I have a pair of cute little 3.5L boxes I want to put these into. Can anyone suggest a port size or shall I just seal them up?
Tymphany TC9FD18-08 3-1/2" Full Range Paper Cone Woofer
Thanks in advance!
Tymphany TC9FD18-08 3-1/2" Full Range Paper Cone Woofer
Thanks in advance!
Q is too high for any kind of reasonble vented box… seal them up or better yet make them aperiodic with a box that small.
dave
Hi,
The box is big for the driver Vas, ~1L,
aperiodic is pointlessly complicated.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
Our box is 5.5 litre, a convienient spot to pick at getting the driver as close as practical to its unbaffled value (1.01/4 ohm, 0.89/8 ohm)
dave
>>> In context of this thread your post is entirely off topic.
No worries Barleywater, I take my question back. I did not mean to hijack the thread (which is a good one).
Thanks to the folks who made suggestions. Much appreciated.
No worries Barleywater, I take my question back. I did not mean to hijack the thread (which is a good one).
Thanks to the folks who made suggestions. Much appreciated.
Hey
Afaiu just try some small holes in back or sides of cabinet and put some thin polystuffing over the holes.
Regards
Why is that complicated?
Afaiu just try some small holes in back or sides of cabinet and put some thin polystuffing over the holes.
Regards
Hi,
There is very little to be gained with a box > 3L for an ~ 1L Vas driver.
The difference between a 3.5L and 5.5L box is very minimal.
11L is just wrong, your using the wrong driver inappropriately.
rgds, sreten.
There is very little to be gained with a box > 3L for an ~ 1L Vas driver.
The difference between a 3.5L and 5.5L box is very minimal.
11L is just wrong, your using the wrong driver inappropriately.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
Hi,
Getting aperoidic to actually do something useful, i.e. reduce
Qbox is complicated to get right. In this case for a 3" driver
that should be high passed its simply overcomplication.
rgds, sreten.
I have put the TC9FD in just about every conceivable box or alignment: DCR, BR, OB, MLTL, plain sealed, BLH, synergy, sealed TL, aperiodic TL, KaZba, ML-TQWT, BIB, etc...
They do very well in a sealed or aperiodic TL if you want to use as a top in a FAST with high pass at 250Hz or more. If you want ported to get bass, they need a bit of volume to get 60Hz, maybe 7 liters. If you want deep bass down to 50Hz, about 14 liters is needed. There is a bit of distortion down low, but it is effective for low level background music or near field below 80dB with <2% distortion at 55Hz (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/252627-viva-la-vifa-curvy-cabinet-dcr-tc9fd.html).
3.5L - just go for sealed or better yet, a sealed Dagger (3-sided tall pyramid for no parallel walls and low coloration).
They do very well in a sealed or aperiodic TL if you want to use as a top in a FAST with high pass at 250Hz or more. If you want ported to get bass, they need a bit of volume to get 60Hz, maybe 7 liters. If you want deep bass down to 50Hz, about 14 liters is needed. There is a bit of distortion down low, but it is effective for low level background music or near field below 80dB with <2% distortion at 55Hz (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/252627-viva-la-vifa-curvy-cabinet-dcr-tc9fd.html).
3.5L - just go for sealed or better yet, a sealed Dagger (3-sided tall pyramid for no parallel walls and low coloration).
Last edited:
I am working on a two way with a wide range 3-4" on top of an 8" woofer. I have the SS 10F/8424, Fostex FF85WK, MA A7.3 and (drumroll) Vifa TD9FD-18-8. All but the Vifa work quit well in Q=1 sealed boxes and cut off around 250Hz. The Vifa simply won't work that way. A Q=1 box is too big to hide in the main cabinet. OB is out of the question -- cut-off is way too high in any reasonable sized baffle. A 4" dia 12" long piece of PVC pipe tightly stuffed with fiberglass does seem to work as a simulated IB. What does one expect? I quote from the TD9FD spec sheet: "The product was designed with television and other compact applications in mind." It has a front gasket. There is little speculation on how this driver is intended to be used. But DIY'rs must stretch the limits!
Bob
Bob
I am able to use the TC9FD in a small 1.1 liter sealed Dagger with a 350Hz 2nd order XO just fine. Is there a reason you want to XO lower?
The 1.1 liter Dagger fits inside my 8in wide x 12in deep cabinet nicely. Measured Q will be circa 0.6 not 1 but that's fine for me.
Glad to see your are trying the 10F. What are you doing for the bass driver?
Last edited:
1. Personal preference, technical correctness (below the telephone band -- i.e. 300Hz), yada, yada.
2. A Q=1 sealed box gives (almost) ironclad protection against over-excursion. if you put an LR2 XO on top of the natural 2nd order roll-off, you get nearly an LR4. For the TC9FD, this is just about perfect for crossing given (1).
I think that your Dagger is behaving like an IB. Hence the Qtc will be Qts.
Audax HM210C0. Used this driver before. Very fine driver. Goes very low for an 8", and very low distortion. Usable up to 1kHz, but I don't do those things. I crossed the Audax to an A7.3 passive at 700Hz. Textbook LR2 with 4 parts.
Bob
Hi,
Get the relative sensitivities right and 1st order series
can be very useful in exploiting the drivers impedance
curves to suit your purpose, rather than fighting it,
which they inevitably do for 1st order parallel.
rgds, sreten.
sreten,
What you say is true, but with caveats.
1. The top driver has to be robust enough to stand a low order XO. Not the case with the low XO needed to keep the top driver sort-of wide-range. Otherwise, the speaker is just another 2-way.
2. While you did not implicitly say so, a 1st order XO is very difficult to achieve with a closed or ported speaker. Unless the XO point is sufficiently far from the drivers' natural roll-off, the XO and the driver slopes are additive and not 1st order. But if the XO is sufficiently far from the drivers' roll-off, you again are not doing a wide-range top end. (2nd order series XO's don't seem to have the charm of 1st order. IMO)
3. The XO is going to be digital and bi-amped, so driver sensitivity in a non-issue. Crossing a driver at its low f3 point passively is very difficult because of the impedance peak at that point. Driver impedance is not an issue with a digital XO. The digital and mechanical XO's are still additive, so 1st order is out of the question because of the low XO frequency.
Bob
What you say is true, but with caveats.
1. The top driver has to be robust enough to stand a low order XO. Not the case with the low XO needed to keep the top driver sort-of wide-range. Otherwise, the speaker is just another 2-way.
2. While you did not implicitly say so, a 1st order XO is very difficult to achieve with a closed or ported speaker. Unless the XO point is sufficiently far from the drivers' natural roll-off, the XO and the driver slopes are additive and not 1st order. But if the XO is sufficiently far from the drivers' roll-off, you again are not doing a wide-range top end. (2nd order series XO's don't seem to have the charm of 1st order. IMO)
3. The XO is going to be digital and bi-amped, so driver sensitivity in a non-issue. Crossing a driver at its low f3 point passively is very difficult because of the impedance peak at that point. Driver impedance is not an issue with a digital XO. The digital and mechanical XO's are still additive, so 1st order is out of the question because of the low XO frequency.
Bob
Last edited:
For the TC9? If you have figured out how to take a driver with 0.9 Qt out of the box and have a Q of 0.6 in the box, the current amp guys want to talk to you.
dave
Hi,
You've homed in on the points I was making. Yes real 1st order
is difficult, but 1st order electrical series or parallel isn't 1st order.
The interaction of a 1st order series electrical with the drivers is
helpful, not so for parallel, where 2nd order electrical is better.
Your quite right about 2nd order electrical series, not much appeal.
rgds, sreten.
No just saying it was Qts of 0.6 when measured with 10F in same Dagger. Have not measured it with TC9FD, but it would not surprise me if impedance peak is wider than free air resonance Qts of 0.9.
I'd like to see a Qtc with the TC9FD. Running the 10F through WinIDS in a 1.1l sealed box gives a Qtc of 0.636.
Hmmmmmm.
Bob
Hmmmmmm.
Bob
- Status
- Not open for further replies.