Need help with enclosure for Supravox 165-2000EXC

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Jump to Latest
L

Lowrideris

Member
Joined 2015
hello,
i need help with enclosure for Supravox 165-2000EXC (field coil version) or alnico version.
maybe someone here can telme what enclosure to choose?
i need to choose better speaker from these:
165-2000EXC Qts : is 0.616 at 10V DC power 165 EXC SUPRAVOX

165-2000 Qts is : 0.78
165-2000 SUPRAVOX

please help....
supravox has no straight answer what enclosure is good for them. only available schematics is this TQWT
http://www.supravox.fr/kits/tqwt165lb.pdf
 
GM

GM

Member
Joined 2003
Greets!

Supravox 165-2000 EXC looks good in a ~230 L, ~44 Hz MLTL:

H = 152.4 cm
WxD = 1500 cm^2
driver down 64 cm
vent down = 129.5 cm
vent = 300 cm^2 x baffle thickness [19 mm]

All dimensions inside [i.d.].

Line top, one side, back with damping to 'taste', adding some to the other side if more is needed.

165-2000 needs either a large sealed cab [plug the MLTL's vent] or at least a well stuffed ~aperiodic cab [MLTL] or large pipe horn.

GM
 
Scottmoose

Scottmoose

Member
Joined 2005
wodendesign.com
Which isn't exempt from the laws of physics either. ;)

The size of a vented box, whether reflex or QW is dictated by driver Fs, Vas & EM damping (Q), or more accurately, those characteristics largely determine its behaviour in a given volume & tuning. One of the advantages of Novak, Thiele & finally Small's work is that they allowed you to quickly determine a minimum practical box size, i.e. get the most from the least. Unfortunately, they can't change the laws of physics. The Supravox units are quite traditional in design terms (no bad thing) & tend to want a larger cabinet than the 'modern' fashion, like most of the quality classic units up to the late 1960s.

If you really have to have a small box you could try vented, 80 litres tuned to the high 40s. Lightly damped LF rolloff with a bit of additional gain through the mid-upper bass due to the undersized box -that can in some cases be helpful in adding a bit of extra 'slam' to rock, some classical etc. recordings. The box output is fairly narrow band so careful damping would be needed. Otherwise, sealed or leaky sealed it would need to be. 80 litres, with light damping would give you a box Q roughly in the mid 0.7 region.
 

Attachments

  • Alignment.gif
    Alignment.gif
    31.3 KB · Views: 311
Last edited:
L

Lowrideris

Member
Joined 2015
thank you scottmoose.
supravox sugested tqwt enclosure is about 46.6 Litres. an is made for 165lb driver. but may work and with EXC.
for me bass output is not big problem i can happily live with 60-20000khz region;) and my neighbors also will be happy :D:D:D
any online TQWT enclosure calculators ? to calculate enclosure size more suitable for this EXC speaker?
 
Scottmoose

Scottmoose

Member
Joined 2005
wodendesign.com
Like the Supravox QW enclosure, they (the online calculators) are best avoided. AFAIK, they all key off Fs & driver size, taking no account for taper for the first, and zero account for driver Fs, Q & Vas in the latter, which actually do have direct relevance to the internal volume of the enclosure, unlike Sd, which does not. You can't get around the laws of physics, however much we'd all like to. :bawling:

The size appropriate to the Supravox unit is essentially what GM said. That MLTL he designed for you is not big for the sake of it. It's big because that's what it has to be to do the job required of it. Classic style of driver: it wants a big box. The 80 litres I mentioned above would be the absolute minimum I would go to for a vented box of any kind, reflex or QW, and even that is much smaller than ideal for high quality results. I'd prefer another 50 litres on top of that. You could use about 60 litres, sealed, & make the box leaky (drill a load of holes in it & cover with damping) to drop the Q a bit. Probably give you a system Q of about 0.8, which would be ~'OK', but not particularly distinguished. You'd be in the 60Hz - 70Hz region in practice, although it may sound a bit 'strangled'.
 
Last edited:
L

Lowrideris

Member
Joined 2015
GM said:
Greets!

Supravox 165-2000 EXC looks good in a ~230 L, ~44 Hz MLTL:

H = 152.4 cm
WxD = 1500 cm^2
driver down 64 cm
vent down = 129.5 cm
vent = 300 cm^2 x baffle thickness [19 mm]

All dimensions inside [i.d.].

Line top, one side, back with damping to 'taste', adding some to the other side if more is needed.

165-2000 needs either a large sealed cab [plug the MLTL's vent] or at least a well stuffed ~aperiodic cab [MLTL] or large pipe horn.

GM
Click to expand...

maybe you can draw example of this box with measurments for me, im not that good with drawing schematics of enclosure from numbers;)
 
GM

GM

Member
Joined 2003
Lowrideris said:
thanks,. mltl for me is too big. i live in apartmens 26 m2 room, need something with "normal" floorstanding speaker size.
so best option to try EXC driver with minimum 10 volt power suplly to lower qts, and make supravox sugested enclosure...:confused::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Lowrideris said:
maybe you can draw example of this box with measurments for me, im not that good with drawing schematics of enclosure from numbers;)
Click to expand...

You're welcome!

I used the 10 V specs.

Hmm, 26 m^2 is a plenty big enough room acoustically, but its bass output is way too much for an apartment unless extremely well soundproofed as a stereo pair are theoretically capable of up to nearly 120 dB/m/40 Hz/10 W depending on where they are positioned in the room.

I am not set up to do drawings, just quick sims in Hornresp.

Re smallest cab size; the pioneers didn't need to reproduce anything below ~80 Hz and from long experience designing/building for apartment or similar attached homes, neither do you, though you still need a tuning to at least the mid 40s in room same as they did, though for different reasons.

Anyway, they came to the conclusion that the driver's compliance [Vas] will dictate, determining that a sealed box should raise the driver's Fs by 1.56x, which BTW is the historically correct way to measure the Vas spec, so based on published specs, this equates to Vas/1.44 = 32.36 L net.

Unfortunately, this is too small to make a decent height MLTL, so looking at Scott's 80 L and converting it to a shortened MLTL to be more like Supravox's new Kelia, then rounding down to even numbers gives us a ~77.84 L net.

H = 122 cm
W = 29 cm
D = 22 cm
driver down 25.4 cm, putting the driver/floor distance = 98.5 cm
driver down 42.6 cm, putting the driver/floor distance = 81.3 cm
driver down 51.2 cm, putting the driver/floor distance = 72.7 cm
vent down = 103.7 cm
vent = 300 cm^2 x baffle thickness [19 mm]

Choose the driver/floor height you think will work best for you at the listening position, though with the top most driver location theoretically producing a ~5 dB peak centered at ~100 Hz with a ~40 Hz F10 and ~ 22 Hz F25 where you can't hear/feel it though these numbers theoretically drop ~ a dB or two with each lower driver location and may need extra internal damping if corner loaded.

The small TQWT will perform similar to top most driver location, but with a lot of added 'ripple' [deep notches in the response] unless heavily damped, so from mine and some other forum members experiences, the shorter MLTL is much preferred and no doubt in my mind why Supravox is now offering them.

GM
 
Last edited:
L

Lowrideris

Member
Joined 2015
GM said:
You're welcome!

I used the 10 V specs.

Hmm, 26 m^2 is a plenty big enough room acoustically, but its bass output is way too much for an apartment unless extremely well soundproofed as a stereo pair are theoretically capable of up to nearly 120 dB/m/40 Hz/10 W depending on where they are positioned in the room.

I am not set up to do drawings, just quick sims in Hornresp.

Re smallest cab size; the pioneers didn't need to reproduce anything below ~80 Hz and from long experience designing/building for apartment or similar attached homes, neither do you, though you still need a tuning to at least the mid 40s in room same as they did, though for different reasons.

Anyway, they came to the conclusion that the driver's compliance [Vas] will dictate, determining that a sealed box should raise the driver's Fs by 1.56x, which BTW is the historically correct way to measure the Vas spec, so based on published specs, this equates to Vas/1.44 = 32.36 L net.

Unfortunately, this is too small to make a decent height MLTL, so looking at Scott's 80 L and converting it to a shortened MLTL to be more like Supravox's new Kelia, then rounding down to even numbers gives us a ~77.84 L net.

H = 122 cm
W = 29 cm
D = 22 cm
driver down 25.4 cm, putting the driver/floor distance = 98.5 cm
driver down 42.6 cm, putting the driver/floor distance = 81.3 cm
driver down 51.2 cm, putting the driver/floor distance = 72.7 cm
vent down = 103.7 cm
vent = 300 cm^2 x baffle thickness [19 mm]

Choose the driver/floor height you think will work best for you at the listening position, though with the top most driver location theoretically producing a ~5 dB peak centered at ~100 Hz with a ~40 Hz F10 and ~ 22 Hz F25 where you can't hear/feel it though these numbers theoretically drop ~ a dB or two with each lower driver location and may need extra internal damping if corner loaded.

The small TQWT will perform similar to top most driver location, but with a lot of added 'ripple' [deep notches in the response] unless heavily damped, so from mine and some other forum members experiences, the shorter MLTL is much preferred and no doubt in my mind why Supravox is now offering them.

GM
Click to expand...

supravox sells finished speakers with qts acourd 0.2-0.35 , with higher qts they have no sugestions, what enclosure to use exept OB .
ok i try to make some paper work, and visualize your measurments;) one more thing. MLTL internals how is made? maybe some photos ? becouse most pictures in web , looks like bass reflex inside, only port an nothing more,exept few bracings inside enclosure. so some picture samples would be nice;)
 
GM

GM

Member
Joined 2003
MJK? :scratch: ;)

Samo-samo except AFAIK I'm finally out of debt after right at 20 yrs now. Yeah, seems like we can't get over one 'bump in the road' of life before we get sucker punched again. Oh well, the way mostly younger folks around me are dying from diabetes and/or cancer, I count my blessings, few as they sometimes seem.

GM
 
Scottmoose

Scottmoose

Member
Joined 2005
wodendesign.com
GM said:
MJK? :scratch: ;)

Samo-samo except AFAIK I'm finally out of debt after right at 20 yrs now. Yeah, seems like we can't get over one 'bump in the road' of life before we get sucker punched again. Oh well, the way mostly younger folks around me are dying from diabetes and/or cancer, I count my blessings, few as they sometimes seem.
Click to expand...

I learned a lot of physics from Martin (big thanks owed to him) but I seem to recall somebody else who I learned even more from on the wider physics, history, developing acoustic alignments... ;)

Excellent re clearing the debt! Big relief for the wallet, & not having it lurking constantly in the background. :)

I hear you. I'm determined to make next year better than the last few. Stood still way too long, although I can't complain -I've got a roof over my head & a bit of income, & that's more than some can say. Time to get my book & a couple of new papers finished off, then see if I can bring off what I've been plotting for a while.
 
Last edited:
Scottmoose

Scottmoose

Member
Joined 2005
wodendesign.com
Perhaps they do. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. ;)

I could explain that the diagrams you've unearthed on the PHY site are right out of Weems, and that the Japanese DIY scene has a number of region-specific characteristics, but I get the feeling you've already decided what you want to believe. So I'll wish you the very best of luck for your project and bow out at this point.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Top Bottom