W-Frame or H-Frame dipoles? performace issues? - 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 24th September 2006, 03:57 PM   #1
JinMTVT is offline JinMTVT  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MTL
Default W-Frame or H-Frame dipoles? performace issues?

is there any difference in the two designs performance wise ??

i am ( again ) slowly planning winter projects,

and i am considreing all dipole system
( manger on top and 2 15" on bottom...stereo )

I've seen alot of people using Linkwitz H frame design
and only a few talk about W Frame

Then, would a W frame work correctly if on the side??
( ie the 2 drivers on top of each other ...like having it rotate 90deg
on the Z axis )


Also beeing there, how high QTS should i look for in dipole woofers? is long excursion desirable? ( should be crossed at 150-250hz ..to be determined )

Was looking at either McCauley or Belisle Accoustics subs
( the mcCauley 18" are very very very very tempting again .. )

thanks again all for your time!
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th September 2006, 04:36 PM   #2
DougL is offline DougL  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wheaton IL.
Blog Entries: 30
Quote:
and i am considreing all dipole system
You should like that.
Quote:
I've seen alot of people using Linkwitz H frame design
and only a few talk about W Frame
Both are more compact than a flat baffle. They trade cavity resonances that limit their upper frequency response for compactness. The W is more compact, somewhat harder to build and may be somewhat more high frequency challenged.
Quote:
Also beeing there, how high QTS should i look for in dipole woofers? is long excursion desirable? ( should be crossed at 150-250hz ..to be determined )
IME Qts of .5 is Ideal. Lower than .5 requires additional equalization. Higher can compensate for OB roll off and should be considered an engineering decision. I have seen woofers of Qts as low as .3 used successfully, and I would consider a Qts of .8 as my personal maximum. If you have reasonable H or W enclosures, you are going to require Equalization. As long as this is true, you need as much excursion as practical. At this point, you are balancing distortion, cost, efficiency, size and excursion.

Good luck;

Doug
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th September 2006, 06:23 PM   #3
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
I second Doug in all his arguments,

and dare to give a rule of thumb:
Up to 150 Hz x-over W-frames may be fine. For anything above that you should build an H-Frame (while this will need more EQ bass-wise). Since taking a dipole bass up to 200 Hz is a good idea in every respect , I would vote for the H-frame.

Rudolf
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th September 2006, 09:19 PM   #4
JinMTVT is offline JinMTVT  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MTL
i thank you both for your sharing ..

is the only advantage of the W frame compactness compared to the H ??


i am still unsure as to QTS
when a driver has a higher QTS, does that means
trade offs on other parameters/performance??

Can the cavity resonnance be predicted?

i also wonder if there would be any benefit in using rounded off sides for the enclosure? ( round ends on each side of the enclosure where the wave meets ... )

i will do both type in 3d later on and see what i can get off the feeling of it!
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2006, 02:32 AM   #5
Davey is offline Davey  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bremerton, WA.
Another characteristic of the "W"-frame construction is force cancellation. The two cones are always moving in opposite directions so vibrations imparted to surfaces...like the floor...are minimized.

A typical W-frame construction would be somewhat "squareish" when viewed from the front so I don't see any reason to orientate the drivers horizontally. Cone sag could become an issue in that case.

You can make a fairly good estimation on the cavity resonance based on the depth, but you need to confirm it with a close-up measurement once constructed.

Cheers,

Davey.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2006, 08:01 AM   #6
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally posted by JinMTVT
i am still unsure as to QTS
when a driver has a higher QTS, does that means
trade offs on other parameters/performance?
Not necessarily, but:
High Ots can be had for less money than low Qts. So many cheap drivers "feature" high Qts values along with other money-saving " attributes".
Quote:
Can the cavity resonance be predicted?
For the Phoenix W-baffle Linkwitz reports very different cavity resonances (190/270 Hz) for two different drivers (Peerless XLS 12 / Madisound 1252 DVC) in the same baffle. So I believe there is no really easy way to predict it.
Quote:
i also wonder if there would be any benefit in using rounded off sides for the enclosure? (round ends on each side of the enclosure where the wave meets ... )
Its still not clear to me, what exactly you mean. May be a drawing would help.
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2006, 03:25 PM   #7
JinMTVT is offline JinMTVT  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MTL
Click the image to open in full size.

fig.1a demonstrates what i talked about,
using rounded off enclosure edge
would there be any benefits to doing that?

would there be any benefits in rounding all the edges inside the enclosure also ?


fig.1b shows different enclose side angles
would that have any benefit in the resonnance department ?

i have learned from experiment that using never perfect and paralell angles for construction almost always pays off somehwere in the audio !!

please excuse the humble drawings
hope you see what i mean !!
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2006, 06:53 PM   #8
mcgsxr is offline mcgsxr  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Burlington
I am using a pair of these 12's, sourced from a great guy in Western Canada, in open baffle.

Each 12 is located at the bottom of a 36w x 48h baffle, in which lives a Visaton b200 full ranger.

By running the 12 on only 1 of the two voice coils, you double the effective QTS from 0.38, to a very nice (for OB) 0.76... good XMAX, good FS, good for OB!

http://www.mach5audio.com/product_in...a425a028ed2259

under $65 each, shipped, in Canada, and great performance in OB...

Well worth a look,
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2006, 09:54 PM   #9
JinMTVT is offline JinMTVT  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MTL
i am not sure that i get your point
else than pointing out to this driver and website

where are those drivers manufactured ?

i'd like to buy from TRA if possible,
as their drivers are all manufactured here in Quebec!!
and they seem to have seriously good quality
second choice was 18" from McCauley
but 18" will have a huge footprint and i can't really afford that in my room

( the 18" will have to wait for the new house theater room )

thanks neway for pointing this site out !!
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2006, 09:56 PM   #10
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally posted by JinMTVT
please excuse the humble drawings, hope you see what i mean !!
Certainly I get it now. And no - rounding the enclosure edge will have no benefit. The length of a 100 Hz wave is 3.14 m, so it doesnt "see" such a small extension. This is even more true for any edges inside. Rounding them off is only for aesthetical reasons.

A W-frame like yours will have a quarter wave resonance almost at lambda/4 = depth of W. A H-frame would have its resonance at double that frequency. So you will be pushed hard to get that W-frame up to 250 Hz. Have a look at mine:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attac...amp=1159221400
And this is the nearfield frequency response:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg h_pol_3.jpg (37.0 KB, 866 views)
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  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
H frame vs W frame dipole woofers rick57 Multi-Way 18 8th October 2011 04:58 PM
Considering a DIY horn sub bed frame... JZatopa Subwoofers 23 2nd March 2008 01:20 AM
H frame/ Dipole/U frame ???????? j.burtt Multi-Way 24 1st May 2006 03:50 AM
H-Frame mcds Multi-Way 3 17th April 2004 03:50 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:44 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