Closed box driver Qts? - 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 19th April 2011, 07:03 AM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Calgary on the Bow
Default Closed box driver Qts?

I know that horn loading requires a low Qts and reflex cabinets like a Qts of 0.35 for optimum flat response. What's the optimum driver Qts for sealed boxes? Thanks, best regards Moray James.
__________________
moray james
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2011, 01:29 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Josephjcole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Wisconsin
I would have to think it depends on your definition of optimum. Also wouldn't the "optimum" Qts depend on Fs? Sorry no answers from me, only more questions
Joe
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2011, 04:06 PM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Top Shelf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midland, Ontario
Recommended sealed Qts is usually 0.4 and above, though Qtc (0.5-1.2) determines
response. Recommended ported Qts is usually 0.5 and below.
__________________
JEREMY M_________________________________
I like it loud, BUT NOT TOO LOUD!.... Hey do you hear that high pitched ringing sound ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2011, 04:13 PM   #4
infinia is offline infinia  United States
diyAudio Member
 
infinia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Californication
Quote:
Recommended sealed Qts is usually 0.4 and above
I would do not think upper range is boundless, unless peaky bass is your thing.
__________________
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 19th April 2011, 04:25 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Top Shelf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midland, Ontario
Of course not but due to infinite variable T/S specs of drivers and endless tastes in the finished response of immeasurable people, it can get quite high. I have used drivers with 0.75 - 0.85 Qts and they are a pain to get good response out of in my chosen boxes.
__________________
JEREMY M_________________________________
I like it loud, BUT NOT TOO LOUD!.... Hey do you hear that high pitched ringing sound ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2011, 04:40 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
chris661's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheffield
Blog Entries: 8
They (various sites I've seen) reckon between 0.4 and 0.7.
Higher, it's only really useful for IB or OB applications, the output peak around resonance would be too much for a sealed box, it'd need to be mahoosive.

Lower Qts will give an earlier roll off, but a smaller box. Higher will get flat response closer to Fs, but needs a bigger box to do so. Take your pick - it's all compromises.

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 19th April 2011, 04:47 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Top Shelf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midland, Ontario
Mahoosive! Good one I've have good results with 0.5-0.6 Qts for sealed. Of course high power handling and large Xmax help.
__________________
JEREMY M_________________________________
I like it loud, BUT NOT TOO LOUD!.... Hey do you hear that high pitched ringing sound ?

Last edited by Top Shelf; 19th April 2011 at 05:01 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2011, 05:48 PM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Jackson,michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josephjcole View Post
I would have to think it depends on your definition of optimum. Also wouldn't the "optimum" Qts depend on Fs? Sorry no answers from me, only more questions
Joe

You must remember that the final Qts is detremined from the box volume.
.707 is considered flat
Graphicaly I prefer .9 and any more than this things start to become boomy. jer
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2011, 05:50 PM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
chris661's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheffield
Blog Entries: 8
Don't some people prefer Qc=0.5 for optimum transient response and better integration with room gain and stuff?
__________________
"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 19th April 2011, 05:52 PM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Jackson,michigan
Good point.
I was going to add that but you beat me to it. jer
  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
Question regarding closed box driver resonance thoriated Full Range 6 6th August 2010 09:19 PM
Mid/Bass Driver QTS for Sealed Box Loudspeaker? bssk Multi-Way 0 7th November 2006 07:57 AM
Closed sub box Tenson Subwoofers 12 27th June 2006 06:53 PM
Closed box sub in vented box ? MadMax Multi-Way 3 17th May 2003 01:24 AM
QTS = closed or vented? dantwomey Multi-Way 6 15th March 2002 02:45 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:54 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