Loss of information?
There is no loss in information in EQ's?
Loss of information doesn't even involve any of this.
Your arguments keep going around in circles, but they don't provide answers.
There is no loss in information in EQ's?
Loss of information doesn't even involve any of this.
Your arguments keep going around in circles, but they don't provide answers.
There is always loss of information. EQs are particualrily bad. A good DSP in an all digital system is the only EQ i would consider, in an analog system perhaps not. And a decent one is not cheap.
dave
dave
Apples and oranges my friend.
Two drivers in isobaric layout have 1/2 Vas compared to single driver, as you know.
If you use same effective box volume in both cases, single driver will give higher system resonant frequency and higher system Q. That gives additional boost in efficiency. Plus, impedance peak is higher so less power is drawn from amplifier around resonance. Thats why you got such results. Both systems must have same Fs and Qt to make direct comparison.
Iam not against EQ, but you have to use it with sense. Shawing the single driver into half-than-optimal box volume and using EQ to force things out is not something I would do.
That's NOT the reason, I can show the results without low pass filter. Will give the same 4 times more power difference.
Which is well above the area you just mentioned.
Fs and Qt doesn't have anything to do with this. They only effect the results around these areas.
But why don't you show us some simulations and mathematical proof?
How is forcing something electrically any different than forcing the same thing passively?
Even more so when it's mostly an EQ that cuts. That will even beneficial for the woofer, since it needs less power.
An isobarik has half the output of a dual driver arrangement as half the energy going into the enclosure is too decrease the Vas
An isobarik with 2 drivers has the same output as a single driver. It takes twice the power (althou usually given parallel wiring, it comes from the halving of impedance) to get there. Half for the radiating driver, half for the box volume shrinking.
So one gets the same output with twice the input power (same input voltage), but the gain is a box about half the size.
dave
An isobarik with 2 drivers has the same output as a single driver. It takes twice the power (althou usually given parallel wiring, it comes from the halving of impedance) to get there. Half for the radiating driver, half for the box volume shrinking.
So one gets the same output with twice the input power (same input voltage), but the gain is a box about half the size.
dave
It's still a neat trick if you have lots of crummy subwoofer drivers that you're trying to squeeze into a small space.
What is funnier is that everybody keeps talking about isobaric designs when the OP clearly states that he wants to design a sub like the M&K which is NOT an isobaric design.
M&K as well as the new Perlisten subwoofers use two drivers at 90 degrees, in acoustical phase (one woofer has to be wired with inversed polarity to achieve that) to reduce third-harmonic distortion. The front woofer pulls in towards the inside of the box the lower woofer pushes in, again towards the inside of the box, so both woofers pressurize the box and they act as two woofers in parallel in a sealed box.
I don't know the physics behind this design decision and I am not sure if this is a better design compared for example to a dual-opposed subwoofer.
This is what drove me into this thread but I think I may have to look for my answers elsewhere.
M&K as well as the new Perlisten subwoofers use two drivers at 90 degrees, in acoustical phase (one woofer has to be wired with inversed polarity to achieve that) to reduce third-harmonic distortion. The front woofer pulls in towards the inside of the box the lower woofer pushes in, again towards the inside of the box, so both woofers pressurize the box and they act as two woofers in parallel in a sealed box.
I don't know the physics behind this design decision and I am not sure if this is a better design compared for example to a dual-opposed subwoofer.
This is what drove me into this thread but I think I may have to look for my answers elsewhere.
I abandoned this approach once I realized that it really gives no benefit. I am back to a single good driver in a sealed box.
The designers at M&K and Perlisten strongly disagree with you. However, I can't support the argument because I don't understand the physics behind the design. They say it reduces distortion significantly.
I am just trying to find out if that design is better than dual-opposed or two front-facing woofers or what are the benefits of each.
Sorry. I am getting confused between push-push / push-pull and the various in-phase/out-of-phase wiring to figure out what is good and what is cancelling. I started a new thread on a single driver box, as a first step. But I could easily add a second driver if I can figure out what that configuration and wiring looks like.
Push-push has the dribers magnet to magnet, push-pull has one magnet hanging out of the box.
Both are acoustically in phase which h means push-pull has one driver connected with opposite termianls. Note that push-pull is usually only really useful with cheaper woofers.
dave
Both are acoustically in phase which h means push-pull has one driver connected with opposite termianls. Note that push-pull is usually only really useful with cheaper woofers.
dave
Dude look up some diagrams on line. It’ll take you five minutes and you’ll have it down Pat.
