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 31st July 2009, 02:42 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Patrick Bateman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego
Quote:
Originally posted by MaVo


You have to take into account that this box uses a 12 inch coaxial driver for mid, so the crossover point will be probably 3 octaves below this 2250hz and thats why the holes wont have much effect.
If that's the case, then my first guess, in post #2 makes sense.

The designer is using a chamber in front of the woofer to roll off the highs, just like a bandpass box.

That's quite clever I think - he's getting the dipole radiation pattern of a dipole, along with the distortion-filtering aspects of a bandpass.

Let's do the math real quick, to see if my hunch is valid.

To figure out the tuning frequency of the chamber, we use this formula:

(2 * fs) / qes

for an Eminence Alpha 15A, that's (82 hz / 1.53 ) = 53.59hz

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/show...number=290-407

And then you tune the backchamber to that frequency.

But there IS NO backchamber. So the Fb of the backchamber is the same as the Fs of the woofer which is...

41hz.

So yeah, looks like this would work. The Fb is off by a third of an octave, but that won't make much of a difference.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2009, 03:42 PM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Indiana
FYI, The specs say the woofers to mid crossover is at 100hz (LR8-DSP active) and the mid to tweet is at 900hz (BW3-passive).
__________________
Dan N.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2009, 03:48 PM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
Godzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New York
>>> The "Aperture Bass Propagation technology" works by impressing the customer with fancy words and by this raising the amount of money he will spend for the speaker. In its own way, this is an impressive technology.

LOL... i don't see where the other driver is?

Godzilla
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2009, 05:05 PM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
Patrick Bateman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego
Quote:
Originally posted by jamikl
I'm at work and can't sim this now. It seems to be the same as a slot loaded box without the box. Could be modelled in Horn response with no rear chamber, front chamber same as speaker volume on inside of cone and surround and a conical horn with maybe 25mm length and no expansion. Might look good until combined response is done for back to front cancellation. I have been looking at slot loading an open baffle myself to keep the directivity higher. As I said, can sometimes look good until the cancellation comes into the sim.
jamikl
I modeled it a different way. I modeled it as if the enclosure was backwards. So there's a ported *rear* chamber, with a six inch port that's one half inch deep. (We don't know the depth, but we can guess.) The volume under the cone should be about 3.3liters. Again, we can only guess. Reducing the volume will change the tuning frequency of the bandpass.

Here's the modeled frequency response.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg alpha2.jpg (38.6 KB, 778 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2009, 05:06 PM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
Patrick Bateman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego
Quote:
Originally posted by jamikl
I'm at work and can't sim this now. It seems to be the same as a slot loaded box without the box. Could be modelled in Horn response with no rear chamber, front chamber same as speaker volume on inside of cone and surround and a conical horn with maybe 25mm length and no expansion. Might look good until combined response is done for back to front cancellation. I have been looking at slot loading an open baffle myself to keep the directivity higher. As I said, can sometimes look good until the cancellation comes into the sim.
jamikl

Here's the parameters I used. Note that the "horn" is actually the cone of the woofer itself. It has a diamter of fifteen inches and a depth of 1.5". I also added a baffle that's 20" wide.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg alpha1.jpg (60.0 KB, 741 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2009, 05:09 PM   #16
diyAudio Member
 
Patrick Bateman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego
Quote:
Originally posted by MaVo


You have to take into account that this box uses a 12 inch coaxial driver for mid, so the crossover point will be probably 3 octaves below this 2250hz and thats why the holes wont have much effect.
I don't know why I didn't think about the obvious reason to use a bandpass chamber in a dipole.

It reduces the excursion!

duh, how did I miss that?

So you tune the front chamber carefully, and you can double or quadruple the power handling, by reducing the excursion.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg alpha3.jpg (32.2 KB, 747 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2009, 05:12 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Patrick Bateman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego
And a schematic of this strange beast. Cone on the right, coupling chamber on the left. The port is is 6" in diameter by 1/2" in depth. (just guessing based on the pics)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg alpha4.jpg (24.0 KB, 783 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2009, 05:23 PM   #18
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Bateman


I don't know why I didn't think about the obvious reason to use a bandpass chamber in a dipole.

It reduces the excursion!

duh, how did I miss that?

So you tune the front chamber carefully, and you can double or quadruple the power handling, by reducing the excursion.
Hey John

I don't follow the cone excursion reduction. With a 100 Hz LP there will be no effect to the excursion below 100 Hz.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2009, 05:46 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
Patrick Bateman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego
Quote:
Originally posted by gedlee


Hey John

I don't follow the cone excursion reduction. With a 100 Hz LP there will be no effect to the excursion below 100 Hz.
There's a 48db/octave electronic filter at 100hz.

But the coupling chamber in front of the woofer forms a physical lowpass. If they tuned it at ((2 * FS) / qes), then the reduction in excursion would occur at 53.59hz.

So that seems quite clever. You get a reduction in excursion at the tuning frequency, a reduction in 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion, and a dipole radiation patterns.

If you're into dipoles, this seems like a serious improvement.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2009, 08:58 AM   #20
cnclld is offline cnclld  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: -
How much does this affect the front response below the xo point versus the rear? I guess that could lead to a very strange radiation pattern (not a dipole).
  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 Physics of Speakers gmu Multi-Way 7 18th July 2009 03:34 AM
Physics question! Nappylady Multi-Way 3 13th May 2005 01:29 AM
PWM amp from 'Power Physics'? IanS Class D 2 13th December 2004 10:31 PM
physics equations slackerbob Multi-Way 22 15th November 2003 11:49 AM
quatum physics help theChris Everything Else 15 1st May 2003 04:41 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:59 AM.


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