I have great fun figuring out some of our obscure ab's, Not So Humble?/ I had to laugh at that one/ ROFLMAO
Enabl looks interesting.
You sent me a link to a 169 post thread that is a continuation of a 3034 post thread! That's pretty funny. Some light reading!
MrKramer
You sent me a link to a 169 post thread that is a continuation of a 3034 post thread! That's pretty funny. Some light reading!
MrKramer
"Moondog -Have you decided on a format yet? as this often determines which drivers you use, i.e; classic "monitor"or "tall tower" "
-----
I'm thinking a box on a short stand.
Ha... just read that after I typed it. Box on a stick anyone? Sounds so glamorous!
Well anyway, a rectangular box with a height roughly 1.8 times the width. Depth as skinny as I can manage.
Final dimensions would be based on the needs of the drivers. That Peerless woofer is recommended for 1.5 to 2.75 cubic feet sealed. 20" is about as wide as I can manage so a size around 36"H x 20"W x say 7" seems in the ballpark. If I need a little less space I can put in extra bracing. If I need more I could make it a little thicker or make the stand integral and hollow it out.
The stand is there to keep the ratio and let the mid be up a little higher towards sitting ear height. Also to allow it to lean back a little bit.
Seem reasonable?
MrKramer
-----
I'm thinking a box on a short stand.
Ha... just read that after I typed it. Box on a stick anyone? Sounds so glamorous!
Well anyway, a rectangular box with a height roughly 1.8 times the width. Depth as skinny as I can manage.
Final dimensions would be based on the needs of the drivers. That Peerless woofer is recommended for 1.5 to 2.75 cubic feet sealed. 20" is about as wide as I can manage so a size around 36"H x 20"W x say 7" seems in the ballpark. If I need a little less space I can put in extra bracing. If I need more I could make it a little thicker or make the stand integral and hollow it out.
The stand is there to keep the ratio and let the mid be up a little higher towards sitting ear height. Also to allow it to lean back a little bit.
Seem reasonable?
MrKramer
My understanding is that making the driver side of the box wider than the depth tends to emphsize the mid bass.
I usually make the internal depth, 1.2 /1.4 times the internal width, but dimension ratios are variable.
20 inch wide?? sounds like you have decidd on a 12 inch woofer
I usually make the internal depth, 1.2 /1.4 times the internal width, but dimension ratios are variable.
20 inch wide?? sounds like you have decidd on a 12 inch woofer
I'm following this nice topic with interest.
I often think of doing either a sealed FR w/ Helper or upgrading that to a sealed 3-way.
I especially liked the info on series crossovers at ARGOS Loudspeakers
Not to side track the developing discussion but assuming I started off with a 4" FR (like the TB Bamboo) w/ Helper what's a good rule of thumb concerning the SPL difference between the FR and the Helper (or in the case of a 3-way, between the woofer and the TB Bamboo as the mid range)? I've heard somewhere that +3db on the woofer is a safe bet.
R/
Jim
I often think of doing either a sealed FR w/ Helper or upgrading that to a sealed 3-way.
I especially liked the info on series crossovers at ARGOS Loudspeakers
Not to side track the developing discussion but assuming I started off with a 4" FR (like the TB Bamboo) w/ Helper what's a good rule of thumb concerning the SPL difference between the FR and the Helper (or in the case of a 3-way, between the woofer and the TB Bamboo as the mid range)? I've heard somewhere that +3db on the woofer is a safe bet.
R/
Jim
Yeah, that ARGOS site has some nice info and some really nice projects. Very inspiring.
Ive been wondering about the SPL difference as well. I started looking into Moondogs idea of using a second 10" down low. As far as I understand it would give me a 3db boost. If I crossed them over near the baffle step maybe I wouldn't need BSC?
MrKramer
Ive been wondering about the SPL difference as well. I started looking into Moondogs idea of using a second 10" down low. As far as I understand it would give me a 3db boost. If I crossed them over near the baffle step maybe I wouldn't need BSC?
MrKramer
mrkramer said:
If you aim your lower x-o point at the area that baffle steps occurs, its just a matter of balancing the output of the woofer vs mids to suit your room and preferences. makes life much easier 🙂
Overall I guess that's pretty close to what I was wondering.
Hypothetically - with the enclosures 2ft off the walls in a small rectangular room, would a single RS270S-8 with an SPL of 91db mate well with the TB 1320's SPL of 89db?
The narrower the baffle the higher the point of BSC.
In mrkramers case, looking at a wider baffle, the point of BSC would be lower.
Earlier in the topic XO points of 250 / 2500 were mentioned as very good starting points. IIRC an 18"w baffle supports @250hz.
SO, if one were to use a 250hz low pass, would the +2db of the RS270S deliver a balanced sound in relation to the TB 1320's mids or would the sound probably still be 'bass lite'?
R/
Jim
Hypothetically - with the enclosures 2ft off the walls in a small rectangular room, would a single RS270S-8 with an SPL of 91db mate well with the TB 1320's SPL of 89db?
The narrower the baffle the higher the point of BSC.
In mrkramers case, looking at a wider baffle, the point of BSC would be lower.
Earlier in the topic XO points of 250 / 2500 were mentioned as very good starting points. IIRC an 18"w baffle supports @250hz.
SO, if one were to use a 250hz low pass, would the +2db of the RS270S deliver a balanced sound in relation to the TB 1320's mids or would the sound probably still be 'bass lite'?
R/
Jim
I did try it.
I put the pattern on 1 speaker so that I could compare. So... that speaker sounds better to me. Now I dont exactly have the speakers placed perfectly in the room and to be honest that one might have always sounded better. Maybe I never noticed.
Ill listen to it for a while then Ill do the other one.
MrKramer
I put the pattern on 1 speaker so that I could compare. So... that speaker sounds better to me. Now I dont exactly have the speakers placed perfectly in the room and to be honest that one might have always sounded better. Maybe I never noticed.
Ill listen to it for a while then Ill do the other one.
MrKramer
Excellent!
The improvement you hear is indeed the EnABL pattern.
It does freak your brain out and cause you to wonder if you're hearing things (I know, been there).
Try comparing the two speakers by putting your ear close to the driver (low volume level) of each. What do you hear?
If you listen to them in stereo, it should sound strangely unbalanced when you have EnABL'd the mouth of one speaker only.
The change becomes really obvious when you EnABL the other one.
Then you will hear things come together in a special way.
Let us know when you do the other side.
Cheers,
Alex
The improvement you hear is indeed the EnABL pattern.
It does freak your brain out and cause you to wonder if you're hearing things (I know, been there).
Try comparing the two speakers by putting your ear close to the driver (low volume level) of each. What do you hear?
If you listen to them in stereo, it should sound strangely unbalanced when you have EnABL'd the mouth of one speaker only.
The change becomes really obvious when you EnABL the other one.
Then you will hear things come together in a special way.
Let us know when you do the other side.
Cheers,
Alex
mrkramer said:
The science to which you refer is certainly valid for racing. They do serious explorations of the physics and aerodynamics and only use that which can be proved to work. They wouldn't say "it felt like it went faster". The reference is nonsense on any non-moving parts of a speaker and the arguments of proponents for the moving parts (diaphragm) have nothing to do with the actual physics of any changes. Don't waste your time. You'll be pointed to a thread of believers, not the one on the physics and the nonsense behind it. If you post on the linked thread as a non-believer, those posts are deleted. It's reserved for believers only.
Dave
There will always be those eager to diss EnABL - without having heard it for themselves.
Cheers,
Alex
Cheers,
Alex
Well, im not sure what to think but it only cost me 2-3 min of time.
How about this. Ill keep an open mind and when Im done with these 3ways Ill get a big cup of coffee and read through that monster Enabl thread.
In the mean time Ive been thinking about woofers. The Peerless Im looking at has an SPL around the same as my mids roughly 89. With BSC in mind, would I be better off finding another single 8-10" that has say around 92 SPL? or would I be better off getting 2 of the Peerless?
What might be the benefit of going either way?
MrKramer
How about this. Ill keep an open mind and when Im done with these 3ways Ill get a big cup of coffee and read through that monster Enabl thread.
In the mean time Ive been thinking about woofers. The Peerless Im looking at has an SPL around the same as my mids roughly 89. With BSC in mind, would I be better off finding another single 8-10" that has say around 92 SPL? or would I be better off getting 2 of the Peerless?
What might be the benefit of going either way?
MrKramer
- Status
- Not open for further replies.