Enclosure for a Peerless XLS10 needed.

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

I hope some nice person can help me out.
I just bought a Peerless XLS 10 from Bk electronics for £89 (the cheapest I have seen it for over here :) ).
Any way I need a box to put it in and since i dont know much about speaker design i thought I would see if any one on this forum had any designs or web addresses of where I could find one.

I am not botherd if the design is sealed or ported but i want to stay away from the passive radiator because that will cost me another £70-£80.

The sub will be used for home theater using the sub out on the surround reciever and powered by Rod Elliots 300W sub amp.

I hope someone can help

thank you
Mark.:)
 

GM

Member
Joined 2003
You don't say which XLS 10, and the car audio one actually sims marginally better, though neither are really suitable for HT. The car one due to a high Fs and the home version due to extremely low Qts. Also, both require extremely long vents and why the PRs are recommended. A Daline type cab can be designed for both versions to take advantage of the long vent, but it's more complex to build and will require fine tuning.

So, which one do you have?

GM
 
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
Joined 2001
For those looking for the Thiele-Small parameters, here they are from the Peerless web page. This is the "5/8 ohm" version, meant for home. The car version is the "2/4 ohm" version or some such. Basically, the car version is a 2 ohm, the home version is a 4 ohm.

This is the home version.
 

Attachments

  • peerless xls 10 in 8 ohm.gif
    peerless xls 10 in 8 ohm.gif
    9.7 KB · Views: 1,548
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
Joined 2001
As I read about Dalines, the thought occurs to me that the Peerless XLS series would be excellent for one. That is because they seem to work well with low Qts woofers, which the Peerless XLS certainly seems to be.

What is a Daline? It is a combination of Transmission Line and Ported system where the port is so long that it becomes a Transmission Line itself. The port takes up about 2/3 the volume of the whole cabinet-volume of air behind the speaker is about 1/3 the total volume. In other words,instead of putting the speaker at one end of a long tube, (Transmission Line), or a large box with a small port, (Bass Reflex or Ported), you put the speaker into a specially designed small enclosure with a long, large port. When well designed, you get the benefit of both Ported and Transmission Line action.

Our own member Martin J King has made simulation software for our use. However, he bases the simulation software on a program called MathCAD. Although the simulation software works with the freeware MathCAD demo, I am personally having difficulty "getting the hang" of it. However, you might get somebody on here who knows how to use the software to model it for you.
 

GM

Member
Joined 2003
Hi,

I did not know there was more than one type of XLS 10, well any way the part number on its back is 830452.

I am willing to try any enclosure as long as its not huge.
what is a Daline type cab?

thanks for the help.
Mark.

====

Evening,

I didn't either until I went searching for specs. Anyway, you have the low Fs/low Q one so the little Solen cab is about the best you can do WRT LF extension, with a simmed acoustic F3 = ~55Hz/~30Hz Fb.

A Daline is basically a slightly oversized max flat vented alignment with a long vent to tune it much lower than normal, so only is applicable with low Q, and preferably low Vas, drivers.

With a Daline type cab tuned to 30Hz, the FR is a bit flatter than the sealed, with a faster roll off to a ~50Hz F3, but the tradeoff is less output below F3 with decreasing frequency. Not good for HT or music.

Oversizing the Daline yields a ~40hz F3, with more efficiency to ~30Hz, but the roll off still puts it several dB down at 20Hz Vs the sealed. Still, it if will perform as predicted, it looks like a good compromise.

These are just initial sims in BoxPlot to get the numbers to plug into Mathcad though, so let me know if you'd rather go this route than the sealed and I'll run the final sims for construction dims.

GM
 
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
Joined 2001
What Oris was referring to was the folded dipole Phoenix speaker on the web page of Siegfried Linkwitz, who is a renowned audio engineer, (even has a kind of crossover type half-named after him, the Linkwitz-Riley type, so famous you will sometimes see DIYers refer to their crossovers as "LR 4th order").

The driver Linkwitz used for this folded dipole is the 12 inch version of your speaker, the 830500. Also, Linkwitz makes it clear that this is only the third best woofer for this box.

However, Linkwitz does recommend the Peerless XLS, and the fact is, the 10" Kram owns has very similar Thiele-Small specs to the 12" version, so I see no reason it should not work just as well. Just adjust the cutouts for the 10" version and you should be fine.

Here is the page where Linkwitz shows the box in question:
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/woofer.htm

Here is the page where he shows the performance of the XLS woofer in question. The 10" XLS should be very close to this:
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/woofer3.htm
 
Actually, the Peerless 830500 is Siegfried's first choice for use in the dipole baffle of the Phoenix system. The Shiva woofer http://www.linkwitzlab.com/woofer2.htm being unsuitable and the Madisound 1252DVC woofer http://www.linkwitzlab.com/woofer.htm being no longer available. This usage has completely different requirements than the box system contemplated here.

I see no reason why the 10" version of this driver 830452 can't be used successfully in a sealed box of moderate size with good results. The low Qts is indicative of a very strong motor, and installation into a sealed box is the preferred usage for this driver. I just ran the simulation and a 28 liter enclosure yields a system Q in the neighborhood of 0.5. Nearly optimal IMHO.

You may be interested in the Thor design page which contains excellent information on a sealed box example using an 830500. There is much generic information here that can be used when designing/constructing/equalizing sealed boxes for different drivers.

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/thor-intro.htm

Cheers,

Davey.
 
Hello everyone,

The Phoenix looks good but it needs two drivers and I cant afford two unfortunately:(

The Solen cab looks easy to build and its quite compact too.

The Daline looks like a good contender but it sounds like it would be quite complex to build and as this is my first attempt at building a case I might have to leave it to when my construction skills have improved.

So if anyone has any objections I think I will give the Solen a try first. You have all got untill the weekend when i will be buying the MDF to change my mind:)

Oh, and thanks kelticwizard for the explination of a Daline.

Speak to you all later
Mark.
 
Im about to order two of those too to replace my 850146's. I did some simluating with the XLS in LSPcad too good result. I knew that they were very low QTS therefore tiny box but high f3. I applied some EQ and got an f3 of 40hz with 9db roll off per octave. This is a sealed enclosure of 20 litres. Comparing to the 850146, both drivers will exceed xmax at roughly the same power input and will play at about the same level. The whole point of this for me is the smalled enclosure and lower distortion. As I dont play the 850's too thier limits anyway.

Directly in a 20l box as peerless states you will get an F3 of about 100hz, not ideal for HT. If you can add a filter section to the plateamp you could go sealed with EQ. However you wont get huge huge SPL at 20hz. I shall wait and see what happens when mine arrive.

A Q of 0.5 in a 28 litre box? I get a Q of 0.5 in a 11.5 litre box?

Ive just got LSPcad pro and am still figuring out how to use all of its functionality. However all the driver specs are input correcly and you cant go much wrong with a sealed cab??
 
Here's a link to a dutch HT forum: http://www.htforum.nl/yabbse/index.php?board=24;action=display;threadid=6787;view=all

Now I know that most of you don't understand any dutch, but the pictures really do say a lot.

after some pictures, the poster (Sullivan) gives a few measurements:


voor-, binnen-, achterkant (hxb): 60 x 30 = front, side, back

voorkant voor doek (hxb): 62,5 x 32,5 (9 mm) front for cloth

zijkanten (hxd): 64,4 x 32,5 = sides

boven-, onderkant (bxd): 30 x 32,5 = top and bottom

tussenschotten (bxd): 30 x 8 = studs

All measurements are in cm, so divide by 2.54 for inches..

Hope this helps.

If you need eny help in translating (some) of this posting, feel free to contact me.

Cheers,

ReSiStAnCe.
 
Looks like I get the same as you there then. For a Q of 0.5 with the 830452, I get 11.49 litres with the same parameters as you gave.

I just thought that the whole thread was about the 452 as thats the driver in question by the 1st poster. Got a lil confused at the 0.5 Q with this driver? Must have mis read something, ah yes I see its the 500 that was mentioned. Up till this moment I never knew the different part numbers, so I assumed the driver was the 10". Ok well looks like I am doing everything OK then with LSPcad.

Cheers for clarification.

Matt
 
Hi Mark,

I've used the XLS series before. They are some excellent devices. But the only way you'll really get to implement them is by using a passive radiator. Port sizes to get airspeed low are just way, way too long for the tiny enclosure volumes involved here.

See my homepage at http://www.geocities.com/adrian_mack/homepage.html for details on both an XLS 10" and XLS 12" built and tested design.

"5th Element" is on the right track here about the EQ. Since plate amps are used widely on DIY subwoofers like these, then applying EQ is no problem as most of these amps already include some form of EQ circuit - wheather parametric, or high Q highpass filter.

It sounds like your on quite a budget, so you can actually use just one 10" passive radiator for now, Peerless model 830481. Then in the future its easy to cut another hole to add in a second. Doing testing on a unit like this showed that using one passive only in this design made it bottom out a bit easier on test tones, but on most music using one passive radiator was fine. Using two is a good way to lower compression though and increase power handling, so I prefer this option.

You need to use 30L box volume with this driver. If your using a single 830481 passive radiator, then add no extra mass at all as its 400g Mms tunes it to the correct frequency already in this box volume. Set the two pole highpass filter in the plate amp (typically modified by changing two resistors on the preamp board on parts express plate amps, stryke audio's, etc) so that Q=1.59 corresponding to +4db boost at 24Hz. It'll also provide subsonic protection for your driver below this frequency. Make sure you use corner placement, or at least place the subwoofer near to a wall to maximize your gain. You'll be flat to around 20Hz after doing this, depending on your room. If your using two 830481 passive radiators with this, then you'll need to add 300g of mass to each PR to tune it to the correct frequency.

Sealed box is definitly not an option for this driver, the Qts is way too low. Excursion at low frequencies is already way high on a box like this, and applying EQ will run you out of xmax very quickly.

Anyway, you'll achieve great results using the alignment suggested above. You've choosen an excellent part, and it'll result in a very satisfying subwoofer when used properly. But you really do need the passive radiators.

Adrian
 
Hmmmm about excursion problems with the 10", I did simulate with the driver and I got the same SPL out of it as I did a 850146 when both in a sealed boxes. Both of them bottoming at the same level roughly. However this wasnt flat down to 20hz, this was with an f3 of 40hz, which is slightly better then the 850146 which goes plenty deep enough anyway for my needs. I am not going to play any movies really whatsoever or if I do its only a couple and that wont be at outrageous levels. So for music I would imagine the 10" would be fine. I mean I using them as bass drivers crossed at about 150hz, so I use two of them anyway. Two XLS10" in a 3.5*4 meter room not gonna have a lack of bass. Oh and the 850146 dont boom in the least in the room so thats not a problem to consider.

If you do add EQ to get it flat at 20Hz sealed though you do run out of excursion WAY TO FAST!!!!!! seriously dont even consider this!!! If I wanted to get to 20hz I wouldnt even do sealed. Because im only doing music Im sticking with sealed. If I dont like it however Ill get two radiators!. No point in buying them if I dont need them.

Regards Matt
Matt
 
Hi Matt

The CSX 10" does go lower than the XLS 10" in a sealed box. Though I highly suggest that a ported or passive radiator box be used for both.

The CSX 10" in a Qtc=0.707 sealed enclosure results in a pretty high -3db point, its about 46Hz. But throw it into a vented box, and you'll get an F3 of 30Hz in a box volume of 80L and tuned at 22Hz. Excursion is also dramatically reduced in the critical resonance region, so distortion is reduced and power handling goes up.

But the XLS 10" is in a much worse position for a sealed box. A Qtc=0.707 alignment gives an F3 of nearly 80Hz with this driver. Way too high. No amount of room gain is going to correct for this to give even at least 40Hz bass extension. The "lift" just isn't there yet at frequencies this high. Compared to a 30L passive radiator box with no EQ, the sealed alignment needs over 12db of boost to match the PR enclosure having no EQ. Since the PR box needs around +4db boost, then the sealed box needs 16db more in the bottom octave to reach the same amplitude level. And with that amount of EQ - excursion is going to be eaten up very fast, as you say. The XLS series just wasn't designed for sealed enclosures. You need to look for some drivers with a little higher Qts if you want any bass from the sealed box. I like vented boxes more too, both academically, and I tend to find they sound better too when they are properly tuned.

I'd look to cross the subwoofer over at 100Hz or less, unless your using it as part of a multi-way system, and you have the midrange and HF drivers mounted on the same baffle as it and in close proximity to each other. But if you don't, then 150Hz is just too high. Subwoofers are limited to below ~100Hz operation because these frequencies are non-directional. But once you start moving up from here, frequencies become easier and easier to locate. Having a subwoofer located several feet away from the main speakers and operating up to 150Hz will introduce a large multi-cycle shift between itself and the next contiguous subsystem which is audible.

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