Lowering Fs. - Page 3 - 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 26th January 2013, 03:30 PM   #21
OMNIFEX is offline OMNIFEX  Jamaica
diyAudio Member
 
OMNIFEX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Locked Up In The Amp Rack
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinitus View Post
I suppose it shows a very low tuned vented box, and what we see is port tuning ?
The port tuning is actually higher than where the peak lies. I would imagine it is the coupling affect of two drivers in addition to using large cabinets for Electrovoice wrote a paper about such a phenomenon 30 years ago.
__________________
OMNIFEX
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2013, 06:20 PM   #22
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMNIFEX View Post
The port tuning is actually higher than where the peak lies. I would imagine it is the coupling affect of two drivers in addition to using large cabinets for Electrovoice wrote a paper about such a phenomenon 30 years ago.
Now I'm even more confused. What are the "two drivers"?
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2013, 06:36 PM   #23
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Hi,

The port tuning is the lowest point of the impedance between the
two peaks, the upper peak is related to driver Fs and the lower
peak something I can't quite put my finger on in physical terms,
but its nothing to do with driver Fs.

Fbox is always higher than Fs except for TL's where the options
make it complicated, and generalisations don't help much.

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; 26th January 2013 at 06:45 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2013, 12:47 AM   #24
OMNIFEX is offline OMNIFEX  Jamaica
diyAudio Member
 
OMNIFEX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Locked Up In The Amp Rack
It is very complicated indeed. Cabinet shape, size, wadding, mass air load in the chamber, in addition to the affects of the port offer too many variability’s at times. I think many assume reflex cabinets are simplistic. What they are is more forgiving for mistakes by new designers than building a horn. This is why I literally measure the cabinet instead of assuming simulation design software results is written in stone.
__________________
OMNIFEX

Last edited by OMNIFEX; 27th January 2013 at 12:49 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2013, 01:13 AM   #25
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiomagnate View Post
I have a pair of discontinued Dayton 15" PA woofers I would like to use in a pair of home subwoofers: Dayton Audio PF385-8 15" Cast Frame Driver 4" VC 295-080

Opinions, ideas, comments?
Have a look at STAHL - 'Acebass' Synthesis of Loudspeaker Mechanical Parameters by Electrical Means .
Gave me perfect bass down to 20 Hz with 3 opamps and a couple of components in a 57L ported enclosure with my JBL K140 15" .

Cheers ,

Rens
__________________
If you measure, you know; if you guess, you don't
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2013, 11:22 AM   #26
Juhazi is offline Juhazi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Juhazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jyväskylä
Is it wise to electrically "change" or mask physical properties of a driver?

To a certain extent propably yes, but I wonder how much distortion you get at high output.

There are many spekers doing that however, Philips MFB, Acebass, etc. Some subwoofers are claimed to sound good and to have less distortion
motional feedback subwoofer - Google-haku
__________________
AES Associate Member / My DIY speaker history: -74 Philips 3-way, -82 Hifi 85B, -07 Zaph L18, XLS10+PR/Hypex, -08 CSS125FR, -08 Hifitalo AW-7, -08 TangBand FR, -09 MarkK ER18DXT, -13 PPSL470, -13 AINOgradient
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th January 2013, 04:46 PM   #27
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctordata View Post
Have a look at STAHL - 'Acebass' Synthesis of Loudspeaker Mechanical Parameters by Electrical Means .
Gave me perfect bass down to 20 Hz with 3 opamps and a couple of components in a 57L ported enclosure with my JBL K140 15" .

Cheers ,

Rens
How does this differ from conventional servos?
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2013, 09:43 PM   #28
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Default modifying Daytons

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiomagnate View Post
Thanks again streten. The boxes are currently tuned to 35 Hz and I don't like the sound. It's great for rock but other music makes it sound thumpy and resonant. I'll pick up a can of undercoating and give it a shot. My scale is not accurate at those weights so I'll just keep spraying until I get to my desired Fs.
Hi there a: Hope the can of gooope from PE has not arrived yet. Numeous alternatives have been provided that would be better than "spaying till well done" and are not detructive, allowing trying other concepts, if neede. Hope you will post your reults . .....regards, Michael
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2013, 10:06 PM   #29
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Tyrone Ga. U.S.A.
You may also consider the Linkwitz Transform circuite. At one time Linkwitz sold
these boards but I don't think they are currently avaliable.

Linkwitz Transform Subwoofer Equaliser
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2013, 06:31 PM   #30
badman is offline badman  United States
diyAudio Member
 
badman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sunny Tustin, SoCal
Quote:
Originally Posted by sreten View Post
Hi,

The port tuning is the lowest point of the impedance between the
two peaks, the upper peak is related to driver Fs and the lower
peak something I can't quite put my finger on in physical terms,
but its nothing to do with driver Fs.

Fbox is always higher than Fs except for TL's where the options
make it complicated, and generalisations don't help much.

rgds, sreten.
The lower and upper peaks are just the remnants of the Fc peak with the null applied. Move towards true aperiodic and the bandwidth of the tuning increases and eliminates the dual lumps.

Bottom line, the 19hz lump is NOT a lowering of Fs. No standard sealed or vented box lowers Fs.
__________________
I write for www.enjoythemusic.com in the DIY section. You may find yourself getting a preview of a project in-progress. Be warned!
  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
Lowering B+ voltage blue lander Tubelab 41 31st May 2013 07:20 PM
Lowering B+ in PS h00hbt Tubes / Valves 39 14th February 2011 08:12 PM
lowering Qts MCPete Multi-Way 4 31st December 2008 11:09 PM
Lowering HT waner Tubes / Valves 7 29th May 2006 10:31 AM
lowering the voltage Lowjacker Power Supplies 7 11th March 2006 09:11 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:13 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