Hello everyone,
I simmed a small 6lt (estimated inner volume with all the components) portable loudspeaker with a 6,5" ESX QE622 subwoofer.
The results in hornresp are promising but i need 3 dayton DSA215-PR. I needed this surface not to get them post maximum excursion. The problem is: the weight of the PR will need to be 420g each.
If i add that much weight on these poor PR, what do you think will happen ?
(there are the EPIQUE180 that have a higher x-max but the mechanic losses makes the system lose more than 3dbs in the simulation).
I simmed a small 6lt (estimated inner volume with all the components) portable loudspeaker with a 6,5" ESX QE622 subwoofer.
The results in hornresp are promising but i need 3 dayton DSA215-PR. I needed this surface not to get them post maximum excursion. The problem is: the weight of the PR will need to be 420g each.
If i add that much weight on these poor PR, what do you think will happen ?
(there are the EPIQUE180 that have a higher x-max but the mechanic losses makes the system lose more than 3dbs in the simulation).
Well the result with 2 drivers in a sealed box is much better than i expected but still 4dbs lower than what i could achieve with one driver + 3 PRs at 45hz (i get the same spl around 60-65hz ) and requires 2x more power (same power per driver).
The ESX QE622 and 822 sim very well in ported boxes.
But i'm happy cause i found a way to get an even smaller box with a bit lower results with a peerless 6" driver and 3 SB acoustics PRs. The PRs configuration would need to be one on each side and one on the rear. I got just below 104db at 43hz (tuning frequency) and the rest would be around 106db (filtered with a DSP and a good margin with the 10,5mm xmax of the driver).
I would still need to add 160g on each of these:
https://www.toutlehautparleur.com/media/catalog/product/datasheet/sb_acoustics/SB16PFCR-00.pdf
If the paper cone can't sustain it i will just Find a way to stick a stronger (aluminium ?) one on the suspension to add the desired weight. Then it's the suspension that would need to be strong enough.
The ESX QE622 and 822 sim very well in ported boxes.
But i'm happy cause i found a way to get an even smaller box with a bit lower results with a peerless 6" driver and 3 SB acoustics PRs. The PRs configuration would need to be one on each side and one on the rear. I got just below 104db at 43hz (tuning frequency) and the rest would be around 106db (filtered with a DSP and a good margin with the 10,5mm xmax of the driver).
I would still need to add 160g on each of these:
https://www.toutlehautparleur.com/media/catalog/product/datasheet/sb_acoustics/SB16PFCR-00.pdf
If the paper cone can't sustain it i will just Find a way to stick a stronger (aluminium ?) one on the suspension to add the desired weight. Then it's the suspension that would need to be strong enough.
Last edited:
Standard advice for maximum added mass is 2x the base moving mass of the passive radiator. Beyond that the passive radiator suspension may not perform satisfactorily long term.
You may also lose efficiency when extreme amounts of mass are added to the radiator, but that may not matter in your case.
You may want to model some other passive radiators and see if you can find one that performs better closer to its base mass. Different radiators can produce significant differences - they're not as simple as a port, so there are more interactions with the box and driver.
This is why having low rmp passive radiators as big as enclosure walls gets better results in simulation than 2x E-180PR.
But i think here my problem is more the long term life of the PRs.
But i think here my problem is more the long term life of the PRs.
