|
|
|||||||
| 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: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, SW England
|
As you may have seen, I now have my Goodmans 201's in their new open baffles so I am turning my attention to the bottom end.
The plan was to get four 12 inch drivers and use them in a W baffle with an amp each and some EQ. Thinking about it again though, this seems an expensive way (for me anyway) to get bass from around 65Hz down to 40Hz (the realistic limit for this configuration according to SL). An alternative is to go with a single driver on each channel a la NAO This means half the number of drivers and amps, leaving funds for a possible sub to get down even lower. I think that my chosen driver, the Alpine SWE1250 would work in either system. Or, how much quality would I loose by building an ELF system (perhaps one per side) to go up high enough to 'meet' the 201's at around 65Hz? Does anybody have any comments on this issue to help me make a decision?
__________________
The truth need not be veiled, for it veils itself from the eyes of the ignorant. |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
|
You don't need to reach fully 65hz because the rolloff of your speakers together with your sub will complete the spectrum...at a certain point...
The elf seems to emphasis the lowest end which you barely would hear and most of the records still miss that part exept maybe for techno and/or rap... Even if the thing is tweakable (he used the amp I think to get that response so far ) you should consider a something tuned say at 30hz where you can enjoy the 40-50 region...There is a lot of diy sub projects on the net actually, try seatching for what you want exactly, maybe there is one for you out there. |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Seattle
|
I can't seem to find anything on the Alpine SWE1250. the closest I found was swe1241. Could you provide a link or something?
Thanks, Mats |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Nuuk:
Is there any good reason a ported, sealed, or Transmission Line enclosure cannot meet your needs? Mats: Here is the link to Alpine USA. I clicked "Products" and the thing took so long to load, (I use dialup), that I said the heck to with it. If Nuuk or anyone has the Thiele-Small specs for the Alpine SWE 1250, please post.
__________________
"A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move a body." -Anonymous |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, SW England
|
I wanted to avoid a boxed sub if possible and use dipole as people rave about the better quality of the dipole, and it should be less of a problem in my room which is 4 by 3 metres (12 feet by 14) And of course, the main system is dipole.
It seems that Alpine driver is the SWE1241 (not sure how I got 1250 Alpine SWE 1241 Thiel Small Parameters Coil Height (Hvc) : 33.4mm Cone Area (Sd) : 490.87 sq. cm D.C.Coil Resistance (Re) : 3.6 ohm Electrical Q (Qes) : 0.70 Equivalent Suspension Stiffness (Vas) : 61 liters(2.3cu.ft.) Free Air Resonance (Fs) : 31Hz Frequency Response : 26Hz - 1kHz Gap Height (Hag) : 10mm Impedance (Nominal) : 4 ohm Inductance (Le) : 2.78mH at 1kHz (0.86mH at 20kHz) Linear Excursion (X linear) : 11.7mm Maximum Excursion (X peak) : 23.4mm Mechanical Excursion (Peak-to-Peak) : 40mm Mechanical Q (Qms) : 9.68 Sensitivity : 89 dB/W/M Total Loudspeaker Q (Qts) : 0.66 Features: Woofer Bumped Backplate Custom High-Strength Steel Basket Designed and Engineered in the USA Dual Progressive Nomex® Spiders with Integrated Tinsel Leads with Edge Control High Excursion 3/4" Santoprene Surround High Strength Brass Voice Coil Bobbin Kevlar Reinforced Pulp Cone Oversized Parabolic Dustcap Specs: General-Subwoofers Diaphragm Material : Kevlar Reinforced Pulp Magnetic Weight : 64oz. Mounting Depth (top mount) : 159mm (6.4”) Mounting Diameter (top mount) : 274mm (11”) Recommended Box Types : Sealed/Bandpass Recommended Sealed Box Volume : 0.8 – 1.7 cu. ft. Spider Material : Dual Oversized Nomex Voice Coil Diameter : 38mm Power Handling Power Handling Capacity (Peak) : 600W Power Handling Capacity (RMS) : 200W
__________________
The truth need not be veiled, for it veils itself from the eyes of the ignorant. |
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, SW England
|
Quote:
__________________
The truth need not be veiled, for it veils itself from the eyes of the ignorant. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Nuuk:
Well, as you pointed out, really deep bass is hard to get from a dipole. At any rate, all that is required is to take a board, a stand that allows the board to tilt back for the board to keep it's balance, and see how it sounds. With an Fs of 31 and a Qts of .7, your speaker in a true Infinite Baffle, (where the box affects the speaker not at all) would be -3 dB at 31 Hz, which is very good. You don't have any closet doors handy to mount these in, do you? That would save a lot of trouble. Otherwise, what I would do is to take a closed box of 2.3 cu Ft or larger. The sealed system in the closed 2.3 cu Ft box will remain at the midpoint all the way down to 42 Hz, with a respectable Qtc of 1.0. If you want, you can make an aperiodic vent and lower the Qtc even further. Try the experimental slanted board first-easy enough to do, I would think. Kuei did his in acrylic, but the principle remains-one slanted board to a single base board. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attac...?postid=234863
__________________
"A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move a body." -Anonymous |
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, SW England
|
Quote:
I'm leaning toward the U baffles but in my case they would be firing through the main baffles and I wonder what effects this may have on performance?
__________________
The truth need not be veiled, for it veils itself from the eyes of the ignorant. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, SW England
|
Quote:
Well it looks good on paper but....... And of course, for those of us outside the US, it would be a case of finding suitable drivers. I think for now, I would rather keep things a bit simpler but it would be good to find out more from somebody who has actually heard one.
__________________
The truth need not be veiled, for it veils itself from the eyes of the ignorant. |
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| We have a certain number of tube amp,new,cost-effective to sell | hang | Vendor's Bazaar | 1 | 6th August 2009 02:34 AM |
| Most cost effective active set up ? | jerryo | Class D | 0 | 20th November 2007 03:56 PM |
| Cost effective wireless music across home | parsh78 | Everything Else | 1 | 17th January 2007 05:15 AM |
| Cost Effective Upgrade Replacement For AD817? | fastcat95 | Solid State | 3 | 8th August 2003 06:58 PM |
| Cost effective upgrades | Pan | Solid State | 4 | 9th April 2003 12:09 AM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.12265 seconds (82.24% PHP - 17.76% MySQL) with 10 queries |