Did some calculations, but if you want to go from 1250cm^2 to 5000cm^2 it needs to be 56,3 cm deep.
56 cm deep cavity wil make the cab to big imo.
you would be better of with a "normal" fold ,me thinks.
comparing sim 557 to 559 looks pretty simular below 80 hz.
except the cavity is much less .
why not bild a flh with detachable wings,that wil give at least 135 db from 32hz up
you would be better of with a "normal" fold ,me thinks.
comparing sim 557 to 559 looks pretty simular below 80 hz.
except the cavity is much less .
why not bild a flh with detachable wings,that wil give at least 135 db from 32hz up
Going for a smaller opening in S4 or reducing the cavity, like usual TH's, will end in a pipe not a horn. Going complete FLH style and you'll end up with even bigger cabs and these cones are not up for that task.So somewhere down the line some concession needs to be made. The last cavity (extension section) can be made as an attachable unit to safe weight.
Last edited:
This will be the TH without the extension. S3 sits exactly where the opening starts. S5 (opening) is 40cm high and 62.5cm wide.
Everything is still transportable and he even can use them in singles for small gigs if needed. With 400Watts per cab he reaches physical Xmax (based on 3dB power compression). 3 cabs still have a max SPL output of 130dB. Low cut filter (at excursion dip) 34Hz - 24dB/oct.
Everything is still transportable and he even can use them in singles for small gigs if needed. With 400Watts per cab he reaches physical Xmax (based on 3dB power compression). 3 cabs still have a max SPL output of 130dB. Low cut filter (at excursion dip) 34Hz - 24dB/oct.
The optional extension is still possible. The difference in SPL doesn't seem much improvement for all the extra's.
But to see the real value of such extension you have to look at the differences in efficiency and its relation to losses (power compression) that don't turn up in the SPL response.
The efficiency is >2 times higher at 38Hz... with the extension.
But to see the real value of such extension you have to look at the differences in efficiency and its relation to losses (power compression) that don't turn up in the SPL response.
The efficiency is >2 times higher at 38Hz... with the extension.
Last edited:
HornResp input for the extension;
Switch to TH1 driver placement, double click on TH.
You fellas are attempting to squeeze blood from a fragile stone methinks. I PM'd Justin in a in effort to get him onto drivers with more displacement.
I know, but Crescendo seems to have limited financial sources at the moment. We already suggested to him to sell his drivers half year ago, but he wants to know what is possible with these 3015lf's (and probably decide than).
If they are not beat up he should be able to sell them to SS15 builders for a reasonable profit, more than enough to cover the driver I have in mind($125).
Unfortunately it is not a driver with worldwide distribution, about like getting BMS in the US.
try this, see what you can get out of it.
Code:
--- mechanical ---
Fs 26.057 Hz Free air resonance
Qms 12.247 Q mechanical
Vas 490.364l Suspension compliance
Cms 223 um/N 1/(suspension stiffness)
Mms 167.28 g Moving mass
Xmax 6mm Maximum acoustic linear motion
Xmech 20mm Mechanical displacement
Sd 1244.10 cm^2 Piston area
--- electrical ---
Qes .295808 Q electrical
Re 5.556 ohms Voice coil DC resistance
Le 2.77 Inductance @1 kHz
Z 23.696 ohms Impedance @1 kHz
BL 22.681 Tm Motor force - Newtons/Amp
--- electro-mechanical ---
Qts .288832 Q total
no 2.756 % 1/2-space ref efficiency @ 1m/1W
1-W SPL 96.42 dB sensitivity at 1m on-axis
2.83V SPL 98.004 dB sensitivity at 1m on-axis
--- motor constants ---
Krm 686.604E-06 ohms constant resistive motor impedance
Erm 1.100E+00 exponent resistive motor impedance
Kxm 36.159E-03 Henries constant reactive motor impedance
Exm 709.172E-03 exponent reactive motor impedance