Where's the grafs?
Your placement of the driver is a little odd? Usually one strives to place the driver at the middle.
A TQWT at 100cm? what's the use of doing a TL if you're not going to use it to extrend the bass responce?
I would very much like to se the frequency responce...
I'm building a ML-TQWT myself right now so I'm always interested in more people doing similar work.
Your placement of the driver is a little odd? Usually one strives to place the driver at the middle.
A TQWT at 100cm? what's the use of doing a TL if you're not going to use it to extrend the bass responce?
I would very much like to se the frequency responce...
I'm building a ML-TQWT myself right now so I'm always interested in more people doing similar work.
It sims fine, though the stuffing has to be what I consider somewhat excessive to achieve the desired results. This is an unfortunate side effect of using too long a pipe and too much Vb to get down to a lower Fb than the driver is comfortable with based on its specs. FWIW, the way I calculate pipes, this length = 31.55Hz and for a Xo = 0.35, I get a So/SL = 254.86cm^2, which yields a flatter response with less stuffing.
One thing though, if played loud enough for > ~18W to be required it will go non-linear in the octave above Fb, so if using this driver to its limits, a smaller/higher Fb will be needed for best performance.
Since I don't normally push a driver this much in a pipe, I don't know how accurate it will sound WRT the sim, and of course the driver's actual specs may vary enough to require a completely different alignment, rendering this all moot.
====
>At first glance I think that 100 cm is very short for a driver with 49 Hz Fs. You should consider going 150 - 175 cm.
====
Actually, it's much too long for an optimum ML-TL. You make them longer to tune them lower, but at 0.707*49 = 34.63Hz, a point of diminishing returns is reached. At 100cm he's skirting right at the limit of ~flat response. At 175cm, Vb must increase 5.34x over that required for 100cm, dropping Fb to 30hz, well below what this little driver can handle without a huge horn.
====
>Your placement of the driver is a little odd? Usually one strives to place the driver at the middle.
====
In a ML-TL, the objective is to put it where it suppresses the 3rd harmonic, which is a complex function of column length Vs width, not a linear dimension, so for the theoretically best performance it will vary with each design, and tapering further complicates it. Fortunately, MJK's worksheet allows you to move the driver around till the right spot is found if you don't have a mindset that limits you to one point along its length regardless of the alignment.
GM
One thing though, if played loud enough for > ~18W to be required it will go non-linear in the octave above Fb, so if using this driver to its limits, a smaller/higher Fb will be needed for best performance.
Since I don't normally push a driver this much in a pipe, I don't know how accurate it will sound WRT the sim, and of course the driver's actual specs may vary enough to require a completely different alignment, rendering this all moot.
====
>At first glance I think that 100 cm is very short for a driver with 49 Hz Fs. You should consider going 150 - 175 cm.
====
Actually, it's much too long for an optimum ML-TL. You make them longer to tune them lower, but at 0.707*49 = 34.63Hz, a point of diminishing returns is reached. At 100cm he's skirting right at the limit of ~flat response. At 175cm, Vb must increase 5.34x over that required for 100cm, dropping Fb to 30hz, well below what this little driver can handle without a huge horn.
====
>Your placement of the driver is a little odd? Usually one strives to place the driver at the middle.
====
In a ML-TL, the objective is to put it where it suppresses the 3rd harmonic, which is a complex function of column length Vs width, not a linear dimension, so for the theoretically best performance it will vary with each design, and tapering further complicates it. Fortunately, MJK's worksheet allows you to move the driver around till the right spot is found if you don't have a mindset that limits you to one point along its length regardless of the alignment.
GM
I must admit that I'm a little baffled by the design?
It pretty much goes against all that I've learnt about a ML-TQWT.
It would be nice to see the graphs though so that I know what you're trying to achieve. Your goals may very well differ quite a bit from mine...
I'm a n0ob at this as well...
It pretty much goes against all that I've learnt about a ML-TQWT.
It would be nice to see the graphs though so that I know what you're trying to achieve. Your goals may very well differ quite a bit from mine...
I'm a n0ob at this as well...
Ok guys,
I didn't expect to have so soon even one reply; so first I will put my response frequency graph.
To achieve this results I used Martin alignment tables, with S0/Sl=1.
The response frequency looks pretty good to me, but I’m not 100 percent confident that the results will be the same as in theory.
I’ve reduced the stuffing density to 0.5 and the results are almost exactly the same, I don’t think the stuffing will be an issue.
Anyway, what is the best way to use Martin King MathCAD sheets? Personally I used alignment tables provided by him. Are there any other methods?
Thanks to everybody for every reply.
I didn't expect to have so soon even one reply; so first I will put my response frequency graph.
To achieve this results I used Martin alignment tables, with S0/Sl=1.
The response frequency looks pretty good to me, but I’m not 100 percent confident that the results will be the same as in theory.
I’ve reduced the stuffing density to 0.5 and the results are almost exactly the same, I don’t think the stuffing will be an issue.
Anyway, what is the best way to use Martin King MathCAD sheets? Personally I used alignment tables provided by him. Are there any other methods?
Thanks to everybody for every reply.
Attachments
>I must admit that I'm a little baffled by the design?
====
In what way?
====
>It pretty much goes against all that I've learnt about a ML-TQWT.
====
OK, I'll bite, what have you learned that's so contrary to what I've said?
====
>It would be nice to see the graphs though so that I know what you're trying to achieve.
====
I don't have a website to post from and don't feel like messing with Yahoo/whatever, but if you have Mathcad 8 or newer I can send you the .mcd worksheets to view, or you can load the data into the freebie demo from MJK's site to view them, though you can't save them.
====
>Your goals may very well differ quite a bit from mine...
====
In what way? I'm into high performance designs, but I understand the limitations of the various systems due to physics of the situation.
====
>I'm a n0ob at this as well...
====
I assumed as much.
====
>Boy, I'd better hit the books some more. Is there a discussion of how these graphs compare (or what they really should look like)? I'll review Martin's comments but a breakdown of what those graphs mean and what they should look like would be a big help.
====
When you find a book that discusses this stuff in depth, let us know? Maybe some aeronautical engr. textbooks? I learned alot from perusing mechanical/structural eng. textbooks in that they pointed me in the right directions WRT building numerous prototypes looking for trends back in the '60s/early '70s. I could have saved myself a lot of time/wood/$$ had my math skills been better and I had known someone with good math skills that was willing to help me.
====
>I'll review Martin's comments but a breakdown of what those graphs mean and what they should look like would be a big help.
====
Hmm, WRT to pipe design, some of his graphs appear to be just his way of 'thinking out loud' while he was developing his theories, IOW, showing the intermediate steps that comprise the bottom line, i.e. the FR plot.
I mostly look at the 'Far Field Transmission Line System and Infinite Baffle Sound Pressure Level Responses' and the 'Woofer and Terminus Far Field Sound Pressure Level Responses'. The former to view if I've hit the target alignment, and the latter to ensure there's little/no vent harmonics affecting the driver's phase response.
I use the 'System Time Response for an Impulse Input' plot to tell me if there's adequate stuffing.
====
>To achieve this results I used Martin alignment tables, with S0/Sl=1.
====
And then just added the vent? Interesting!
====
>The response frequency looks pretty good to me, but I’m not 100 percent confident that the results will be the same as in theory.
====
His worksheets are extremely close to reality when accurate driver specs are inputted and measured nearfield to keep the room interaction to a minimum.
====
>I’ve reduced the stuffing density to 0.5 and the results are almost exactly the same, I don’t think the stuffing will be an issue.
====
Actual stuffing density is so room/personal preference dependent that the effects of the stuffing is strictly a baseline.
====
>Anyway, what is the best way to use Martin King MathCAD sheets? Personally I used alignment tables provided by him.
====
I made a spreadsheet based on his original release to see how it compared to mine and wasn't surprised to see a considerable difference, but I didn't try them with a vent. If they all work as well as this one did, then for a ML-TL these would probably be 'close enough', at least as a first approximation.
BTW, did you sim it with the reduced So/SL I recommended?
====
>Are there any other methods?
====
Well, mine is currently proprietary, though I've dropped enough info/hints on the FR forum for someone to probably figure it out, but who knows what the future may bring.
There's Augsburger way of course, and Rick Shultz's Exolinear format. Whether one is audibly superior to the others, I can't say since I've only built my versions.
====
>Thanks to everybody for every reply.
====
You're welcome!
GM
====
In what way?
====
>It pretty much goes against all that I've learnt about a ML-TQWT.
====
OK, I'll bite, what have you learned that's so contrary to what I've said?
====
>It would be nice to see the graphs though so that I know what you're trying to achieve.
====
I don't have a website to post from and don't feel like messing with Yahoo/whatever, but if you have Mathcad 8 or newer I can send you the .mcd worksheets to view, or you can load the data into the freebie demo from MJK's site to view them, though you can't save them.
====
>Your goals may very well differ quite a bit from mine...
====
In what way? I'm into high performance designs, but I understand the limitations of the various systems due to physics of the situation.
====
>I'm a n0ob at this as well...
====
I assumed as much.
====
>Boy, I'd better hit the books some more. Is there a discussion of how these graphs compare (or what they really should look like)? I'll review Martin's comments but a breakdown of what those graphs mean and what they should look like would be a big help.
====
When you find a book that discusses this stuff in depth, let us know? Maybe some aeronautical engr. textbooks? I learned alot from perusing mechanical/structural eng. textbooks in that they pointed me in the right directions WRT building numerous prototypes looking for trends back in the '60s/early '70s. I could have saved myself a lot of time/wood/$$ had my math skills been better and I had known someone with good math skills that was willing to help me.
====
>I'll review Martin's comments but a breakdown of what those graphs mean and what they should look like would be a big help.
====
Hmm, WRT to pipe design, some of his graphs appear to be just his way of 'thinking out loud' while he was developing his theories, IOW, showing the intermediate steps that comprise the bottom line, i.e. the FR plot.
I mostly look at the 'Far Field Transmission Line System and Infinite Baffle Sound Pressure Level Responses' and the 'Woofer and Terminus Far Field Sound Pressure Level Responses'. The former to view if I've hit the target alignment, and the latter to ensure there's little/no vent harmonics affecting the driver's phase response.
I use the 'System Time Response for an Impulse Input' plot to tell me if there's adequate stuffing.
====
>To achieve this results I used Martin alignment tables, with S0/Sl=1.
====
And then just added the vent? Interesting!
====
>The response frequency looks pretty good to me, but I’m not 100 percent confident that the results will be the same as in theory.
====
His worksheets are extremely close to reality when accurate driver specs are inputted and measured nearfield to keep the room interaction to a minimum.
====
>I’ve reduced the stuffing density to 0.5 and the results are almost exactly the same, I don’t think the stuffing will be an issue.
====
Actual stuffing density is so room/personal preference dependent that the effects of the stuffing is strictly a baseline.
====
>Anyway, what is the best way to use Martin King MathCAD sheets? Personally I used alignment tables provided by him.
====
I made a spreadsheet based on his original release to see how it compared to mine and wasn't surprised to see a considerable difference, but I didn't try them with a vent. If they all work as well as this one did, then for a ML-TL these would probably be 'close enough', at least as a first approximation.
BTW, did you sim it with the reduced So/SL I recommended?
====
>Are there any other methods?
====
Well, mine is currently proprietary, though I've dropped enough info/hints on the FR forum for someone to probably figure it out, but who knows what the future may bring.
There's Augsburger way of course, and Rick Shultz's Exolinear format. Whether one is audibly superior to the others, I can't say since I've only built my versions.
====
>Thanks to everybody for every reply.
====
You're welcome!
GM
GM, tanks for your replies, it really encouraged me that I’m on the right way.
====
>FWIW, the way I calculate pipes, this length = 31.55Hz and for a Xo = 0.35, I get a So/SL = 254.86cm^2, which yields a flatter response with less stuffing.
====
To be sincere I didn’t understood exactly what are saying. To put in the sheet So=Sl=254.86 cm^2? I’ve tried and the FR graph is almost the same, but the roll-off start at 50 Hz instead of 45 Hz.
If the Far Field Transmission Line System Sound Pressure Response looks good (linear), is there any other important graphs? I mean, if this graph looks good, does it matter for example if the length of the enclosure is 30 cm?(far more shorter than alignment tables recommend). I’m asking you this question because I’ve played for months with MK sheets and I used various speakers with different T/S parameters. For some of them I had good FR graphs with a very different pipe length (smaller) than the alignment tables recommend. I hope my question was clear enough.
So, after all, what do you think, it will be a good design?
====
>FWIW, the way I calculate pipes, this length = 31.55Hz and for a Xo = 0.35, I get a So/SL = 254.86cm^2, which yields a flatter response with less stuffing.
====
To be sincere I didn’t understood exactly what are saying. To put in the sheet So=Sl=254.86 cm^2? I’ve tried and the FR graph is almost the same, but the roll-off start at 50 Hz instead of 45 Hz.
If the Far Field Transmission Line System Sound Pressure Response looks good (linear), is there any other important graphs? I mean, if this graph looks good, does it matter for example if the length of the enclosure is 30 cm?(far more shorter than alignment tables recommend). I’m asking you this question because I’ve played for months with MK sheets and I used various speakers with different T/S parameters. For some of them I had good FR graphs with a very different pipe length (smaller) than the alignment tables recommend. I hope my question was clear enough.
So, after all, what do you think, it will be a good design?
Attachments
>GM, tanks for your replies, it really encouraged me that I’m on the right way.
====
You're welcome!
====
>To be sincere I didn’t understood exactly what are saying. To put in the sheet So=Sl=254.86 cm^2?
====
Right, in lieu of 300cm^2.
====
> I’ve tried and the FR graph is almost the same, but the roll-off start at 50 Hz instead of 45 Hz.
====
Reduce the stuffing. In my sim the difference in the FR plot is there's no Fb peaking and slightly more gain in the ~40-160Hz BW. How audible the difference, if at all, is room/personal dependent, but if nothing else the cab is slightly smaller. Then again, since we're using published specs, who knows which is more accurate and one could argue that it's best to err on the large side and reduce the Vb as required.
IMO, what's important is getting rid of any peaking at Fb with the least amount of stuffing, and too small a Vb guarantees this won't be an issue.
====
>If the Far Field Transmission Line System Sound Pressure Response looks good (linear), is there any other important graphs? I mean, if this graph looks good, does it matter for example if the length of the enclosure is 30 cm?(far more shorter than alignment tables recommend). I’m asking you this question because I’ve played for months with MK sheets and I used various speakers with different T/S parameters. For some of them I had good FR graphs with a very different pipe length (smaller) than the alignment tables recommend. I hope my question was clear enough.
====
The alignment tables are based on a design philosophy that's a bit dated, and why he calls them 'classic'. Also, AFAIK they weren't meant to be used for ML-TLs (MLTQWT), i.e. no vent.
The way I figure them, the optimum length is a function of 1/4WL divided by a complex T/S specs derived value, so yes, lengths can vary dramatically for a given Fb. Think of it this way, the longer the pipe, the lower Fb will be. The length at which it starts peaking at Fb is the practical limit without increasing stuffing to damp it. You can use a ported design calculator to figure the desired Vb, then divide the length into it to get the So/SL area. Position the driver wherever it suppresses the third harmonic. Use the 'Woofer and Terminus Far Field Sound Pressure Level Responses' plot and watch the driver's FR and vent's HF output as you move the driver down the pipe.
====
>So, after all, what do you think, it will be a good design?
====
All things considered, it's an excellent first approximation.
GM
====
You're welcome!
====
>To be sincere I didn’t understood exactly what are saying. To put in the sheet So=Sl=254.86 cm^2?
====
Right, in lieu of 300cm^2.
====
> I’ve tried and the FR graph is almost the same, but the roll-off start at 50 Hz instead of 45 Hz.
====
Reduce the stuffing. In my sim the difference in the FR plot is there's no Fb peaking and slightly more gain in the ~40-160Hz BW. How audible the difference, if at all, is room/personal dependent, but if nothing else the cab is slightly smaller. Then again, since we're using published specs, who knows which is more accurate and one could argue that it's best to err on the large side and reduce the Vb as required.
IMO, what's important is getting rid of any peaking at Fb with the least amount of stuffing, and too small a Vb guarantees this won't be an issue.
====
>If the Far Field Transmission Line System Sound Pressure Response looks good (linear), is there any other important graphs? I mean, if this graph looks good, does it matter for example if the length of the enclosure is 30 cm?(far more shorter than alignment tables recommend). I’m asking you this question because I’ve played for months with MK sheets and I used various speakers with different T/S parameters. For some of them I had good FR graphs with a very different pipe length (smaller) than the alignment tables recommend. I hope my question was clear enough.
====
The alignment tables are based on a design philosophy that's a bit dated, and why he calls them 'classic'. Also, AFAIK they weren't meant to be used for ML-TLs (MLTQWT), i.e. no vent.
The way I figure them, the optimum length is a function of 1/4WL divided by a complex T/S specs derived value, so yes, lengths can vary dramatically for a given Fb. Think of it this way, the longer the pipe, the lower Fb will be. The length at which it starts peaking at Fb is the practical limit without increasing stuffing to damp it. You can use a ported design calculator to figure the desired Vb, then divide the length into it to get the So/SL area. Position the driver wherever it suppresses the third harmonic. Use the 'Woofer and Terminus Far Field Sound Pressure Level Responses' plot and watch the driver's FR and vent's HF output as you move the driver down the pipe.
====
>So, after all, what do you think, it will be a good design?
====
All things considered, it's an excellent first approximation.
GM
Thank you for your reply.
In January I will finish the cabinet and I will mesure the FR. I can't wait.
Initially, I wanted to build the Ariel speakers, but I like to build something new made complete by myself. Anyway I’m not so convinced about Ariel, I’ve tried to simulate them in MathCAD…but I didn’t have any good results. What is your opinion about Ariel?
In January I will finish the cabinet and I will mesure the FR. I can't wait.
Initially, I wanted to build the Ariel speakers, but I like to build something new made complete by myself. Anyway I’m not so convinced about Ariel, I’ve tried to simulate them in MathCAD…but I didn’t have any good results. What is your opinion about Ariel?
You're welcome! Hope it's of some use. I have a great respect for Lynn O. WRT his knowledge and attention to detail, so I'm betting it's a very refined sounding design, very similar to what you get from a critically damped IB, only in a relatively small package. IIRC, a sub is required to fill in the bottom for the most demanding music.
GM
GM
Uhmm, oki.
First of all I must say that the simulated frequency responce looks much better than I expected it to.
These are some pointers that I have picked up on ML-TQWT design:
1. Start with tuning the box to the driver fs. (Leave out the port for now)
2. For flatest responce place the driver in the middle.
3. Try to work out the design without using the stuffing since you'll have to fine tune the system using the stuffing anyway. I use the default value 0,25 and than Increase/decrease to see how it will effect the outcome.
4. The port is easy to modify so use this to fine tune the system.
5. Try to keep the air speed in the port below 7m/s.
That's about it...
I am using a full range driver in my speaker and it has some odd values that makes the simulation behave a little wierd.
What I first reacted to:
1. Your pipe is very short
2. Your driver is placed quite a bit off center
3. You simulate using denser stuffing and expect the speaker to behave this way.
4. You use the port very early on to tune the cabinets total resonance point.
But hey, you have a much prettier frequency responce than I do so you must be doing something right.
Keep up the good work.
First of all I must say that the simulated frequency responce looks much better than I expected it to.
These are some pointers that I have picked up on ML-TQWT design:
1. Start with tuning the box to the driver fs. (Leave out the port for now)
2. For flatest responce place the driver in the middle.
3. Try to work out the design without using the stuffing since you'll have to fine tune the system using the stuffing anyway. I use the default value 0,25 and than Increase/decrease to see how it will effect the outcome.
4. The port is easy to modify so use this to fine tune the system.
5. Try to keep the air speed in the port below 7m/s.
That's about it...
I am using a full range driver in my speaker and it has some odd values that makes the simulation behave a little wierd.
What I first reacted to:
1. Your pipe is very short
2. Your driver is placed quite a bit off center
3. You simulate using denser stuffing and expect the speaker to behave this way.
4. You use the port very early on to tune the cabinets total resonance point.
But hey, you have a much prettier frequency responce than I do so you must be doing something right.
Keep up the good work.
>What I first reacted to:
1. Your pipe is very short
====
They're not all short, it just depends on the specs and desired alignment.
====
>2. Your driver is placed quite a bit off center
====
Yes, I've found supressing the 3rd harmonic yields the flattest response in most cases and this point changes with the pipe's aspect ratio.
====
>3. You simulate using denser stuffing and expect the speaker to behave this way.
====
No, I start with 0.2lbs/ft^3 and only increase it as required, and of course it's up to the builder to stuff to taste.
====
>4. You use the port very early on to tune the cabinets total resonance point.
====
??? I start with a T/S max flat alignment or whatever I want using a box program, then convert it to pipe dims and work from there. I use 5% mach (~17.22m/s) as the limit since this is well below audibility. 7m/s (2% mach) requires way too long a vent and doesn't yield any audible benefit.
====
>But hey, you have a much prettier frequency responsc than I do so you must be doing something right.
Keep up the good work.
====
Thanks, I plan to.
GM
1. Your pipe is very short
====
They're not all short, it just depends on the specs and desired alignment.
====
>2. Your driver is placed quite a bit off center
====
Yes, I've found supressing the 3rd harmonic yields the flattest response in most cases and this point changes with the pipe's aspect ratio.
====
>3. You simulate using denser stuffing and expect the speaker to behave this way.
====
No, I start with 0.2lbs/ft^3 and only increase it as required, and of course it's up to the builder to stuff to taste.
====
>4. You use the port very early on to tune the cabinets total resonance point.
====
??? I start with a T/S max flat alignment or whatever I want using a box program, then convert it to pipe dims and work from there. I use 5% mach (~17.22m/s) as the limit since this is well below audibility. 7m/s (2% mach) requires way too long a vent and doesn't yield any audible benefit.
====
>But hey, you have a much prettier frequency responsc than I do so you must be doing something right.
Keep up the good work.
====
Thanks, I plan to.
GM
Ariel experiences
I own a set. They are phenomenal! It took a while to get them tweaked in though.
Mine are the Mark II version, with D2905/9000 tweeters and a crossover with an impedance notch filter. Later versions use the D2905/9500 and omit the notch filter. The key to tweaking the crossovers turned out to be raising the main tweeter caps from 4.7 to 5.24 uF or thereabouts. The specs called for 4.7 to 5.0. (I think the Mark VI version calls for 5.0 to 5.6uF.) With 5.24, the mid/high range response is flat except for a very slight dip at around 3800Hz, which (according to Linkwitz) is not necessarily a bad thing, particularly if you listen to orchestral music. I also sprang for Audiocap film and foil rather than metalized caps.
For quite a while I wasn't getting good bass out of the speakers. Bass guitars and bass viols wimped out, and there was often a muffled sound on vocals. I stuffed and re-stuffed about five times. But I was just doing it by cut and try, or rather stuff and try, making adjustments that turned out to be too cautious. Finally I got some simple measurement equipment and was able to look at the SPL chart. It was immediately clear that I didn't have nearly enough stuffing in the pipes. There was a huge peak around 45 Hz, a major suckout all around 90Hz (which was what was making the bass sound so lacking), and another peak at 135Hz. I'm talking BIG dB swings here. Obviously I was getting a peak at the pipe's tuning frequency and at the third harmonic, and a suckout an octave above the tuning frequency. So... I added big handfuls of stuffing and WOW! It's now flat to below 40Hz in the room where I use it. The bass is right there, and it's as tight as a... well, it's tight.
tda said:
I own a set. They are phenomenal! It took a while to get them tweaked in though.
Mine are the Mark II version, with D2905/9000 tweeters and a crossover with an impedance notch filter. Later versions use the D2905/9500 and omit the notch filter. The key to tweaking the crossovers turned out to be raising the main tweeter caps from 4.7 to 5.24 uF or thereabouts. The specs called for 4.7 to 5.0. (I think the Mark VI version calls for 5.0 to 5.6uF.) With 5.24, the mid/high range response is flat except for a very slight dip at around 3800Hz, which (according to Linkwitz) is not necessarily a bad thing, particularly if you listen to orchestral music. I also sprang for Audiocap film and foil rather than metalized caps.
For quite a while I wasn't getting good bass out of the speakers. Bass guitars and bass viols wimped out, and there was often a muffled sound on vocals. I stuffed and re-stuffed about five times. But I was just doing it by cut and try, or rather stuff and try, making adjustments that turned out to be too cautious. Finally I got some simple measurement equipment and was able to look at the SPL chart. It was immediately clear that I didn't have nearly enough stuffing in the pipes. There was a huge peak around 45 Hz, a major suckout all around 90Hz (which was what was making the bass sound so lacking), and another peak at 135Hz. I'm talking BIG dB swings here. Obviously I was getting a peak at the pipe's tuning frequency and at the third harmonic, and a suckout an octave above the tuning frequency. So... I added big handfuls of stuffing and WOW! It's now flat to below 40Hz in the room where I use it. The bass is right there, and it's as tight as a... well, it's tight.
This has been a very informative thread for me. Thank you very much. Following Greg's advice, mainly ditching some preconceptions, I've started down the road of a new ML-TQWT design. I was happily surprised to find that tuning a little higher than I have before yielded a flatter graph with a nice low end roll off. Interestingly enough, the 43% driver center worked out better than the 50% center. Coincidence I'm sure. I also gained a better understanding of the graphs produced by Martin's MathCAD program. Thanks for sharing. Now to get to work.
Tim
Tim
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.