Please recommend a 10" subwoofer - Page 2 - 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 7th May 2010, 05:15 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
sumaudioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Midwest U.S.A.
referto... you are so funny- thank you for that! No harm intended!

This signal from the port is one full cycle behind the active driver. Does your software show that? Tuned to 33Hz that is 30ms of delay. Is that more group delay than the EQ? Simulated response is for simulated music. I prefer real notes and real music from sealed loudspeakers. The sound will be as described for the two different methods. Depends on what one desires as the final result.

Lower Q always results in better performance in a room so I always go for the lowest Q driver if it has a good cone like the Peerless. Higher Q is back to that resonant peaking (like a bell ringing) of the response thing. Always a bad idea. EQ not high Q, just like is done in mids and highs of almost all speakers. No resonance peaking in the mids and the highs is found in 99% of designs so why resonance peak in the bass? Because it is a bad idea I think and people know how to do that so they do. It is very popular.
__________________
What the other guy said----Standing on the shoulders of giants.
New avatar- no more little array

Last edited by sumaudioguy; 7th May 2010 at 05:23 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2010, 06:41 PM   #12
okmat is offline okmat  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumaudioguy View Post
Lower Q always results in better performance in a room so I always go for the lowest Q driver if it has a good cone like the Peerless. Higher Q is back to that resonant peaking (like a bell ringing) of the response thing. Always a bad idea. EQ not high Q, just like is done in mids and highs of almost all speakers. No resonance peaking in the mids and the highs is found in 99% of designs so why resonance peak in the bass? Because it is a bad idea I think and people know how to do that so they do. It is very popular.
Humm, this is interesting! I'll look into it, thanks for this info. Indeed, in simulations, I can get quite a similar frequency response with a low Q and medium Q drivers after applying a LT.

Click the image to open in full size.

The red curve is for peerless 83045 (nomex, qts = 0.17) the yellow one is for the aluminum peerless 835016. Both Linkwitz transformed.

So in this example the lower Q driver will be more musical? with notes in the bass?
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2010, 06:54 PM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
event horizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Midlands, England
I don't know how you have managed to get a bass response like that from both of those drivers unless you applied the wrong response from the linkwitz transform. Try altering the parameters so you get the thing smooth in the upper bass. You should be able to get the things entirely flat rather than any kind of peak (be it broad or not).

I suggest you first look at the resonance frequency of each driver in the closed box & this will tell you the frequency to apply the curve to (think it's Fo) & then look at how many Db below the flat response it is, this will give you a good idea of Qo.

Work from there & you'll get it flat soon enough

E2A:- the really interesting & superb thing about the Linkwitz/Riley transform is that it not only corrects for level variations in it's passband, but also the transient response.
__________________
"Never let your morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Last edited by event horizon; 7th May 2010 at 07:16 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2010, 06:59 PM   #14
tinitus is offline tinitus  Europe
diyAudio Moderator R.I.P.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by okmat View Post
Is the 835016 subwoofer better suited for a sealed box?

In your experience, will an aluminum cone add clarity to the bass?
Note that the older paper coned Peerless has almost 50% higher mms

Theres a 12" sister to the alu coned 10"
It has very low Fs, and still relatively low mms
Low Fs is good with closed
Slightly higher Qts means going low with less EQ
Bigger size should result in less cone moving
Needs a bigger box, but maybe you can compensate with EQ

Maybe look at box Qtc around 0.55
__________________
sometimes we know very little, and sometimes we know too much
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2010, 07:33 PM   #15
okmat is offline okmat  Poland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by event horizon View Post
I don't know how you have managed to get a bass response like that from both of those drivers unless you applied the wrong response from the linkwitz transform. Try altering the parameters so you get the thing smooth in the upper bass. You should be able to get the things entirely flat rather than any kind of peak (be it broad or not).

I suggest you first look at the resonance frequency of each driver in the closed box & this will tell you the frequency to apply the curve to (think it's Fo) & then look at how many Db below the flat response it is, this will give you a good idea of Qo.

Work from there & you'll get it flat soon enough

E2A:- the really interesting & superb thing about the Linkwitz/Riley transform is that it not only corrects for level variations in it's passband, but also the transient response.
I got it like that applying the a linkwitz transform right from winISD EQ section, with the optimal parameters suggested by winISD itself, which are based on the thiele/small parameters of the simulated driver + box volume. Is it very ugly? The peak around 100 Hz is only a couple of DB above "flat" so I tought I don't care too much hehe, I'll try to get a flatter response by tweaking the parameters anyway. Thanks
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2010, 07:39 PM   #16
diyAudio Member
 
event horizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Midlands, England
It's not pretty no 2Db may not look a lot on a graph but it'll be rather intrusive with music at that sort of frequency unfortunately.

If you can't get the thing flatter give me the driver specs & i'll see what i can do to help
__________________
"Never let your morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2010, 07:40 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
sumaudioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Midwest U.S.A.
The reason I like heavy cone is the voice coil is heavy also if it is wound with copper. Cone mass and voice coil assembly mass should be about the same for best coupling. Also a heavy cone is a thick cone making the cone more rigid than the thin aluminum cone. The aluminum cone has higher propagation velocity which is a benefit. As long as the Q in the box is .577 or less (I like .5) then results can be pretty good. - but this is all speaker design theory

1st graph Q box = .5 Fb= 30Hz -3dB at 46.5Hz
2nd graph Q filter = 1.6 Ff =30Hz +4dB at 30Hz
3rd graph system output -3dB at 28.5Hz

More EQ can take it as low as you wish to go until excursion limit is reached. There are other ways to EQ which do not use high Q filter. Of course electronic filter. If it is a dual voice coil there is always the watkins woofers system (watson?) like infinity.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg BOOF.jpg (67.7 KB, 260 views)
__________________
What the other guy said----Standing on the shoulders of giants.
New avatar- no more little array
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th May 2010, 08:23 PM   #18
infinia is offline infinia  United States
diyAudio Member
 
infinia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Californication
After alignment and EQing. Don't forget to look at displacement vs SPL to get an idea of true system performance. Then you will quickly realize using more lower Xm sub-drivers is a bigger advantage than one costly ultra Xmax sub-driver.
__________________
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 7th May 2010, 10:18 PM   #19
ruferto is offline ruferto  Portugal
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
I am new in the world of subwoofer diy .
I am going to use the sub.90% for music , so sealed enclosure is the way
Just have to buy the plate amp. and make the sealed box.
But has i can see its going to take some time, I am still learning
  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
Subwoofer with 10" High Output Buyout 69stingray Subwoofers 7 6th August 2007 11:59 PM
Dayton 10" High Fidelity Subwoofer Relax Swap Meet 2 5th June 2006 03:22 AM
WTB: a small 8" or 10" subwoofer justpoor Swap Meet 0 26th February 2006 09:05 AM
Calibra 10" subwoofer specs MoJo Subwoofers 0 14th August 2004 11:30 AM
My 2nd Q: 10" subwoofer enclosure kingfootga Subwoofers 4 27th March 2002 10:23 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:56 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