hear the same, yet not so much, with 0.707 Qtc being the default calculation in most cab design programs and a good one for most near-field apps, especially if mating to a sub. If in doubt and/or response measurements aren't used though, I recommend designing to a lower Qtc and reduce net Vb as required to get the best blend through the XO's BW.

For more than one driver in a common space, sum their Vas, so for a basic calculator that only allows inputting one driver you can either do this for input or design for one and multiply the net Vb by the number of drivers, and if vented, increase the number of vents to match for a close enough tuning to the desired Fb.

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2009, 09:36 PM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Blog Entries: 1
Yes! Excellent. That's exactly what I needed to get to the next step. Thanks.

So, if I got the calculations right that means a sealed bipole box with the above speaker would have a Vb of 380 cubic inches and basically be too big for the desktop.

I would either have to go down to smaller cone size or use a single driver[or maybe both!!!].

But, the single drivers ata this size have an EBP that indicates ported boxes, which I think will be bigger.

Does a bipole speaker configuration still have to conform to the EBP model for sealed boxes? i.e. >90 EBP to be compatible with a sealed box?

[Just in case you haven't noticed yet, I have no idea what I am talking about. So, if I say something that doesn't make sense, fell free to enlighten me.]
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2009, 09:02 AM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Blog Entries: 1
OK, different driver:

http://www.madisound.com/catalog/PDF...vers/FF85K.pdf

Can someone check my math please?



Qts .47 Qtc .707 = constant 1.263

Vas 2.14 (two drivers) constant 1.263 = vB 103 cubic inches?

Do I have it all wrong?

and...how do you decide which drivers are appropriate for bipole boxes?

Thanks...
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2009, 12:51 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Blog Entries: 1
Never mind FF85K has an EBP way to high for sealed box...

The Fostex FE 87E has an EBP of 116

Is an EBP of 116 plausible for a sealed box?
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2009, 01:12 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Blog Entries: 1
Yes, I am having a conversation with myself! Probably because nobody is awake but me.

Number crunching and draconian space limitations have led me to this as possibly my only option for a desktop bipole...

TB 2X3" full range
http://www.tb-speaker.com/detail/1208_03/w23-1286sc.htm

Vb 3.75 (so it will fit on desk in an appropriately ported box)
F3 107Hz
Fb 120
Freq response flat above 130Hz

Am I on the right track?

Last edited by roadsterdriver; 7th September 2009 at 01:23 PM. Reason: Stupidity
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2009, 02:19 PM   #7
MJK is offline MJK  United States
Account disabled at member's request
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Clifton Park, NY
Quote:
Number crunching and draconian space limitations have led me to this as possibly my only option for a desktop bipole...
Why are you pursuing a bipole for a desktop application?

If space is a concern and you are listening in the near field, why not take the cost of four drivers and buy two better drivers while at the same time probably reducing enclosure size?

There will probably be a wall in close proximity behind the rear facing bipole driver, how are you taking this into acount?

What am I missing?
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2009, 03:06 PM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Blog Entries: 1
Obviously I need to study more. However, I was thinking that I will as much of my listening from my big comfy chair that is about 6-7 feet away from the mains as I will from my desk chair.

I thought bipoles would fill the room nicely and reduce the tiny sweet spot that single driver speakers might produce.

I was thinking the second driver would face up not back.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2009, 04:30 PM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Blog Entries: 1
Am i totally messed up in my thinking on the bipole issue?

Am here to learn!

Thanks!
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2009, 05:51 PM   #10
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadsterdriver View Post
But, the single drivers ata this size have an EBP that indicates ported boxes, which I think will be bigger.

Does a bipole speaker configuration still have to conform to the EBP model for sealed boxes? i.e. >90 EBP to be compatible with a sealed box?

[Just in case you haven't noticed yet, I have no idea what I am talking about. So, if I say something that doesn't make sense, fell free to enlighten me.]
For sealed response except with a bit more gain BW, low tune it with a vent and the only size increase is whatever it adds.

I never had EBP to 'guide' me during my active building career and yet managed to make many above average performing systems that don't come close to meeting its guidelines, so for me it's a worthless, design limiting criteria.

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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
2.5cu ft bipole, Suggestions? johnnyb831 Multi-Way 5 14th May 2012 06:55 AM
t-amp with fostex 127e bipole or FR125 bipole? alexg Full Range 6 23rd August 2006 07:49 AM
Asymetric bipole? renfrow Full Range 1 12th April 2006 06:50 PM
Bipole; TQWT vs. BR Jeb-D. Full Range 1 10th April 2006 06:37 PM
New project : FR bipole & Sub zek Full Range 18 28th June 2005 05:34 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:12 AM.

Page generated in 0.10813 seconds (81.18% PHP - 18.82% MySQL) with 10 queries

Copyright ©1999-2012 diyAudio