Hi Mark,
It is certainly nice to know that people find Hornresp to be a useful design tool 🙂.
Kind regards,
David
TC Sounds Driver Candidate
This unit is currently on sale at Parts Express.
Does anyone here have experience using this unit?
For this application the specs look very good.
Unfortunately they do not have a 15" equivalent version, so tube diameters would have to be larger; but of course, at a significant increase in output.
Qts: 0.325
Xmax 33.6 mm
FS: 20.5 Hz
Sens: 89.7 dB
BL 26.8 T*m
LMS-Ultra 5400 18″ Driver | TC Sounds
With this unit operating at 16 Hz. at full output in a TH will most likely send some listeners to the sand box in short order.
WHG
This unit is currently on sale at Parts Express.
Does anyone here have experience using this unit?
For this application the specs look very good.
Unfortunately they do not have a 15" equivalent version, so tube diameters would have to be larger; but of course, at a significant increase in output.
Qts: 0.325
Xmax 33.6 mm
FS: 20.5 Hz
Sens: 89.7 dB
BL 26.8 T*m
LMS-Ultra 5400 18″ Driver | TC Sounds
With this unit operating at 16 Hz. at full output in a TH will most likely send some listeners to the sand box in short order.
WHG
Last edited:
Hi Bill,
That sounds too much like hard work 🙂. Besides, there is nothing really new in Hornresp - the simulation models are all based on well-established theory. You will have noticed from the way that the Help file is presented, that I don't much like documenting things anyway... 🙂.
Kind regards,
David
Having nothing new to say doesn't stop most of the papers.
The longer you have read them the more you can see how the next generation rehashes what the previous one already did.
And I only have roughly 30 years of reading them.
I actually did a little study on this paper.
https://www.passdiy.com/pdf/el-pipe-o.pdf
I found this a page or so into the pdf.
"In any tube shaped object, closed at one end, a resonance develops at the frequency where the wavelength is four times the length of the tube. This effect is exploited in numerous musical instruments,particularly the pipe organ.
The wavelength of a frequency is the speed the wave travels divided by the frequency. For sound going through air, that speed is approximately 1100 feet per second. At 20 Hz, the wavelength is about 55 feet, and this is where a 14 foot tube will resonate."
END
The wave cannon design seems to be predicated on the concept that the driver is placed 1/3 of the way into the tube. I'm going to make a huge guess that the 14 foot in the quote I've included includes the 1/3 length behind the driver AND the 2/3 in front of the driver.
Now, IF THIS rule of thumb is accurate, presumably an 18 foot tube could take us down in the magic territory that interests me.
But an 18 foot tube of over 18 inch diameter is a lot to fit into our speaker/pipe chamber - especially with all the stuff it currently contains.
As I pour over the various threads and do searches for various horns, I see a great many folded horn designs. Most are constructed of wood with intricate labyrinths. Various programs can be used to help design cabinets to produce certain frequencies.
Using different sized sonotubes within one another could be used to produce a labyrinth - similar to the wood versions.
Here's one example:
End view of the same subwoofer
If my goal is to have a subwoofer based on the wave cannon design, why can't the nested tubes approach be used?
Is there a program that could simulate the results?
Otherwise, we're down to experimentation. And big sonotubes aren't easily obtainable in my area.
Bach On
https://www.passdiy.com/pdf/el-pipe-o.pdf
I found this a page or so into the pdf.
"In any tube shaped object, closed at one end, a resonance develops at the frequency where the wavelength is four times the length of the tube. This effect is exploited in numerous musical instruments,particularly the pipe organ.
The wavelength of a frequency is the speed the wave travels divided by the frequency. For sound going through air, that speed is approximately 1100 feet per second. At 20 Hz, the wavelength is about 55 feet, and this is where a 14 foot tube will resonate."
END
The wave cannon design seems to be predicated on the concept that the driver is placed 1/3 of the way into the tube. I'm going to make a huge guess that the 14 foot in the quote I've included includes the 1/3 length behind the driver AND the 2/3 in front of the driver.
Now, IF THIS rule of thumb is accurate, presumably an 18 foot tube could take us down in the magic territory that interests me.
But an 18 foot tube of over 18 inch diameter is a lot to fit into our speaker/pipe chamber - especially with all the stuff it currently contains.
As I pour over the various threads and do searches for various horns, I see a great many folded horn designs. Most are constructed of wood with intricate labyrinths. Various programs can be used to help design cabinets to produce certain frequencies.
Using different sized sonotubes within one another could be used to produce a labyrinth - similar to the wood versions.
Here's one example:
End view of the same subwoofer
If my goal is to have a subwoofer based on the wave cannon design, why can't the nested tubes approach be used?
Is there a program that could simulate the results?
Otherwise, we're down to experimentation. And big sonotubes aren't easily obtainable in my area.
Bach On
Last edited:
PLEASE ....
.... read Tom Danley's White paper on Tapped Horns that I attached to a recent post. It is at 1/2 wave length of the lowest frequency of interest where the real and important action begins. For 16 Hz. that is 32 Ft. Same for the organ as well. I gave you a nested solution. The more you nest, the bigger its diameter will be. WHG
WHG
.... read Tom Danley's White paper on Tapped Horns that I attached to a recent post. It is at 1/2 wave length of the lowest frequency of interest where the real and important action begins. For 16 Hz. that is 32 Ft. Same for the organ as well. I gave you a nested solution. The more you nest, the bigger its diameter will be. WHG
WHG
Last edited:
Hi whgeiger,
Post #342: "...LMS-Ultra 5400 18″ Driver | TC Sounds..."
This was previously ruled out because of cost, even at the current sale price of $750.-- it is expensive.
This driver would be a great fit for Bach On's big box. It would need an amplifier that can put out ~85Vac in the frequency range of interest. For the same amount of money you can stuff two isobaric pairs of the SI HT18 into the same box, and get similar output @ ~65Vac.
My current attempts @ simulating the AWC have not come out well enough to go that route. Once you have a flat to 16Hz target w/ some usefull extension a big port bass reflex does just as well (or better), and is a lot smaller.
Looks like the main argument for the AWC is that it might be possible to hang the tube into an otherwise unused area where it is not in the way (it really is big), provided one can come up w/ a simulation that looks promising.
I'll attach my attempt at simulating the AWC from Post #314 using the Dayton Ultimax UM15-22.
Regards,
Post #342: "...LMS-Ultra 5400 18″ Driver | TC Sounds..."
This was previously ruled out because of cost, even at the current sale price of $750.-- it is expensive.
This driver would be a great fit for Bach On's big box. It would need an amplifier that can put out ~85Vac in the frequency range of interest. For the same amount of money you can stuff two isobaric pairs of the SI HT18 into the same box, and get similar output @ ~65Vac.
My current attempts @ simulating the AWC have not come out well enough to go that route. Once you have a flat to 16Hz target w/ some usefull extension a big port bass reflex does just as well (or better), and is a lot smaller.
Looks like the main argument for the AWC is that it might be possible to hang the tube into an otherwise unused area where it is not in the way (it really is big), provided one can come up w/ a simulation that looks promising.
I'll attach my attempt at simulating the AWC from Post #314 using the Dayton Ultimax UM15-22.
Regards,
Hi Bach On,
Post #346: "...a subwoofer based on the wave cannon design, why can't the nested tubes approach be used?
That is what whgeiger is doing in his design in Post #314. The right hand side is composed of an inner and an outer tube, @ that point you basically have a transmission line (maybe think of it as a nested el-pipe-o); then the left hand side tube (extension of the outer right hand side tube) makes it into a tapped horn. You could also reduce the overall length by finding an even bigger tube, and nesting both right hand side tubes in it. Epa once did a nested PA-TH design like that using square tubes.
Regards,
Post #346: "...a subwoofer based on the wave cannon design, why can't the nested tubes approach be used?
That is what whgeiger is doing in his design in Post #314. The right hand side is composed of an inner and an outer tube, @ that point you basically have a transmission line (maybe think of it as a nested el-pipe-o); then the left hand side tube (extension of the outer right hand side tube) makes it into a tapped horn. You could also reduce the overall length by finding an even bigger tube, and nesting both right hand side tubes in it. Epa once did a nested PA-TH design like that using square tubes.
Regards,
Muscle Acoustics
A sixty pound magnet assembly cost money. Long-throw, low QTS and low FS = $$$, but that is what is needed. A BR can be made from Sonotube and flown as well. I would still recommend the more expensive driver for this alternative as well. At 16 Hz. you need all the muscle you can find for this heavy lift. WHG
A sixty pound magnet assembly cost money. Long-throw, low QTS and low FS = $$$, but that is what is needed. A BR can be made from Sonotube and flown as well. I would still recommend the more expensive driver for this alternative as well. At 16 Hz. you need all the muscle you can find for this heavy lift. WHG
I guess I just missed the thrust of what you were saying. Sometimes I'm just slow. Sorry.
I did read Danley's white paper. I'm not sure I completely understood it. But I believe I understand how the concept he outlines fits into the design you are suggesting.
So this is the design you are suggesting.
The tube length adds up to the 32 feet of a Low C on an organ pipe plus one inch.
It's a 12 foot 1 inch 16 inch diameter pipe inside the 24 inch diameter pipe. All this is on the front side of the driver. There is 8 feet behind the driver.
Am I somewhere close to understanding what you are proposing?
The driver you feel that is optimum is currently $750. You feel that only a rugged driver with plenty of Xmax can adequately work in this type of situation for those lowest sounds. Again, right?
But anyway I look at it, this design will result in a 24 inch diameter sonotube assembly roughly 20 feet long. I'll have to do some measuring in our pipe chamber to see if we could accommodate such a beast.
Thanks!
Bach On
RAWC Notes
Your welcome.
The inches don't matter in regards to length. 12 ft. will do.
Why can't you extend the output end of the unit into the listening space?
This unit will shake the whole building and loose objects in it will rattle as well.
The only driver I like so far for your application is 18". In my opinion it is a bargain considering the specs it is reportedly delivering. I am still looking for a 15" equivalent.
A good but imperfect indicator of value is $/lbs for drivers of the same magnet type.
Regards,
WHG
Your welcome.
The inches don't matter in regards to length. 12 ft. will do.
Why can't you extend the output end of the unit into the listening space?
This unit will shake the whole building and loose objects in it will rattle as well.
The only driver I like so far for your application is 18". In my opinion it is a bargain considering the specs it is reportedly delivering. I am still looking for a 15" equivalent.
A good but imperfect indicator of value is $/lbs for drivers of the same magnet type.
Regards,
WHG
Best price I can find in the U.S. for 24 inch form tube is $142.27.
So two of those = 284.54 plus a 16 inch width of $87.80
Total is 372.34 Plus a sheet of plywood and ancillaries.
Add on the driver of choice. You will crack $1120, probably $1200.
And with what I have been able to simulate using the existing driver is interesting. But I have yet to set up an exact simulation of Bill idea.
Not knocking the idea nor the design work.
But is this a feasible route for you Ron?
So two of those = 284.54 plus a 16 inch width of $87.80
Total is 372.34 Plus a sheet of plywood and ancillaries.
Add on the driver of choice. You will crack $1120, probably $1200.
And with what I have been able to simulate using the existing driver is interesting. But I have yet to set up an exact simulation of Bill idea.
Not knocking the idea nor the design work.
But is this a feasible route for you Ron?
Early on, I made the decision to put all the sounds behind the organ shades. This will make it simpler to voice and balance all the sounds.
Thus far, I've been able to do that. But I've discovered that lots of the sound is being lost in the pipe chamber. This is true of pipes and speakers. I still want to maintain this approach if I can.
I'm not really looking to produce earthquake levels. I just want a sufficient SPL that the speakers aren't being pushed to their absolute limits. I want to have the luxury of turning the volume controls down - not the imperative of having to turn them up to obtain usable sounds in this lowest range.
My other 18 inch base driver is the Stereo Integrity HT18. It is being used in a 10 cu. ft. box. I bought the 2 ohm version and am running the coils in parallel for a 4 ohm circuit.
HT18 18″ Subwoofer | Stereo Integrity
Stereo Integrity also has another 18 inch driver.
http://stereointegrity.com/product/hst18-18-subwoofoner/
And I also considered the Dayton UM18-22 (currently out of stock).
Dayton Audio UM18-22 18" Ultimax DVC Subwoofer 2 ohms Per Coil
This project would be coming out of my pocket, not out of the church budget. So cost IS a consideration.
I do understand that SOMETIMES you get what you pay for. But that is not always true.
Bach On
Deep Bass Addenda
I envision your first c/o point to be well under 100 Hz. or wavelengths well over 11ft. At such a point, physical separation should be a non-issue.
>snip<
Don't worry, you won't be doing that with the proposed gear. But the shaking and rattling will occur long before you feel/hear the signal (without touching a room wall). For equal level you are working against the reciprocal 1/(f^2) plus an decline in ear sensitivity as well. In any event, this statement contradicts your answer to my earlier organ pipe question.
Are these drivers equivalent in performance to what I recommended?
Note: I have no vested interest TC Sound. Any driver with equivalent or better specs will do.
Well at least it is tax deductible. Get a commissioning statement from the church for this project and keep track of all your expenses including travel to and from the church and to and from vendors. They are all deductible from income as a charitable contribution. In any case, to save money reduce the mission. What is your parishioners attitude regarding deep bass notes coming from their church's organ?
Here are some more alternatives and additional information to consider.
Recommended driver in conventional enclosures
LMS-Ultra 5400 18″ Driver | TC Sounds
Here is a smaller plywood TH version
Data-Bass
Here is what you get when the enclosure is small compared to wavelength.
https://www.passdiy.com/pdf/el-pipe-o.pdf
Low Organ Notes on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEVd2vdWYc0
WHG
I envision your first c/o point to be well under 100 Hz. or wavelengths well over 11ft. At such a point, physical separation should be a non-issue.
>snip<
Don't worry, you won't be doing that with the proposed gear. But the shaking and rattling will occur long before you feel/hear the signal (without touching a room wall). For equal level you are working against the reciprocal 1/(f^2) plus an decline in ear sensitivity as well. In any event, this statement contradicts your answer to my earlier organ pipe question.
Are these drivers equivalent in performance to what I recommended?
Note: I have no vested interest TC Sound. Any driver with equivalent or better specs will do.
Well at least it is tax deductible. Get a commissioning statement from the church for this project and keep track of all your expenses including travel to and from the church and to and from vendors. They are all deductible from income as a charitable contribution. In any case, to save money reduce the mission. What is your parishioners attitude regarding deep bass notes coming from their church's organ?
Here are some more alternatives and additional information to consider.
Recommended driver in conventional enclosures
LMS-Ultra 5400 18″ Driver | TC Sounds
Here is a smaller plywood TH version
Data-Bass
Here is what you get when the enclosure is small compared to wavelength.
https://www.passdiy.com/pdf/el-pipe-o.pdf
Low Organ Notes on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEVd2vdWYc0
WHG
Hi Mark,
Post #352: "... have yet to set up an exact simulation of Bill idea."
How about my simulation in Post #347? I tried to get close, using whgeiger's dimensions, 16" and 24" sonotubes, and a long throw 15" driver. Now, exact may be difficult.
Regards,
Post #352: "... have yet to set up an exact simulation of Bill idea."
How about my simulation in Post #347? I tried to get close, using whgeiger's dimensions, 16" and 24" sonotubes, and a long throw 15" driver. Now, exact may be difficult.
Regards,
OK.
Looked.
It is a great tapped horn.
But is missing the mass loading effect that Bill designed in.
I got close. But I am running a virus scan on my work computer. Not accessible right now.
That is why the lowest frequencies have that slump in the response. They should pick up a little with the mass loading.
All in I know that this is much lager than the room Ron has available.
It is an elegant idea.
Looked.
It is a great tapped horn.
But is missing the mass loading effect that Bill designed in.
I got close. But I am running a virus scan on my work computer. Not accessible right now.
That is why the lowest frequencies have that slump in the response. They should pick up a little with the mass loading.
All in I know that this is much lager than the room Ron has available.
It is an elegant idea.
Driver Details
P.S.: I was surprised to discover that the voice coil of this driver is under-hung despite the large xmax. with a ptp of 67.2 mm. Second the basket assembly is field replaceable like that of Tom McCauley's designs. WHG
P.S.: I was surprised to discover that the voice coil of this driver is under-hung despite the large xmax. with a ptp of 67.2 mm. Second the basket assembly is field replaceable like that of Tom McCauley's designs. WHG
Bill,
I've looked and measured. I won't have an area large enough to accommodate a subwoofer this large. That goes for inside and outside the shades. It looks like a promising project for a purpose like ours. But I'm going to have to go with a smaller package - even if it doesn't provide as much sound down low.
Thanks for sharing it and for the time and effort you've expended on the project.
The same goes to several others who have been working to produce sims.
Bach On
- Status
- Not open for further replies.