Also Just Checked if it computes it does but the output still rly wrong because the LEM model is not considering any horn.
And also some other stuff I have to check but Computing time for now is quite ok
And also some other stuff I have to check but Computing time for now is quite ok
Well I have 0% sucessful experience witk AKABAK, tried simulating some HF waveguides in the past with not so good results 🙂
BTW sorry for all screw holes in 3D model
If we figure out step by step how to accurately simulate those cabs that would help me to make other designs too. Idea and 3D modeling is super easy for me but I always get stuck on simulations and wondering if design is even optimal.
BTW sorry for all screw holes in 3D model
If we figure out step by step how to accurately simulate those cabs that would help me to make other designs too. Idea and 3D modeling is super easy for me but I always get stuck on simulations and wondering if design is even optimal.
Yea AKABAK can be at times a bit fiddly but it can work very well. The only feasable and best approach for this type of sub I guess will be to go back and forth between real world messurments and optimizing the model untill we get simmilar results because I don't quite know yet how the horn mouth especially should be parameterized in LEM.
If we are able to recreate your current design in the model we can from there start to modify the current design and see how to improve it further.
But as Tom Danley already mentioned on a forum about the BC is that it will only give us a well informed guess but at the end we have to prototype it I guess.
And if we want to work on minimizing distortion caused by turbolance inside the horn we would need to work with a FIM modeling ofcause which AKABAK can't do.
If we are able to recreate your current design in the model we can from there start to modify the current design and see how to improve it further.
But as Tom Danley already mentioned on a forum about the BC is that it will only give us a well informed guess but at the end we have to prototype it I guess.
And if we want to work on minimizing distortion caused by turbolance inside the horn we would need to work with a FIM modeling ofcause which AKABAK can't do.
Your measurements indicate the enclosures are working as Vermond's simulation models predicted, and a pair are very close to the DSL BC218 response, other than the choice to move the FC up a few Hz for more output.
The box is based on a Danley design, he generally does a very good job of optimizing them before putting products into production 😉 .
Art
Yea for sure he usually refines his designs before releasing any product or design. Some products he also optimized over the years after initial production. Often seen in his new iterations of old designs.
I reference Tom Danleys post on here talking about the Boundary compliment designs and talking how he uses AKABAK with extensive prototyping and validation using real life messurments due to the limitations of the Modeling alone for his designs to put my comment into context 🙂
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/263812-danley-bc-subs-reverse-engineered-post4104201.html
I reference Tom Danleys post on here talking about the Boundary compliment designs and talking how he uses AKABAK with extensive prototyping and validation using real life messurments due to the limitations of the Modeling alone for his designs to put my comment into context 🙂
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/263812-danley-bc-subs-reverse-engineered-post4104201.html
Last edited:
Hey @All_1 !
First off: Thank you, and all the other people that have contributed, for the development of this epic build.
I'm going to build some, but will be making a couple small adjustments to make it fit my needs better.
I'm going to change the location of the NL4 connections. I want to move it to the "backside" whereas in your design they are on the side.
Considering I want to be able to set them up side-by-side, the connection of one sub would end up in the mouth of the one next to it.
Behold my epic paint skills! Only that I will start with just 4 subs, so only the top row.
Your placement prevents this kind of array, kind of forcing you to go for a split setup like you showed in post #180.
As far as I can reason, this places the centers quite far apart essentially creating a L-R sub setup, which results in comb filtering.
What was your reasoning for putting it where you did? (If my reasoning is faulty, feel free to point it out! )
I also want to add some sunken cutouts on the back for wheelplates. This way I can roll the subs around, but remove the wheels for a tighter packing in the van, and the prevent any rattling during shows.
My idea would be to place the 2 plates on the left of my image a bit further from the edge. This would create an easier setup to tip them upright in the van or storage.
I see you added holes in the braces.
Why are there no extra holes in the big mouth brace? Would extra holes in this brace somehow impact performance?
I could see how maybe you don't want air leaking from the back to the front part of the mouth.
Last question: which rubber feet did you use?
I like that you provided some sunk cutouts to "lock" the subs in place when stacked.
PS: Belgium and Slovenia are not that far apart. A meetup to make a bigger stack is an option 😉
First off: Thank you, and all the other people that have contributed, for the development of this epic build.
I'm going to build some, but will be making a couple small adjustments to make it fit my needs better.
I'm going to change the location of the NL4 connections. I want to move it to the "backside" whereas in your design they are on the side.
Considering I want to be able to set them up side-by-side, the connection of one sub would end up in the mouth of the one next to it.
Behold my epic paint skills! Only that I will start with just 4 subs, so only the top row.
Your placement prevents this kind of array, kind of forcing you to go for a split setup like you showed in post #180.
As far as I can reason, this places the centers quite far apart essentially creating a L-R sub setup, which results in comb filtering.
What was your reasoning for putting it where you did? (If my reasoning is faulty, feel free to point it out! )
I also want to add some sunken cutouts on the back for wheelplates. This way I can roll the subs around, but remove the wheels for a tighter packing in the van, and the prevent any rattling during shows.
My idea would be to place the 2 plates on the left of my image a bit further from the edge. This would create an easier setup to tip them upright in the van or storage.
I see you added holes in the braces.
Why are there no extra holes in the big mouth brace? Would extra holes in this brace somehow impact performance?
I could see how maybe you don't want air leaking from the back to the front part of the mouth.
Last question: which rubber feet did you use?
I like that you provided some sunk cutouts to "lock" the subs in place when stacked.
PS: Belgium and Slovenia are not that far apart. A meetup to make a bigger stack is an option 😉
@Lendert hey, regarding the placement. You can check out the Danley simulation software its free to take a look its not 1-1 but the design should be simmilar enogh.
https://www.danleysoundlabs.com/products/direct-sound-system-modeling-software/
Otherwise you can also use EASE Files should be available:
https://www.danleysoundlabs.com/education-support/support/software-support/ease-files/
What you will have is a bit of a tradeoff. Both setup options work. At lower frequencies it obviously does not matter too much.
I think you want to use 2 Mouths if you like a wider coverage and don't mind the power vally but otherwise the one that you drawn up.
Nice thing is that both is possible of cause. Ideally you have Multiple Connection panels so you can stack them however you like 🙂
And Good Luck building! 🙂
Here as an example (using averaged Levels) in the Danley software (dont got EASE atm installed on this PC):
2 Clusters in the 418 setup just now showing DBA:
@
And here at 125hz with 1 octave for example:
In Comparison using your drawn setup:
https://www.danleysoundlabs.com/products/direct-sound-system-modeling-software/
Otherwise you can also use EASE Files should be available:
https://www.danleysoundlabs.com/education-support/support/software-support/ease-files/
What you will have is a bit of a tradeoff. Both setup options work. At lower frequencies it obviously does not matter too much.
I think you want to use 2 Mouths if you like a wider coverage and don't mind the power vally but otherwise the one that you drawn up.
Nice thing is that both is possible of cause. Ideally you have Multiple Connection panels so you can stack them however you like 🙂
And Good Luck building! 🙂
Here as an example (using averaged Levels) in the Danley software (dont got EASE atm installed on this PC):
2 Clusters in the 418 setup just now showing DBA:
@
And here at 125hz with 1 octave for example:
In Comparison using your drawn setup:
