Best Full Range for 1.64 Liter Small Cabinet - 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 24th November 2012, 01:24 AM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Default Best Full Range for 1.64 Liter Small Cabinet

Hi again everyone! Here I am again with my questions. Thank you for your patience!

I simmed a number of small full range drivers in a nifty sealed 1.64 liter cylinder enclosure I have, and here's what I came up with:

Click the image to open in full size.

The orange line is the Fostex FF85WK (Qtc 0.70)
The green line is the Fostex FF105WK (Qtc 0.82)
The red line is the Fountek FR88EX (Qtc 0.63)
The light blue line is the Alpair 7 (Qtc 1.05)
The yellow line is the Alpair 6M (Qtc 0.75)

As you can see, these small drivers all appear to roll off below 150-200 Hz in such a small enclosure. The cabinet is sealed. I could add a port tube if it's very short. Ideally, I'd like to make it down to 100 Hz to cross to the subwoofer at that frequency. Not possible in such a small cabinet?

What about room reinforcement? They will be near a wall... any help there?

Am I missing a good driver for this application? If so, please mention the model number in your reply.

Also, would the 'honking'/'boxy'/'cupped hands' problem, if any, be eliminated or mitigated by the sides being round (it's a cylinder as mentioned and the driver is mounted in the end of it)?
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2012, 01:31 AM   #2
chrisb is offline chrisb  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: victoria BC
It sounds as if you intend to mount the driver at the end of the tube - what is the ID?


Of the drivers listed, I think the 2 most likely to work well in this application would be the FF85WK and the FR88EX.

I know that Dave has played with something along the same lines, I think with a small Alpair and SEAS FR?
__________________
you don't really believe everything you think, do you?
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com commercial site planet10-HiFi
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2012, 01:43 AM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Thanks Chris - the ID is 4-7/16" or about 113 mm.

I like what I have read about the FF85WK, but not sure with its very small xmax and size if it would make it to 100 Hz in such a small cab. Maybe in-room they do? What about 150 Hz?

I have the Founteks (they are playing right now actually) and they sound quite nice (different cab though and I don't want to take them apart to experiment, unfortunately). I would not mind a little bit extra vocal intelligibility though and it sounds like the other drivers mentioned might provide that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2012, 01:54 AM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
PS The xmax issue is why the Fostex FF105WK sprang to mind as it has 1.7mm instead of 0.35 on the FF85WK. I just don't know if it has the 'magic' of its slightly smaller brother.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2012, 02:03 AM   #5
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 Ben_Tech View Post
As you can see, these small drivers all appear to roll off below 150-200 Hz in such a small enclosure. The cabinet is sealed. I could add a port tube if it's very short. Ideally, I'd like to make it down to 100 Hz to cross to the subwoofer at that frequency.
The issue with venting it, is that the vent is of significant size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Here is 1.5 litre box (+ driver + vent). The box could be shrunk by using a 5/8", 3/4" or1" tube instead (recalc the length and subtract the reduced vent volume from the extent of the box. A small enuff vent could avoid the bend if exiting out top or bottom.Changing Port Size

Simulation shows F3 @ 100, F10@70 with a bump (1 dB or so) before it starts dropping.

dave
Attached Images
File Type: gif nReflex62m.gif (54.1 KB, 1560 views)
__________________
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 24th November 2012, 08:01 AM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Thank you, Dave. I've always admired your drafting skills. The thing is, the Alp 6 and Alp 7 and the others all seem to sim about the same in this small cylinder box. With a port, the only place it could go is on the back of the cylinder facing the driver, which will surely transmit midrange frequencies out the back. So, probably sealed.

For example, (all in 1.64 liters):

Alp 6M vented F3 = 99 Hz (port tuned to 65 Hz, 3/4" x 4.22")

Alp 6M sealed F3 = 117 Hz (Qtc 0.75)

Alp 7 vented F3 = 102 Hz (port tuned to 60 Hz, 3/4" x 5.05")

Alp 7 sealed F3 = 106 Hz (Qtc 1.05)

So, I guess the real question is, would the in-room results sound thin and not reach 100 Hz or even 150 Hz in practice? Sometimes there is a big difference between theory and practice! What about room boundary reinforcement, does that come into play?
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2012, 08:50 AM   #7
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 Ben_Tech View Post
With a port, the only place it could go is on the back of the cylinder facing the driver, which will surely transmit midrange frequencies out the back.
Actually, given that you probably haven't accounted for the driver volume (i'm guessing), you would probably need to stick it out the back (ie external).

Quote:
Alp 7 sealed F3 = 106 Hz (Qtc 1.05)
That Q too high, and makes getting anything vented not a real option.

and F3 is not really that useful an indication sonically... F6 & F10 are more important.

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 24th November 2012, 10:01 AM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
mondogenerator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: City Of Villans
Blog Entries: 1
Qtc of 1.05 is a little high, but hardly prohibitive. In practice it may benefit
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2012, 10:55 AM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Overkill Audio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default Try a 4.5 inch BMR

You could try the 4.5 inch BMR 's, they are really good, way better than the smaller units.
Also the Neo magnet version has lots of clear space behind the magnet, the Ferrite version has no room. You can easily hear the difference and its well worth paying the extra ( Neo is abbout twice the price of Ferrite) for the Neo.

I have been getting fab rusults in a 2 litre sealed cabinet, 8 drivers per channel in the attached design, up to 18 per channel in another version with edge to edge driver fitting.

Just as a point of reference, in the same enclosure the 4.5 inch BMR has way better bass and midrange than the Alloy Ted Jordan units, the TJ goes higher ( but is a bit rougher) in the top.
Hope this helps
Cheers
Derek.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg HTC 23 Feb 2012 258.jpg (305.7 KB, 616 views)
File Type: jpg HTC 23 Feb 2012 277.jpg (14.6 KB, 591 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2012, 12:36 PM   #10
Boscoe is offline Boscoe  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overkill Audio View Post
You could try the 4.5 inch BMR 's, they are really good, way better than the smaller units.
Also the Neo magnet version has lots of clear space behind the magnet, the Ferrite version has no room. You can easily hear the difference and its well worth paying the extra ( Neo is abbout twice the price of Ferrite) for the Neo.

I have been getting fab rusults in a 2 litre sealed cabinet, 8 drivers per channel in the attached design, up to 18 per channel in another version with edge to edge driver fitting.

Just as a point of reference, in the same enclosure the 4.5 inch BMR has way better bass and midrange than the Alloy Ted Jordan units, the TJ goes higher ( but is a bit rougher) in the top.
Hope this helps
Cheers
Derek.
Which BMRs are these?
__________________
I thought about it once, but then thought again.
  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
Full Range Merrill Driver in TriTrix Cabinet MrKTrout Full Range 11 31st March 2013 03:26 AM
full range in an existing small cabinet mda1 Full Range 33 11th September 2012 05:41 PM
Spherical Cabinet vs. ordinary Cuboid Cabinet for full range Speakers tiefbassuebertr Full Range 1 10th January 2012 04:49 PM
Easiest cabinet design for full range driver terpkev Construction Tips 23 31st July 2011 08:16 PM
Full range and/or High Efficiency possible in small cabinet? Seraph Full Range 29 19th June 2007 01:13 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:40 AM.


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