Peerless XLS10 and passive radiator design

greg_mcquaid · 13th March 2007, 08:03 PM

Hi,

Looking at building a subwoofer with a peerless xls10 and either 1 or 2 10" peerless Passive radiators.

Now i have been playing around with unixbox and i have come up with the following design based on the xls10 and 1 passive radiator.

The first design i came up with was a 32l enclosure with the xls10 and 1 passive radiator. Now this should give response down to 27hz before the the passive radiator hits max excursion. I have attached a graph of this design.

Now i assumed that if i could use 2 passive radiators then i should be able to come up with a design that gets me down to around 20hz, but playing with unibox i cant seem to come up with a design that will get me to that goal.

Can anyone suggest a way of getting down to 20hz using the 2 passive's and the XLS10?

Thanks,
Greg

audiobomber · 14th March 2007, 01:51 AM

Maybe this will help. http://www.bamberglab.com/xls.shtml

MJL21193 · 14th March 2007, 03:46 AM

Hi,
I ran the sub you want with two passive radiators on unibox and came up with a design that will give good response down to 20Hz, but the box would be be large (70 litres). What weight PR did you input? 400 grams is what I tried. Adding weight to the PR will lower FB, but you give up some efficiency.

greg_mcquaid · 14th March 2007, 09:43 AM

I am using 265g passive radiators. I didn't really want to go over say 50l for box size. Maybe i am being to optimistic about the response down to 20hz, maybe i should aim a little higher (although 20hz would be nice!).

rabbitz · 14th March 2007, 11:08 AM

Have you thought of using the 12" PR instead?

I've found that the excursion shown in the software doesn't directly relate to the real world in most cases. I have FR drivers that should hit the stops at less than 1W but are still powering at 30W.... program material is different. There was a thread in the FR section recently about this.

MJL21193 · 15th March 2007, 12:59 AM

Smaller box means adding mass to passives. This will also reduce excursion. Your 265 gram PR is more suited to a smaller driver, its too light for what you want. Its easy- add weight to the passives in unibox untill you get the response where you want it with the box size you want.

GlennME · 15th March 2007, 02:46 AM

Here's a project using the 10" XLS and passive radiator.

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/acti...tarticle/1789/

And another using a 12" XLS and 2 passive radiators.

http://www.geocities.com/adrian_mack/

MJL21193 · 15th March 2007, 10:59 PM

In Sander's project on http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/act...ntarticle/1789/
he actually adds 200 grams to the 400 gram passive radiator to get the response down to below 20Hz. Well worth reading.

14th March 2007, 01:51 AM	#2
audiobomber diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Canada	Maybe this will help. http://www.bamberglab.com/xls.shtml __________________ Dan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
peerless xxls sealed -vs- peerless xls with passive radiator	Naudio	Subwoofers	8	23rd March 2008 09:00 PM
Peerless Subwoofer with Passive Radiator	GlennME	Subwoofers	3	15th February 2007 09:34 AM
Does the Peerless XLS 12 NEED a passive radiator?	The Paulinator	Subwoofers	27	6th October 2005 01:34 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	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

14th March 2007, 03:46 AM	#3
MJL21193 Account disabled at member's request Join Date: Mar 2007	Hi, I ran the sub you want with two passive radiators on unibox and came up with a design that will give good response down to 20Hz, but the box would be be large (70 litres). What weight PR did you input? 400 grams is what I tried. Adding weight to the PR will lower FB, but you give up some efficiency.

14th March 2007, 09:43 AM	#4
greg_mcquaid diyAudio Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: UK - Bristol	I am using 265g passive radiators. I didn't really want to go over say 50l for box size. Maybe i am being to optimistic about the response down to 20hz, maybe i should aim a little higher (although 20hz would be nice!).

14th March 2007, 11:08 AM	#5
rabbitz diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Newcastle, Australia	Have you thought of using the 12" PR instead? I've found that the excursion shown in the software doesn't directly relate to the real world in most cases. I have FR drivers that should hit the stops at less than 1W but are still powering at 30W.... program material is different. There was a thread in the FR section recently about this.

15th March 2007, 12:59 AM	#6
MJL21193 Account disabled at member's request Join Date: Mar 2007	Smaller box means adding mass to passives. This will also reduce excursion. Your 265 gram PR is more suited to a smaller driver, its too light for what you want. Its easy- add weight to the passives in unibox untill you get the response where you want it with the box size you want.

15th March 2007, 02:46 AM	#7
GlennME diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia	Here's a project using the 10" XLS and passive radiator. http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/acti...tarticle/1789/ And another using a 12" XLS and 2 passive radiators. http://www.geocities.com/adrian_mack/

15th March 2007, 10:59 PM	#8
MJL21193 Account disabled at member's request Join Date: Mar 2007	In Sander's project on http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/act...ntarticle/1789/ he actually adds 200 grams to the 400 gram passive radiator to get the response down to below 20Hz. Well worth reading.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)