TC11 specs differs from measured data! Please confirm! - 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 25th February 2004, 09:21 PM   #1
sobazz is offline sobazz  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
sobazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Jutland
Default TC11 specs differs from measured data! Please confirm!

After finally putting a measurement setup for Speaker Workshop together, the result surprises me. Please look at the graphs below.

The Vifa TC11SG49-08 is surposed to have a resonance frequency in free air of 60hz. I measured 74-75hz:

Click the image to open in full size.


And the simulated response in a 3.5L ported box using Vifas specs showed gave me a Fb of approx 68hz. The measurements show an Fb of 57hz!

Click the image to open in full size.


Vifa's response graph and specs can be found here.

Can anyone confirm my measurements?
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2004, 10:12 PM   #2
Svante is offline Svante  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Svante's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stockholm
Ahh, so here were the curves that I called for in the other thread.

Fb is the position of the "valley" in the impedance curve. It is *a bit* hard to read the frequency from the graph, but you may be right. Now Fb is *not* affected by the driver. It is only affected by the box helmholtz resonance. So, you are left with two possibilities, the port dimensions are wrong or the acoustic volume of the box is wrong. You say that Vifa has suggested the dimensions. Is the port circular/rectangular? This may change the amount of co-oscillating air a bit. Do you use stuffing inside the box? That can make the box appear larger. Could you describe these details, and possibly also a photo?
The high Fs is suspicious, though. I'd suspect the drivers are faulty in some way, unless you have problems in your measurement setup. Are the impedances measured with sine sweeps? Could they be out of sync in some way?
__________________
Simulate loudspeakers: Basta!
Simulate the baffle step: The Edge
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2004, 12:50 AM   #3
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Two things about the resonant frequency: first, manufacturer's specs are often not representative. Second, a lot of things can shift fs around, like mechanical break-in and temperature. And I assume you have the driver well clamped?

If you haven't broken in the driver yet, run a low frequency sine wave through it at a sufficient level to cause excursion through around half of Xmax. Leave it running overnight. Let the driver relax for a while, then remeasure.

Finally, the absolute value of fs isn't as important as the interrelationship with the other T-S parameters.
__________________
The more you pay for it, the less inclined you are to doubt it.- George Smiley
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2004, 05:21 AM   #4
Svante is offline Svante  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Svante's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stockholm
Quote:
Originally posted by SY

Finally, the absolute value of fs isn't as important as the interrelationship with the other T-S parameters.
Disagree, 75 Hz instead of 60 Hz is too much of a difference.
__________________
Simulate loudspeakers: Basta!
Simulate the baffle step: The Edge
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2004, 05:51 AM   #5
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Well, that will depend on what value you get for Qts and Vas, too. As long as fs/Qts isn't too different than spec, nor is fs2Vas, you can still work with the driver.

In Dickason's LDC, he gives the example of two nominally identical drivers with an fs spread even bigger (relatively), driver 1 having fs = 31.5, Qts = 0.45, Vas = 2.97 cu ft; driver 2 having fs = 38 Hz, Qts = 0.54, Vas = 1.92 cu ft. For this example, with a target Qtc = 1.0, the optimum box volume is 0.75 cu ft for driver 1 and 0.79 cu ft for driver 2- not very different. More importantly, the spread in fc is minimal, 69.9 and 70.4 Hz respectively.

You can plug these parameters into the vented box alignment tables and come up with similarly similar results. For example, in a BB4 alignment with QL = 7, driver 1 gives an f3 of 31.3 Hz, driver 2 gives an f3 of 33 Hz. Not too different, I'd say.

So, yes, that variation in fs may be too great, but it may not be, depending on the other measured T-S parameters and the willingness to adjust box volume and tuning. And that difference may be illusory if the driver was not broken in or clamped down well.
__________________
The more you pay for it, the less inclined you are to doubt it.- George Smiley
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2004, 02:37 PM   #6
sobazz is offline sobazz  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
sobazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Jutland
Svante: The measured Fb is not the thing that bugs me the most. The boxes may be slighty larger than originally simulated due to several things, such as no crossover taking up space and a fairly big margin. The port is probably a bit smaller than it's supposed to be. It's not a problem - I can always adjust the port length. The box is stuffed, but I was of the impression that stuffing in a vented box doesn't alter the aparent size significantly.

No problem here, really.

Svante and SY: The free air response still puzzles me. The setup is rather improvised but no matter how the driver is mounted - downfiring, upfiring etc. - or not mouted at all, the impedance varies within a couple of hz at the resonance point. I don't think clamping the driver will change the result as much as 14hz considering what written above.

I cannot post pictures of the box/setup, sorry. I don't have a digital camera.

EDIT: BTW, the drivers are breaked in. They speakers have been used for a couple of months, but I have not until now had the opertunity to measure the drivers' electrical properties nor the acoustics response.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2004, 02:47 PM   #7
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Thanls for clarifying. The one point I harp on again and again is that one must always measure the actual drivers on hand and not rely on datasheets. Your experience here is a shining example of why my obsession is not unreasonable.

Nonetheless, I'd still move on and get Vas and Qts to see if the driver will still give the same results as the spec sheet driver for your chosen alignment.
__________________
The more you pay for it, the less inclined you are to doubt it.- George Smiley
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2004, 03:00 PM   #8
sobazz is offline sobazz  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
sobazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Jutland
Yes, and I will do that shortly.... whenever I get around to installing the usual office stuff.... just reinstalled WindowsXP... Claudio Negro has a very nice spread sheet for calculating driver parameters based on electrical measurements in Speaker Workshop.

Thank you both for your help.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2004, 05:53 PM   #9
claudio is offline claudio  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
claudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Italy
Default Effects of absorving mat

Hello,
here http://home.hccnet.nl/ine.dick/p9.html you can see some results of the influence of the amount of absorption in the box, closed and vented.

Claudio
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2004, 05:59 PM   #10
sobazz is offline sobazz  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
sobazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Jutland
Thanks Claudio. Good reading. The effect is much greater, than I thought it would be.
  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
Replacement surround differs from original... Will it work? harmonic Multi-Way 0 16th November 2006 04:55 AM
how a solid state amplifier differs from a subwoofer amp araven Solid State 3 24th October 2006 09:13 PM
Same-type BJTs w. different Vce -- what differs? Christer Parts 15 21st March 2004 10:24 PM
Can somebody confirm this calculation? Eton Multi-Way 2 12th December 2003 06:16 AM
Fred D... can you confirm this... MWP Digital Source 3 24th May 2003 06:31 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:42 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