Peerless vs Peerless, a 10" infrawoofer - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Subwoofers

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 8th September 2009, 12:00 PM   #1
Telstar is offline Telstar  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy
Default Peerless vs Peerless, a 10" infrawoofer

I'm starting to give electronic life to this new concept for the next revision of my speakers, which will include, ladies and gentlemen, an infrawoofer.
It will be in closed box, as I hate BR, and will cover the fist octave to give then the torch to dipole midbass.

After doing lots of simulations of drivers including Volt, Vifa, and many others, i narrowed my choice to two drivers from the excellent woofer Peerless line:
http://www.tymphany.com/categories/peerless/subwoofer

Upper Fs limit has been set at 25hz, lower the better, therefore discarding the models 830843, 830846. Low volume is also a plus in my book, as the infra(s) will be short, but they can be large taking floor space behind the rack.

Besides size, the the XXLS 10" units have the advantage of costing about HALF of the 12" XXLS. The amplifier that will power either one or

Of course, other inputs are welcome. The use will be for a very low frequency band (from 20 to 60hz), with low distortion. Therefore the driver will have low Fs, high Xmax and low Qt. The Qtc of the box (closed, if it wasn tclear) will also be rather low. Active equalization and bass boost will be used.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2009, 08:58 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Good choice of drivers. Have you thought of drivers facing away from each other in a closed cabinet? The mounting cancels the reaction forces coming from the woofer cones, greatly decreasing both vibration within the cabinet and vibration transmitted to the floor. Could also suit your dipole midbass.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2009, 09:13 PM   #3
Telstar is offline Telstar  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antripodean View Post
Good choice of drivers. Have you thought of drivers facing away from each other in a closed cabinet? The mounting cancels the reaction forces coming from the woofer cones, greatly decreasing both vibration within the cabinet and vibration transmitted to the floor. Could also suit your dipole midbass.
That's exactly what i thought, with the cabinet being a cylinder.
I'm not sure if i should connect the drivers as stereo or as mono in that case.

Simulations with winISD will follow.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2009, 03:44 AM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Cylinder is a cool idea. Hope you can get the volume you need. I had a look at using a pair of SS 10" and needed ~110L. Given the low XO you might not need stereo but my preference would be stereo in with the option to sum to mono.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2009, 04:48 AM   #5
infinia is offline infinia  United States
diyAudio Member
 
infinia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Californication
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telstar View Post
It will be in closed box, as I hate BR, and will cover the fist octave to give then the torch to dipole midbass.

Those XXLS drivers are perfect for small closed boxes, but for low bandwith nothing beats a well designed 6th order vented> bang on for higher SPL and lower costs using cheaper 12" drivers. About the same size for a normal vented design with higher eff and more LF shaping options but without the need for all the extra electronic EQ boxes. But sealed is OK if low volume and low SPLs are good enough. see your chart of Xmax versus freq at 20-30 Hz, it is always tuff to do for any 10" I would not even attempt to venture there myself.
__________________
like four million tons of hydrogen exploding on the sun
like the whisper of the termites building castles in the dust
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2009, 01:15 PM   #6
Telstar is offline Telstar  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antripodean View Post
Cylinder is a cool idea. Hope you can get the volume you need. I had a look at using a pair of SS 10" and needed ~110L. Given the low XO you might not need stereo but my preference would be stereo in with the option to sum to mono.
Single driver sub simulation in winISD.
the XXLS do NOT need big boxes. The Ideal size for my room is under 40lt for two boxes and about 70 for one big (tube).

It is quite obvious that the 830842 is good only for very small boxes, but it does not meet my SPL goals. The other two drivers performs very close in a 38lt box, with roughly equals a 30x30x60cm parallelepiped. I can probably go with either of them, but the silver one is a tiny better and cheaper.

Simulation two is with two drivers in 70lt box.

Also my preference is for stereo (also for equalization), I want to find out if i can do that putting both drivers in the same cylinder and wire them stereo.
It either works or is horrible
Attached Images
File Type: png 10sub1.png (54.0 KB, 420 views)
File Type: png 10sub2.png (48.6 KB, 414 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2009, 01:19 PM   #7
Telstar is offline Telstar  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinia View Post
Those XXLS drivers are perfect for small closed boxes, but for low bandwith nothing beats a well designed 6th order vented> bang on for higher SPL and lower costs using cheaper 12" drivers. About the same size for a normal vented design with higher eff and more LF shaping options but without the need for all the extra electronic EQ boxes. But sealed is OK if low volume and low SPLs are good enough. see your chart of Xmax versus freq at 20-30 Hz, it is always tuff to do for any 10" I would not even attempt to venture there myself.
I dont really have the space to use 12" drivers in the first instance.
Besides the 10" XXLS have very similar performance to the 12". I did comparing sims before.

The alternative i'm considering is a pair of tapped horns with 6-8" drivers. Problem is I dont have the space and some thin columns have to be designed. Like this one but in column:
http://www.volvotreter.de/th.htm
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2009, 09:54 PM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telstar View Post
Snip
It either works or is horrible
Exactly Volume seems reasonable and no apparent difference on the sims. And if it doesn't work you can always find a good home for these drivers in single sealed subs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2009, 02:25 PM   #9
bjorno is offline bjorno  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Jacobsmountain
Send a message via MSN to bjorno
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telstar View Post
.. as the infra(s) will be short, but they can be large taking floor space behind the rack..

..Of course, other inputs are welcome. The use will be for a very low frequency band (from 20 to 60hz), with low distortion. Therefore the driver will have low Fs, high Xmax and low Qt. The Qtc of the box (closed, if it wasn tclear) will also be rather low. Active equalization and bass boost will be used.
Hi, IMO and IME: The submitted simulation of a T-TQWT will reach the infra octaves without any extra bass boost or needed Eq. or wasting excessive amp power and is more than 50 % efficient(>= 6 dB) at 20 Hz when compared to a closed variant.

Further: The T-TQWT will be more 'silent' as the distortion generated above the pass band will be acoustically screened (low passed).

b
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Comp-T-TQWT.JPG (99.1 KB, 376 views)
File Type: gif Peerless-830842_T-TQWT.GIF (83.0 KB, 372 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2009, 03:13 PM   #10
Telstar is offline Telstar  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjorno View Post
Hi, IMO and IME: The submitted simulation of a T-TQWT will reach the infra octaves without any extra bass boost or needed Eq. or wasting excessive amp power and is more than 50 % efficient(>= 6 dB) at 20 Hz when compared to a closed variant.

Further: The T-TQWT will be more 'silent' as the distortion generated above the pass band will be acoustically screened (low passed).
96lt... i wish i had that space, which would be the exact size? (i read only the height)
Well, if i persuade the WAF the tapped horn is definitely more efficient and clean than a closed box.

It's amazing how well this 10" peerless responds in such configuration, according to your simulation.
  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
peerless xxls sealed -vs- peerless xls with passive radiator Naudio Subwoofers 8 23rd March 2008 09:00 PM
FS: (1) used Peerless XLS 12" StriatedFoot Swap Meet 3 29th December 2006 07:18 AM
Peerless 10" CSX PeteMcK Multi-Way 4 12th April 2005 01:21 PM
Peerless XLS 12" The Dudster Multi-Way 11 17th March 2004 05:44 AM
Whats the difference between the Peerless 831916 and Peerless 850122 SkinnyBoy Multi-Way 9 12th June 2003 03:11 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:52 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