Hi all,
I'm mid way through assembling some dmar-ken7.3's and I'd like to also add some wooft's to the setup as well.
I've searched for the wooft plans but to no avail, can someone point me in the right direction or, if there isn't any let me know the height as I'm sure I can work out the rest from there.
Regards
Gavin
I'm mid way through assembling some dmar-ken7.3's and I'd like to also add some wooft's to the setup as well.
I've searched for the wooft plans but to no avail, can someone point me in the right direction or, if there isn't any let me know the height as I'm sure I can work out the rest from there.
Regards
Gavin
woofT are pretty somewhat flexible. All depends on your choice of woofer. Since the SDX7 is no more (and was always pricey) there is no cirrent fixed design. We have yet to find something readily available to replace it. There is a 4" Peerless that works nicely in even smaller woofTs, and a 5 1/4" for standmounts, but nothing has clicked for full-aize, full-height woofTs. Not that there isn't one, but that we haven;t run into it.
The idea is to have something with the same footprint as the miniOnken, that reaches to the floor. How far that is depends on how much volume you need, and how high you are willing to have the Alpair 7. If that doesn't give you enuff, it could be extended backwards (as here) or tapered to be wider at the bottom (a challenge if you are building the trapexzoid).
If you are building the rectanglular version, with a standard depth, you can fir 5 1/4" on the sides, 8s on the back. Driver on the back would require lower XO. The trapezoids are limited so 6 1/2s on the side (tight fit) or 5 1/4".
Enclosure can be sealed, vented, TL, or ML-TL. Our 1st woofT is a TL (but stuffed till aperiodic). If i was doing those again they would be sealed. The ones linked above are ML-TLs, a short one specifically done for this prohect (not as good as the taller one for the same driver).
I'll happily help out, you'll need to suggest some woofers.
dave
The idea is to have something with the same footprint as the miniOnken, that reaches to the floor. How far that is depends on how much volume you need, and how high you are willing to have the Alpair 7. If that doesn't give you enuff, it could be extended backwards (as here) or tapered to be wider at the bottom (a challenge if you are building the trapexzoid).
If you are building the rectanglular version, with a standard depth, you can fir 5 1/4" on the sides, 8s on the back. Driver on the back would require lower XO. The trapezoids are limited so 6 1/2s on the side (tight fit) or 5 1/4".
Enclosure can be sealed, vented, TL, or ML-TL. Our 1st woofT is a TL (but stuffed till aperiodic). If i was doing those again they would be sealed. The ones linked above are ML-TLs, a short one specifically done for this prohect (not as good as the taller one for the same driver).
I'll happily help out, you'll need to suggest some woofers.
dave
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the info. My knowledge of speaker design is poor so I'm restricted to proven designs that are guaranteed to work.
In light of that I've been looking for a driver similar in spec to the sdx7. How about this SEAS L18RNX/P H1224-08 Woofer ?
I've built the standard rectangular ken's so as you've suggested I guess these will need to be rear mounted or deepen the cabinet to side mount it, is that correct? Is there an audible advantage to either one?
Thanks for the info. My knowledge of speaker design is poor so I'm restricted to proven designs that are guaranteed to work.
In light of that I've been looking for a driver similar in spec to the sdx7. How about this SEAS L18RNX/P H1224-08 Woofer ?
I've built the standard rectangular ken's so as you've suggested I guess these will need to be rear mounted or deepen the cabinet to side mount it, is that correct? Is there an audible advantage to either one?
I've downloaded the spec pdf, i will have a look at it. It has REALLY rough response up high, i wonder how much a coat of puzzlecoat would have on that?
Rear mounted means you have to cross lower, not a huge issue with the dMar-Ken7.
How low you cross is a trade off between ultimate levels & dynamics possible vrs getting the FR yo do as much of the upper bass/midrange as possible.
A low XO certainly points towards bi-amping.
dave
Rear mounted means you have to cross lower, not a huge issue with the dMar-Ken7.
How low you cross is a trade off between ultimate levels & dynamics possible vrs getting the FR yo do as much of the upper bass/midrange as possible.
A low XO certainly points towards bi-amping.
dave
Ah, maybe not the best choice. How about this one? Small enough to front mount?
5¼" 80w Carbon Fibre cone 8 Ohm B110B/SP1057 type Hi-fi Bass/Mid speaker driver | eBay
Also, I was hoping to run it all from my tubelabs amp. Is there a way to avoid using a second amp?
5¼" 80w Carbon Fibre cone 8 Ohm B110B/SP1057 type Hi-fi Bass/Mid speaker driver | eBay
Also, I was hoping to run it all from my tubelabs amp. Is there a way to avoid using a second amp?
OK, we'll look at that one too. Foing a passive XO is much trickier (a lot of potential woofers are eliminated due to very tight restrictions on required sensitivity) -- and getting a passive XO to work can run alot more £££ than just picking up a 2nd amp (cost of a PLLXO is very low). For passive the drivers need to be side or front mounted... on the front allows higher XO point. The higher the XO, the smaller the XO parts.
Which tubelab amp? If one of the SE amps, power sharing with another amp will really let it shine.
dave
Which tubelab amp? If one of the SE amps, power sharing with another amp will really let it shine.
dave
Its a simple se. I've used tge big edcor opt's along with eo kt88's. Its about as powerful as it can be without spending silly money.
I'm restricted on funds (apologies, also aesthetics thanks to the waf) hence my fear of another amp on show. Do I need to build another simple se for the wooft's
I'm restricted on funds (apologies, also aesthetics thanks to the waf) hence my fear of another amp on show. Do I need to build another simple se for the wooft's
I'm restricted on funds (apologies, also aesthetics thanks to the waf) hence my fear of another amp on show. Do I need to build another simple se for the wooft's
A nice SS 40+ W 4 ohm capable stereo SS amp would be better. With the price of budget amps these days it could easily comein at less than the cost of passive XO parts (and avoid maybe having to get multiple sets as you work out the values needed). I recently priced out components for a 350ish Hz XO and they ran over $150 (cheap parts were less). Prices go up as frequency goes down. Even a £10 boot sale 1970-80s receiver would get you started.
dave
So far we have found in situations like this that 1st order PLLXO can be made to work fine. Should have a big sonic advantage over miniDSP, especially in an analog system, althou not as versatile. 4 caps, 2 resistors. If you decide to put it in a box with connectors, that -- and the extra cables -- will swamp the price.
Thanx Zia for mentioning the Class D amps, they can work well.. I have one of the 4x100W Sure anps for my subwoofers.
dave
2 of these will work in a woofT. With a full length bevel on the front they will just barely fot on the sides, with the bezel only long enuff for a cosmetic match, it will easily fit. These will get to an F10 of about 40 Hz. It should be possible to get a tiny bit lower with the bevel only cosmetic, or some other trick to get a bit more volume.
The real peaky bits, even with just a 1st order PLLXO at 160 will be down quite a bit. My experiments suggest that a coat of puzzlekoat will go a long ways to suppressing it as well.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.