Aperiodic enclosure for TAD 1603 - 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 2nd July 2013, 04:30 PM   #11
GM is online now GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrlco View Post
In Dec 2005 GM wrote the following regarding aperiodic (AP) designs: "When used as originally intended, among other things it allows smaller/shorter vents in alignments that will benefit from it. F3/Qtb goes down and you wind with what is essentially a ~low Q sealed alignment above Fb with gain. Indeed, if a LspCad Pro sim is to be believed, then my 'critically damped' 20 ft^3/~16 Hz Fb EBS 'subs' have a slightly lower GD in the audible passband than an IB. For sure, they have much more gain down low where it counts and even corner loaded only elicits other's observations of 'life-like'/tight/etc. performance."

This seemed exactly what I was after so I started studying all I could find on AP, which unfortunately was not much. Recently I heard a pair of Shindo Latour speakers that claimed to be AP designs from Japan. They were very revealing and among the most natural and dynamic non-horn speakers I have ever heard.

I own a pair of TAD 1603s currently in BR enclosures designed by George Augspurger as recording studio monitors. They are very good, but lack the dynamics and scale I would like in my 16'x26'x10' listening space.

The TS figures for the TAD 1603s are as follows: Vas: 10.73 cu.ft.; Fs: 28 Hz; Qts: .342; Qms: 6.8; Qes: .36; Re: 6.6 ohm; Sd: 881 sq. cm; 85 gram cone wt.

I have come up with a box design with internal dimensions of 30"x20.5"x42.640625" equaling 15.17591689 cu.ft. volume. The ducts, 6 of them, would each be 2.5"x9"x 2" in length exiting the bottom of the box which would be standing on 2.5" legs. Tuning would be slightly less than Fs, or should it be calculated at .7072xFs and the ducts made longer?

I am interested in any and all reactions to this design and changes which you might think appropriate.
How did you arrive at this alignment? To the 1st approximation it is tuned to 60+ Hz, so damping will only begin rolling it off somewhat above this ‘knee’ point as damping is increased.

Even if it’s made as a 54” long continuous perimeter vent it will still be tuned 40+ Hz, so the vents must be made much longer like is typical for an Onken alignment to get down into the 20s.

Referring back to my post, the implication is you don’t even need a low mach T/S vent much less an Av = Sd one, especially one divided up into a bunch of small ones that only make them longer since the plan here is to stuff them to ‘taste’, not rely on their friction and sheer combined air mass resonant ‘slugs’ as the Onken’s does.

Note too that ‘buried’ in my response is the fact that my ‘EBS’ alignment [and any I’ve recommended to others] is in some form of MLTL, which shortens the vent required, so for a given vent length it can be larger if desired.

FWIW, beginning at this post, here’s one man’s take on how to achieve your goal: Altec Lansing

WRT tuning choices, the 1603’s published Qts + connection wire resistance is high enough for a Fs tuning, but a passive XO and/or a high output impedance amp will shift it down to below Fs, so how much added series resistance will be in the signal chain and how accurate are the published specs?

If this isn’t known, then tuning to Fs and using either some form of adjustable vent or varying stuffing density in both the vent and cab may be the ‘safe’ choice.

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2013, 03:22 PM   #12
wrlco is offline wrlco  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: LA
OK,GM, I lost my mind. Let's start again. How about an internal Vb of 18,542.78125 cu. ins. and a Vb of 27.86 Hz. Internal dimensions would be 35.796875"x28"x18.5". There would 2 vents across the front, each 1.5"x11.75" and 2 vents on each side, each 1.5"x7". Lv would be between 4.66" and 5.1515" including Auspurger correction. Total Sd of vents is 77.25 sq. ins.
My other figures were based on a box for an Altec 416-8, sorry about that. too much computer time and not enough sleep for a 76-year old. Does this new set of figures seem more appropriate for the TAD 1603?
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2013, 02:18 AM   #13
GM is online now GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Hmm, ~10.73 ft^3 with one pair of vents larger than the other two pair means that they will have different tunings for a given length, so will spread out/average the tuning [Fb] a bit.

For a 1st approximation then, I can only average them to [6] ~1.5” x 8.5833” vents = a ~21+” vent length, which includes a certain amount of end correction and heavy damping to get to 27.86 Hz, so with no other info I have to conclude that your vents will be too short.

Again, not familiar with GA’s vent design routine AFAIK, but knowing his TL work is ~spot on, hence the likelihood of his vent design being just as accurate, I’m wondering if you’re using it correctly and/or not posting all the pertinent details.

Again, for semi to ~aperiodic alignments, much less vent area is required compared to a low vent mach T/S reflex and the only way short of a long TL cab I know of to get the vent length reasonably short.

Yeah, know the feeling well, I’m ‘only’ ~67, but have suffered from chronic sleep deprivation for as long as I can remember, though only in recent years has it been obviously affecting my ability to do things.

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2013, 06:53 PM   #14
wrlco is offline wrlco  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: LA
Thanks, GM.
If I have understood GA's vent correction it is as follows for a rectangular vent:the 4th root of the ratio of vent dimensions (larger number divided by smaller number times times 1.13 times the smaller dimension. The answer is then adjusted for the number of vents (4th root of the number of vents times the previous correction) So if the vent is 1.5"x8.5833 the correction would be 2.6216"times the 4th root of 6 vents or a total of 4.103".]
If the Sd of a single vent is 12.875 sq. ins. then using the formula Lv=(1.463*10^7*r^2/Fb^2*Vb)- 1.463*r, I get a corrected vent length of 5.30741". What am I doing wrong?
Best regards,
Bill
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2013, 04:04 AM   #15
GM is online now GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
You're welcome!

Hmm, math is for the most part is a foreign language to me, so not sure what the formula looks like, but if I’m understanding you, you’re shortening the vents for multiples when the reverse is true due to increasing frictional losses with increasing number of vents. Also, the basic Lv formula has an end correction [-1.463*r], so sounds like you’re ‘double dipping’, compounding the error.

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2013, 05:18 PM   #16
wrlco is offline wrlco  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: LA
GM
Actually the formula lengthens the vents. By my math, though it may be suspect, your design vent of 12.875 sq. ins. would have an Augspurger correction that adds 4.103 inches to the standard length formula. Could you explain how you arrived at the 21+ inch length? I'm wondering if you are using a different formula then the one I used per #14 or am I executing it incorrectly?
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2013, 04:12 AM   #17
GM is online now GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Oh well, shows how little I understood your explanation, so please either post the math or PM it to me.

As I noted, mine is just a 1st approximation using WinISD Pro to get the multiple vent’s basic length, end correction for a rectangular vent. The actual length will be a bit shorter due to local boundary conditions, though there’s no program available to get it really close AFAIK.

When I convert it to a single large round vent tuned to 27.86 Hz using proven math, it’s 16.25” long and adding GA’s end correction for [6] ups it to 20.35”, so for now, WinISD’s calculation could be the more accurate of the two for all I know, though I would be very surprised.

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2013, 08:37 PM   #18
wrlco is offline wrlco  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: LA
Hi GM
Is the single vent mentioned in your last entry derived from the 12.875 sq. in vent or is it larger? What is the radius? I would like to try it using the math I have and try to figure out why we are so far apart.
Best regards,
Bill
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th July 2013, 05:30 AM   #19
GM is online now GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Greets!

"For a 1st approximation then, I can only average them to [6] ~1.5” x 8.5833” vents......." = 6*12.87495"^2 = 77.2497”^2 = ~9.91753” dia. is what I used.

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th July 2013, 07:01 PM   #20
wrlco is offline wrlco  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: LA
Hi GM
I see the difference now. I have been using the diameter of one vent with an Sd of
12.875 sq. ins.= 4.04882 ins. That gives me a design Lv=1.204444 ins., plus an Augspurger correction of 2.62156 ins. times 1.5650845 (correction for 6 vents).= a total Lv = 5.30741 ins.
Augspurger specifically calls for calculating a single rectangular vent Lv correction and then multplying by a correction for multiple vents. That led me to believe that it is the volume of the individual vent that is the basis for the 27.86 Hertz resonant tuning, whereas you seem to be saying that the multiple vents should be lumped and the calculation for Lv made for a summed Sd of all vents. Am I correct in that asumption? If yes, perhaps you would not mind explaining further so that I understand the theory.
  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
Ported box for TAD Tl 1603 ? Calculation help matsj Subwoofers 26 24th December 2009 07:32 PM
TAD TL-1603 in Onken Cabinet ? matsj Multi-Way 9 28th August 2008 06:12 PM
Tad 1603 speaker frames. dannyr Swap Meet 0 8th May 2007 03:28 AM
How do I design an aperiodic sub enclosure? zobsky Subwoofers 9 19th December 2005 04:34 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:03 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