Re unwanted effects: cramping the internal volume around the driver is usually considered problematic because of reflections back through the cone. Agree with GM. Bigger is better, usually, and if the bass is too much you can turn it down.
Dear GM,
Actually what I meant was the original question of this thread of the S0 size rather than you specifically. I didn't get much answer to that question, since there were not many people who replied to this. So I figured I change the angle of the question to make it more relevant to most constructors. Sorry for the confusion.
As for your reply, I was trying to understand what is the impact, I know it will be bad but what is the "bad" and what can I live with. So I take it that the bass output at pipe resonance will be poorer and the suppression of the cone movement will be less, reducing the benefits of the TL effect.
Oon
Thanks Mark, I guess there is no free lunch, so I take it that as a general rule exit CSA (SL) would be as much as SD so for taper So needs to be much bigger.
Thanks.
Greets!
Again, my response was ~ all encompassing, i.e. a box alignment, be it an OB/whatever only loads the driver in its acceleration BW up to its mass corner [2*Fs/Qts'] where Qts' = Qts + any series resistance: mh-audio.nl - Home
Again, it's not 'bad' when properly calculated, just not optimum to get the max LF gain BW. IOW if you reduce the optimum net Vb relative to the TL tuning [Fp], then you wind up with more 'ripple' in the BW, hence more damping to compensate, so your understanding is correct; but if you raise Fp to match the desired net Vb, then it will be optimum over this narrower BW same as it would be if optimizing any other vented alignment.
WRT terminus area [Sm], 1/4 Sd is considered the minimum for basic baffle thickness reflex tuning and has worked well for me and some others for inverse tapered TLs [TQWT], so comfortable recommending it.
WRT minimum throat area [St = where the driver loads the pipe], B0$3 and others have found a 2:1 CR to be the practical limit unless compression loaded [both sides 'box' loaded].
In Short, for apps where neighbors and/or WAF are a primary design 'parameter', I recommend doing optimum alignments using low Fs [< 42 Hz], Vas, Qts [< ~0.312 optimum] drivers tuned to Fs to minimize size, strong [mid] bass output, yet yields a solid, high SQ vocals [telephone BW]-up BW due to the pipe's ~ transient perfect alignment [0.5 Qtp].
GM
Again, my response was ~ all encompassing, i.e. a box alignment, be it an OB/whatever only loads the driver in its acceleration BW up to its mass corner [2*Fs/Qts'] where Qts' = Qts + any series resistance: mh-audio.nl - Home
Again, it's not 'bad' when properly calculated, just not optimum to get the max LF gain BW. IOW if you reduce the optimum net Vb relative to the TL tuning [Fp], then you wind up with more 'ripple' in the BW, hence more damping to compensate, so your understanding is correct; but if you raise Fp to match the desired net Vb, then it will be optimum over this narrower BW same as it would be if optimizing any other vented alignment.
WRT terminus area [Sm], 1/4 Sd is considered the minimum for basic baffle thickness reflex tuning and has worked well for me and some others for inverse tapered TLs [TQWT], so comfortable recommending it.
WRT minimum throat area [St = where the driver loads the pipe], B0$3 and others have found a 2:1 CR to be the practical limit unless compression loaded [both sides 'box' loaded].
In Short, for apps where neighbors and/or WAF are a primary design 'parameter', I recommend doing optimum alignments using low Fs [< 42 Hz], Vas, Qts [< ~0.312 optimum] drivers tuned to Fs to minimize size, strong [mid] bass output, yet yields a solid, high SQ vocals [telephone BW]-up BW due to the pipe's ~ transient perfect alignment [0.5 Qtp].
GM
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.