hey guys whats up, i have been following the thread and i really love the th designs.im a nobb and need some help,ive been fiddling with hornresp. i simed th 18 sound 18 nlw 9600 for the xco1 6 fold tap horn (pd 1850). here are the results, so please tell me what u guys think.
Was also wondering if i decreased on the size of the box say(1011 h X 572 w x 762 d) external.
Was also wondering if i decreased on the size of the box say(1011 h X 572 w x 762 d) external.
Attachments
hi shello
1st rms value =6.62 mmd =247.57.
le value is usually double in the 30>100 hz region =4.2.
if i am correct l2>l3 =208 ,l3>l4=98.
but jason(xco1) wil have to confirm this.
a smaler design of xco1 model 500 ltr is in post 21
and even a smaller design 400 ltr below
as they become smaller the output is decreased.
does it have to be the 18 sound 9600?
edit yes you make the internal pannels 54 ,and move the bottem pannel a bit up to suit your dimensions
Last edited:
i stand corrected.
i discused this with david mcbean,and the le value @ 1khz is usualy ~half the le value in the pasband.
in this case(bms 18n850v2) of a 30>100 hz sub double the le value from .9 to 1.8
THE 96OO WOULD BE MY BEST BET BECAUSE I LIVE IN SAINT LUCIA AND ORDERING FROM THE US IS EASIER AND CHEAPER, IM LOOKING FOR A CAB THAT WILL GIVE SOME HIGH SPL BECAUSE I DONT WANT TO HAUL TO MANY OF THEM AROUND.THE ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS ARE OK BECAUSE WITH A SMALLER CAB YOU GET LESS SPL AND LESS EXTENSION.
I REENTERED THE DATA AND HERE IS THE SPL RESPONSE CHAT,IS IT OK OR DOES IT NEED TO BE A LITTLE FLATTER?
ALSO WHAT DO YOU THINK THE USABLE FREQUENCY OF THIS BOX WILL BE.
I REENTERED THE DATA AND HERE IS THE SPL RESPONSE CHAT,IS IT OK OR DOES IT NEED TO BE A LITTLE FLATTER?
ALSO WHAT DO YOU THINK THE USABLE FREQUENCY OF THIS BOX WILL BE.
Attachments
you capslock is on
its usable from 32>100 hz maybe higher,but @ 100hz fase and delay are still good,above 100 hz its not so good.
use highpass linkwitch 4th order @25 hz or butterworth 4th order @27 hz
you can use your dimensions,it doesn't effect the responce much.
i think it wil be awsome sounding
Hi Shello 79 / Epa
The confusion is that Shello is refering to my orignal proposal for a 18" TH
the cabinet plans were in post 75 in the 15" Rcf thread (Sim in post 68)
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/170749-15-tapped-horn-rcf-8.html#post2368428
As the thread developed Crescendo proposed a larger and lower sim that resulted in the modifed cabinet that I posted in Post 98 in the same thread.
The modified cabinet details are copied in post one of this thread. This is the one that Epa has simmed above.
Personally I would still go for the original smaller design. The extra bandwith comes with an increase in size.
Shello79 If you are sourcing drivers from the UK please note that my original design was for the Precision Devices PD1850 - The PD1850 should still be within x-max at 800W rms. Going by the various rules of thumb that others have devised this driver should be comfortable with music signals over 1KW - How much power were you proposing to run into these cabinets! The 18 sound or the BMS drivers add some headroom but at a increased cost.
PS
Epa Its XOC not XCO Its my surname reversed and I,ve been stuck with it as a nickname for over 35 years!
The confusion is that Shello is refering to my orignal proposal for a 18" TH
the cabinet plans were in post 75 in the 15" Rcf thread (Sim in post 68)
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/170749-15-tapped-horn-rcf-8.html#post2368428
As the thread developed Crescendo proposed a larger and lower sim that resulted in the modifed cabinet that I posted in Post 98 in the same thread.
The modified cabinet details are copied in post one of this thread. This is the one that Epa has simmed above.
Personally I would still go for the original smaller design. The extra bandwith comes with an increase in size.
Shello79 If you are sourcing drivers from the UK please note that my original design was for the Precision Devices PD1850 - The PD1850 should still be within x-max at 800W rms. Going by the various rules of thumb that others have devised this driver should be comfortable with music signals over 1KW - How much power were you proposing to run into these cabinets! The 18 sound or the BMS drivers add some headroom but at a increased cost.
PS
Epa Its XOC not XCO Its my surname reversed and I,ve been stuck with it as a nickname for over 35 years!
Last edited:
i want a cab that will extend to about 35 hz,you see i play alot of reggae and dub but also i want one with high enough spl because i dont want to haul too many cabs around,i want the maximum impact with the least amount of cabs.the 18 sound is 1800 watts rms,so i was thinking3600 watts at 4 ohms.
i would love to get the dimensions of the 15 to fit an 18, but you cant get every thing you want .
thanks much guys for all the help
i would love to get the dimensions of the 15 to fit an 18, but you cant get every thing you want .
thanks much guys for all the help
ok ,
so your going with the original xoc1 plan,with a little asjustment to fit your dimensions?
i wil punch the nrs in and see what we got.
then we have to recalculate the hpf.
lets make it jasonHi Shello 79 / Epa
The confusion is that Shello is refering to my orignal proposal for a 18" TH
the cabinet plans were in post 75 in the 15" Rcf thread (Sim in post 68)
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/170749-15-tapped-horn-rcf-8.html#post2368428
As the thread developed Crescendo proposed a larger and lower sim that resulted in the modifed cabinet that I posted in Post 98 in the same thread.
The modified cabinet details are copied in post one of this thread. This is the one that Epa has simmed above.
Personally I would still go for the original smaller design. The extra bandwith comes with an increase in size.
Shello79 If you are sourcing drivers from the UK please note that my original design was for the Precision Devices PD1850 - The PD1850 should still be within x-max at 800W rms. Going by the various rules of thumb that others have devised this driver should be comfortable with music signals over 1KW - How much power were you proposing to run into these cabinets! The 18 sound or the BMS drivers add some headroom but at a increased cost.
PS
Epa Its XOC not XCO Its my surname reversed and I,ve been stuck with it as a nickname for over 35 years!
x and c are to close together ))btw my name is erik
ok
the inner pannel width shrinked to 54cm,101.1 high,40.3 cm change to 36.1 and 440 (s5)change to 39.8.
s4 becomes 37.95
the rest remains exactly the same.
this is what you get.
the gray line is original jason's plan.not much difference as you can see.
hpf should be butterw.28.5 hz or higher 4th or (prefer) 8th order
the inner pannel width shrinked to 54cm,101.1 high,40.3 cm change to 36.1 and 440 (s5)change to 39.8.
s4 becomes 37.95
the rest remains exactly the same.
this is what you get.
the gray line is original jason's plan.not much difference as you can see.
hpf should be butterw.28.5 hz or higher 4th or (prefer) 8th order
Last edited:
djk: may you assist in answering the questions I had in an earlier post, please?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subw...30-ft30-pa-th-awesomeness-12.html#post2460100
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subw...30-ft30-pa-th-awesomeness-12.html#post2460100
Do a Google on djk and PPSL, it's all there.
"If this is so, is a PPSL not far from a direct rad (vented) with less distortion? Seeing as it still requires huge power?"
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
The efficiency of the PPSL is a function of size, LF cut-off, and type of loading.
A 2 cu ft 2nd order sealed box with an F3 of 30hz can only be 0.18% efficient (84.55dB).
A 2 cu ft 4th order vented box with an F3 of 30hz can only be 0.36% efficient (87.56dB).
A 2 cu ft 6th order vented box with an F3 of 30hz can only be 0.90% efficient (91.54dB).
"Also, what is the step-down tuning + EQ you speak of in another forum? "
Electro-Voice calls it step-down tuning, it is called 6th order in the original T/S alignments. Optimum Qts for a B6 (maximally flat) is 0.312, other values of Qts become a C6 (some ripple).
I use No=3.5% drivers in the PPSL shown in my PA photos. With two drivers in a box, one box is thus 7%, or 100.45dB/W/1M. Two boxes (as normally used) are thus 14%, or 103.46dB/W/1M. Four boxes are 28%, but the theoretical limit for coupling is about 25%, or 105.98dB/W/1M.
In practice a large array will measure a bit higher than theoretical outdoors because of an increase in the directivity index (Di).
In their original commercial debut about 25 years ago they were used in two stacks of four with only 650W per stack. This was massive overkill in a club that could hold 1300 people. One FOH engineer had a bit of a problem with the EQ on his drum mics and got them into feedback at 30hz (Fb), many people were suffering from nausea and some ran for the door. After that we only took in two per side.
"If this is so, is a PPSL not far from a direct rad (vented) with less distortion? Seeing as it still requires huge power?"
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
The efficiency of the PPSL is a function of size, LF cut-off, and type of loading.
A 2 cu ft 2nd order sealed box with an F3 of 30hz can only be 0.18% efficient (84.55dB).
A 2 cu ft 4th order vented box with an F3 of 30hz can only be 0.36% efficient (87.56dB).
A 2 cu ft 6th order vented box with an F3 of 30hz can only be 0.90% efficient (91.54dB).
"Also, what is the step-down tuning + EQ you speak of in another forum? "
Electro-Voice calls it step-down tuning, it is called 6th order in the original T/S alignments. Optimum Qts for a B6 (maximally flat) is 0.312, other values of Qts become a C6 (some ripple).
I use No=3.5% drivers in the PPSL shown in my PA photos. With two drivers in a box, one box is thus 7%, or 100.45dB/W/1M. Two boxes (as normally used) are thus 14%, or 103.46dB/W/1M. Four boxes are 28%, but the theoretical limit for coupling is about 25%, or 105.98dB/W/1M.
In practice a large array will measure a bit higher than theoretical outdoors because of an increase in the directivity index (Di).
In their original commercial debut about 25 years ago they were used in two stacks of four with only 650W per stack. This was massive overkill in a club that could hold 1300 people. One FOH engineer had a bit of a problem with the EQ on his drum mics and got them into feedback at 30hz (Fb), many people were suffering from nausea and some ran for the door. After that we only took in two per side.
hi spersaudHi can someone post the plan for the 3015LF with decent output I see both epa and crescendo have great designs. And if they go to 30hz thats even better .. Just need 127 db using a few small boxes.
you mean this(right) one?
its modeled with the eminence 3015LF
gray is 1 and black is 4 boxes.
i think it was 350 liters netto.
