GP: Thank you but I have the Yamaha/Steinberg UR28M that works quite well, will probably settle for that.
I get it that it's easy to just stamp stuff coming from Creative as "gaming card" and I am not really disagreeing, but it is relatively cheap, has decent specs, uses the ESS ES9016 so true 32bit/96khz, has 6 output channels. It's probably one of the few things Creative has done right.
youknowyou :
There you are 🙂
Sorry about the OT in your thread, got carried away.
Here is a 200 liter box for you. Standard "K56" thing, as it was recently dubbed.
It does sim well in my 129 liter boxes as well, but you get a more rolled-off low end, you do gain a lower group delay of 23,5msec at 16hz though. Should have port output to 16hz in-room, though tuning frequency is around 26-27hz. Particle velocity of port at 28,3v/18hz is 16,6ms
Edit:
Are you going to use one or two of these?
I get it that it's easy to just stamp stuff coming from Creative as "gaming card" and I am not really disagreeing, but it is relatively cheap, has decent specs, uses the ESS ES9016 so true 32bit/96khz, has 6 output channels. It's probably one of the few things Creative has done right.
youknowyou :
There you are 🙂
Sorry about the OT in your thread, got carried away.
Here is a 200 liter box for you. Standard "K56" thing, as it was recently dubbed.
It does sim well in my 129 liter boxes as well, but you get a more rolled-off low end, you do gain a lower group delay of 23,5msec at 16hz though. Should have port output to 16hz in-room, though tuning frequency is around 26-27hz. Particle velocity of port at 28,3v/18hz is 16,6ms
Edit:
Are you going to use one or two of these?
Attachments
Last edited:
one omega pro 15 per sides!
yes, 200L seem to be a acceptable compromise. since I want as wide front baffle as possible, ive ended up with dimension as such:
60cm wide, 93cm height and 35cm deep
this gives a relatively small footprint aside from the wide baffle. anything smaller wont change the fact that the baffle is very wide so might as well hit the 200l target
yes, 200L seem to be a acceptable compromise. since I want as wide front baffle as possible, ive ended up with dimension as such:
60cm wide, 93cm height and 35cm deep
this gives a relatively small footprint aside from the wide baffle. anything smaller wont change the fact that the baffle is very wide so might as well hit the 200l target
The Omega Pro 15 has only 4.8mm of xmax.
At 30 Hz it will run out of linear excursion pretty soon.
At 30 Hz it will run out of linear excursion pretty soon.
Is that your desired outside dimensions?
Think you might not get optimal response in those measurements.
Think you might not get optimal response in those measurements.
what would you think would be a good 200l measurements?
whats wrong with 60cm wide, 93cm height and 35cm deep
Last edited:
My sim was 45cm depth x 55cm width x 78cm height of the chamber, top or bottom there's a 5cm high port. So roughly 48,7cm deep, 58,7cm wide and 87,8cm high. Without using a calculator that is, so may not be 100%
Assuming you wanted to use 18mm ply and just do minimal but adequate bracing.
Edit:
Oh! Forgot clarification: the measurements you provided may not work well with your desired 300hz xo.
And if there is a few mm extra on those last numbers it is for tolerance, and is NOT to be excluded.
Assuming you wanted to use 18mm ply and just do minimal but adequate bracing.
Edit:
Oh! Forgot clarification: the measurements you provided may not work well with your desired 300hz xo.
And if there is a few mm extra on those last numbers it is for tolerance, and is NOT to be excluded.
Last edited:
I stand corrected.
91,6cm height x 38,7cm depth x 58,7cm width, external dimensions, actually works out just fine. My bad.
But it's 163 liters internal volume, not 200 liters. Tuning frequency of 30 hz like you suggested, not much happening below 25hz probably.
Edit:
If you fudge the numbers in most directions 0-3cm, it will be ok, you just affect tuning frequency, less low end.
91,6cm height x 38,7cm depth x 58,7cm width, external dimensions, actually works out just fine. My bad.
But it's 163 liters internal volume, not 200 liters. Tuning frequency of 30 hz like you suggested, not much happening below 25hz probably.
Edit:
If you fudge the numbers in most directions 0-3cm, it will be ok, you just affect tuning frequency, less low end.
Attachments
Last edited:
hi
thanks for this
I'll use 1 inch plywood and add bracing to save some weight.
knowing that, to hit the 200L, 60cm wide, 93cm height and 35cm deep
I think ill simply add 5 cm deep
so:
60cm wide, 93cm height and 40cm deep
I have the omega pro 15 already.
which of these would sound best at low spl
im using my omega pro 15a, but one have been repaired and poorly, so it plays 3db less loud then the other woofer
decided to upgrade of woofers...
I was searching for a 15" driver for similar application some time ago; from simulations and general features these woofers were my favorites:
Faital Pro 15FH520: https://faitalpro.com/en/products/LF_Loudspeakers/product_details/index.php?id=151060150
Sica 15S3PL: https://sica.it/prodotto/15-s-3-pl/
Faital Pro 15FH520: https://faitalpro.com/en/products/LF_Loudspeakers/product_details/index.php?id=151060150
Sica 15S3PL: https://sica.it/prodotto/15-s-3-pl/
Wonder which would likely sound better at low volume between the Faital 15FH520 and the Faital 15PR400
I couldn't measure same TS specs for 15fh520 at home as in the specsheet. Either it is the driver or my measurement that failed to deliver, but I suspect it is the driver as got good TS parameters measured for some other drivers I had. From the measured parameters I'd need much bigger enclosure than with factory parameters for similar response. If you use the driver in undersized box this doesn't matter much as you'd compensate with EQ anyway and the difference is not too big.
As there are a lot more users for 15pr400 and haven't seen such claims, or measured TS parameters for that matter, I'm not sure what it is. If this is something typical to faital pro to have false parameters in spec sheet or just poor quality control or what gives. I remember seeting measured TS parameters by TG and remember them being close to specsheet but can't currently find where those were published...
Anyway, these kick hard, perhaps don't go as low as the 15pr400 but for maximum output these are stronger I think. Max output is never needed in home use though, so.
Attached are the parameters and graphs for both in same size ported 142 liter enclosure with 38Hz tuning.
As there are a lot more users for 15pr400 and haven't seen such claims, or measured TS parameters for that matter, I'm not sure what it is. If this is something typical to faital pro to have false parameters in spec sheet or just poor quality control or what gives. I remember seeting measured TS parameters by TG and remember them being close to specsheet but can't currently find where those were published...
Anyway, these kick hard, perhaps don't go as low as the 15pr400 but for maximum output these are stronger I think. Max output is never needed in home use though, so.
Attached are the parameters and graphs for both in same size ported 142 liter enclosure with 38Hz tuning.
Attachments
thx! you use the 15FH520 or 15PR400?
exactly max output is irrelevent here since its to be implemented in a passive hi eff system intended to play max at 100 db peak. the Omega pro 15a are 97db and they are flat with the mid and tweeter. i wouldnt mind 98 or 99db to raise my bass a little, but its not a must.
I remember reading that the GPA altec reproduction they make or the classic Altec hi eff woofers were excellent at low spl...
im seeking a 97 to 99 15" woofer that is the best had being able to be dynamic and supple at low spl. maybe its just a myth and they would all sound more or less the same?
I dont own the 15pr400. 15fh520 is on the shelf currently, using old Beyma 15k200 in my prototype currently but I don't know if it is any worse or better, just didn't bother to switch back 😀 I'm crossing over around 200Hz and it is active system, not sure if I could spot any differences after the system has been balanced out, especially with home listening levels. For sure the fh520 would go louder as it can take more power. I suspect 15pr400 would also sound kind of the same in the system. Perhaps there is some differences but the room dominates and trumps if any as they don't play much into midrange in the system.
I haven't measured performance on low vs high SPL levels (low power) but simply reasoning the speaker is most linear on low excursion the sound is same until nearing the limits. Basically all these are just cruising in home system and sound fine played soft or loud.
I haven't measured performance on low vs high SPL levels (low power) but simply reasoning the speaker is most linear on low excursion the sound is same until nearing the limits. Basically all these are just cruising in home system and sound fine played soft or loud.
Last edited:
