I suggest a box with a tuning that fills your needs and expectations.
Btw why you ask? For objective suggestion, there is tons of calculation and simulation software, for subjective suggestion, well, that's subjective and no one hears with your ear, only you.
Anyway, this is an usual hifi driver with not so strong motor (high Qes), low Fs, and high Vas. So ideally a large box (larger than Vas) is needed relative to the cone size, but the xmax is not so high for that.
So is suggest a smaller than Vas box size and lower than Fs tuning frequency. But that's just me.
Are you familiar with T/S calculation and simulation?
Btw why you ask? For objective suggestion, there is tons of calculation and simulation software, for subjective suggestion, well, that's subjective and no one hears with your ear, only you.
Anyway, this is an usual hifi driver with not so strong motor (high Qes), low Fs, and high Vas. So ideally a large box (larger than Vas) is needed relative to the cone size, but the xmax is not so high for that.
So is suggest a smaller than Vas box size and lower than Fs tuning frequency. But that's just me.
Are you familiar with T/S calculation and simulation?
As i said, the box would be smaller than Vas, so just say 15-20liter, the tuning frequency is lower than Fs, 30-35Hz.
I would try such a box for this driver, even if this is not the so-called optimal alignment. But i don't know what you want to achieve.
I would try such a box for this driver, even if this is not the so-called optimal alignment. But i don't know what you want to achieve.
Man, I'm talking about this, if you're interested in the "optimal" values, why ask? Use the values calculated by the software and you're done.
So the software gave you the values, you can now build the box for reflex loading for this driver. Want to ask something else?
so input 15-17liters (like debibeni suggested) and the program will give you the port length required to optimize the tuning.
He is suggesting you tune "lower" than suggested, if you put it in a smaller than suggested box to compensate and "tune" closer to optimum.
FYI - I have used this drivers 5" little brother and the xMax is greater than SB has on their datasheet by 2-3mm, so I would go with 15liters, with a 2" port and tune around 40-Hz (IIRC - 200-250mm). Should give you a good compromise of size and bass.
He is suggesting you tune "lower" than suggested, if you put it in a smaller than suggested box to compensate and "tune" closer to optimum.
FYI - I have used this drivers 5" little brother and the xMax is greater than SB has on their datasheet by 2-3mm, so I would go with 15liters, with a 2" port and tune around 40-Hz (IIRC - 200-250mm). Should give you a good compromise of size and bass.
That's what I said. But too much for what? It would be too much for me. But will you, too? Simulate it.
To post #9
To post #9
Last edited:
I know - just seemed like the OP was not getting it, so I tried to word it differently and give him my suggestion for a box and tuning. He probably won't take the advice - so oh well!
But what do you want out of the finished system? You are just offering a driver. It's like saying; So I have milk - now what?
//
//
Based on its published Fs, Vas, Qts specs it's net volume [Vb] for a vented alignment [tuning] is a little larger using this simplified formula, but there's been a number of slightly different solutions over the decades, so 28 L is acoustically close enough: Vb =20*Vas* Qts^3.3 = ~30.276 L
Ditto tuning would be slightly below Fs, though tuning to Fs is an inaudible difference.
That said, if by too much you mean you need it smaller, then the smallest practical for good performance is [measured] Vas/1.44 = ~19.93 L net tuned to [actual] Fs.
For this alignment [which I recommend for best trade-off between size Vs max power handling potential] the vent area [Av] ideally needs to be at least 1/3 [Sd] for an acceptably low vent mach = 118 cm^2/3 = ~39.33 cm^2 = [39.333*4/pi]^0.5 = ~ 6.515 cm dia. x 41.7 cm long.
Realistically though, down low this driver is Xmax limited to ~15 W, so can reduce vent dia. to as little as ~5.08 cm x 21 cm long.
GM
The OP posted in another forum, and like here he refused to provide any useful information so that people could offer appropriate suggestions. I smell a troll...
FWIW, I used the predecessor to this driver, which has very similar specs, in a couple ML-TL builds with line lengths of 5 feet and net line volumes of ~39 liters that performed quite well. Tuning frequency was ~30 Hz and resulted in an f3 of ~37 Hz.
Paul
Paul
Used the predecessor in a small bookshelf from parts express. Used half inch foam on the sides to make sure you don't block the airflow from the woofers. I think this woofer might be a little easier to make a crossover but I would still use a 3rd order at least for best performance. I crossed low around 1700hz on the predecessor as it distorted quicker around 3000 hz vs. maybe this one around 4000+hz. Filled up about half the enclosure with real wool stuffing and my speakers sound cavernous and base is deep for such a small sucker. I just used the built in port and just tweaked the amount of wool until it sounded right. hope this helps. :>)
1/ You have not bothered to say what your design goals are.
2/ You have obtained a volume & tuning for the driver in an unspecified piece of software, and dismissed it because 'you think it is too much' (reason unspecified).
3/ You have received suggestions for smaller cabinet volumes, and advice to model them, which you have ignored.
4/ You have received factual data above on optimal enclosure volumes and tunings, which you have also ignored.
Last edited: