Tuning dilema with new sub - 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 19th January 2007, 08:36 AM   #1
Brownee is offline Brownee  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Newcastle
Default Tuning dilema with new sub

Hi all, I just wonder if someone can give me some help please.

I am in the process of building a sonosub from a Rythmik servo kit.

The designer calls of a 3 c/f enclosure tuned to 20-22 Hz. I have done all the calculations using various software for the port length ( about 632mm for a 100mm ID pipe) and have come to the tuning phase of the build. I have used two methods to check the FB of the enclosure. 1. Measuring the impedance curve with speaker workshop and the other running a sweep and using a SPL meter to determine the highest port output. Both have come up with a higher actual tuning than the calculated port length (it measures 26 Hz). Can anyone tell me if this is normal to have so much variance from the calculations or point me to some things I can check?

Thanks
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2007, 12:52 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
auplater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KyOhWVa tristate
Default tuning

Several things come to mind...

did you use the published specs for the speaker, or actual measured specs (Qts, Fs, etc.) when you calculated the port length?

did you include the port area in the enclosure volume and/or correct for the driver volume?

have you tried adding length to the port to lower the box tuning and then measuring again?
__________________
"...His brain is squirming like a toad..." Jim Morrison
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2007, 07:24 PM   #3
Collo is offline Collo  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Collo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Send a message via MSN to Collo
Hi there Brownee,

there are a few factors that may have caused your problem

1 - Did you subract the space taken up by the port and driver to get your "working volume" ? If not, your port will be too short, resulting in a higher tune.

2 - Did you model as "one end flanged" - this changes the end correction applied.

3 - Did you use flared ports? - The "effective length" changes slightly.

Grab your self a copy of "sonosub.exe" which does all this for you:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/bcolliso/sonosub.htm

BTW I'm also in Newcastle - drop me a line

regards
Collo
__________________
Ports rule!
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2007, 08:42 PM   #4
owdi is offline owdi  United States
diyAudio Member
 
owdi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bellevue, WA
Have you broken in the driver? The fs can fall by half an octave while the suspension loosens up. Try removing the driver from the enclosure, and measure it's impedance. You'll probably find fs is much higher than in the specifications.

Dan
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2007, 09:22 PM   #5
AKN is online now AKN  Sweden
No snake oil
diyAudio Member
 
AKN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In the middle of Sweden
Send a message via MSN to AKN
Hi,

Driver parameters is not going to alter box tuning frequency, it is strictly determined by effective box volume and port.
It think Collo is right on for an possible explanation.
__________________
/ Anders
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2007, 09:47 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
auplater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KyOhWVa tristate
Quote:
Originally posted by 4fun
Hi,

Driver parameters is not going to alter box tuning frequency, it is strictly determined by effective box volume and port.
It think Collo is right on for an possible explanation.
that's true... I agree, guess I wasn't clear by saying you shouldn't include port area if you did...sounds like a miscalc of the box volume.

I was wondering where the 20 - 22 hz tuning came from re: driver specs...which is why I asked.. So tune lower by increasing port length
__________________
"...His brain is squirming like a toad..." Jim Morrison
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2007, 12:00 AM   #7
Brownee is offline Brownee  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Newcastle
Thanks all for the suggestions, but I think I have most of them covered.

Thanks Anders thatís what my research has led me to. As I understand it, tuning is a direct relationship between port diameter/length and the effective volume of the enclosure so it shouldnít matter what driver I use.


Hi Collo, yep, I got your great little program. (Iím very impressed I must say). I used it to determine the rough sizes for the build and then done the calc manually as it is not a standard build. You actually made the port for me a while back and have only now got around to building the sub. I pretty sure I have taken all your points into consideration. I will run through what I did and maybe you can pick the mistake.

I donít have the driver parameters for the driver as it is a kit servo design from here
http://www.rythmikaudio.com/servo_product.htm

Actually the T/S parameters are listed but not needed as the designer specifies that for the ported kit you need 3 cu ft tuned to 20-22 Hz.

The design calls for 3cf which is 85 ltr. The tube I am using is 405mm ID. I donít know the displacement of the driver but allowed 3 ltr as other 12Ē drivers seem to be around that. I have also allowed for the amp box that is built into the side of the tube and the internal braces. It is difficult to calculate but after a bit of math and a bit of estimate I allowed 5 ltr which I think is generous. I allowed 4.5 ltr for the 100 ID port as only 500mm of the port is in the enclosure. I have let the port extend outside the enclosure to provide clearance to the driver and will cover the overhang with an end cap assembly to make it look nice.
So for tube length calculations I would use 85( spec vol.) +3( driver) +5( ampbox & bracing) +4.5(port vol)= 97.5 ltr to work out the length of the enclosure. So using some simple math(that I have checked numerous times) comes up with a internal tube length of 760mm. I am reasonably sure that volume is correct or even a tad larger.
It is easy for me to adjust the length of the port to get the correct tuning but it is just that it will be quite a bit longer than the calculations suggest it should be. I might measure the sub impedance again tonight to make sure the I am doing correctly.

I can post some photos if you would like.

Thanks again
Brownee

  Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2007, 07:46 AM   #8
Collo is offline Collo  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Collo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Send a message via MSN to Collo
I'm glad to hear you've finally gotten the thing built

Some photos and / or a dimensioned drawing would be good.

If you're allowing the port to extend beyond the endcap, you should model it in WinISD as "Two free ends"

Re-checking your measurements would be a good idea. Something doesn't add up!
__________________
Ports rule!
  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
Class A amp dilema hudnes Pass Labs 28 9th September 2005 02:48 PM
Horns of a dilema Arthur-itis Full Range 0 4th August 2005 07:29 AM
Power supply dilema Nick Walker Solid State 1 19th April 2004 05:56 AM
Grounding dilema Bricolo Chip Amps 8 25th October 2003 12:08 PM
I need help with a low budget speaker dilema akcb3 Solid State 10 13th April 2002 06:57 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:02 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