|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
|
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 |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
I've been doing a dangerous thing of late - thinking. I've been reading around and trying to understand better the purpose and function of the various "impedance matching" enclosures that are popular in the DIY communities of late. (TQWT, Rear loaded horns, tapped horns, etc.)
It seems one of the base principles of these enclosures is to match the 'physical impedance' of the driver to that of open air in a room. Is this incorrect? Horns taper from a small cross-sectional area to a large one, very similar to the taper profiles exampled in microwave engineering books for microstrip transmission lines. There are many topologies for matching impedance (real valued anyway, I have no idea how to make an air-fluid inductor or capacitor haha) in high frequency electrical systems. The one I would like to discuss is that of the Chebyshev N-section impedance transformer. It is an equal-ripple bandpass type that consists of N quarter wavelength sections (of Fc) whose characteristic impedance step from Z0 to ZL according to a Chebyshev profile (you can easily look this up). If (as with horns) an increasing throat area is the "impedance change" of the line, a 4- section transformer with ripple gamma=.05 and Fc at 60Hz, should have a band range from appx 20Hz-100Hz +-3dB. Of course with a quarter wavelength in air @60Hz being around 143cm, the entire structure is very large. For the case I am playing with, it's nearly 14cuft of airspace in the entire enclosure! I attached a quick drawing and a very sloppy spreadsheet if anyone is interested. This thread will serve as a live journal of my research and experimentation. Comments/feedback are encouraged! |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
As a reference, this is the woofer I am designing the initial enclosure around:
Fs 25.21 Hz Qms 4.748 Vas 41.71 L Cms 121.9 umN Mms 326.8 g Rms 10.91 mohms Xmax 23 mm Xmec 32 mm Dia 25 cm Sd 491 sq. cm. Vd 1.129 L Qes 0.383 Re 3.6 ohms Le 1.319 mH Z 4 ohms BL 22.07 NA Tm Pe 1000w (up to) Qts 0.354 no 0.169 SPL 84.3 1W1m SPL 87.89 2.8V1m (hotlinked from Mark Fantini at ecoustics.com) ![]() ![]() ![]()
Last edited by Kahooli; 18th July 2011 at 01:33 PM. Reason: add images |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
Since I was too late to getting back to edit the previous post, I'll add another entry.
I wanted to discuss the driver selection. This driver is one marketed toward car audio, and is no longer readily available. I apologize for this, especially if the concept turns out to work, it would be needed to find a new driver. The device is the "DIYMA 12R". I purchased a few of these when npdang first started selling them on the diyma forum. (I'm sure you're all aware of its existence) I've always been fairly impressed with its performance in a standard sealed box. I had tried many many iterations of boxes ranging from .5cuft to 1.5cuft with various levels of stuffing. I forget where I ended up, but it works OK in my car, good enough to have in there for 3 years, but I've never really considered doing anything else with it till now. The driver has a very flat BL vs +-15mm x(t). It has a relatively high static BL product as well. This seems the trend for modern woofers - large displacements to move air, instead of efficient couplings. This driver would not be suited for a typical front or rear loaded horn for the simple fact that the cones have been renowned for self destructing at high pressure levels! The super high compression level would likely destroy the thin aluminum driver at even moderate excursion (just a theory, I have no proof of this). The Qms and Qts are favorable for the type of tuned chamber coupling that will be used. The only issue is the VAS, which is higher than I would like. (and low efficiency, but that's the point of this enclosure). The Chebyshev enclosure utilizes N lam/4 sections (mine N=4), with the initial chamber throat appx equal to the surface area of the driver. Each successive section increases as 1/Cheb(N) as shown in the spreadsheet (will clean it up later). I have not settled on how to couple the driver to the initial throat size. I'll likely change from the rough sketch above to use a short linear taper (sure a Klopfenstein taper would be best, but I don't have the skill to make one!) with total enclosed volume = Vd. Ideally I would like it to behave like a back loaded horn, but if I end up destroying a drive due to the pressure differential, I'd investigate front loading with a tuned sealed rear chamber. The cone control and compression levels will be greatly less than that of traditional horn designs, and ergo the efficiency. However having a flat response to 20Hz with minimal magnitude ripple in the passband is more important to me than absolute efficiency increase. Last edited by Kahooli; 18th July 2011 at 04:29 PM. |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
|
What's your target ripple?
I'm guessing that Zroom (:P) = ~416-420 Pa·s/m how are you calculating the time/temperature gradient within the T line? You have intrigued me... Last edited by revboden; 18th July 2011 at 09:41 PM. |
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
=================== I do not yet have an accurate model to test my theory. I am still in the investigative phase of this project. The current "model" is simply an adaptation from a white paper I read recently.... I will post what I'm referring to if I can recall which is was. Anyway their electrical description in terms of relative impedances gave a short formula to normalize Th-Sm parameters into a "physical impedance" taking into account driver mass, resonance, mechanical Q, etc. They also labeled air in a general at STP as "near 8 Physical Ohms". Their model, not mine. So the "impedance match" comes from matching a port or line cross sectional area that the driver is coupled to that is "equal" to the driver's physical impedance (very large ~80-120 ohms for most speakers) and matching it to the relatively low 8 ohm room impedance. The "matching" is done according to the Chebyshev impedance matching transformer coefficients. Microwave Engineering by M. Pozar describes this, I'm sure a Google search will reveal the same to you. For a 4 section, the relative coefficients are 10 6.3578 3.8728 2.0657 1.2583 1 for a 10:1 impedance mismatch (driver being 10 times the impedance of the airspace). So an "impedance match" of my current model takes in no way the pressure differential at the step discontinuities into account, except in the way that the waveguide electrical model does already. It does not take into account any temperature rise within the chambers as the air is compressed by the pressure waves. I realize it is not a perfect isothermal process, I just don't yet have the knowledge to include these effects. =========================== I look forward to reading more information on the models and equations hornresp and M. King's mathcad for their respective domains. I'd rather develop this within a scientific manner, and not just take a guess and cut up 3 sheets of BB :3 Cheers Last edited by Kahooli; 18th July 2011 at 10:38 PM. Reason: update, corrections. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
[QUOTE=Kahooli;2642773]Since I was too late to getting back to edit the previous post, I'll add another entry. ..... The device is the "DIYMA 12R".
The Chebyshev enclosure utilizes..., with the initial chamber throat appx equal to the surface area of the driver. I have not settled on how to couple the driver to the initial throat size. I'll likely change from the rough sketch above to use a short linear taper (sure a Klopfenstein taper would be best, but I don't have the skill to make one!) with total enclosed volume = Vd. Ideally I would like it to behave like a back loaded horn, but if I end up destroying a drive due to the pressure differential, I'd investigate front loading with a tuned sealed rear chamber. /QUOTE] Hi there: Great spread sheet. Followed everything, except the calculation of the "surface area of the driver= 2164 cm^2? Should this be the pistonic area measured as Sd? (which the manufacturer was quoted as 491cm^2) ...regards, Michael |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
Oops. That's the wrong speadsheet! that's the one I was tooling with for the dayton RS220 as a full range :3 I'll post the corrected spreadsheet tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
[QUOTE=j.michael droke;2644320]
Quote:
It looks like I flubbed that number before uploading. I did mean to use Sd in that calculation. Looking back, it seems unrealistic now, as Sd/10 is a tiny tiny area, yielding a 10:1 compression ratio (using horn terms) at the "throat". I have some more thinking to do. This is in no way a good plan/model/design. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
Stupid 30 minute timer....
Heres an updated sheet (still not pretty). I need to update my sketchup to reflect the ill conceived leakbox. |
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
|
Quote:
GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents. |
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Subwoofer enclosure Non-parallel enclosure to reduce standing waves | qguy | Subwoofers | 4 | 4th July 2011 09:35 PM |
| Switching car audio enclosure to home enclosure | wattz | Subwoofers | 10 | 18th April 2010 05:51 PM |
| Differences between single-section and two-section filters | Sunsun22 | Power Supplies | 3 | 20th November 2009 05:23 AM |
| Optimal Enclosure Shape For The Mid Section? | Ben Reginato | Multi-Way | 3 | 11th March 2008 03:52 AM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.13203 seconds (89.57% PHP - 10.43% MySQL) with 11 queries |