|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
|
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 |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
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. |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
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.] |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
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... |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Account disabled at member's request
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Clifton Park, NY
|
Quote:
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| 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? |
| Page generated in 0.10813 seconds (81.18% PHP - 18.82% MySQL) with 10 queries |