Correction to the sweeps -- MORE BASS...
I forgot to correct for the Radio Shack SPL. The Cannon I built actually has more bass:
Correction........................was..........corrected
10hz........+20db...............57db........77.0db.....-10.0db
12.5hz.....+16.5db.............60db........76.5db.....-10.5db
16hz........+11.5db............64db........75.5db.....-11.5db
20hz........+7.5db..............80db........87.5db.....-00.5db
25hz........+5db................79db........84.0db.....-03.0db
31.5hz.....+3db.................81db........83.0db.....-04.0db
40hz........+2.5db..............87db........89.5db.....+01.5db
50hz........+1.5db..............90db........91.5db.....+04.5db
63hz........+1.5db..............80db........81.5db.....-05.5db
80hz........+1.5db..............88db........89.5db.....+02.5db
Regards and HAPPY FATHER'S DAY!
I forgot to correct for the Radio Shack SPL. The Cannon I built actually has more bass:
Correction........................was..........corrected
10hz........+20db...............57db........77.0db.....-10.0db
12.5hz.....+16.5db.............60db........76.5db.....-10.5db
16hz........+11.5db............64db........75.5db.....-11.5db
20hz........+7.5db..............80db........87.5db.....-00.5db
25hz........+5db................79db........84.0db.....-03.0db
31.5hz.....+3db.................81db........83.0db.....-04.0db
40hz........+2.5db..............87db........89.5db.....+01.5db
50hz........+1.5db..............90db........91.5db.....+04.5db
63hz........+1.5db..............80db........81.5db.....-05.5db
80hz........+1.5db..............88db........89.5db.....+02.5db
Regards and HAPPY FATHER'S DAY!
Timecone -- dredge on my brother...
Many beautiful women would come to your bedroom to listen to the DEEP BASS (in my case that got me into hot water with my wife).
I recommend a void-free 3/4" plywood box.
Inner dimensions for each of the four tubes:
13" high
6" wide
48" long
Approximate outer dimension of the box:
15" high
40" wide
50" long
(a good base for a platform bed)
If you go with pvc pipe, it needs to be 18" diameter ($$$).
I simmed this cannon (20Hz-60Hz) with the AlphaTL XLS that GM put together and posted (thanks, Greg).
Remember, the short tube tends to smooth the irregularities of the long tube and vice versa -- ameliorating the need for stuffing...
Many beautiful women would come to your bedroom to listen to the DEEP BASS (in my case that got me into hot water with my wife).
I recommend a void-free 3/4" plywood box.
Inner dimensions for each of the four tubes:
13" high
6" wide
48" long
Approximate outer dimension of the box:
15" high
40" wide
50" long
(a good base for a platform bed)
If you go with pvc pipe, it needs to be 18" diameter ($$$).
I simmed this cannon (20Hz-60Hz) with the AlphaTL XLS that GM put together and posted (thanks, Greg).
Remember, the short tube tends to smooth the irregularities of the long tube and vice versa -- ameliorating the need for stuffing...
Hi guys,
I'm new to this forum, having joined it few days before.
I've actually built a waveguide enclosure based on B$%# patent that I found on the web about a year ago.
My tube loads the driver at the rear, with the front of the speaker radiating directly, since I like directivity in the 5.1 home-theatre set up.
The driver used is a free-to-air car speaker -Pioneer(3way), T/S parameters being relatively non-relevant for this type of loading.
I beleive all the details shown in "the patent" are sufficient except for spacing between tube outlets (or tube-oulet & speaker in single speaker set up)-"A preferred separation is within the range of one-eighth to one times the length of the path for pressure waves between said vibratile means and the longer of such wave path distances between said vibratile means and said first and second openings"
In my case, though the sound (lower end) is free of any ringing or muddling, there is no evidence of the claimed bass output.
My ATCR is 0.6, perhaps a figure of 1 would add more beef to the lower end.
B$%# claims that a single tube set up will work well, though I 'm quite sure a two tube approach is what's required to get the killer punch.
I'm new to this forum, having joined it few days before.
I've actually built a waveguide enclosure based on B$%# patent that I found on the web about a year ago.
My tube loads the driver at the rear, with the front of the speaker radiating directly, since I like directivity in the 5.1 home-theatre set up.
The driver used is a free-to-air car speaker -Pioneer(3way), T/S parameters being relatively non-relevant for this type of loading.
I beleive all the details shown in "the patent" are sufficient except for spacing between tube outlets (or tube-oulet & speaker in single speaker set up)-"A preferred separation is within the range of one-eighth to one times the length of the path for pressure waves between said vibratile means and the longer of such wave path distances between said vibratile means and said first and second openings"
In my case, though the sound (lower end) is free of any ringing or muddling, there is no evidence of the claimed bass output.
My ATCR is 0.6, perhaps a figure of 1 would add more beef to the lower end.
B$%# claims that a single tube set up will work well, though I 'm quite sure a two tube approach is what's required to get the killer punch.
WELCOME fellow fanatic!
What is the FS of the driver?
What is the SD of the Driver (the area of the cone inside of the rubber surround)?
What is inner pipe diameter?
What is the pipe length?
How well sealed is the driver to the pipe?
Can you post a picture?
BTW, I know this is a question of semantics, but what you really have is a TL (transmission line, AKA tuned pipe) -- on this forum anyway.
Regards
Joe
What is the FS of the driver?
What is the SD of the Driver (the area of the cone inside of the rubber surround)?
What is inner pipe diameter?
What is the pipe length?
How well sealed is the driver to the pipe?
Can you post a picture?
BTW, I know this is a question of semantics, but what you really have is a TL (transmission line, AKA tuned pipe) -- on this forum anyway.
Regards
Joe
Joe qi,
I just arranged the salutation above to convey my appreciation for your speed in answering this upstart's post.
Thanks for your reply, the driver is free- to-air type, obviously T/S parameters are unavailable. I'dont have the means presently, to measure these. So I consider TL and other quarterwave loadings (waveguide, labirynth, to an extent horns too) to be appropriate for such circumstances.
So I've considered Fs to be about 45Hz, I'm sure the driver delivers this freq. within 3dB(specs say 30Hz to 20kHz -I take it with a pinch of salt- it's a 3way Pioneer car speaker TS-E1690).
Any way the tube should radiate any freq that the driver propogates(according to B#$% patent), only the tube length defines the lower end.
I've chosen the ACTR to be 0.6 utilizing area of the stiff cone(without surround) & area of tube.
I'll measure it again when I get home and post it later.
The tube is tuned to 46.4Hz, so length is 1.83m. This is a single pipe design.
I'll post a picture of the prototype, later this week.
The driver is well sealed to the baffle face(screwed and silicon gel between the driver's rim and MDF).
Now regarding transmission line, I think it should have area of the tube reducing from 1.25 to 0.75 times the cone area for it to be called a TL.
Tuned pipe-Yes it is.
By the way would you believe that my first attempt at building a Loudspeaker was a back loaded horn with the front radiating directly(freely), this was followed by bass reflex(8nos.) and finally the cannon. My subwoofer is a small sealed type with an 8'' driver.
All except the cannon were hits maybe because this is a single tube type but the wave radio is similar........
I just arranged the salutation above to convey my appreciation for your speed in answering this upstart's post.
Thanks for your reply, the driver is free- to-air type, obviously T/S parameters are unavailable. I'dont have the means presently, to measure these. So I consider TL and other quarterwave loadings (waveguide, labirynth, to an extent horns too) to be appropriate for such circumstances.
So I've considered Fs to be about 45Hz, I'm sure the driver delivers this freq. within 3dB(specs say 30Hz to 20kHz -I take it with a pinch of salt- it's a 3way Pioneer car speaker TS-E1690).
Any way the tube should radiate any freq that the driver propogates(according to B#$% patent), only the tube length defines the lower end.
I've chosen the ACTR to be 0.6 utilizing area of the stiff cone(without surround) & area of tube.
I'll measure it again when I get home and post it later.
The tube is tuned to 46.4Hz, so length is 1.83m. This is a single pipe design.
I'll post a picture of the prototype, later this week.
The driver is well sealed to the baffle face(screwed and silicon gel between the driver's rim and MDF).
Now regarding transmission line, I think it should have area of the tube reducing from 1.25 to 0.75 times the cone area for it to be called a TL.
Tuned pipe-Yes it is.
By the way would you believe that my first attempt at building a Loudspeaker was a back loaded horn with the front radiating directly(freely), this was followed by bass reflex(8nos.) and finally the cannon. My subwoofer is a small sealed type with an 8'' driver.
All except the cannon were hits maybe because this is a single tube type but the wave radio is similar........
You could experiment with stuffing to see if that helps.
I personally would just go aperiodic by rolling up some fibreglass and inserting it snugly into the end of the tube.
Since these are mains, you will have less colouration this way.
To augment the BASS, here is a design of mine you might want to consider...
Take your 8" sub driver out of that little box and put it in this.
It is a Cannon Tower with a small footprint (approx 8 1/2" x 11").
It is 56" high -- tuned to 24 hz (XOVER at 80 hz).
The long line (~141") is comprised of three folded lines (8" x 2.3" x 47" interior).
The short line is 8" x 2.3" x 47" interior.
It is small because the cross sectional area of each line is 1/2 the SD of the driver (as you know).
I propose using 3/8" void-free ply (since the lines are so small).
Enjoy!
I personally would just go aperiodic by rolling up some fibreglass and inserting it snugly into the end of the tube.
Since these are mains, you will have less colouration this way.
To augment the BASS, here is a design of mine you might want to consider...
Take your 8" sub driver out of that little box and put it in this.
It is a Cannon Tower with a small footprint (approx 8 1/2" x 11").
It is 56" high -- tuned to 24 hz (XOVER at 80 hz).
The long line (~141") is comprised of three folded lines (8" x 2.3" x 47" interior).
The short line is 8" x 2.3" x 47" interior.
It is small because the cross sectional area of each line is 1/2 the SD of the driver (as you know).
I propose using 3/8" void-free ply (since the lines are so small).
Enjoy!
Attachments
qi,
Thanks for your suggestions. I do have plans for a the subwfr. quite similar to your's except that it will have no bends whatsoever.
But I'd like to hear the single tube without stuffing-exactly as the patent says it should work. With stuffing I'd rather go for a proper TL that tapers as the masters of yore prescribe.
Maybe the patent doesn't disclose everything.
BTW have you experimented with different ATCRs, if so what value is best??
I do have a sketch of my mains prototype but am somehow unable to attach it in the "attachments".
Basically, it is a back-loaded tube(rectangular) of 16.5 x 3.5 sq.cms, while the driver cone area is 95.0455 sq. cms.
This gives an ATCR of 0.638 which should have been good enough.
Thanks for your suggestions. I do have plans for a the subwfr. quite similar to your's except that it will have no bends whatsoever.
But I'd like to hear the single tube without stuffing-exactly as the patent says it should work. With stuffing I'd rather go for a proper TL that tapers as the masters of yore prescribe.
Maybe the patent doesn't disclose everything.
BTW have you experimented with different ATCRs, if so what value is best??
I do have a sketch of my mains prototype but am somehow unable to attach it in the "attachments".
Basically, it is a back-loaded tube(rectangular) of 16.5 x 3.5 sq.cms, while the driver cone area is 95.0455 sq. cms.
This gives an ATCR of 0.638 which should have been good enough.
francis
The patent states clearly that an ATCR of .5 yields the smoothest response.
Their cannon is much closer to 1, however.
I built mine very large with a target ATCR of 1 with no stuffing.
I have tried it stuffed and unstuffed and much prefer unstuffed.
IMO unstuffed is more like a giant horn.
Sitting on my bed (they are beneath it) is like being in the mouth of a giant (albeit virtual) horn
The patent states clearly that an ATCR of .5 yields the smoothest response.
Their cannon is much closer to 1, however.
I built mine very large with a target ATCR of 1 with no stuffing.
I have tried it stuffed and unstuffed and much prefer unstuffed.
IMO unstuffed is more like a giant horn.
Sitting on my bed (they are beneath it) is like being in the mouth of a giant (albeit virtual) horn
Joe,
Thanks a lot(ATCR of 1), I stand vindicated.
Another point also comes to mind, "It is also preferred that there be negligible compliance (air volume) between the loudspeaker driver cone and the tube."
Me thinks, too much narrowing of tube near diaphragm restricts/supresses cone movement (ie. LF response).
ATCR & Space between Tube Openings - From the beginning I was getting the feeling that there's more than meets the eye here. Perhaps it was meant to throw anyone off the tracks at the onset itself.
No doubt the B%&# Corp. is so commercially successful especially since the price is IMO atleast 5 times that of similar ones. But I do apreciate the Doctor, he's Indian like me.
Getting back to my mains, maybe I should scale down the single tube and save some space..... Your opinion is solicited.
BTW, some of the threads in this forum are hilarious and enjoyable reading, especially the pseudo scientific + literary stuff, which is said in a serious way.
As a newcomer I realise what I missed all these years.
To All Ye DIYers
Thanks a lot(ATCR of 1), I stand vindicated.
Another point also comes to mind, "It is also preferred that there be negligible compliance (air volume) between the loudspeaker driver cone and the tube."
Me thinks, too much narrowing of tube near diaphragm restricts/supresses cone movement (ie. LF response).
ATCR & Space between Tube Openings - From the beginning I was getting the feeling that there's more than meets the eye here. Perhaps it was meant to throw anyone off the tracks at the onset itself.
No doubt the B%&# Corp. is so commercially successful especially since the price is IMO atleast 5 times that of similar ones. But I do apreciate the Doctor, he's Indian like me.
Getting back to my mains, maybe I should scale down the single tube and save some space..... Your opinion is solicited.
BTW, some of the threads in this forum are hilarious and enjoyable reading, especially the pseudo scientific + literary stuff, which is said in a serious way.
As a newcomer I realise what I missed all these years.
To All Ye DIYers
qi,
I'm gonna build a proper subwfr cannon(2-tubed) of ATCR=1 & get back to you. It's quite hot here in the UAE at present, so I may have to wait for a couple of months the least, since the wife won't allow carpentry inside the drawing room.
Bose(o),
It should be true; don't forget he teaches/taught at MIT.
In India, he has a fan-following and many do vouch for their products as ultimate-fi.
B#$% is considered "posh" in most parts of the globe.
Last Dec. in the U.K, I listened very carefully to their "Lifestyle" at my brother-in-law's, it's OK for movies but not quite so for music.
I have an explanation; during the course of a movie one cannot notice the sharp farts (from the LF material) along with all the mayhem.hee hee
Lower midrange was absent and so was upper HF. No measurements here, only ear.
I wouldn't have a problem if the price was reasonably low since I hear that the drivers used are kinda cheapo. Compact-yes it is.
I remember looong ago, having read the review of the 901series speakers (I think in Stereo Review). Julian Hirsh was ecstatic and profuse in praise... perhaps there is something that ticks well enough that I don't know of.
I'm gonna build a proper subwfr cannon(2-tubed) of ATCR=1 & get back to you. It's quite hot here in the UAE at present, so I may have to wait for a couple of months the least, since the wife won't allow carpentry inside the drawing room.
Bose(o),
It should be true; don't forget he teaches/taught at MIT.
In India, he has a fan-following and many do vouch for their products as ultimate-fi.
B#$% is considered "posh" in most parts of the globe.
Last Dec. in the U.K, I listened very carefully to their "Lifestyle" at my brother-in-law's, it's OK for movies but not quite so for music.
I have an explanation; during the course of a movie one cannot notice the sharp farts (from the LF material) along with all the mayhem.hee hee
Lower midrange was absent and so was upper HF. No measurements here, only ear.
I wouldn't have a problem if the price was reasonably low since I hear that the drivers used are kinda cheapo. Compact-yes it is.
I remember looong ago, having read the review of the 901series speakers (I think in Stereo Review). Julian Hirsh was ecstatic and profuse in praise... perhaps there is something that ticks well enough that I don't know of.
Oh trust me, I know about Dr. Bose. I wonder what his latest efforts are in audio, with 30+ yrs. of experience no man on the planet would still think the same way. (*cough *cough 901s)
I also heard the same problems that you heard, but the Adapt IQ systems are far better than the older lifestyle systems. Still, they are a far cry from other stereos (Bose's pros and cons are much different) as far as the generally accepted performance from loudspeakers. Considering they are priced MUCH less than hi-fi, Bose may be an entrance to hi-fi.
$60,000 for a full Macintosh Labs stereo, give me a break! DIY RULES!
I also heard the same problems that you heard, but the Adapt IQ systems are far better than the older lifestyle systems. Still, they are a far cry from other stereos (Bose's pros and cons are much different) as far as the generally accepted performance from loudspeakers. Considering they are priced MUCH less than hi-fi, Bose may be an entrance to hi-fi.
$60,000 for a full Macintosh Labs stereo, give me a break! DIY RULES!
Off topic bit split off to here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62776
dave
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62776
dave
Save this Dainty
I've been thinking for quite some time how i could use a pair of DAINTY SW801 [ fs = 48 Hz , Qts ~.9 Dia. = 8" ] I am on the verge of ripping off its cone and do some plastic surgery myself to get some respectable Qts & Fs.
Can they be used in those Cannon's by manipulating the crosectional area of the front and rear tubes.
I've been thinking for quite some time how i could use a pair of DAINTY SW801 [ fs = 48 Hz , Qts ~.9 Dia. = 8" ] I am on the verge of ripping off its cone and do some plastic surgery myself to get some respectable Qts & Fs.
Can they be used in those Cannon's by manipulating the crosectional area of the front and rear tubes.
Nair,
In my humble opinion, yes.
Be sure you aim for an ATCR of close to 1, though the patent says 0.5 is best.
Respected Qi has got good results with it(see his posts in this thread).
As for me, I got not so good results with ATCR of 0.6; probably since I used only one(the back) tube tuned to the quarter wavelength.
Sure you can manipulate; just ensure that one tube should be one fourth length of low end(don't go below Fs) wavelength and the other tube should be one third of the first tube.
Go for it and post us your results.
In my humble opinion, yes.
Be sure you aim for an ATCR of close to 1, though the patent says 0.5 is best.
Respected Qi has got good results with it(see his posts in this thread).
As for me, I got not so good results with ATCR of 0.6; probably since I used only one(the back) tube tuned to the quarter wavelength.
Sure you can manipulate; just ensure that one tube should be one fourth length of low end(don't go below Fs) wavelength and the other tube should be one third of the first tube.
Go for it and post us your results.
Ok, I built a folded Wave Cannon. It functions as a bass module for a pair of small satellite speakers. It doesn't sound bad, though it tends to favor the upper part of its range. It is crossed over to the W3-593S satellite speakers at 190 Hz, first order. The crossover slope is not nearly steep enough, but stuffing the upper tube (the short one) and the last bend in the lower line helped reduce the midrange infiltration to an acceptable level, and goosing the bass control on the receiver also helps some. This design doesn't sound "slow", but it does sound resonant. The internal folding is like a miniature version of qi's wave cannons. The driver is a cheap stamped-frame 4" dual voice coil woofer with a resonant frequency of 107 Hz. ATCR is approximately 1, but the stuffing helped with that as well. This entire set will be going to my sister, who is in a dorm room. These photos were taken in my own dorm room while I'm auditioning them and tweaking them (the stuffing, etc.)
The W3-594S drivers are like a pincushion-frame version of the W3-871S, originally made for Nuera. I sourced mine from Parts Express, which bought out the last remaining stock of Nuera Acoustics and picked up the product lines. They sound good. The satellite speakers are sealed, and stuffed absolutely full.
As you can see from the photos, I pretty much rushed through the finishing stage, with plenty of surface imperfections visible. I think I'll be sanding these down again and giving them several coats of paint before my sister receives them. I chose the Wave Cannon bass module design simply to evaluate the concept; I don't think I'll be building any more of these any time soon.
The W3-594S drivers are like a pincushion-frame version of the W3-871S, originally made for Nuera. I sourced mine from Parts Express, which bought out the last remaining stock of Nuera Acoustics and picked up the product lines. They sound good. The satellite speakers are sealed, and stuffed absolutely full.
As you can see from the photos, I pretty much rushed through the finishing stage, with plenty of surface imperfections visible. I think I'll be sanding these down again and giving them several coats of paint before my sister receives them. I chose the Wave Cannon bass module design simply to evaluate the concept; I don't think I'll be building any more of these any time soon.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.