Better for music: Sealed with Linkwitz Transform or Vented? - 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 14th October 2011, 10:53 AM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Coventry
Default Better for music: Sealed with Linkwitz Transform or Vented?

Hi guys.

I have just purchased two SB acoustics 10" (SB29NRX75-6)drivers on ebay for a very good price.

I intend to use these in medium-large boxes for my sealed stand-mounters to stand on; a three way active system using MiniDSP 2x8's for cross-overs. Think of the Tarkus and the Troels Gravesen Jensen 1071 as my inspiration.

I will use these for 90% music, and play my TV/Movies throught them too. Therefore I want to get the best possible sound for music.

My DSP can perform any parametric equalising, and linkwitz transform that I like. My question is: Will the vented alignment or the Linkwitz Transform sound better for music?

I notice that in WinISD these drivers model best for sealed and vented in more or less the same sized enclosure for each. I quite like the idea of having a removable port that I can seal up to try either.

Do you have any suggestions or input?

Kind regards,

Jai Stanley
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2011, 09:34 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
revboden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
I like to design boxes so that they have a Qtc =.55 sealed and dual port them. one port open = ~14Hz, two ports open =18Hz~ a hybrid is easy enough to design and you get the best of both worlds.

which would sound better for music... depends on the music, and the person, and the room, and the wife, etc. etc. etc.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2011, 09:46 PM   #3
bbggg is offline bbggg  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
jainstanley, your question can be translated into: no time smearing with the risk of increased harmonic distortion, or time smearing with less harmonic distortion? The right answer varies with circumstance: how big a room you have to cover, what max levels you require, etc.
__________________
High current requirement is the bane of high fidelity
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2011, 10:00 PM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
revboden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
well.. i just designed the WIWD, 3ft^3 box two 3" (7.6cm) ports, 30" (76cm) long. 75w per, high-pass at 18Hz, no LT the driver doesn't have enough Xmax
Attached Images
File Type: jpg airvelocity.jpg (191.2 KB, 576 views)
File Type: jpg excursion.jpg (192.3 KB, 571 views)
File Type: jpg group.jpg (172.2 KB, 564 views)
File Type: jpg spl.jpg (152.7 KB, 564 views)

Last edited by revboden; 14th October 2011 at 10:21 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2011, 02:39 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
dirkwright's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Virginia
I think also the question should be: which has the better transient response? I have no idea myself.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2011, 10:30 PM   #6
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Hi,

Vented has more low end max SPL, I've never seen a driver where good
sealed and vented alignments require the same box volume. Bottom line
is vented ups max SPL at port frequency by +6db, but requires a sub
filter below that to prevent overexcursion overload.

IF sealed LT is loud enough, its by far the best option SQ wise.

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
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2011, 11:12 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
No one expects the bass quality and depth from the tiny Linkwitz Pluto when they first hear it. All down to sealed enclosure loading and Linkwitz transform. With a decent long throw motor system the quality can he highly impressive.

I would go with Sreten's suggestion unless it is for non stop bangin' techno or metal at really high volumes in which case you could be safer with a standard ported system.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2011, 11:15 PM   #8
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Hi, The Pluto does not use an LT, its subwoofer does, 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
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2011, 12:21 AM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by sreten View Post
Hi, The Pluto does not use an LT, its subwoofer does, rgds, sreten.
Hi Sreten,

I use the later Pluto 2.1 with LT.

Also from the Pluto 2 article, a page detailing the upgrade from Pluto 1 with Peeless driver to the newer Seas unit and detailing the LT circuit change.
Pluto-2 omni-directional loudspeaker

From that page:
"Pluto-2 is a small 2-way loudspeaker system that brings a number of practical refinements to the original PLUTO design and construction. A key component is the Seas L16RN-SL (H1480-08) midrange/woofer driver. It allowed to extend the loudspeaker's frequency response down to 40 Hz, -3 dB because of its greater excursion capability before unacceptable distortion. Pluto-2 is thus to me a full-range speaker for a wide range of program material. It should be optimal for people with small spaces or low budgets and who want accurate sound reproduction."
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2011, 02:40 AM   #10
bbggg is offline bbggg  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirkwright View Post
I think also the question should be: which has the better transient response? I have no idea myself.
Transient response is defined by onset and decay.
Group delay defines how late the onset of sound emission is. Here vented has lots more, roughly double.
There is also the box/vent resonance decay, ie how long it takes for this component of sound emission to cease. This takes a while because air is both elastic and not too lossy. Therefore vented boxes take variable amounts of time to round up their sound emission, sometimes very long ones, depending on particulars. Closed box, LT'd or not, has none of this because there is no vent air mass to resonate.
So vented can not match closed box for time performance. At best it can hope to approach it. At worst, vented can moan, drone, huff and puff like a leaky bagpipe that's got the sniffles.
It all boils down to the nature of resonating systems. A resonance takes time to build up and time to die down. A closed box has one such resonant system. A vented box has two, and staggered ones at that, with the second one consisting entirely of air (air mass, air compliance, air friction).
__________________
High current requirement is the bane of high fidelity
  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
Sealed sub with RSS315HF and Linkwitz Transform at 10Hz Frosteh Subwoofers 58 14th September 2011 06:58 PM
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
Sealed 21w-54:s with Linkwitz transform Saibot Multi-Way 27 15th February 2004 07:31 PM
Designing a Linkwitz Transform sealed sub BAM Subwoofers 1 28th April 2002 11:32 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:44 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