Hi,
I’ve looked at t-linespeakers.org and see reference to Martin King's & Auspurger's computer models, am happy to learn one, before I do - is this ¼ WL goal realistic or in the ballpark ?
A 6 m 20 foot (running along the ceiling) line of Sonotube or equivalent, ie a TL with no taper, with ¼ WL = 14 Hz
- used with a driver of fs = 18 Hz (Peerless XLS 12”)
should with …….. EQ be able get flat down to between the ¼ WL & fs, ie 14 – 18 Hz?
Thanks
I’ve looked at t-linespeakers.org and see reference to Martin King's & Auspurger's computer models, am happy to learn one, before I do - is this ¼ WL goal realistic or in the ballpark ?
A 6 m 20 foot (running along the ceiling) line of Sonotube or equivalent, ie a TL with no taper, with ¼ WL = 14 Hz
- used with a driver of fs = 18 Hz (Peerless XLS 12”)
should with …….. EQ be able get flat down to between the ¼ WL & fs, ie 14 – 18 Hz?
Thanks
Hi.
Need the divers other specs for accurate modeling. If you post them I'd be willing to simulate (as I am intrigued by your idea). The thought of the line extending across the ceiling is different, that's for sure.
TL bass re-enforcement is an excellent way to increase response below Fs.
Edit: Sorry, read after I posted, driver is Peerless XLS. This driver is purpose built for passive radiator allingment, and will give inferior TL results. You should consider another driver for your idea.
Need the divers other specs for accurate modeling. If you post them I'd be willing to simulate (as I am intrigued by your idea). The thought of the line extending across the ceiling is different, that's for sure.
TL bass re-enforcement is an excellent way to increase response below Fs.
Edit: Sorry, read after I posted, driver is Peerless XLS. This driver is purpose built for passive radiator allingment, and will give inferior TL results. You should consider another driver for your idea.
Martin,
The ceiling - I just looked around and thought - do a kind of el-pipo but using the longest room dimension. Higher ceilings make it less visually intrusive.
I’ve heard that the XLS is built for passive radiators; and also with it’s very low Q for small boxes in cars.
You may know Linkwitz chose it for it’s very low distortion at < 100 Hz, always EQed, in both dipoles (Phoenix & Orion) and sealed boxes (Thor).
Also GM suggests www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=772802&highlight=#post772802 what sounds to me like a TL using XLS.
I thought in that case . . here are the TS, with a higher distortion but still lowish fs opion
What parameters are good for TL, and what are bad?
Thanks
The ceiling - I just looked around and thought - do a kind of el-pipo but using the longest room dimension. Higher ceilings make it less visually intrusive.
I’ve heard that the XLS is built for passive radiators; and also with it’s very low Q for small boxes in cars.
You may know Linkwitz chose it for it’s very low distortion at < 100 Hz, always EQed, in both dipoles (Phoenix & Orion) and sealed boxes (Thor).
Also GM suggests www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=772802&highlight=#post772802 what sounds to me like a TL using XLS.
I thought in that case . . here are the TS, with a higher distortion but still lowish fs opion
What parameters are good for TL, and what are bad?
Thanks
rick57 said:
To be honet I've not tried this sub in a pipe this long. The resuts are different than they would be for a shorter, tapered line.
Below are the results for a line cross section 3 x Sd. First is the phase relationship between TL and infiite baffle the second is expected frequency response. Though there is a massive drop after 40Hz, there is clearly a 5dB gain over IB below this. If you can tolerate the poor step response (.02 second delay), it may not be a bad option.
Attachments
L = pipe length
As I said, I chose to use an area = to a 12" diameter pipe, but you can use something reasonably close, like 12" square, or even four nominally 1" x 12" boards to make a rectangular tube. If you want to go triangular, then to get the same CSA requires the sides to be 1.4142x longer with a 2x longer baffle width than a square one.
BTW, what was the listening results of the JBL test box I suggested?
As I said, I chose to use an area = to a 12" diameter pipe, but you can use something reasonably close, like 12" square, or even four nominally 1" x 12" boards to make a rectangular tube. If you want to go triangular, then to get the same CSA requires the sides to be 1.4142x longer with a 2x longer baffle width than a square one.
BTW, what was the listening results of the JBL test box I suggested?
Haven’t had time to make that much progress on the project *before it, eg right now I’m in the middle of a Mothers Day do for 40 people . . but I’m likely to do BLHs with some less $ Eminences, as the JBLs are quite good and could be used better in another project.
Your posts on midbass have changed my thinking on not just a fun test box.
A round pipe (Sonotube) is quicker to do. If a 94.5” pipe is capable of x dB, I was hoping the 6 m 235” pipe, maybe of bigger diameter, could go a lot deeper - is that correct with MLTLs?
Cheers
Your posts on midbass have changed my thinking on not just a fun test box.
A round pipe (Sonotube) is quicker to do. If a 94.5” pipe is capable of x dB, I was hoping the 6 m 235” pipe, maybe of bigger diameter, could go a lot deeper - is that correct with MLTLs?
Cheers
rick57 said:
Sorry to disappoint
The T/S specs for your CSX driver are better for TL with Qts in the 35 - 45 range. Qts of this value seems to give the best results. Also a larger Vas works better than a small one (low Vas gives peaked bass response).
The step response for such a long line is a problem. Not sure if the simulation is projecting accurate results for such a monster pipe.
I tried a smaller diameter pipe, but the results were unimpressive. I thought it looked good for massive bass re-inforcement below 40Hz, but there are better, cleaner and easier ways.
John,
Thanks for your info, the goal is 20 – 80 flat with EQ. Until recently I was interested in tapped horns, but they’re just a bit short on bandwidth at both ends.
I know little at this stage about the numerous different kinds of TLs. Must learn about eg “mass loaded”.
If a 6 m 200 foot pipe has bad step response, maybe the step response of the el-pipo is (while not as bad), not too flash . .
For just < 40 Hz, a sealed sub with plenty of watts would be effective.
Would prefer to use either XLS or CSX 10, as I have them spare.
I just saw that Rick Schultz’ Rhinos ‘flow’ from Thiele-Small parameters www.t-linespeakers.org/projects/exolinear/rhinos.html but this may be an exception in TL design?
Thanks for your info, the goal is 20 – 80 flat with EQ. Until recently I was interested in tapped horns, but they’re just a bit short on bandwidth at both ends.
I know little at this stage about the numerous different kinds of TLs. Must learn about eg “mass loaded”.
If a 6 m 200 foot pipe has bad step response, maybe the step response of the el-pipo is (while not as bad), not too flash . .
For just < 40 Hz, a sealed sub with plenty of watts would be effective.
Would prefer to use either XLS or CSX 10, as I have them spare.
I just saw that Rick Schultz’ Rhinos ‘flow’ from Thiele-Small parameters www.t-linespeakers.org/projects/exolinear/rhinos.html but this may be an exception in TL design?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.