2 x PR vs Ported - Page 2 - 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 20th April 2013, 03:35 AM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Have you checked out the Gjallerhorn?

Gjallerhorn

Someday I am going to have one of these on each side of my theater!

Last edited by sylk; 20th April 2013 at 03:52 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th April 2013, 04:21 AM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Brisvegas
I hadn't but I am going to put the numbers in Hornresp and see what it looks like. I don't think I would maybe use as many turns or mount the driver hanging but is just all down to folding the box.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2013, 03:07 PM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylk View Post
You should use whichever cabinet type gives you the response curve and output that you are looking for.

A passive radiator design will have ideally exactly the same response and output as a good BR design. You are trading the cost of the PR for a slightly smaller box (the size of the box that was taken up by the port area is removed), and no port compression or noise.

When designing a PR box, I usually design my ideal BR box first and then just model my PR box after that. As an example in your case. I modeled the BR box I would want if I was using that driver in my home theater, then I model a PR design using the PSI radiator I mentioned above to recreate that box. Winisd calculates with the net square footage of the box, so even though the calculated volume is the same in both, the PR box will be minus the size of the port, which in this case is quite big.

A port that is 24"x3"x84 will get you to roughly 17 m/s air speed at your cutoff frequency for a 5 ft3 box. Some studies recommend staying under 10 m/s if you don't ever want to hear it, though usually anything under 30 is ok with me. Anyways that means your port would add an additional 3.5 cubic feet to your box in port area. If you were ok with 30 m/s vent speed than a vent with the same tuning would be 24"x1.5"x41", which would add another .85 cubic ft to your box size. In either case you can see how going with a PR saves you a considerable amount of box size if you are properly designing for port velocity.

I have attached the boxes that I would personally make with that driver for home theater.

Click the image to open in full size.

The box with the Yellow line is an 8ft3 box as TC sounds recommends with 2 18" PR's. I would only build this if space was literally no factor and you never had to move these again. Pretty much all normal rooms will reinforce the lower frequencies and any eqing will most likely eliminate the advantages of this box.

The box design in grey is a normal 5ft3 ported enclosure with the vent length's that I described above. Remember the vents are in addition to the stated enclosure size.

The box design in magenta is a 5ft3 dual PR design tuned to the FS of the driver which is 20.5hz. You will add about 900 grams of weight to both of the 18' PSI PR's to achieve this tuning. The volume taken up by the PR's is also in addition to the calculated volume so in this case you would want to build a box with 5.26 ft3 internal volume.

Also remember that all of these designs will exceed max excursion at 2000 watts (modeled in graph) very quickly below 20 hz. So you need to have a high pass filter at 15hz or so.
Great designs, but why not a lower tuning per the original post....?
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2013, 04:33 PM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
If I am doing a one driver design I usually try to keep the tuning frequency close to the fs of the driver. Modeling too much below the FS of the driver seems to trade too much efficiency for extension. Not a problem if your willing to throw more drivers at it, but I initially thought he was only planning on using one driver.

Assuming that if you model my box verses one tuned to 15 hz, you end up with a much bigger box because of the extra port area required, and the point at which the box tuned to 15 hz gets more than 3 db louder than the one tuned to 20.5 is roughly 15 hz. However you will have to have a high pass filter to limit excursion on the lower tuned box at around 12 hz. So you gain whatmaybe is noticeable output for 2-3 hz, in return for a bigger box and 3 db loss of output from 21-30hz.

I also am of the opinion that noticeable increase in loudness requires much more than a 3db increase at subsonic frequencies. 3db is the point at which the studies have shown we can discern an increase in frequency ranges that our ears are sensitive too. For infrasonics I believe the increase needed is greater.

I highly doubt if we built these boxes that anyone would be able to hear the difference between them. One would just be bigger.

Now if his purpose is to create infrasonics, and his goals for output have already been/will still be achieved, than I would tune lower.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2013, 04:37 PM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
If he is willing to build a Gjallerhorn and has the necessary eq gear, than he will get much more output at all frequencies!

...and a box that he will never want to move. :P
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2013, 11:06 PM   #16
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Very insightful, thank you!
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd April 2013, 11:48 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Brisvegas
Hi Guys just to fill in a few of the missing blanks here... basically the LMS 5400 is going to be a low frequency sub, which will be used for movies only. The two Pro 5100s I am currently using as woofers will also be made into subs, but probably tuned at a higher frequency as per the Geddes 3 sub approach.

I keep looking at the folded horn idea but don't know how to use Hornresp to make sure I am getting the absolute maximum out of it. I can model a more simpler BR box in Bass Box Pro.

The problem is when I put the Gjallerhorn figures in Hornresp the figures don't look as good as a BR box. I don't know if a folded horn would be better, or if the BBP figures are overly optimistic.

So really in two minds which way to box up the LMS 5400. If you look back at the link I posted earlier, you will see that I can brace a BR box far more effectively than a FH.

Edit:
Doesn't matter which box type I choose it is going to be damn heavy!

http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=8

Last edited by Silent Screamer; 22nd April 2013 at 11:56 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 01:17 AM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Brisvegas
What I have had my eye on for a while now is a thread built around 5 way horns.

5 way project - tapped, bass, mids and tweeter, big boy system

Not really interested in the horn part, but the TH he used for subs in the corners of the room I am.

Ok so it doesn't follow the conventional square box with lots of folds route, but if you don't mind it being tall (which I don't) this would seem a much less complicated box.

Obviously I would look to see if the design could be improved on but the basic up and back would be what I have in mind.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg TH1.jpg (149.6 KB, 108 views)
File Type: jpg TH2.jpg (160.5 KB, 101 views)
File Type: jpg TH3.jpg (150.8 KB, 102 views)
File Type: jpg TH4.jpg (50.7 KB, 102 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 12:44 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Screamer View Post
5 way project - tapped, bass, mids and tweeter, big boy system

Not really interested in the horn part, but the TH he used for subs in the corners of the room I am.

Ok so it doesn't follow the conventional square box with lots of folds route, but if you don't mind it being tall (which I don't) this would seem a much less complicated box.
That's actually the prefered format for home use because of the ease of build and the way it tucks into a corner. Folding something to fit into a box is only really needed for PA use. Keep in mind that design doesn't have all that much mouth expansion, and thus won't pick up that much output/sensitivity vs. a ported design. You're also going to want some sort of electronic processor or some other way of time alignment, adding delay to your main speakers/woofers to bring them in-line with the delayed bass from the tapped horns.....
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 12:51 PM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Screamer View Post
Edit:
Doesn't matter which box type I choose it is going to be damn heavy!

Data-Bass
That is a very well designed sub but certainly a bit excessive. I like sylk's design, but would go with a bigger enclosure, with a sightly shorter port and slightly lower tuning.
  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
Dual horned sub cab ported design vs ported? matthias125 Subwoofers 14 23rd October 2012 02:44 PM
FS: Beyma TPL-150H (pr) and AE TD12M (pr) darrellh44 Swap Meet 2 19th October 2012 11:59 PM
Xls10 With 2 Pr peterpan Subwoofers 1 10th July 2009 02:51 PM
Where to get a PR? JonE2435 Subwoofers 2 1st August 2007 04:13 AM
Woofer Towers, front-ported or rear-ported? Goldenboy Multi-Way 6 15th June 2004 06:44 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:58 PM.


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