Ripole question - 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 26th October 2013, 12:17 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norway
Default Ripole question

Ripoles are based on chambers loading the driver, thus changing the impedance of the speaker. This inter alia give a higher system Q and lowers the fc.

But is the ripole based on front and back chambers have symetric loading, ie that the normally bigger back chambers are due to driver and magnet are taking up room in the back chamber, while cone profile actually makes the front chamber bigger (-> expanding into the back chamber)?
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2013, 02:54 AM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dallas
Ripole answer: Don't, just don't...

After you have ignored good advice and built one anyway,
can salvage your wasted effort by adding a large baffle.
Might look to Nelson Pass's slot loaded baffle for example.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2013, 10:23 AM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norway
I know efficency is not the best with a ripole, but my room is not very big, and I have two 18" per side loaded with 1500 watt (per side) so it should be loud enough.

(I presume efficency at i.e. 35 hz is identical with Mr. Pass' slot loaded bass?)
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2013, 03:47 PM   #4
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiodidakt View Post
But is the ripole based on front and back chambers have symetric loading, ie that the normally bigger back chambers are due to driver and magnet are taking up room in the back chamber, while cone profile actually makes the front chamber bigger (-> expanding into the back chamber)?
I haven't seen it mentioned particularly in the patent, but most ripoles seem to have that volume exchange making the chamber loads more symmetric. Still you have an "extra" side volume in one chamber and an "extra" obstacle in the other. I don't think that you need to turn special attention to it - it just happens that way.
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2013, 04:19 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Quote:
my room is not very big, and I have two 18" per side loaded with 1500 watt (per side)
Have you had your ears (or your sanity) checked lately?! Why would that kind power be necessary even for very inefficient drivers? My system has 7" woofers (one for each channel) driven by about 60 watts per channel and will vibrate floors and rattle windows quite well. Maybe your goal is to compormise the structural integrity of the building you live in? I'm just wondering.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2013, 04:35 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norway
Thanks Rudolf!

Micheal; Although dipoles are very powerhungry when (a lot of) eq is applied in the bass-region, I hopefully will have some head-room with 1500 w per side ;-) better with too much than too little.

In the midrange region I have 120 watt per side available, but will probably not use more than half :-)
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2013, 02:00 AM   #7
Sjef is offline Sjef  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Bean View Post
Have you had your ears (or your sanity) checked lately?! Why would that kind power be necessary even for very inefficient drivers? My system has 7" woofers (one for each channel) driven by about 60 watts per channel and will vibrate floors and rattle windows quite well. Maybe your goal is to compormise the structural integrity of the building you live in? I'm just wondering.

Mike
Offcoarse, any 7" woofer in an average living room can shake floors and windows. But that's not an indication of quality, just an indication of quantity in the resonance region of your floor and windows, nothing more than that I'm afraid. Quality wise a 7" woofer simply cannot be compared to one or double 12" to 18" woofers in the lower region. Nothing beats square inches in that department. In my experience a 15" woofer with a sufficient motor assembly will work much much better even at whisper volumes then any 7" woofer ever manufactured. IMHO truly highend fullrange sound simply cannot be done with some 7" woofers. It will always hit a performance ceiling pretty soon and the only way to get around it is ditch to the small woofers. Offcoarse it can sound impressive at first with lot's of bass from such a small woofer but that's only quantity, not real live quality. Heard so many examples of it, all the fullrange minimonitor/bookshelf sized loudspeakers suffer from this, no exception. At least none I have ever heard in the last 30 years. Just a matter of physics, nothing more than that. You can not fool nature. for real bass a 12" woofer is the minimum.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2013, 02:44 AM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dallas
Not to worry. Its a ripole, it won't be making any bass...
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2013, 09:57 AM   #9
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
^
Mine does Using it in the near field. It goes down to 20Hz flat.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2013, 01:19 PM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Quote:
Quote:
Offcoarse, any 7" woofer in an average living room can shake floors and windows. But that's not an indication of quality, just an indication of quantity in the resonance region of your floor and windows, nothing more than that I'm afraid.
Did you sneek into my house and check out my stereo while I wasn't looking? If you didn't, how can you be so confident that my woofers are lacking "quality?" In fact they are tuned to 40Hz with a .5 damping factor, and in fact, many who have heard it are impressed by how nice they sound. I've somehow managed to learn a thing or two about speaker building over the past 40+ years I've been doing this.
The point I was trying to make was that four 18 inch drivers being driven with 3000 watts in a SMALL room is lunacy, and I will stand by that statement. I'm very concerned about folks today with access to mega-watt amps connected to multiple drivers in small spaces damaging or outright destroying thier hearing. I'm pretty lucky after spending many years of my youth playing in a "garage band" (we obviously never "made it") that my own hearing came through relativly unscathed. Many of my friends' hearing didn't. Not a day goes by that I don't hear a virtual parade of fools going down my formally quiet residential street with thier boom-boom-one-note-bass crap, and all I can think about is how much they are damaging thier own hearing while annoying the hell out of everyone else.

Mike
  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
Ripole cavity resonance question bvan Planars & Exotics 8 8th August 2013 05:27 PM
Ripole sub design? mpa Subwoofers 4 29th December 2012 01:19 PM
Need help with ripole DBog Subwoofers 2 19th August 2012 01:46 AM
How do you model a Ripole sub? markusA Subwoofers 10 16th June 2011 02:58 AM
My Ripole Project zobsky Subwoofers 120 6th November 2009 03:46 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:42 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