How's this MLTL Design Look - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Gallery Wiki 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 2nd April 2016, 10:45 PM   #1
Veleric is offline Veleric  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default How's this MLTL Design Look

Here's my first enclosure design. It's an MLTL designed for the Mark Audio Pluvia 7 Full range driver. I'm going for a single driver speaker with no crossover, but will add a baffle step compensator if needed. I used the Leonard Audio TL program for the design. Please look over the model output and tell me what does or doesn't look good.

Also, I would love it if someone would put my specs in Martin's model and see if they get a similar result, or if it shows any "defects" in my design that the LA TL model doesn't detect.

Some of the model results are attached. I understand that the main goal is a flat SPL curve over a broad frequency range, but I must admit that I'm not sure what to look for in the other plots.

Okay, my MLTL specs are as follows:

Driver: Pluvia 7
Main Tube: 150 cm2 constant cross section x 87 mm long.
Driver Position: 42 cm
Port Position: 70 cm
Port Dimensions: 17 cm2 x 9 cm long.
Stuffing: Main tube from 30 mm to 70 mm only, density 3 kg/m3

Pluvia 7 Specs:
Revc= 7.200 Ohm
Fo= 67.863 Hz
Sd= 50.270 cm
Vas= 5.543 Ltr
Cms= 1.545m M/N
Mmd= 3.356m Kg
Mms= 3.561 g
BL= 3.968 TM
Qms= 2.391
Qes= 0.695
Qts= 0.538
Levc= 35.057u H
No= 0.241 %
SPLo= 85.843 dB
Pwr= 22 watts
Nom X max= 4mm
1 way

FYI, all outputs were plotted with the default amplifier power of 1 watt.

Thanks,
Eric
Attached Images
File Type: gif TL4 SPL (all).gif (59.6 KB, 456 views)
File Type: gif TL4 Phase.gif (181.6 KB, 443 views)
File Type: gif TL4 Impedance.gif (20.7 KB, 433 views)
File Type: gif TL4 Group Delay.gif (48.0 KB, 431 views)
File Type: gif TL4 Velocity.gif (39.5 KB, 432 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2016, 12:22 PM   #2
Veleric is offline Veleric  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Oops, I just realized that these impedance plots (attached) were missing:
Attached Images
File Type: gif TL4 AI.gif (28.1 KB, 52 views)
File Type: gif TL4 DEI.gif (17.8 KB, 45 views)
File Type: gif TL4 SEI.gif (16.9 KB, 39 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2016, 12:09 AM   #3
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Greets!

Well, don't have MathCad loaded, but it's a bit too short to actually be a MLTL since its 1/4 WL tuning is too high to add any real damping to the vent and the driver is theoretically too low once damping is accounted for [MJK recommends 34.9% and I never go below 42% unless it's an expanding one, then down to 56% max], but otherwise as long as its T/S max flat alignment works for you in your app and its power limited tuning below Fs plays loud enough at your intended listening distance, then you're good to go.

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2016, 04:32 PM   #4
Veleric is offline Veleric  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
GM,
I really appreciate your reply, but as usual I need more help to understand (please bear with me!).

Quote:
Originally Posted by GM View Post
but it's a bit too short to actually be a MLTL since its 1/4 WL tuning is too high to add any real damping to the vent
Can you clarify this for me? Isn't an MLTL normally short (compared to a classic 1/4 TL)? What do you mean by "damping the vent"? I thought the point was to mass load the vent, not damp it. I fear I'm missing your point entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GM View Post
and the driver is theoretically too low once damping is accounted for [MJK recommends 34.9% and I never go below 42% unless it's an expanding one, then down to 56% max]
By too low, are you talking about the driver location (as a % of total length)? I've never seen that recomendation by MJK. Where does that come from? Is that in one of his published papers? Is it applicable to the MLTL? With the LA-TL simulation, adding damping (stuffing) doesn't seem to move the ideal driver placement much at all. I placed it where the LA TL model showed that it virtually eliminate the wiggle from the second overtone. If I chose the third overtone instead it would have been much higher. Is the MJK recommendation based on eliminating the second overtone?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GM View Post
but otherwise as long as its T/S max flat alignment works for you in your app and its power limited tuning below Fs plays loud enough at your intended listening distance, then you're good to go.
Again, I'm not sure what exactly you mean. Are you basically saying only that it won't be capable of high volume, or are you saying more than that? What do you mean by "power limited tuning"?

Thanks,
Eric
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2016, 07:44 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
I'm not GM, but FWIW:

Quote:
Can you clarify this for me? Isn't an MLTL normally short (compared to a classic 1/4 TL)? What do you mean by "damping the vent"? I thought the point was to mass load the vent, not damp it. I fear I'm missing your point entirely.
To a point. What GM's saying is that strictly speaking, most of the boxes that are described as MLTLs, aren't really using QW / standing waves at or around tuning. They're not physically long enough. So in such cases, what you have is a highly forced box where standing waves are occuring (and accounted for) somewhat higher up the frequency range.

Quote:
By too low, are you talking about the driver location (as a % of total length)? I've never seen that recomendation by MJK. Where does that come from? Is that in one of his published papers? Is it applicable to the MLTL? With the LA-TL simulation, adding damping (stuffing) doesn't seem to move the ideal driver placement much at all. I placed it where the LA TL model showed that it virtually eliminate the wiggle from the second overtone. If I chose the third overtone instead it would have been much higher. Is the MJK recommendation based on eliminating the second overtone?
See Martin's Classic TL Alignment Table pdf, for an untapered pipe. p.13, Driver Offset Ratio. Since an MLTL is an untapered pipe you can apply his same % ratio. You're not obliged to, obviously. It's just one of a variety of compromises to select from.

Quote:
Again, I'm not sure what exactly you mean. Are you basically saying only that it won't be capable of high volume, or are you saying more than that? What do you mean by "power limited tuning"?
Basically, all drive units can only handle (and output) a finite amount of power. If you are satisfied this box and tuning can do what you want it to do, i.e. it will have sufficient power-handling & travel available to handle the average SPLs and dynamic headroom you want at your listening position, then job-jibbed: go ahead & build.
__________________
"'That'll do", comes the cry of the perfectionist down the ages.' James May -The Reassembler
www.wodendesign.com Community sites www.frugal-horn.com http://frugal-phile.com/
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2016, 07:19 PM   #6
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Greets!

Yes, to mass load is to damp, but to be what I consider a MLTL requires enough 1/4 WL damping to either lower tuning [Fb] for a given vent alignment or shorten the vent to maintain a given tuning WRT a simple reflex/ducted port alignment, which this one doesn't do. In short, you have a BR with a very minor amount of 1/4 WL 'ripple' in its pass-band Vs a true BR that has none, so a minor amount of extra damping is required in comparison.

Yes, it's in his Classic TL Alignment Tables doc and if you learn a little more about TL design, at some point you'll realize that it will calculate MLTLs too. Assuming the vent is in the bottom 5th, his driver location chart applies close enough IME.

Correct/yes; if you look at an excursion Vs frequency chart you'll see that excursion increases by a factor of four/octave, so the lower the tuning the more rapidly its linear power handling capability is used up, i.e. at low distortion it will be very amp power limited with decreasing frequency, so for max linear power handling it ideally needs to be designed for a ~half octave above Fs tuning [~Fs*1.4142].

That, or design it to blend in with the room's gain curve to maximize peak power handling down to, or below, its Fs when positioned hard up against a wall or corner. Historically, most folks choose tuning around/at Fs as a compromise.

Your current alignment is normally used for when located well away from any room boundaries, which normally requires some baffle step compensation [BSC] to tonally balance its response over its entire usable band-width [BW]: General Speaker Related Articles

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2016, 10:05 PM   #7
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottmoose View Post
I'm not GM, but FWIW:
Oops! Didn't notice your response till I was mostly finished, so posted a 'FWIW', FWIW . Don't know why I bother to post anymore except 'off the cuff' 'quickies' nowadays since so many I start that interest me are either already sufficiently dealt with by the time I get back to them or they've gone elsewhere to get answers as has happened here.

From MJK's forum; guess I should 'check in' more often. I've disagreed with him enough on minor things to keep me from being one of his clique, though thought we were 'close enough' on the same 'page' acoustically to not be contrary, but apparently not.

I see there's some more responses to read, but got more important things to do right now.

GM

=================


Eric,


If I look at your SPL trace, and in particular the output from the port there is a strong fundamental peak followed by a roll off as frequency increases. In the rolling off SPL response there are also a series of peaks typical of higher order standing waves found in TLs. Looks like a ML TL response to me. Also in your acoustic impedance plot there are a series of peaks, a bass reflex design would only show a single peak at the tuning frequency of the enclosure.

The advice coming from DIYaudio has dropped in quality and accuracy over the years as a group of posters has started to dominate the discussion, in particular the full range sub forum. Many knowledgeable people left or stopped posting. Take what you read there with a grain of salt. That is my disgruntled opinion on DIYaudio.

Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: ekragness1@verizon.net [quarter-wave] <quarter-wave@yahoogroups.com>
To: quarter-wave <quarter-wave@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 5, 2016 12:00 pm
Subject: [quarter-wave] Re: How's This MLTL Look?


All,
Meanwhile, I posted the LA TL plots of my MLTL design on the Diyaudio forum, and got the response below from "GM". I'm sure much of it is accurate, but I frankly don't understand it very well. Can anybody translate his response to simpler terms? Please note, the design I posted was the same as the original design described at the start of this thread (with NO stuffing in the port), only stuffing from about 30 to 70 cm of the 87 cm overall length.

"Well, don't have MathCad loaded, but it's a bit too short to actually be a MLTL since its 1/4 WL tuning is too high to add any real damping to the vent and the driver is theoretically too low once damping is accounted for [MJK recommends 34.9% and I never go below 42% unless it's an expa nding one, then down to 56% max], but otherwise as long as its T/S max flat alignment works for you in your app and its power limited tuning below Fs plays loud enough at your intended listening distance, then you're good to go."


Probably to many of you this is all perfectly clear. But I'm not following....

Thanks,
Eric

__._,_.___
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2016, 10:33 PM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Copenhagen
Hi Eric
My personal rules of thumb is to place the driver 1/3 or 1/5 from the closed end. Stuffing upper 2/3 of the pipe.
I would probably tune the cabinet a little lower.
The port: I use slottet port like TABAQ.
I will do some sims for you during the weekend.

And yes - the properties shows your design is a quarter wave.
Hi
Bjrn
__________________
http://www.kvart-bolge.com/

Last edited by Bjohannesen; 7th April 2016 at 10:36 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2016, 01:13 AM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Hmm. You & me both Greg -on both fronts. I'm only waffling by here when I can grab a few minutes, which seems increasingly rare. I haven't looked in at Martin's Yahoo group for a long time -I never could get on with the interface for some reason, & with limited time, I tend to stick to a couple of places only. Judging from what Martin's written, looks like he's classifying BR as pure Helmholtz (fair enough) & any departure as an MLTL, whether the standing waves necessarily impact on Fb or not. Looks like we're dinosaurs again. Oh well, I always did like the Brontosaurus.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Far Side.jpg (43.6 KB, 45 views)
__________________
"'That'll do", comes the cry of the perfectionist down the ages.' James May -The Reassembler
www.wodendesign.com Community sites www.frugal-horn.com http://frugal-phile.com/

Last edited by Scottmoose; 9th April 2016 at 01:19 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2016, 02:05 AM   #10
chrisb is offline chrisb  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: victoria BC
You mean Apatosaurus Ajax, perhaps?

I mean now that Pluto is not an official " planet", let's just redefine everything we learned wrong in school
__________________
... so, not as easy at it sounds, this letting go thing
  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
The rule of thumb for MLTL design Tyimo Multi-Way 10 2nd December 2013 10:12 PM
Help with MLTL design for GPA416-8c zeljkor Multi-Way 62 14th January 2010 10:11 PM
MLTL design review request bzdang Multi-Way 9 25th March 2008 04:49 PM
Mltl Design With Scanspeak kkchunghk Multi-Way 3 23rd January 2006 04:50 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:35 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2016 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Wiki