A roast requested on my TQWT design - 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 March 2004, 02:36 AM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chicago area
Default A roast requested on my TQWT design

I started off thinking I was going to whip out a quick clone of the Cain and Cain Abby TQWT's w/ FE166E drivers to use with my new SET gear but as always the plan got twisted a bit. Please take a look at the picture and let me know what you think about....

1. Using multiple vent holes vs. a single vent
2. Curved front baffle, I will use 2" spikes to hold the ends out forming an arc.
3. The design in general


note* the overall length of the arc baffle will be 10" shorter than the enclosure, the picture is just a mock-up baffle.

link to more pics: http://www.msnusers.com/Dymaxionsubdesign/shoebox.msnw


Thx, C.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg tqwt.jpg (50.9 KB, 469 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2004, 02:49 AM   #2
MJK is offline MJK  United States
Account disabled at member's request
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Clifton Park, NY
Hi Christof,

Quote:
1. Using multiple vent holes vs. a single vent
Why?

Quote:
2. Curved front baffle, I will use 2" spikes to hold the ends out forming an arc.
Why again? Not trying to be a wise guy, just not sure what you are trying to accomplish with these changes.

Quote:
3. The design in general
Have you run any MathCad simulations of the geometry and the FE-166E? I think that the FE-167E might be a better choice for this type of enclosure. My guess is that without some form of BSC circuitry the bass is going to be very light weight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2004, 02:58 AM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chicago area
Martin

As a sculptor and furniture designer I cannot leave a design alone. The internal volume and dimensions of these TQWT's are an exact copy of Terry Cains Abby speakers, that a friend let me use for a template. the FE166E is what comes in the Abby and I figure it was already a proven speaker design. They also offer the 165E for near field.

There is not explination behind the use of 3 holes vs. one, it just sort of happened.

If your still following this, is there any disadvantage to using multiple vent holes? I think Moth audio does this if I remember right?

Thx...c
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2004, 03:51 AM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
leadbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Well, FWIW:

I don't know if you are arriving at cabinet dimensions by cloning another design or by available modelling tools such as Martin's work. If the unknown is what the effect of a non-constant taper will have on the response, you can always REALLY give yourself a challenge and also curve one of the sides so that the cross-sectional area does have a constant taper. Or something easier is to build an internal shell that matches the base design, and then laminate material on to that to make whatever shape you like.
__________________
Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines. Enzo Ferrari
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2004, 09:42 AM   #5
Rudolf is online now Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Christof,
I like your design giving the speaker front some visual "tension".

Since your front panel is almost flat around the driver, I believe it would not do any harm acousticwise. But you should keep an ear on possible panel resonances, if the panel arc is only suspended by some spikes at its end.

Distributing the vent diameter to 3 holes does require some end correction. I have seen explanations for this, but only in german. So better someone else should lead you to an appropriate website.
Take care to not obstruct the free airflow from the vents (as you already have done).
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2004, 12:11 PM   #6
MJK is offline MJK  United States
Account disabled at member's request
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Clifton Park, NY
Quote:
If your still following this, is there any disadvantage to using multiple vent holes? I think Moth audio does this if I remember right?
I am not sure, I will have to think about that question.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2004, 03:09 PM   #7
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
As Rudolf notes, the baffle must be stiff or massive enough to push its eigenmodes either above, or below the passband, and since it's easier to damp out the acoustically weaker mids/HF than the lower frequencies, stiffness through bracing is the Hot Ticket.

Since the radius is acoustically small WRT its passband, it's effect will be minor and swamped by the room's effect on the BW, so not an issue IMO, though cavity resonances between the baffle/cab may require you to at least line the back side of the baffle with Deflex or similar.

Using multiple vents makes the alignment ~aperiodic in nature, though normally they would be all the same size. When one has a much larger CSA than the others, it dominates, so to average them out requires some damping material stretched across them, which is what Moth appears to do. Tuning is then accomplished by measuring the FR with different densites till you get the desired roll off with the speaker at the desired in-room speaker/listening position.

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2004, 07:05 PM   #8
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Quote:
Originally posted by Christof

There is not explination behind the use of 3 holes vs. one, it just sort of happened.

If your still following this, is there any disadvantage to using multiple vent holes?
I think Moth audio does this if I remember right?
Multiple ports, if all of the same length act as one port of the
same CSA, though effective length will be different to one big
port. No real advantage / disavantage IMO.

The Moth port is a conceit.

sreten.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2004, 03:27 PM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chicago area
Bump for more info....

I'm still unsure of the overall effect that baffle shape has on a speaker. In this case I have a 12" flat spot for mounting so my baffle is essentially 12" x 9" and then the curve starts. What would be the difference if I made the baffle curve the other way but still kept the 12" x 9" flat spot? |( vs. |)

thx..
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2004, 06:57 PM   #10
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
'Sound is round', so visualize a series of different diameter soap bubbles emanating from the driver. Ones that are larger than the driver 'feels' the baffle as an extension of the effective cone area (Sd) as it spreads into a hemispherical shape. Above 9", or a frequency of ~13560/pi/9 = ~479.6Hz, the baffle's curvature begins to affect the loading, and at 12"/~359.7Hz the lower (larger) frequencies begin to 'fall off' the baffle, i.e. the FR rolls off at some rate up to 6dB/octave. This is why baffle step compensation (BSC) is required if a speaker is well away from boundaries, though normally only 3-4dB/octave is required in a typical HIFI or HT app..

Now if the baffle's top/bottom forward curvature/length is such that it mirrors the width's roll off slope, Then acoustically they balance out and theoretically no BSC is required. Obviously, a lessor curvature/length will have a proportionately less impact. Conversely, if the curvature is towards the rear, then it will increase the rate of roll off Vs a flat or forward curvature baffle. It will also have less ripple in the FR than the forward curvature, so from a technical POV it's the preferred curvature orientation of the two. Maybe this will help: http://www.trueaudio.com/st_diff1.htm

At the minor curvature rate and baffle frequency you mentioned, I doubt the offset in either direction would be audible, and any deviation will be masked/~compensated for by the BSC ckt. and otherwise swamped by the room's effects, so not an issue IMO.

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  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
Feedback requested on 7591 PP design tikiroo Tubes / Valves 33 30th October 2008 02:03 PM
New to tube building / design - Input requested! Zap Tubes / Valves 19 19th November 2007 09:31 AM
FR125 New Design Options - Feedback Requested ABS Full Range 74 17th October 2007 08:03 AM
Another FE-127e ML-TQWT Design eeyore Full Range 0 26th July 2007 12:38 AM
your input on this TQWT baffle design Christof Multi-Way 2 25th March 2004 12:35 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:29 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