Why no Bass? - Page 16 - 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 16th February 2010, 09:17 PM   #151
PB2 is offline PB2  United States
diyAudio Member
 
PB2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North East
Blog Entries: 1
That is a nice cabinet and I'm not questioning your carpentry, but could there be a leak? I hope you didn't leave anything loose while working on it such as the input cup or something?

What does it do when you drive it hard at the tuning frequency? Is the port velocity high, cone motion low? You can check for leaks while doing this since the pressure is high at Fb.

Did you consider an active DSP XO like the Behringer? Then you'd have to triamp, or you could keep the mid to tweeter XO and bi-amp.
It would let you take out room peaks, and extend the bass with EQ but I agree that you should determine if something is wrong first.
__________________
Pete Basel
http://www.linkedin.com/in/petebasel

Last edited by PB2; 16th February 2010 at 09:21 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2010, 09:27 PM   #152
Loren42 is offline Loren42  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: "Space Coast" Florida, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB2 View Post
That is a nice cabinet and I'm not questioning your carpentry, but could there be a leak? I hope you didn't leave anything loose while working on it such as the input cup or something?

What does it do when you drive it hard at the tuning frequency? Is the port velocity high, cone motion low? You can check for leaks while doing this since the pressure is high at Fb.

Did you consider an active DSP XO like the Behringer? Then you'd have to triamp, or you could keep the mid to tweeter XO and bi-amp.
It would let you take out room peaks, and extend the bass with EQ but I agree that you should determine if something is wrong first.
I don't think there is a leak, but it is worth checking for.

I had an active system (tri-amped) with it awhile back, but when I finished building my tube amp I went back to a passive system and upgraded the midrange driver and some cabinet fixes. One tube amp is enough when it costs $1100 in parts.

Yes, my plan is to get the speakers set up correctly first, then at some point we will rearrange the room and we can look into "room treatments" to tame issues with the room. After all that is done I can consider custom EQ to address remaining room and baffle step compensation.

I kind of like to keep things as simple as possible rather than add EQ as a bandaid, but I realize some amount of EQ will be required in the end.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2010, 10:34 PM   #153
PB2 is offline PB2  United States
diyAudio Member
 
PB2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North East
Blog Entries: 1
You could try passive baffle step at line level just to make it easier, but I would agree with your suspicions that something is off given that the step is at such a low frequency. I wonder if you might have a strange cavity resonance going on there - have you measured the woofer near field just to see if there are any large deviations in the passband?

You may have multiple problems which is often the case with a new design, not enough baffle step,
a low bass issue, a few room effects, and perhaps a poorly chosen mid to tweeter crossover point.
Did you consider dropping this to 2 kHz?

You could use an inexpensive SS amp on the low end, refine the design with Digital EQ-XO,
which is very easy to tune, then move back to passive if you believe it is necessary. I'd like to
see 200W/ch on those woofers.

What are some of your test tracks if you don't mind my asking?
__________________
Pete Basel
http://www.linkedin.com/in/petebasel

Last edited by PB2; 16th February 2010 at 10:40 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2010, 10:45 PM   #154
Loren42 is offline Loren42  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: "Space Coast" Florida, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB2 View Post
You could try passive baffle step at line level just to make it easier, but I would agree with your suspicions that something is off given that the step is at such a low frequency. I wonder if you might have a strange cavity resonance going on there - have you measured the woofer near field just to see if there are any large deviations in the passband?

You may have multiple problems which is often the case with a new design, not enough baffle step,
a low bass issue, a few room effects, and perhaps a poorly chosen mid to tweeter crossover point.
Did you consider dropping this to 2 kHz?

You could use an inexpensive SS amp on the low end, refine the design with Digital EQ-XO,
which is very easy to tune, then move back to passive if you believe it is necessary. I'd like to
see 200W/ch on those woofers.

What are some of your test tracks if you don't mind my asking?
Here is a composite of the port and the nearfield of the woofer very, very close to the dust cap:

Click the image to open in full size.

The two plots are not correctly scaled in SPL, but you get the idea...

It is a 3-way, so the lower cross point is 400 Hz and the upper is at 3K Hz.

I think I have a lot of room effects, too.

I don't know what is really a good sample to listen t, I use Shawn Colvin's Polaroids, but most of my work right now is with sine wave sweeps. My intent is to get the ugly peaks and valleys tamed, then work on timber and sound quality once everything is matched up level wise.

Last edited by Loren42; 16th February 2010 at 10:53 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2010, 11:08 PM   #155
PB2 is offline PB2  United States
diyAudio Member
 
PB2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North East
Blog Entries: 1
OK, so the cone output looks reasonable no peaks in the response, notched at the
box resonance, but the port output must be attenuated since the summed output is shelved down.
Also, the peak frequency of the port is a bit high relative to
the notch in the driver output. Have you tried plugging one
port which will tune it much lower? Just to see what happens
to the total output? Might be high due to leakage from the woofer as you
stated earlier.

You might also try stuffing the upper chamber with damping material to reduce the cavity
resonances. There might be a top to bottom transmission line type resonance which will not
behave as a lumped box compliance as seen from the lower end of the box.

BTW - I really like this big beast of a speaker, nice work!
__________________
Pete Basel
http://www.linkedin.com/in/petebasel

Last edited by PB2; 16th February 2010 at 11:14 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2010, 01:06 AM   #156
Loren42 is offline Loren42  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: "Space Coast" Florida, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB2 View Post
OK, so the cone output looks reasonable no peaks in the response, notched at the
box resonance, but the port output must be attenuated since the summed output is shelved down.
Also, the peak frequency of the port is a bit high relative to
the notch in the driver output. Have you tried plugging one
port which will tune it much lower? Just to see what happens
to the total output? Might be high due to leakage from the woofer as you
stated earlier.

You might also try stuffing the upper chamber with damping material to reduce the cavity
resonances. There might be a top to bottom transmission line type resonance which will not
behave as a lumped box compliance as seen from the lower end of the box.

BTW - I really like this big beast of a speaker, nice work!
"but the port output must be attenuated since the summed output is shelved down."

Well, that is the big question. How do I determine if this is true or false? The problem is idiopathic in that it is so hard to determine what is room artifact and what is deficiencies in the speaker system.

I can work the problem holistically, but it is better to know where the source of he problem lies, so I keep trying to unlock clues with the speaker first.

As for the possible cavity resonance, do you feel I should add additional layers of stuffing over the walls?

Thank you for your compliments. I like large speakers (as does my girlfriend) and the original design (shape) was one of my first speaker builds in high school when I did not have a clue as to what I was doing.

It still has the basic dimensions of the first build, but I sculpted the mid and tweeter section as you see it now.

This is a rendering of the first cabinet built many, many years ago. The woofer was a JBL D140 mated with some crapy tweeter made by AR.

Click the image to open in full size.

The port was a slot at the cabinet bass and the two 2X3s that acted as legs also worked as a ducted port. None of this was done very scientifically and I don't remember where the tuning was for the cabinet. T/S parameters were only just getting developed back then!

Last edited by Loren42; 17th February 2010 at 01:09 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2010, 01:22 AM   #157
PB2 is offline PB2  United States
diyAudio Member
 
PB2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North East
Blog Entries: 1
Here is a link to Don Keele's original paper on the near field measurement method. Note that his measurement of a vented system shown in Figures 12 - 14 provides excellent agreement with theory. The system was similar to your situation in that the woofer was a 15" and the port was very close. The article also tells how to scale the port and cone output by area:
http://www.xlrtechs.com/dbkeele.com/...ld%20Paper.pdf

You should be able to use nearfield measurements properly scaled, and outdoor ground plane measurements for a half space measurement.
You would normally bury it in the ground for a perfect half space measurement but sitting on the ground should be good enough below 100 Hz.
__________________
Pete Basel
http://www.linkedin.com/in/petebasel

Last edited by PB2; 17th February 2010 at 01:30 AM.
  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
Dipole bass or Ripole Bass? MJL21193 Subwoofers 13 15th September 2008 08:42 AM
any electric bass players? im building a bass guitar cab KOA Instruments and Amps 27 30th April 2007 04:49 PM
Wow ! Bass from no bass ....! ashok Subwoofers 14 15th November 2006 11:59 PM
DBA (dual bass arrays) and active bass traps capslock Subwoofers 3 20th August 2006 01:52 PM
For all Bass Junkies out there (Behringer Bass processor usage report) VEC7OR Digital Line Level 5 27th October 2003 10:18 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:56 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