Use Linkwitz Transform to reduce size of Enclosure? - 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 28th December 2010, 08:46 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pune
Default Use Linkwitz Transform to reduce size of Enclosure?

I was simulating different closed enclosure for the same driver using WInIsd and adding Linkwitz Transform to extend its lower frequency response. While doing this I thought if it is possible to reduce the size of enclosure and extend lower frequency response of the system.
say for first design I get 50liters of enclosure with f3 of 50Hz and design Qtc = 0.7 and implement Linkwitz Transform to get F3 of 20Hz.

now next suppose I design smaller enclosure, 25liters, f3= 100Hz, Qtc = 1.5
and implement Linkwitz Transform to get F3 of 20Hz.

so can I say that with the help of LT we can reduce the size of enclosure keeping the lower frequency response same? what all things would be affected? which one of two will sound better?
__________________
There is always a first time....
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th December 2010, 10:11 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
chris661's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheffield
Blog Entries: 8
What size driver are you using?
There's no point in using eq to get more bass, if you run out of linear displacement before it'll play 20hz loud enough. Having used it in the past, I wouldn't advise going lower than an octave below the uneq'd response, as the amount of gain required to go further makes an even bigger problem of excursion.
Next up, despite efforts to flatten the response, a resonant system (q=1.5) will still exhibit that resonance, so a large peak before rolloff would best be avoided.

Regards,
Chris
__________________
"Throwing parts at a failure is like throwing sponges at a rainstorm." - Enzo
My setup: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...tang-band.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th December 2010, 10:46 PM   #3
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Hi.

You can create any frequency response you like actively, the real issue
is if the maximum SPL related to the volume displacement of the driver
is suitably matched by the driving amplifier power and the bass alignment.

Simply put if you model it the LT will need more amplifier power as long
as the driver can take it, noting the max SPL of any driver in terms of
excursion capability is completely independent of the box response.

More power essentially allows a smaller box to reach fixed SPL limits.

rgds, sreten.

An LT changes the box Q, its simply not true its still there.
__________________
There is nothing so practical as a really good theory - Ludwig Boltzmann
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail - Abraham Maslow
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2010, 06:37 AM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pune
Dear chris661 and sreten, thanks for the reply. Also wish you a happy new year in advance.

@chris661
I am using 8 Inch driver.
To handle excursion problem I have chosen the woofer with high excursion. also after simulation when I saw the its excursion at the f3 frequency, it was within the limit.

@sreten
I ll keep in mind the guidelines you provided. also i understand it don't change any of the box characteristic. I was trying to know that if two boxes designed with different f3. ( one lower and other higher) and then equilized system with LT to get same f3 of both, will sound same?
__________________
There is always a first time....
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2010, 08:31 AM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
chris661's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheffield
Blog Entries: 8
Here's some reading for you.
ESP - The Linkwitz Transform Circuit
Sounds like you've taken the displacement required into consideration. In that case, experiment with the circuit (try different Q of the response - some say Q=0.5 is better than Q=0.7).
Looking briefly at some sims, an 8" driver will need to move 9mm each way to reproduce 20Hz at 86dB. This wouldn't be audible, but will eat up a lot of headroom. I'd set a target for more like 30Hz, but that's just me...

Sreten, if you eq a response to be flat, does a resonance disappear? Then surely, a system with a resonance in it's frequency range could exhibit that resonance from time to time?

Chris
__________________
"Throwing parts at a failure is like throwing sponges at a rainstorm." - Enzo
My setup: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...tang-band.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2010, 08:42 AM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pune
just few graph which i forgot to post.

@ Chris

I will read the link provided by you. thanks.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf without equil.pdf (51.2 KB, 55 views)
File Type: pdf equilized resp.pdf (49.6 KB, 39 views)
File Type: pdf Excertion.pdf (48.7 KB, 34 views)
__________________
There is always a first time....
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2010, 09:01 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Zealand
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris661 View Post
...
Sreten, if you eq a response to be flat, does a resonance disappear? Then surely, a system with a resonance in it's frequency range could exhibit that resonance from time to time?
Chris
No, EQing a resonance to flat makes it disappear, both in the frequency and time domain.

For example, take a 6 dB resonance with a Q of 0.7.
Starting from no signal, excite it with a signal at its resonant frequency and plot the level over time. It will rise from the original level to a level 6 dB higher, over a time period determined by the Q. (High Q = longer rise time.)

Now take a 6dB notch with a Q of 0.7 and repeat the excitation. The level will drop to a level 6 dB lower, over a time period determined by the Q.

Now put them in series and repeat. The rise in level over time of the peak will be exactly countered by the drop in level of the notch.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2010, 09:29 PM   #8
AndrewT is offline AndrewT  Scotland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scottish Borders
LT works at low levels of LF gain.
By the time gain gets to 20dB the speaker will be incapable of playing bass that can keep up (SPL wise) with the mid and treble.
At 15dB of LT gain you will be struggling to get a speaker to play well with this much signal being sent to it.
Try to limit your LT gain to 10dB or certainly less than 12dB.

The further you push the F-3dB frequency down, the more LT gain your speaker will need.

If you need 50W to play your Mid and Treble drivers which are both rated at 88dB/W @ 1m then +12dB of LT gain requires 800W to get the same SPL from an 88dB/W @ 1m bass driver.
If the bass driver is 85dB/W @ 1m the bass driver will need 1600W to match the 50W driving the Mid and Treble. I see that as a big problem.
Now get your self a high efficiency PA bass driver that cannot go down low but has lots of Power capability and lots of Sd.
Lets say you find a 96dB/W @ 1m driver.
Adding on the 10dB of LT gain to get the extension you need is equivalent to 86dB/W @ 1m.
Now you need just 80W to the Bass driver to match the SPL of the 50W to Mid and Treble.
__________________
regards Andrew T.

Last edited by AndrewT; 30th December 2010 at 09:38 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2010, 10:37 PM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
chris661's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheffield
Blog Entries: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
No, EQing a resonance to flat makes it disappear, both in the frequency and time domain.

For example, take a 6 dB resonance with a Q of 0.7.
Starting from no signal, excite it with a signal at its resonant frequency and plot the level over time. It will rise from the original level to a level 6 dB higher, over a time period determined by the Q. (High Q = longer rise time.)

Now take a 6dB notch with a Q of 0.7 and repeat the excitation. The level will drop to a level 6 dB lower, over a time period determined by the Q.

Now put them in series and repeat. The rise in level over time of the peak will be exactly countered by the drop in level of the notch.
According to winISD, you'll still get phase shift around resonance. Anyway, in terms of level, you're right, but won't the system tend to ring at that frequency? This would show up on things like impulse measurements. Isn't a too-small box the cause of boomy bass, with lots of "overhang"? Even when eq is applied, the problem doesn't disappear.

Chris
__________________
"Throwing parts at a failure is like throwing sponges at a rainstorm." - Enzo
My setup: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...tang-band.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2010, 10:55 PM   #10
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris661 View Post

Sreten, if you eq a response to be flat, does a resonance disappear? Then
surely, a system with a resonance in it's frequency range could exhibit
that resonance from time to time?

Chris
Hi,

One version of the LT has poles and zeros that entirely cancel
the real poles and zeros and then adds lower poles and zeros.

Though I do admit you have a point. The above is small signal, the
reality is large, and that fact might become apparent sometimes,
though the actual differences will still be relatively small to most.

It will be the real resonance affecting large signal behaviour, and that's
probably why some extreme active speakers never sounded that good.

rgds, sreten.
__________________
There is nothing so practical as a really good theory - Ludwig Boltzmann
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail - Abraham Maslow

Last edited by sreten; 30th December 2010 at 11:03 PM.
  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
Will a Linkwitz transform...transform the driver? AllenB Subwoofers 20 17th May 2010 10:24 PM
linkwitz transform peace brainerd Subwoofers 4 31st January 2006 01:13 AM
Linkwitz transform in vented enclosure?? netgeek Multi-Way 14 7th May 2004 05:59 PM
Linkwitz transform in vented enclosure?? netgeek Multi-Way 1 7th May 2004 12:12 PM
Linkwitz Transform? Aunkst Chip Amps 6 28th March 2004 11:59 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:58 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