I have 4 Peerless 6,5" speakers.http://www.tymphany.com/830875
I am thinking about using them to bild a couple of new
speakers to have at home.
I am intressted of trying to build som TL lines of them with 2 speakers in each.
Will it work with these speakers in a TL line??
I have never built a TL speaker before sow my knowlage about them is limited.
I am thankful for any advice?
I am thinking about using them to bild a couple of new
speakers to have at home.
I am intressted of trying to build som TL lines of them with 2 speakers in each.
Will it work with these speakers in a TL line??
I have never built a TL speaker before sow my knowlage about them is limited.
I am thankful for any advice?
In addition to you wanting to limit the height to 2 meters, do you have any other wants or restrictions? For instance, what F3 were you hoping for and how wide and deep can the box be? I've already done some modeling as an ML-TL using Martin King's worksheets and the results were very promising. I could also explore a tapered TL and, perhaps, an ML-TQWT.
Vigo said:
johngalt47 said:
Ok thank you very much for the help this gives me a better start.
I just have a few things i wonder.
With 115cm i guess that that is the hight of the speaker and that would give a total line lenght of 230cm, have i understod correct?
When you say that center between the speakers is 25% from the top, what distans scould i have between them or just as close as possible?
Thankyou agin for your help
Re: Re: TL projekt idea
If the width can be keept below 200mm thats good if possible, i am not sow pickey with the size of the thing i just want to try to get good sound. But ofcourse if can be made smaller then that is a plus.
As i dont have much experince with this kind of speaker i am not sow shure what i can hope to get from these drivers.
But if i could get a f3 around 30-35 hz that whould be great but as i said i dont even not what is possble and still make it sound "good".
Ofcourse i am intrested if you have the possiblity to test tapered TL or ML-TQWT. I tried to read some about it but i have not realy understod the strong points from the different design.
Is there any thing you can say about the good and the bad points from the different designs?
I am thankful for all help you can offer me.
Hi and thanks for you help.pkitt said:
If the width can be keept below 200mm thats good if possible, i am not sow pickey with the size of the thing i just want to try to get good sound. But ofcourse if can be made smaller then that is a plus.
As i dont have much experince with this kind of speaker i am not sow shure what i can hope to get from these drivers.
But if i could get a f3 around 30-35 hz that whould be great but as i said i dont even not what is possble and still make it sound "good".
Ofcourse i am intrested if you have the possiblity to test tapered TL or ML-TQWT. I tried to read some about it but i have not realy understod the strong points from the different design.
Is there any thing you can say about the good and the bad points from the different designs?
I am thankful for all help you can offer me.
The simulation I did was with a mass loaded quarter wave box, not a traditional transmission line.
The design you have now is a traditional transmission line.
If remove the middle divider you will have a mass loaded quarter wave box.
The length I gave was the distance from the top of the box to the floor, without a middle divider.
The 25% dimension is the centerline of the tweeter. I'm assuming you will try to place the drivers as close together as possible.
I would recommend you do a search "Clarity on Seas Thor Kit". Those threads concern themselves with modifying the original Thor. The result was a couple of different variations including a short Thor.
Also read the thread "What's the difference between a TL, a ML-TL and a TQWT?"
The design you have now is a traditional transmission line.
If remove the middle divider you will have a mass loaded quarter wave box.
The length I gave was the distance from the top of the box to the floor, without a middle divider.
The 25% dimension is the centerline of the tweeter. I'm assuming you will try to place the drivers as close together as possible.
I would recommend you do a search "Clarity on Seas Thor Kit". Those threads concern themselves with modifying the original Thor. The result was a couple of different variations including a short Thor.
Also read the thread "What's the difference between a TL, a ML-TL and a TQWT?"
Ok thanks,
The thread "What's the difference between a TL, a ML-TL and a TQWT?" was very good and gave me better understanding about the different designs.
But what i mostly want to try is a classic TL line that have a constant cross section or tapered down.
Is it possible to get down to a f3 around 30-35 Hz with such a design and my drivers??.
I dont mind the size sow much, but if they can be kept below about 20cm wide that is good. But the hight is not a big problem.
Thankfull for any help on this.
The thread "What's the difference between a TL, a ML-TL and a TQWT?" was very good and gave me better understanding about the different designs.
But what i mostly want to try is a classic TL line that have a constant cross section or tapered down.
Is it possible to get down to a f3 around 30-35 Hz with such a design and my drivers??.
I dont mind the size sow much, but if they can be kept below about 20cm wide that is good. But the hight is not a big problem.
Thankfull for any help on this.
Vigo said:
I don't think you can realistically expect an F3 of 30 Hz with these drivers while also keeping the overall response decently smooth, but an F3 in the upper 30's is doable, possibly 35 Hz. Also, a constant cross-section line will almost always have a pretty lumpy response; a tapered line or either an ML-TL or ML-TQWT will typically have a much smoother response. Later today I'll model what you sketched out and also take a look at a tapered TL or ML-TQWT.
I modeled the TL you sketched...
I will attempt to attach the system response curve that resulted from modeling the folded, traditional TL for which you provided your box sketch. If the attachment is visible, the solid red line is the system response. You can see two basic problems with the system response: The first is that the line's resonant frequency is too low for these drivers' Fs and Qts which causes the response to drop off below 100 Hz or so, and the second is the lumpiness in the overall response, a very typical characteristic of a traditional non-tapered line. If the attachment is not there, as I have a hunch it isn't, I'll try again with a different type of attachment.
I will attempt to attach the system response curve that resulted from modeling the folded, traditional TL for which you provided your box sketch. If the attachment is visible, the solid red line is the system response. You can see two basic problems with the system response: The first is that the line's resonant frequency is too low for these drivers' Fs and Qts which causes the response to drop off below 100 Hz or so, and the second is the lumpiness in the overall response, a very typical characteristic of a traditional non-tapered line. If the attachment is not there, as I have a hunch it isn't, I'll try again with a different type of attachment.
Third time a charm?
Cal, thanks for the directions and I hope it works. Vigo, I modeled a tapered TL and an ML-TQWT. A tapered TL will work but the box size would need to be significantly larger than what you sketched to get a decent F3. The ML-TQWT didn't have as good as response as a tapered TL. In the end, an ML-TL will work best and I'll address that in a later post. So, cross your fingers that the attachment showing the system response resulting from your cabinet sketch shows up.
Cal, thanks for the directions and I hope it works. Vigo, I modeled a tapered TL and an ML-TQWT. A tapered TL will work but the box size would need to be significantly larger than what you sketched to get a decent F3. The ML-TQWT didn't have as good as response as a tapered TL. In the end, an ML-TL will work best and I'll address that in a later post. So, cross your fingers that the attachment showing the system response resulting from your cabinet sketch shows up.
Attachments
An ML-TL
Vigo, I modeled an ML-TL and will attach its system response graph. Using the cabinet sketch you provided as a general indicator of an acceptable size, the cabinet I modeled has internal dimensions of 1016 mm high, 200 mm wide and 343 mm deep. The tweeter's center is 25 mm below the top (internally). The mass-loading port, which can be mounted on the baffle or the rear panel, is a slot port located at the very bottom, with a width equal to the cabinet's internal width and a length, including the wall thickness it exits, and a height of 25 mm. The top 575 mm of the cabinet's internal height is stuffed with 455 grams of polyester "pillow" stuffing, or Acousta Stuf, or equivalent. This stuffing is uniformly distributed to obtain a uniform stuffing density of 0.75 lb/cu.ft. (however that converts to metric). In the attached graph, the system response (solid red line) is acceptably smooth, and F3 is around 37 Hz. If you would prefer using a round tube for the mass-loading port, a diameter equivalent to the area of the slot port I suggested would be right at 80 mm, and its center would then need to be about 50 mm from the internal bottom (and still mounted on either the baffle or rear panel. I hope this helps.
Vigo, I modeled an ML-TL and will attach its system response graph. Using the cabinet sketch you provided as a general indicator of an acceptable size, the cabinet I modeled has internal dimensions of 1016 mm high, 200 mm wide and 343 mm deep. The tweeter's center is 25 mm below the top (internally). The mass-loading port, which can be mounted on the baffle or the rear panel, is a slot port located at the very bottom, with a width equal to the cabinet's internal width and a length, including the wall thickness it exits, and a height of 25 mm. The top 575 mm of the cabinet's internal height is stuffed with 455 grams of polyester "pillow" stuffing, or Acousta Stuf, or equivalent. This stuffing is uniformly distributed to obtain a uniform stuffing density of 0.75 lb/cu.ft. (however that converts to metric). In the attached graph, the system response (solid red line) is acceptably smooth, and F3 is around 37 Hz. If you would prefer using a round tube for the mass-loading port, a diameter equivalent to the area of the slot port I suggested would be right at 80 mm, and its center would then need to be about 50 mm from the internal bottom (and still mounted on either the baffle or rear panel. I hope this helps.
Attachments
Oops!
In trying to converse in metric units, I made a mistake. In the ML-TL I modeled, the tweeter's center is located 25 cm (not 25 mm) from the top (internally) of the cabinet. Sorry about that. I don't think I made similar conversion mistakes elsewhere, but you might want to make sure no other dimensions seem wacky.
In trying to converse in metric units, I made a mistake. In the ML-TL I modeled, the tweeter's center is located 25 cm (not 25 mm) from the top (internally) of the cabinet. Sorry about that. I don't think I made similar conversion mistakes elsewhere, but you might want to make sure no other dimensions seem wacky.
Thank you all for all you help with this.
You write that a tapered TL will need a big box to work.
Can you please informe me how big as this is not a big problem for me. Sow please dont think of that skecth it is not anyway the maximum size of the speaker.
The simulation for the ML-TL is very good and helpfull and i will look more in to that to.
I want to look at both designs and then decide witch to go on.
Witch of these designs sounds better, if there is any good answer to that.Or maby what is the differnce in sound is a better question ?
Thankyou all for any help
You write that a tapered TL will need a big box to work.
Can you please informe me how big as this is not a big problem for me. Sow please dont think of that skecth it is not anyway the maximum size of the speaker.
The simulation for the ML-TL is very good and helpfull and i will look more in to that to.
I want to look at both designs and then decide witch to go on.
Witch of these designs sounds better, if there is any good answer to that.Or maby what is the differnce in sound is a better question ?
Thankyou all for any help
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.