Yea, that's a subdomain interface. It's still green underneath.
- So by changing driver size one can aim for a different target DI, same as always, it's just that the open/ported variant is a lot better controlled overall.
This was just a blind shot, without any optimization attempt. Maybe it could be improved further on.
Now we need to find a connection of the damping model to a real-world implementation.
- So by changing driver size one can aim for a different target DI, same as always, it's just that the open/ported variant is a lot better controlled overall.
This was just a blind shot, without any optimization attempt. Maybe it could be improved further on.
Now we need to find a connection of the damping model to a real-world implementation.
Last edited:
^ exactly. In general, smooth response and pattern is from ~baffle size wavelength and down.
Keeping baffle (=path length between front and back of the cone) minimal the woofer is as big as fits and you have most SPL capability. Basically, all one has to do is choose correct sized woofer to mate with a tweeter and keep the construct minimal in size.
Whether this gives ultimate best results is not clear, but its a reasonable starter rule of thumb for good performance.
Keeping baffle (=path length between front and back of the cone) minimal the woofer is as big as fits and you have most SPL capability. Basically, all one has to do is choose correct sized woofer to mate with a tweeter and keep the construct minimal in size.
Whether this gives ultimate best results is not clear, but its a reasonable starter rule of thumb for good performance.
Last edited:
Returning back to the cardioid vs monopole comparison, here are the equivalent total radiated sound powers.
Here the frequency where the cardioid starts to lose is around 650 Hz. At 200 Hz the monopole is slightly more than 2x efficient.
BTW, 650 Hz is also the frequency where the pressures from both sides of the cone are exactly in phase on-axis.
At 650 Hz, the cardioid has a higher SPL on-axis (by several dB) and it's more directional. The total radiated power is the same as of monopole.
Here the frequency where the cardioid starts to lose is around 650 Hz. At 200 Hz the monopole is slightly more than 2x efficient.
BTW, 650 Hz is also the frequency where the pressures from both sides of the cone are exactly in phase on-axis.
At 650 Hz, the cardioid has a higher SPL on-axis (by several dB) and it's more directional. The total radiated power is the same as of monopole.
Last edited:
This is probably the most telling graph.
So, if used down to 200 Hz, we need only +3dB maximum of EQ compared to a monpole to get the same on-axis SPL. This is absolutely no issue at all.
- EQ/FR is the amount of EQ needed to get the same on-axis SPL as for a corresponding monopole.
- EQ/SP is the total radiated power of the cardioid after the EQ
- SP/M is the total radiated power of the monopole
So, if used down to 200 Hz, we need only +3dB maximum of EQ compared to a monpole to get the same on-axis SPL. This is absolutely no issue at all.
That space behind the driver and before the load of the cabinet makes me think about that different close similar load from Supravox :
https://www.petoindominique.fr/php/rj.php : the deepness of the baffle plan vis à vis of the cabinet front plate made the volume area of the 360° port !
A little what made linkwitz with the Pluto. I surmise Supravox are not the inventor neither.
https://www.petoindominique.fr/php/rj.php : the deepness of the baffle plan vis à vis of the cabinet front plate made the volume area of the 360° port !
A little what made linkwitz with the Pluto. I surmise Supravox are not the inventor neither.
Or a soft dome being driven in its pistonic range. Although what that is on any given done tweeter would be hard to tell.
Probably would be more of the audio band with smaller tweeters though. I’m brainstorming an approach with a 3/4” soft dome.