It being a sub, the woofers should be as near the floor as you can get them... and make sure you build a sub enclosure for the Bash.
F10 of ~26 Hz... that gives a good idea of its useful extension in a real room... and looks like no issues with excursion.
dave
F10 of ~26 Hz... that gives a good idea of its useful extension in a real room... and looks like no issues with excursion.
dave
Attachments
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
planet10 said:... and make sure you build a sub enclosure for the Bash.
dave
Thanks Dave - quick question on this one,
Do you mean a separate section outside of the sealed volume ?
planet10 said:
They are noisy & can have significant oil can rsonances.
dave
For isobaric subs, the solution is to apply a tube to the outside of the magnet, and lightly stuff it. That way it won't interfere with the venting but will introduce directionality and attenuation to any vent noise.
Bigun said:
Thanks Dave - quick question on this one,
Do you mean a separate section outside of the sealed volume ?
I mean a completely sealed from the inside sub-enclosure.
dave
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Bigun said:It shouldn't be a problem sealing them I hope. Bob (Creative Sound) tells me that they are air tight and are usually installed directly into the box ?
The plate may be airtight... what you want to do is isolate the amplifier from the air in the box. The Bash needs to sealed away from the inside of the speaker box for best performance.
dave
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
planet10 said:It being a sub, the woofers should be as near the floor as you can get them...
dave
Why is this ?
Bigun said:Why is this ?
Somewhere on this page i think...
http://www.nutshellhifi.com/ME2txt.html
dave
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Thanks - it's a good summary of my questions. I will have to revisit my design.
Of particular interest I noted the following:
"The alignments for best transient response (Qtc = 0.57, very large cabinet) have poor IM distortion, and the alignments for lowest IM distortion (Qtc = 1.1, small cabinet) have poor transient response."
this is something I haven't seen before and potentially changes my approach since currently I'm designing for Qtc of 0.57 yet a smaller cabinet has some claimed advantages. I don't understand the physics behind this claim though.
Of particular interest I noted the following:
"The alignments for best transient response (Qtc = 0.57, very large cabinet) have poor IM distortion, and the alignments for lowest IM distortion (Qtc = 1.1, small cabinet) have poor transient response."
this is something I haven't seen before and potentially changes my approach since currently I'm designing for Qtc of 0.57 yet a smaller cabinet has some claimed advantages. I don't understand the physics behind this claim though.
Bigun said:"The alignments for best transient response (Qtc = 0.57, very large cabinet) have poor IM distortion, and the alignments for lowest IM distortion (Qtc = 1.1, small cabinet) have poor transient response."
The IM distortion only really starts playing a role when you really start pushing the driver... and if Geddes' research holds an aweful lot of distortion can be tolerated before it becomes a problem. I'd not consider building a woof with higher then Q = 0.7, somewhere around 0.6 seems a decent compromise... as an aside i was again quite please with the bottom on Tysen (Q ~ 0.55), noting some very nice HT bottom despit having forgot to turn on the sub.
dave
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Another worry,
With one speaker pointing out the front and one out the back - am I in danger of having the back wave reflect off the wall behind and canceling out the forward wave ? In essence do I have to worry about the two drivers sound field interacting ? (such that I have to orient drivers facing side to side instead of front to back)
With one speaker pointing out the front and one out the back - am I in danger of having the back wave reflect off the wall behind and canceling out the forward wave ? In essence do I have to worry about the two drivers sound field interacting ? (such that I have to orient drivers facing side to side instead of front to back)
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
It's time for action now
I'm going to reduce the designed box volume a bit more and drop the drivers nearer the floor as suggested. Instead of a physical volume of 50L it will be built closer to 30L and then stuffed a bit to bring it to a Qtc of approx. 0.65. It seems to me that this will have a marginal impact on F3 or F10 and to my way of thinking - if I was going for the ultimate sub I wouldn't be using 8" drivers anyway.
Talking of which, the TRIO8 drivers and a 300W BASH amp are en-route from Bob (Creative Sound Solutions) and I'll pick up some Birch ply from HD tomorrow (or the day after).
I'm going to reduce the designed box volume a bit more and drop the drivers nearer the floor as suggested. Instead of a physical volume of 50L it will be built closer to 30L and then stuffed a bit to bring it to a Qtc of approx. 0.65. It seems to me that this will have a marginal impact on F3 or F10 and to my way of thinking - if I was going for the ultimate sub I wouldn't be using 8" drivers anyway.
Talking of which, the TRIO8 drivers and a 300W BASH amp are en-route from Bob (Creative Sound Solutions) and I'll pick up some Birch ply from HD tomorrow (or the day after).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Subwoofers
- Sub: 1 large or 2 small drivers ?