So in planning out my subwoofer array. Using the six 15" Dayton
Quatros in 4.8 cubic foot (closed) boxes across the front stage of
my 13'w x 20'l x 8'h listening room theater.
I have come across an interesting thing. I end up with a "Wall to
Wall subwoofer array."
So rather than radiate into open space, the woofers will couple
into a single low frequency line source. Since these reach wall to
wall, they would be a horizontal equvalent to the floor to ceiling
vertical line arrays, which behave like a virtually infinte line
source.
Thinking of this in low frequency terms. The 6 subwoofers
working in concert will will create a seamless pressure wave
towards the listener that is completely confined on three sides
(floor, left wall, right wall.) Think wave machine.
Another interesting fact:
The sd of the 15" Dayton quatro is about 127 square inches.
Times 6 that is about 5.3 square feet. The front of the room is 13'
wide by 8' tall, so that is 104 square feet. Therefore the sd
represents just over 5 percent of the area of the front wall.
Detail: six 15" Dayton Quatros (fs 21, vas 186.9 ltr, qts .41)
placed in a separate boxes with a qtc of .64, each with an
enclosure size of 4.8 cubic feet, across the front of the room. The
Quatros are a great value and model great in this regard. They
actually do better than the Tempest in resonable sized sealed
enclosures.
What opinions do you have on this approach?
See below the illustration of the front of the theater with the
subwoofer configuration. Click the url link for a view of the actual
room.
James
Quatros in 4.8 cubic foot (closed) boxes across the front stage of
my 13'w x 20'l x 8'h listening room theater.
I have come across an interesting thing. I end up with a "Wall to
Wall subwoofer array."
So rather than radiate into open space, the woofers will couple
into a single low frequency line source. Since these reach wall to
wall, they would be a horizontal equvalent to the floor to ceiling
vertical line arrays, which behave like a virtually infinte line
source.
Thinking of this in low frequency terms. The 6 subwoofers
working in concert will will create a seamless pressure wave
towards the listener that is completely confined on three sides
(floor, left wall, right wall.) Think wave machine.
Another interesting fact:
The sd of the 15" Dayton quatro is about 127 square inches.
Times 6 that is about 5.3 square feet. The front of the room is 13'
wide by 8' tall, so that is 104 square feet. Therefore the sd
represents just over 5 percent of the area of the front wall.
Detail: six 15" Dayton Quatros (fs 21, vas 186.9 ltr, qts .41)
placed in a separate boxes with a qtc of .64, each with an
enclosure size of 4.8 cubic feet, across the front of the room. The
Quatros are a great value and model great in this regard. They
actually do better than the Tempest in resonable sized sealed
enclosures.
What opinions do you have on this approach?
See below the illustration of the front of the theater with the
subwoofer configuration. Click the url link for a view of the actual
room.
James
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Provided the subs only handle the deep bass I can see no reason why it should make any difference whether you have the sub array horizontal or vertical. It should work fine in that respect.
The only question mark would be about how the subs react with the room. The fact that you're committing so much of your room to the system is obviously to be commended (although only by us and we should be locked away). Still, I wouldn't attempt to calculate the likely excitations of room nodes in this set up. You have to suck it and see. It will probably be fine (you'll have a volume control for the subs, won't you?) but some flexibility with sub placement may be a good thing if it all goes pear shaped.
Steve
The only question mark would be about how the subs react with the room. The fact that you're committing so much of your room to the system is obviously to be commended (although only by us and we should be locked away). Still, I wouldn't attempt to calculate the likely excitations of room nodes in this set up. You have to suck it and see. It will probably be fine (you'll have a volume control for the subs, won't you?) but some flexibility with sub placement may be a good thing if it all goes pear shaped.
Steve
7V said , in part:
The only question mark would be about how the subs react with the room. The fact that you're committing so much of your room to the system is obviously to be commended (although only by us and we should be locked away).
----------------------------------------
As long as it is my listening room... no problem.
----------------------------------------
7V said , in part:
Still, I wouldn't attempt to calculate the likely excitations of room nodes in this set up. You have to suck it and see. It will probably be fine (you'll have a volume control for the subs, won't you?) but some flexibility with sub placement may be a good thing if it all goes pear shaped.
----------------------------------------
That is always the issue with subwoofers, however you are in far better shape with a 15inch by 13 foot subwoofer than a small one in a corner somewhere.
James
The only question mark would be about how the subs react with the room. The fact that you're committing so much of your room to the system is obviously to be commended (although only by us and we should be locked away).
----------------------------------------
As long as it is my listening room... no problem.
----------------------------------------
7V said , in part:
Still, I wouldn't attempt to calculate the likely excitations of room nodes in this set up. You have to suck it and see. It will probably be fine (you'll have a volume control for the subs, won't you?) but some flexibility with sub placement may be a good thing if it all goes pear shaped.
----------------------------------------
That is always the issue with subwoofers, however you are in far better shape with a 15inch by 13 foot subwoofer than a small one in a corner somewhere.
James
Generally speaking a line array disperses at 90 degree perpendicular
I think you would be happier with the sound if they were in two vertical arrays - they would then disperse in a horizontal plane -
It's late and I'm not sure I'm wording this as well as I should.
But a vertical line arrray disperses sound in a horizontal plane.
A horizontal line array disperses sound in a vertical plane.
Given that your room is 13 wide versus 8 hi - I would think you would have better dispersion characteristics with a verical array on each side.
However, I really don't know what effect frequency extremes would have on this.
If you construct them so that they can be stacked three per side or lined up all six in front, you can try them both ways.
My guess, is that you're going to like them a lot more if they're stacked on the sides.
later
Ken L
I think you would be happier with the sound if they were in two vertical arrays - they would then disperse in a horizontal plane -
It's late and I'm not sure I'm wording this as well as I should.
But a vertical line arrray disperses sound in a horizontal plane.
A horizontal line array disperses sound in a vertical plane.
Given that your room is 13 wide versus 8 hi - I would think you would have better dispersion characteristics with a verical array on each side.
However, I really don't know what effect frequency extremes would have on this.
If you construct them so that they can be stacked three per side or lined up all six in front, you can try them both ways.
My guess, is that you're going to like them a lot more if they're stacked on the sides.
later
Ken L
If you're going for a solid wave of sound comng at you (a VERY respectable goal, to be sure!!!) you might try using smaller drivers and T-lines, such that the drivers and the ends of the lines face the listener, and everything is mounted as close together as possible, to get as close to "solid wave of sound" as possible. Also consider using full-range drivers with lots of EQ. Just think of it--you'd be able to be anywhere within 3' of the sweet spot, and be in the sweet spot. 
Some interesting points Ken L.
Ken L. Said in part:
But a vertical line arrray disperses sound in a horizontal plane. A horizontal line array disperses sound in a vertical plane.
------------------------------------
This is a good point, and I am approaching it in an rather unconventional way I suppose. Here is the rational that I was using. If you create a stereo pair of subwoofers, and place the about 10 feet apart, you will get cancellation and boost - interference patterns.
This may be avoided by using a multi- driver horizontal sub array.
---------------------------------------
Ken L. Said in part:
Given that your room is 13 wide versus 8 hi - I would think you would have better dispersion characteristics with a verical array on each side.
--------------------------------------
Since the woofers are wall to wall, additional horizontal dispersion is not needed.
---------------------------------------
Ken L. Said in part:
If you construct them so that they can be stacked three per side or lined up all six in front, you can try them both ways.
---------------------------------------
This is a good idea. I will likely do this.
Ken L. Said in part:
But a vertical line arrray disperses sound in a horizontal plane. A horizontal line array disperses sound in a vertical plane.
------------------------------------
This is a good point, and I am approaching it in an rather unconventional way I suppose. Here is the rational that I was using. If you create a stereo pair of subwoofers, and place the about 10 feet apart, you will get cancellation and boost - interference patterns.
This may be avoided by using a multi- driver horizontal sub array.
---------------------------------------
Ken L. Said in part:
Given that your room is 13 wide versus 8 hi - I would think you would have better dispersion characteristics with a verical array on each side.
--------------------------------------
Since the woofers are wall to wall, additional horizontal dispersion is not needed.
---------------------------------------
Ken L. Said in part:
If you construct them so that they can be stacked three per side or lined up all six in front, you can try them both ways.
---------------------------------------
This is a good idea. I will likely do this.
Wave of sound
Nappylady said, in part
you might try using smaller drivers and T-lines, such that the drivers and the ends of the lines face the listener, and everything is mounted as close together as possible, to get as close to "solid wave of sound" as possible. Also consider using full-range drivers with lots of EQ. Just think of it--you'd be able to be anywhere within 3' of the sweet spot, and be in the sweet spot.
-------------------------------
I think I need deep speakers, at least 12", but I am likely to go with 15". A single 15" should have an area of about 2.5 12" speakers. So 6 15" speakers would need 15 12" woofers to equal the sd.
My mains:
James
Nappylady said, in part
you might try using smaller drivers and T-lines, such that the drivers and the ends of the lines face the listener, and everything is mounted as close together as possible, to get as close to "solid wave of sound" as possible. Also consider using full-range drivers with lots of EQ. Just think of it--you'd be able to be anywhere within 3' of the sweet spot, and be in the sweet spot.
-------------------------------
I think I need deep speakers, at least 12", but I am likely to go with 15". A single 15" should have an area of about 2.5 12" speakers. So 6 15" speakers would need 15 12" woofers to equal the sd.
My mains:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
James
Re: Qt
If you design for flat anechoic response (ie in your modeling program) and then you put them into a room with gain of 3-6 dB/octave below a certain point you end up with a really lump at the bottom.
I like a design that starts rolling off fairly high (~100 hz) and slopes gently down from there (ie Qt=0.5). Often this isn't achievable with a reasonable size box in which case i go aperiodic (which i prefer anyway).
dave
jmiyake said:
If you design for flat anechoic response (ie in your modeling program) and then you put them into a room with gain of 3-6 dB/octave below a certain point you end up with a really lump at the bottom.
I like a design that starts rolling off fairly high (~100 hz) and slopes gently down from there (ie Qt=0.5). Often this isn't achievable with a reasonable size box in which case i go aperiodic (which i prefer anyway).
dave
Re: Re: Re: Qt
ake the sealed box. Add some holes as far from the driver as feasible, and then restrict the air flow thru the holes (ie compressed fiberglass). I've found that long thin slots like in the Dynaco A25 are easier to deal with.
Tune by ear, the click test, or flattest impedance curve.
dave
7V said:
ake the sealed box. Add some holes as far from the driver as feasible, and then restrict the air flow thru the holes (ie compressed fiberglass). I've found that long thin slots like in the Dynaco A25 are easier to deal with.
Tune by ear, the click test, or flattest impedance curve.
dave
Hy,
if you are looking for a more intelligent setup, read some papers:
http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=65
best regards
if you are looking for a more intelligent setup, read some papers:
http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=65
best regards
Re: Re: Re: Re: Qt
Websters describes "aperiodic" to mean:
1 : of irregular occurrence <aperiodic floods>
2 : not having periodic vibrations : not oscillatory
In the last few days I've seen the term used to describe 'Daline' bass loading, egg-shaped enclosure design and restricted ports.
As it's such a general term I guess we should be specific about exactly what we mean.
Thanks Dave.planet10 said:
Websters describes "aperiodic" to mean:
1 : of irregular occurrence <aperiodic floods>
2 : not having periodic vibrations : not oscillatory
In the last few days I've seen the term used to describe 'Daline' bass loading, egg-shaped enclosure design and restricted ports.
As it's such a general term I guess we should be specific about exactly what we mean.
Re: Re: Qt
I am really surprised that a project of this magnitude did not receive more attention from this board until now.
Your ability to hear these deep frequencies drops off dramatically as well. What's wrong with a little extra "ooph" down there?
A Qtc of 0.5 is considered the best for transient response. A Qtc of 0.7 is considered critically damped. His Qtc is about midway between these two. He is not far off from Qtc = 0.5 now. Are attempts to bring it all the way down to Qtc = 0.5 really necessary?
If he wants to experiment, I was going to suggest he go in the other directiion-port these things for extra "oomph". Use a 4" pipe with a pipe cap on it and make one of the subs a "convertible". See how it sounds. He can always put the "convertible" sub's capped port hole in the back of the enclosure so nobody will see it.
Just a suggestion to mull over.
I am really surprised that a project of this magnitude did not receive more attention from this board until now.
Your ability to hear these deep frequencies drops off dramatically as well. What's wrong with a little extra "ooph" down there?
A Qtc of 0.5 is considered the best for transient response. A Qtc of 0.7 is considered critically damped. His Qtc is about midway between these two. He is not far off from Qtc = 0.5 now. Are attempts to bring it all the way down to Qtc = 0.5 really necessary?
If he wants to experiment, I was going to suggest he go in the other directiion-port these things for extra "oomph". Use a 4" pipe with a pipe cap on it and make one of the subs a "convertible". See how it sounds. He can always put the "convertible" sub's capped port hole in the back of the enclosure so nobody will see it.
Just a suggestion to mull over.
the harmon paper
Hi Kay,
Kay said:
if you are looking for a more intelligent setup, read some papers:
--------------------------------------------
Well I have read this paper. It is a very directed work, and seems somewhat sparse in providing enough rules or theories to follow the conclusions.
One of the recommended configurations has you sitting practically top of the multiple subwoofers, which will have the flatest frequency response at the seating position. This may be true.
In an earlier concept I proposed imbedding a subwoofer in the raised seating platform of the theater. (I mean there is all that space, ~25 cubic feet.)
However I rejected it since such a configuration would seem to be very difficult integrate the subwoofer with the rest of speakers. Although for home theater, this may be fine, for music listening, it is considered important to have the sound generated from a uniform location.
One of my goals in having a sealed array with an enormous sd, is to have a very musical bass setup. Setting up subs below or behind the listening position would seem to be counter to this end.
James
Hi Kay,
Kay said:
if you are looking for a more intelligent setup, read some papers:
--------------------------------------------
Well I have read this paper. It is a very directed work, and seems somewhat sparse in providing enough rules or theories to follow the conclusions.
One of the recommended configurations has you sitting practically top of the multiple subwoofers, which will have the flatest frequency response at the seating position. This may be true.
In an earlier concept I proposed imbedding a subwoofer in the raised seating platform of the theater. (I mean there is all that space, ~25 cubic feet.)
However I rejected it since such a configuration would seem to be very difficult integrate the subwoofer with the rest of speakers. Although for home theater, this may be fine, for music listening, it is considered important to have the sound generated from a uniform location.
One of my goals in having a sealed array with an enormous sd, is to have a very musical bass setup. Setting up subs below or behind the listening position would seem to be counter to this end.
James
Port vs sealed
Hi kelticwizard ,
kelticwizard chanted, in part:
I was going to suggest he go in the other directiion-port these things for extra "oomph" ... He can always put the "convertible" sub's capped port hole in the back of the enclosure so nobody will see it.
---------------------------------------
Well this is a very interesting notion.
The reason I have been leaning towards sealed, is less distortion and a shallower drop off at the very lowest frequency. Also I am looking for tightness, and low boom. Musicality. I seriously doubt that I will require more boom, or that it would be desirable.
However you bring up some very interesting ideas, on making it adjustable.
I shall ponder this some more.
James
Hi kelticwizard ,
kelticwizard chanted, in part:
I was going to suggest he go in the other directiion-port these things for extra "oomph" ... He can always put the "convertible" sub's capped port hole in the back of the enclosure so nobody will see it.
---------------------------------------
Well this is a very interesting notion.
The reason I have been leaning towards sealed, is less distortion and a shallower drop off at the very lowest frequency. Also I am looking for tightness, and low boom. Musicality. I seriously doubt that I will require more boom, or that it would be desirable.
However you bring up some very interesting ideas, on making it adjustable.
I shall ponder this some more.
James
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.