Drivers can handle 350W RMS/piece (700W total) 14 mm X-Max
Model JBL GTO1214
Net volume is 500 liter.
Simulated for corner placement, 2,83V, driers in parallell. 135 dB @ 20 Hz.
Braced with 12 mm plywood/MDF, as image below
Internal dimensions, materialthickness 22 mm
Build your own and tell me if it works🙂
Model JBL GTO1214
Net volume is 500 liter.
Simulated for corner placement, 2,83V, driers in parallell. 135 dB @ 20 Hz.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Braced with 12 mm plywood/MDF, as image below
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Internal dimensions, materialthickness 22 mm
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Build your own and tell me if it works🙂
Last edited:
you could probably flatten out the higher spl response by flaring out the mouth, but then you would not have a nice rectangle dimension. i bet the distortion would increase as volume does with that port shape as well.
of course i am a big fan of large curved flared "tuba" ports for subs. they sound smoother too.
what ideas do you have for lining the first couple of meters in that design?
of course i am a big fan of large curved flared "tuba" ports for subs. they sound smoother too.
what ideas do you have for lining the first couple of meters in that design?
Tx for sharing.
Interesting layout.
Side note -
I haven't come across a TH build where the high end is as simulated/ Always less.
Also post the HR data.
To lazy to re-figure that out.
Interesting layout.
Side note -
I haven't come across a TH build where the high end is as simulated/ Always less.
Also post the HR data.
To lazy to re-figure that out.
No, just increase the high freq. sensitivity on cost of low end sensitivity.
Yes, thats true. This box design is made to be as flat as possible and to just fit on a standard 120x240 cm sheet to maximise acoustic output compared to the material used.
Why? Plese explain. At these waewlengts, i can't see why...
Smoother tha all tapped horns...A bit too much generalization maybe...
Since I have not built them, I don't know. One has to study the measured freq. response and listen too determaine such things is my experience.
Welcome and thanx🙂
Well, that depends on the folding. This folding will make the horn measure
quite the same as the simulation. For a single fold, the first dip will be filled
in. for example in my own tapped horns. 2 pi measurement and simulation.
The high end seems pretty intact...Levels are normilized. No Smoothing applied,
measured 2.5 meters from the mouth on axis, ground plane.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Naa...too lazy do that, if it is of eaugh intrest, you just have to do some back engineering😛
Last edited:
i meant flared sub "horns" not ported tubes. my bad.
well in my experiences building subs with wider more flared mouths produced less distorted and more musical sounding compared to just the smaller or square opening at higher volumes.
i would have to guess it might have to do with moving air maybe.
i could be splitting hairs as most sound that low is more of a thud/boom/puff kind of sound and not musical.
Aha, okej, then I understand better. A larger mouth creates a better coupling
between the air in the horn and the surrounding air and reduces air speeed in
the mouth region. The mouth area in this horn is 1625 cm2, about three times
the SD, so it's pretty large any way...As you mentioned, a larger mouth would
not fit in the desiered outer dimensions.
A larger mouth also lowers the q at the res. freq. and then lowers the group
delay, giving a more tight "musical" sound on cost of efficiency/box volume though.
between the air in the horn and the surrounding air and reduces air speeed in
the mouth region. The mouth area in this horn is 1625 cm2, about three times
the SD, so it's pretty large any way...As you mentioned, a larger mouth would
not fit in the desiered outer dimensions.
A larger mouth also lowers the q at the res. freq. and then lowers the group
delay, giving a more tight "musical" sound on cost of efficiency/box volume though.
Nice job Oliver🙂 The only difference is about 0,5 dB around the 70-Hz-peak and
since this still only is a simulation, the differences are of academic value...
since this still only is a simulation, the differences are of academic value...
Can the driver fit the 130mm(5.11") dimension? The driver depth when flush mounted is 6 5/16" according to the PDF.
Won't that change some of the values of s3 and s4 for your hornsrep calculations?
Also do you have plots for diaphram displacement, the ones I try to run really get out of control but I could be doing something incorrectly.
Last edited:
Hello Petter,
I really like the footprint of your design. Would it be possible to alter the port location? If so, I'd consider building this as part of a riser for my second row seating if I could get the bass firing out of the front of the riser.
Obviously, I know nothing about tapped horns. 😱 😀
I really like the footprint of your design. Would it be possible to alter the port location? If so, I'd consider building this as part of a riser for my second row seating if I could get the bass firing out of the front of the riser.
Obviously, I know nothing about tapped horns. 😱 😀
To this?
Not at all close. Go over to HT theater shack to look at the DTS 10 - which is like the Spud.
Not at all close. Go over to HT theater shack to look at the DTS 10 - which is like the Spud.
The dimensions are similar, no? I know there is more internal stuff in the DTS-10 (I have both the AVS and the HTS thread bookmarked).
Here's a similar TH that has been built & tested using the lab12 from eminence. Changing the direction of output is a simple
modification on most tapped horns.
Attachments
Last edited: