Sabbelbacke said:
that's right !
but i know that someone have tried this driver whit 3KW (REAL) in a reflex box... so the resistence of the cone is good...
but, i repeat, this design is only an experiment
Sabbelbacke said:
now i'm at the university and i haven't the picture with me, but i have tried to plan another project using another car subwoofer (that i can get at only 85€ but it is an entry level...). according to hornresp the volume is near 60L... the spl is bad for PRO sound but for car is good and the frequency resp is similar to the resp of the project for the lowrider....
I will post it if you want!
djk said:"the punisher is smaller but it can't go to 30hz..."
±3dB from about 29hz~100hz or so.
This might work for PA. You could run two drivers in one box (as shown), or make two boxes. The Ciare 12SW is reasonably priced in Europe.
HI djk!
i'm sorry but this isn't the punisher horn, right?
the 12SW in a TH is a wonderful idea!
good job!
That US Blaster speaker costs 329 $
http://www.cacarsystems.nl/webshop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1535
The mother of all TH speakers used in the Danley's TH-115, B&C 15TBX 100 cost 310 $ at www.usspeakers.com
So... why bother with that US Blaster sub????????
http://www.cacarsystems.nl/webshop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1535
The mother of all TH speakers used in the Danley's TH-115, B&C 15TBX 100 cost 310 $ at www.usspeakers.com
So... why bother with that US Blaster sub????????
my impressione on tapped horn:
- no spl advantage: the SPL of a TH is near the SPL of a reflex box
- harder Xmax control of the TH than a reflex box
thanks to these two aspect the TH can goes very low with a linear response (depending by the project)...
but is the sound of the TH smoother and more controlled than a reflex box?
so for PRO application we have to use, in my opinion, horn or, better, stack of horn...
- no spl advantage: the SPL of a TH is near the SPL of a reflex box
- harder Xmax control of the TH than a reflex box
thanks to these two aspect the TH can goes very low with a linear response (depending by the project)...
but is the sound of the TH smoother and more controlled than a reflex box?
so for PRO application we have to use, in my opinion, horn or, better, stack of horn...
TH or not ...
First you cant say what is a better cabinet as that will depend on the driver. Also the usage of the speaker. IE Home Vs PA.
For Home usage it is so far it is a very good design.
You can achieve low frequency within a workable amount of space with a relatively flat response. Of course this is usually corner loaded, low amplification spec's.
For PA (Pro Sound) it is a little bit of
a toss up. In PA you are looking for MAX SPL. Getting a flat curve at above 130 DB becomes a complicated task. Mostly which can only be achieved via EQ. Even the Danley's are measure with more than 1 cabinet at more than 1 foot. This helps give them their flat response graphs. There is also a Plus that is also a Con for a TH in a PA. The location and direction of the driver. Reversed allows better cooling of the driver but also puts into harms way from drunk idjits and the likes.
I am still at a crossroads on calling
anything that doesn't have the driver rear facing a TH. I think of the rest as modified scoops. (Like ScreamUSA's design on the TH for PA thread.)
First you cant say what is a better cabinet as that will depend on the driver. Also the usage of the speaker. IE Home Vs PA.
For Home usage it is so far it is a very good design.
You can achieve low frequency within a workable amount of space with a relatively flat response. Of course this is usually corner loaded, low amplification spec's.
For PA (Pro Sound) it is a little bit of
a toss up. In PA you are looking for MAX SPL. Getting a flat curve at above 130 DB becomes a complicated task. Mostly which can only be achieved via EQ. Even the Danley's are measure with more than 1 cabinet at more than 1 foot. This helps give them their flat response graphs. There is also a Plus that is also a Con for a TH in a PA. The location and direction of the driver. Reversed allows better cooling of the driver but also puts into harms way from drunk idjits and the likes.
I am still at a crossroads on calling
anything that doesn't have the driver rear facing a TH. I think of the rest as modified scoops. (Like ScreamUSA's design on the TH for PA thread.)
another little experiment in TH...
using a BM Z3 DC (i can find it at 85€)
qts=0.39
qms=8.12
qes=0.41
fs=33.54
Vas=24.60L
Re=1.5
xmax=18mm
Pe=800W rms
this time the EG is correct
project target: best result/cost quotient
what do you think about it?
using a BM Z3 DC (i can find it at 85€)
qts=0.39
qms=8.12
qes=0.41
fs=33.54
Vas=24.60L
Re=1.5
xmax=18mm
Pe=800W rms
this time the EG is correct
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
project target: best result/cost quotient
what do you think about it?
FlipC said:
For me it's clear that as long as the driver isn't recessed into the mouth far enough to generate useful half WL horn loading (TH), then regardless of driver orientation it's a folded BLH which can have either a well defined filter chamber (AKA 'scoop bin') or none (AKA expanding TL), so most driver-in-mouth 'TH' alignments are expanding TLs by my definition as I showed for one of William Cowan's early builds by posting a virtually identical sim to his measured response using MJK's offset driver TL software.
Note that used in multiples and/or corner loaded though, the horn's acoustic path-length is increased which if enough are used it can provide the half WL loading required to make the system a true TH.
GM
andrew_87 said:
Link to driver? Google mostly returned BMW Z3 car links.
If it suits your performance needs and the specs are reasonably accurate (probably not if you didn't measure them), then I see nothing intrinsically wrong with it as long as you high pass it above 26 Hz if driven to its 800 W Pe rating.
GM
GM said:
BMW Z3??? wonderful car!
so this is what i have found in my computer:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
and this is an image (powered by google image):
http://www.audio-zone.dk/images/BM Audio10.jpg
so... i don't know if t&s are correct!
sigh!
A quick cross-calculation between parameters seem to prove them correct.
- Qts is good for ported boxes
- The mechanical losses are quite high
- EBP fairly low (so "typical" hornusage is not recommended (when refering to the classic recommendation of high EBP)).
- Cone is heavy as expected in a Car-Sub this size
- 85dB is a low sensitivity, typical also
- as typical for a long-throw voice coil, The Inductance is high
Too bad Hvc and Hg are not present, so the statement of 18mm xmax can´t be discussed further just by looking at the spec sheet.
- Qts is good for ported boxes
- The mechanical losses are quite high
- EBP fairly low (so "typical" hornusage is not recommended (when refering to the classic recommendation of high EBP)).
- Cone is heavy as expected in a Car-Sub this size
- 85dB is a low sensitivity, typical also
- as typical for a long-throw voice coil, The Inductance is high
Too bad Hvc and Hg are not present, so the statement of 18mm xmax can´t be discussed further just by looking at the spec sheet.
Sabbelbacke said:
all right!
i would try this project in a car... good extension, good spl (in car world) and little cabinet.
I have recently read that BillFitzMaurice consider the car like a phi/4 or phi/8 with a bass boost under a frequency depending on the dimension of the car...
what do you think about that?