bump
Can no-one help on these question ?
1/ Don't see any baffle edge roundover on peoples cabinets - is there a reason for this ?
2/ Haven't noticed any corner bracing along outside panel internal edges - would the area of the bracing be sufficient to throw out the required pipe cross section calcs ? (don't have a feeling for the design sensitivity to this)
3/ Have read that cabinet stuffing is fairly critical on TL boxes. Is there any detail posted on the recommended stuffing approach for this design ? (I'd normally use auto panel deadener, egg crate foam & poly fibre - but unsure of where & how much in a TL box)
Thanks
Can no-one help on these question ?
1/ Don't see any baffle edge roundover on peoples cabinets - is there a reason for this ?
2/ Haven't noticed any corner bracing along outside panel internal edges - would the area of the bracing be sufficient to throw out the required pipe cross section calcs ? (don't have a feeling for the design sensitivity to this)
3/ Have read that cabinet stuffing is fairly critical on TL boxes. Is there any detail posted on the recommended stuffing approach for this design ? (I'd normally use auto panel deadener, egg crate foam & poly fibre - but unsure of where & how much in a TL box)
Thanks
The round overs would need to be significantly large radius to have an audible and measurable effect (2in radius). That would really change the front baffle look. As the crossover was developed for a non rounded baffle, the XO might also change if one put extreme round overs in the design.
Internal bracing or do you mean 45deg corner wedge inserts? It won’t change TL CSA too much but you want the sharp 90 deg internal corners as they as acoustic low pass filters to keep the mids from leaking out.
There are several posts detailing how to do the stuffing and eggcrate foam. Please search thread. It’s there several times with full photos etc.
In general, line immediate back chamber on all surfaces with mass loaded butyl (Noico auto sound deadening sheets), then apply eggcrate foam on all line of sight surfaces to woofer. Line two walls of rear TL channel all the way to bottom with eggcrate foam. Add poly fill stuffing from closed end to top of 180deg turn. Add a loosely teased “soccer ball” puff of stuffing on the bottom corner.
Final adjustment of stuffing is by ear and/or impedance sweep of speaker to look for flattening of the peaks with stuffing. Too much and you lose the bass. Too little and it won’t sound crisp. It’s not that hard.
Internal bracing or do you mean 45deg corner wedge inserts? It won’t change TL CSA too much but you want the sharp 90 deg internal corners as they as acoustic low pass filters to keep the mids from leaking out.
There are several posts detailing how to do the stuffing and eggcrate foam. Please search thread. It’s there several times with full photos etc.
In general, line immediate back chamber on all surfaces with mass loaded butyl (Noico auto sound deadening sheets), then apply eggcrate foam on all line of sight surfaces to woofer. Line two walls of rear TL channel all the way to bottom with eggcrate foam. Add poly fill stuffing from closed end to top of 180deg turn. Add a loosely teased “soccer ball” puff of stuffing on the bottom corner.
Final adjustment of stuffing is by ear and/or impedance sweep of speaker to look for flattening of the peaks with stuffing. Too much and you lose the bass. Too little and it won’t sound crisp. It’s not that hard.
Last edited:
Early on in thread, I used DSP and bi-amp to effect the crossover. I later moved to passive crossover. I like the passive crossover because it lets me compare amps with same speaker.
Or are you talking about bi amping as in woofer and full range crossovers could be split and each driven with own amp?
Or are you talking about bi amping as in woofer and full range crossovers could be split and each driven with own amp?
Thanks for responses XRK.
Since looking at woofer dimensions, I'm guessing any significant rounding would require a wider box.
Was thinking square section bracing. (just what I've always done on larger boxes) Good to know about the filter effects of the 90deg bends.
Got some stuffing info on p248 & p289 - will do more extensive searching. Thx for extra info - much appreciated. Looks like a removable rear panel section is in order to play with stuffing post build.
Since looking at woofer dimensions, I'm guessing any significant rounding would require a wider box.
Was thinking square section bracing. (just what I've always done on larger boxes) Good to know about the filter effects of the 90deg bends.
Got some stuffing info on p248 & p289 - will do more extensive searching. Thx for extra info - much appreciated. Looks like a removable rear panel section is in order to play with stuffing post build.
A while ago member fluid ran sims for a driver in a flat baffle and the same driver with a rounded enclosure:
The relatively flat baffle:
Versus the rounded enclosure:
I'd say it is easy to spot differences. The first round-over used on that enclosure shape is only 25.5mm or about 1" radius. Yet the effect it has is quite obvious.
Taking this concept a step further, with the driver set back in the baffle with a small chamfer in front of the driver:
I'd say it's well worth it to try or play with things like that. Even if it means it needs a crossover adjustment to work it all out.
That’s a very nice result but seems more of it is from fact that driver is in a waveguide?
I agree that it looks well worth pursuing to reach the next level.
We have to keep in mind that ease of build makes the project more accessible and more people will build. Make it too difficult but better or “best” and number of in the wild builds goes down. Perhaps a waveguide for the 10F needs to be developed as a 3D printable model.
I agree that it looks well worth pursuing to reach the next level.
We have to keep in mind that ease of build makes the project more accessible and more people will build. Make it too difficult but better or “best” and number of in the wild builds goes down. Perhaps a waveguide for the 10F needs to be developed as a 3D printable model.
Last edited:
I'd agree that the (very short) waveguide is responsible for the majority of the positive change.
But anyone willing to go the extra mile should be made aware that there may be nice rewards for doing so. If one would go to that length to optimize the enclosure, the change needed in the crossover wouldn't be the biggest hurdle.
But anyone willing to go the extra mile should be made aware that there may be nice rewards for doing so. If one would go to that length to optimize the enclosure, the change needed in the crossover wouldn't be the biggest hurdle.
Last edited:
@X : wow, the TL in white + the new tubes amp are stunning
@Wesayso : what do you think about the same short WB but this time with smooth conver (quartround I beleive is the name?). Saw Harbeth was using this also on the flagships models (while the recess being maybe for different reasons in passive XO : phase, etc)
Do you think one is better for the flat-ish result ?
@Wesayso : what do you think about the same short WB but this time with smooth conver (quartround I beleive is the name?). Saw Harbeth was using this also on the flagships models (while the recess being maybe for different reasons in passive XO : phase, etc)
Do you think one is better for the flat-ish result ?
The short answer: all shapes influence the end result. I can't predict the outcome, but one could model it. I believe it is worth the trouble to try and avoid diffraction, whenever, wherever. But if you have a flat piece of baffle extending the waveguide, it will also have influence on what the end result would be.
Good examples on how little details can change a lot can be found in Mabat's ATH horn thread. Is it important? It all depends on what one is trying to achieve.
In my humble opinion, things like these help to hide the speaker position, hide the true origin of the sound.
For many stereo is left center right. With the speaker positions being the far left or far right. If the speaker itself 'sort of disappears' as the 'obvious source', the "stage" can become wider, deeper etc... if it's in the recording... But it's more difficult than that, as side walls can make a stage appear wider too. But they tend to do that to everything that is being payed back. If the speakers disappear, and early reflections are diminished, the stage becomes what the recording holds. Sometimes it will be huge, other times it can be small.
That is one main reason for me to want to hide the true origin, by limiting diffraction and reflection etc.
Good examples on how little details can change a lot can be found in Mabat's ATH horn thread. Is it important? It all depends on what one is trying to achieve.
In my humble opinion, things like these help to hide the speaker position, hide the true origin of the sound.
For many stereo is left center right. With the speaker positions being the far left or far right. If the speaker itself 'sort of disappears' as the 'obvious source', the "stage" can become wider, deeper etc... if it's in the recording... But it's more difficult than that, as side walls can make a stage appear wider too. But they tend to do that to everything that is being payed back. If the speakers disappear, and early reflections are diminished, the stage becomes what the recording holds. Sometimes it will be huge, other times it can be small.
That is one main reason for me to want to hide the true origin, by limiting diffraction and reflection etc.
Last edited:
Ok, time for another stuffing question, specifically for the TL version of the speaker (and a huge thanks to XRK971 for doing the research and prototyping so we could try to build them) :
Being a noob for speaker build/design (just a couple miniK's w/ dual 3" spkrs built so far), I went digging through the posts, using the 'search in thread' button, looking for "fill". I've seen all kinds of references to all kinds of material (and a lot of just "fill"). In looking online, I've seen prices on "fill" that ranged from pennies per pound to $15 per pound.
Q1: How much does the type of material used for the fill impact performance or, stated another away, how much any given filler is needed to achieve desired results?
Q2: More specifically, what kinds of fill would be good to use, and what kinds should I avoid at all costs? (I'm not fond of fiberglass, way to itchy for me)
XRK971 suggested in post 2878 that one should use 2 or 3 soccer balls worth of fill for the front chamber (immediately behind the speakers, if I understood correctly). I have also seen speakers with fill through most of the back (the downward section, per the sound propagation direction) as well, and also get good marks from XRK971. In this question, I'm trying to figure out roughly how much of the fill I will need.
Q3: As the fill is typically sold by weight (alas, not by volume in soccer balls), how much of the fill will I need to complete a pair of speakers?
I understand that there is a lot of variables, including personal taste (of which I have none, so that's one variable eliminated), but I'm just trying to figure out if the costly stuff from Parts Express is a good deal (on a cost per amount needed basis), or if quilters fluff (super cheap) is better (even if it would need 2x or perhaps even 10x as much to achieve the same result).
Just plumbing the depths of my ignorance and looking for a good starting point, both in the specific material to use, and for the quantity to have on hand to complete the project.
Being a noob for speaker build/design (just a couple miniK's w/ dual 3" spkrs built so far), I went digging through the posts, using the 'search in thread' button, looking for "fill". I've seen all kinds of references to all kinds of material (and a lot of just "fill"). In looking online, I've seen prices on "fill" that ranged from pennies per pound to $15 per pound.
Q1: How much does the type of material used for the fill impact performance or, stated another away, how much any given filler is needed to achieve desired results?
Q2: More specifically, what kinds of fill would be good to use, and what kinds should I avoid at all costs? (I'm not fond of fiberglass, way to itchy for me)
XRK971 suggested in post 2878 that one should use 2 or 3 soccer balls worth of fill for the front chamber (immediately behind the speakers, if I understood correctly). I have also seen speakers with fill through most of the back (the downward section, per the sound propagation direction) as well, and also get good marks from XRK971. In this question, I'm trying to figure out roughly how much of the fill I will need.
Q3: As the fill is typically sold by weight (alas, not by volume in soccer balls), how much of the fill will I need to complete a pair of speakers?
I understand that there is a lot of variables, including personal taste (of which I have none, so that's one variable eliminated), but I'm just trying to figure out if the costly stuff from Parts Express is a good deal (on a cost per amount needed basis), or if quilters fluff (super cheap) is better (even if it would need 2x or perhaps even 10x as much to achieve the same result).
Just plumbing the depths of my ignorance and looking for a good starting point, both in the specific material to use, and for the quantity to have on hand to complete the project.
Last edited:
If you have some old pillows in the house you are ready to throw in the trash, the filling can be re-purposed. Or go to local Walmart and get a new $5 pillow. About 1 pillow’s worth of stuffing is all you need per speaker. The best way to tune it is to listen after wards. If there is not enough bass, remove the woofer and reduce the amount a bit. Listen and adjust to taste. Add more if the bass is too boomy or “sloppy”. You want coherent well time-aligned bass.
If you have a DATS tool, measure the impedance and you will see two peaks straddling 26Hz or so. That’s the tuning frequency. Add stuffing until the tops of the peaks come down to about ~ 20 ohms. You could go lower for tighter bass at the expense of bass extension.
Adding a small puff of stuffing at the very bottom is a great way to really tighten the bass. Use it sparingly. The most impact you can have on the tightness of the bass is to add reticulated fish tank filter foam (highly porous black/grey stuff). A 1/2in thick strip of this at the vent exit can really do a lot with those impedance peaks. They also keep mice and insects from making a nest in your speakers. But as usual, adjust to taste. Nothing is permanent. If you did not build a removable back panel you can put stuffing in a mesh bag tied to a string and lower it down the back from the front. Use the string to pull it out if you don’t like it.
If you have a DATS tool, measure the impedance and you will see two peaks straddling 26Hz or so. That’s the tuning frequency. Add stuffing until the tops of the peaks come down to about ~ 20 ohms. You could go lower for tighter bass at the expense of bass extension.
Adding a small puff of stuffing at the very bottom is a great way to really tighten the bass. Use it sparingly. The most impact you can have on the tightness of the bass is to add reticulated fish tank filter foam (highly porous black/grey stuff). A 1/2in thick strip of this at the vent exit can really do a lot with those impedance peaks. They also keep mice and insects from making a nest in your speakers. But as usual, adjust to taste. Nothing is permanent. If you did not build a removable back panel you can put stuffing in a mesh bag tied to a string and lower it down the back from the front. Use the string to pull it out if you don’t like it.