Enclosures for Hartley 24" - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

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 8th August 2007, 02:02 PM   #11
JohnL is offline JohnL  United States
diyAudio Member
 
JohnL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
I second Howard99's suggestion, 30"x30"x20" box with no back. Line the sides of the box with something absorbative and then sit back and enjoy the sound. I have a set of Hartley 24s, and I've never heard anything like them.

If you want a sealed box of some sort, they are going to be huge (~20 cubic feet each). If that's an option for you, you could give that a try.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2007, 02:14 AM   #12
Sushii is offline Sushii  Hong Kong
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Thanks alot for the advice, I will try the seal box method...

From my calculation, I think I will build a box of 40' h x 30' w x 29' d

That should give me 24 cuft. is this correct?

Thanks alot!
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2011, 11:19 PM   #13
vmcfer is offline vmcfer  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sushii View Post
Thanks alot for the advice, I will try the seal box method...

From my calculation, I think I will build a box of 40' h x 30' w x 29' d

That should give me 24 cuft. is this correct?

Thanks alot!
Hello,
Did you build the seal box?
I am planning to do the same project and I am looking for information.
Thank you,
Victor
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2011, 11:25 PM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnL View Post
If you want a sealed box of some sort, they are going to be huge (~20 cubic feet each). If that's an option for you, you could give that a try.
Is bathroom sufficient?
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2011, 11:40 PM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
John Busch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hill country, Texas
Default Hartly 24 inch

OK

This is an open baffle woofer, like it or not. No reasonable box size will provide equal bass extention. Just the way it is. So why fight it?

You only have to deal with the minimum distance requirements from the back wall, and if you build a huge box as has been suggested, you already are placing the baffle front far enough away from the back wall anyway.

A 26" width baffle with a 6" wing depth and a 40" baffle height will give you more or less flat bass into the lower 30's at a 6 db per octave roll off below that. No box problems or reflections any greater than what a big box will create. Try 3rd order butterworth around 125 Hz to create a standard low pass and go on to what ever midrange you like. This woofer could work well with a quality 8 inch or larger full range.

Your only worries are controlling the full range typical upper frequency rise and establishing the proper pad (if any) to match the woofers efficiency with the full range. A simple pad. And you can take care of the full range rising repsonse (and they ALL have a rising response) with a simple inductor-resistor parallel trap.

You have the makings of a great, yet simple full range speaker. Just don't over think the situation.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th June 2011, 06:07 AM   #16
el`Ol is offline el`Ol  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bavarian Forest
When they build a 3400 l cabinet at a university lab this can't be that wrong.
Caltech Music Lab Home Page
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th June 2011, 01:45 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
John Busch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hill country, Texas
Default Nice sized closet!

120 cu ft.! Wonder what the F3 ended up being?

IIRC, the X-max of the Hartley 24" isn't all that much, 2 or 3 MM, or close to that. But with a surface area equal to a couple of 18" woofers, you don't need much, even in an open baffle set up.

And if you have a stereo pair you will have enough area to play into the mid twenties with out much if any roll off. Should be pretty efficient too.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th June 2011, 03:19 PM   #18
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Quote:
Originally Posted by howard99 View Post
Hart;ey recommends a fairly small box with no back with stuffing, I think the box is 30"by30"by20". Richard at Hartley, Audio Lab in NOrth Carolina can help you with that. It is his design, otherwise that box is going to be huge.
Indeed, in a '54 issue of Radio Electronics, H.A. Hartley recommended the classic reflex formula to determine cab net Vb which only uses Fs and vent area = Sd or ~61 ft^3 [1727+ L] assuming 28 Hz/10" [25.4 cm] effective radius/0.75" [1.9 cm] vent length; though a dimensionless cutaway drawing of his own open back cab design shows it with a series of stretched screen filters to decay away the back wave. Assuming his later cabs are the same basic design, then it would be ~8 ft^3 [~226.5 L] net, so well stuffed, the current recommended open back cab should be an acceptable substitute.

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.

Last edited by GM; 4th June 2011 at 03:35 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2012, 08:45 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: was Chicago IL, now Long Beach CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sushii View Post
From my calculation, I think I will build a box of 40' h x 30' w x 29' d
That should give me 24 cuft. is this correct?
No, that would be 34800 cubic feet. Which would also work for a very low Qts, and puts the "infinite" back into "infinite baffle"

Unless you meant that to be in inches,
1 cu ft = 1728 cubic inches
24 cu ft = 41472 cubic inches
40" X 30" X 29" = 34800 minus the space occupied by the driver and enclosure wall thickness and internal brace.
So no, that's still wrong, it need to be bigger.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2012, 08:50 PM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: was Chicago IL, now Long Beach CA
All the Hartleys I ever saw were in open-back baffles of some kind.

Probably the wrong choice for a tapped horn, but it would be nice to capture that back wave in some additive fashion.
  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
24" hartley photos - tomtt Subwoofers 50 9th March 2012 10:52 PM
Hartley 24" - anyone have parameters? rdr Multi-Way 19 17th March 2009 09:32 PM
"Karlsonology" (Karlson enclosures/technique) what's happenin' ? freddi Multi-Way 45 29th January 2008 09:06 PM
Hartley 18" Woofer thetubeguy1954 Subwoofers 27 1st December 2007 09:46 PM
Membrane to limit "unloading" in ported-type enclosures? Datoyminaytah Multi-Way 6 18th August 2004 05:36 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:32 PM.


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