In my current vehicle I have a satori mw13p-4 in 2.5l which is fine, however due to reflections I found the mw16p-4 to be better due to beaming lower and having less reflected energy from the screen and side window on the opposite side of the vehicle
My question is... considering the drivers are running effectively as midrange playing from 200hz upwards if I was to put the mw16p-4 in a similar sized 2.5l enclosure would this then effect the midrange negatively providing I applied a good amount of poly fill to lower the Q as much as I can?
As far as I know the Q of the enclosure effects it’s bottom end response, as I am crossing it over higher up can I then use an undersized sealed enclosure and not suffer any negative effects?
This question is about the performance of a driver in say a box with a Q of 1.2-1.3 well above fb, the 6” offers me a very big advantage in stage width and I’d like to modify my current enclosures if possible with a different baffle as I just spent a week rebuilding a none reflective dash with a framework and grill cloth as it was having a very negative effect on my stage width on the passenger side
My question is... considering the drivers are running effectively as midrange playing from 200hz upwards if I was to put the mw16p-4 in a similar sized 2.5l enclosure would this then effect the midrange negatively providing I applied a good amount of poly fill to lower the Q as much as I can?
As far as I know the Q of the enclosure effects it’s bottom end response, as I am crossing it over higher up can I then use an undersized sealed enclosure and not suffer any negative effects?
This question is about the performance of a driver in say a box with a Q of 1.2-1.3 well above fb, the 6” offers me a very big advantage in stage width and I’d like to modify my current enclosures if possible with a different baffle as I just spent a week rebuilding a none reflective dash with a framework and grill cloth as it was having a very negative effect on my stage width on the passenger side
Yes, I see your point. It can be correct, it depends on the details. Using a smaller box not only increases Q, but it increases the frequency of the resonance.
Beaming could also be seen as less energy off at greater angles. If you find there is too much in front, and you are ok with the balance at different angles, you can adjust it in your crossover.
Thankyou for your response
The resonance picks up to mid 120’s with a brief quick check, I can possibly drop it a little more with a 1 or 2 litre cleverly shaped box extension, this may be doable
As I’m crossing at 170-200 (I will test between these point to see if I can pick out any flaws) I am presuming this would be far enough out of the way with 24db slopes to not worry my ears so much?
The resonance picks up to mid 120’s with a brief quick check, I can possibly drop it a little more with a 1 or 2 litre cleverly shaped box extension, this may be doable
As I’m crossing at 170-200 (I will test between these point to see if I can pick out any flaws) I am presuming this would be far enough out of the way with 24db slopes to not worry my ears so much?
Attachments
Sometimes you need to adjust the filter to make it fit.
You talked about using a 4th order filter at 170Hz, hoping it would work. I did some sims to show you how far away this is going to be.
1. The first image shows the 4th order LR@170Hz, in pink. The blue trace is your driver, closed box 2nd order Q=1.25@130Hz.
2. This shows when a filter is used, 4th order LR@170Hz.
3. This uses a 2nd order filter, Butterworth@270Hz.
You talked about using a 4th order filter at 170Hz, hoping it would work. I did some sims to show you how far away this is going to be.
1. The first image shows the 4th order LR@170Hz, in pink. The blue trace is your driver, closed box 2nd order Q=1.25@130Hz.
2. This shows when a filter is used, 4th order LR@170Hz.
3. This uses a 2nd order filter, Butterworth@270Hz.
Attachments
I am running fully active so I can drop the trace (Generated from a house curve and a spread sheet that applies the crossover of your choosing and gives a target curve for individual drivers, so in my case I am going to have a usb stick with four individual curves... 3 way plus sub... and the house curve with no filters applied) of my required 4th order acoustic response in rew and basically choose the filter type and slope to get to the correct Acoustic filter response, so reading another thread it makes me wonder if I should even worry about the 120hz resonance because I have a 30 band parametric eq purely for the mid if required
I will then use smaart to apply the correct delays and phase adjustments to get it nigh on perfect at the listening position and revel in the audio nirvana I have made... that’s the plan anyway
I will then use smaart to apply the correct delays and phase adjustments to get it nigh on perfect at the listening position and revel in the audio nirvana I have made... that’s the plan anyway