Jim G said:
I doubt that means anything... we talked to everyone pretty equally (the guys buying the Linn and Audio Note systems today were the youngsters buying $500 systems in those days)
dave
Hi guys,
What are the +/- of TQWT shown in the following thread vs. ML TL that was chosen here. I now the first difference would be that this one uses two speakers.
T?he reason I'm asking is if I were to build a single driver speaker the design offered here needs stands and the one below is a floor stander and there's no need for stands.
http://www.vicdiy.com/products/tqwt/tqwt.html
Sorry it's in Japanese, but if you scroll down you'll see the box configuration and dimensions for FE127 driver.
Thanks a lot!
/Greg
What are the +/- of TQWT shown in the following thread vs. ML TL that was chosen here. I now the first difference would be that this one uses two speakers.
T?he reason I'm asking is if I were to build a single driver speaker the design offered here needs stands and the one below is a floor stander and there's no need for stands.
http://www.vicdiy.com/products/tqwt/tqwt.html
Sorry it's in Japanese, but if you scroll down you'll see the box configuration and dimensions for FE127 driver.
Thanks a lot!
/Greg
japanese is not a problem!
Google since a while is providing a translation services from Japanese to English. Not perfect but, what a surprrise, one can understand few phrases.
Piergiorgio
Google since a while is providing a translation services from Japanese to English. Not perfect but, what a surprrise, one can understand few phrases.
Piergiorgio
Re: japanese is not a problem!
Thanks, Piergiorgio!
I can't translate the whole page, just part of it.
It doesn't tell me, though what the diff between TQWT and ML TL and what the +/- are.
Greg
plovati said:
Thanks, Piergiorgio!
I can't translate the whole page, just part of it.
It doesn't tell me, though what the diff between TQWT and ML TL and what the +/- are.
Greg
GregGC said:
That looks to be a classic voigt -- unlikely to be anywhere near as optimal as any of the designs here, or GM's stab at it (need to find GM's post and quote it here for reference)
dave
What I see quite often is the attempt to tune the cabinet below the driver Fs (which I have been guilty of in the past also). Thanks to new research into transmission line behavior this has been proven to be ineffective and even detrimental to the performance of the system. Voigt's design criteria is extremely out of date.
FE127E Bi-pole (shorter)
In an attempt to get approval from the lady of the house, I need to consider reducing the overall length of the original design. By placing the driver only 4" from the top, I can cut 12" from the overall height of the design and can likely get the nod for this project.
I have attached results of my model using the www.quarter-wave.com worksheets. Changing the height from the top to 4" from 16" requires more stuffing and as such, there appears to be a very small loss in the lower end response and a very small bump and dip, but for the most part, the results look similar to me. I would appreciate it if some of the experts could look over the results and comment on potential improvements. I want to keep the driver about 36" from the ground and want the total height close to about 40".
TIA,
Gio.
In an attempt to get approval from the lady of the house, I need to consider reducing the overall length of the original design. By placing the driver only 4" from the top, I can cut 12" from the overall height of the design and can likely get the nod for this project.
I have attached results of my model using the www.quarter-wave.com worksheets. Changing the height from the top to 4" from 16" requires more stuffing and as such, there appears to be a very small loss in the lower end response and a very small bump and dip, but for the most part, the results look similar to me. I would appreciate it if some of the experts could look over the results and comment on potential improvements. I want to keep the driver about 36" from the ground and want the total height close to about 40".
TIA,
Gio.
The info I wrote down for GM's FE127E MLTL is:
Length 22.38"
Width 7.43"
Depth 4.58"
Driver 8.85" from top
Port 1.5"dia 1.125" long placed at the bottom
That's shorter than your original, but the cab would extend somewhat
higher than you want.
Length 22.38"
Width 7.43"
Depth 4.58"
Driver 8.85" from top
Port 1.5"dia 1.125" long placed at the bottom
That's shorter than your original, but the cab would extend somewhat
higher than you want.
Those dimensions look like they are for a single driver. Mine is a bi-pole .. two drivers per enclosure.
GG,
Put 2 back to back and then it's a bipole.
Are you sure about your inputs? 2 drivers at half their Sd doesn't sound right to me.
Put 2 back to back and then it's a bipole.
Are you sure about your inputs? 2 drivers at half their Sd doesn't sound right to me.
Re: i scanned the prior posts to catch up....
A buddy of mine is pulling together a drawing and I will post it next week.
roystr said:
A buddy of mine is pulling together a drawing and I will post it next week.
Re: i scanned the prior posts to catch up....
Not sure which ones GG is building, but all the most recent plans are posted in this thread. We have done the straight bipoles, & the folded monopole. Scott has a pair of bipoles in an ML-Voigt (those plans aren't up anywhere)
dave
roystr said:
Not sure which ones GG is building, but all the most recent plans are posted in this thread. We have done the straight bipoles, & the folded monopole. Scott has a pair of bipoles in an ML-Voigt (those plans aren't up anywhere)
dave
I am looking at a slightly modified plan. The CSA is is the same as the MLTL bi-pole. I am moving the driver up to reduce the overall height of the speaker at the listening height.
Details of the dimensions and results of the worksheets can be found in http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=700302#post700302
Details of the dimensions and results of the worksheets can be found in http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=700302#post700302
Re: Re: Back on track
Hi Dave,
There are two questions that I've been meaning to ask you for some time.
The first is RE a parenthetical comment that you made over 35 pages back:
I wonder simply if you might elucidate a bit when you've got a minute.
I might be wrong about this second question, but it seems to me that you have expressed a tendency toward choosing the golden proportiion in cabinet design when it worked out to do so. If this is correct, again, I'd love to hear anything you felt like saying about it.
I'm not looking for lengthy or in-depth explanations in either case; any little bit of elucidation/elaboration—food for thought, whatever—would be most welcome and appreciated. (Fact is, I've learned so much from you already from numberless posts you've made in this and other threads that it feels almost presumptious to ask!)
Thank you,
Don
Hi Dave,
There are two questions that I've been meaning to ask you for some time.
The first is RE a parenthetical comment that you made over 35 pages back:
planet10 said:
I wonder simply if you might elucidate a bit when you've got a minute.
I might be wrong about this second question, but it seems to me that you have expressed a tendency toward choosing the golden proportiion in cabinet design when it worked out to do so. If this is correct, again, I'd love to hear anything you felt like saying about it.
I'm not looking for lengthy or in-depth explanations in either case; any little bit of elucidation/elaboration—food for thought, whatever—would be most welcome and appreciated. (Fact is, I've learned so much from you already from numberless posts you've made in this and other threads that it feels almost presumptious to ask!)
Thank you,
Don
Re: Re: Re: Back on track
My preference is towards thin, stiff, well braced enclosures. A box is going to resonate so lets make it resonate way up where there is little or no energy to excite them. As a consequence, the box has very little energy storage.
I am also now taking any opportunity to push-push drivers so as to have active vibration cancelation further decrease the energy that gets into the cabinet.
Actually i didn' start using the golden ratio till recently, but i have used other irrational numbers from time memorial. If you have to build a rectangular box then a set of ratios with irrational numbers should support lower Q resonances. Anywhere there is the possibility of a standing wave, edge resonance, etc i'll choose a convienient irrational number (ie root(2), root(3), pi, e...)
dave
DMD said:
My preference is towards thin, stiff, well braced enclosures. A box is going to resonate so lets make it resonate way up where there is little or no energy to excite them. As a consequence, the box has very little energy storage.
I am also now taking any opportunity to push-push drivers so as to have active vibration cancelation further decrease the energy that gets into the cabinet.
Actually i didn' start using the golden ratio till recently, but i have used other irrational numbers from time memorial. If you have to build a rectangular box then a set of ratios with irrational numbers should support lower Q resonances. Anywhere there is the possibility of a standing wave, edge resonance, etc i'll choose a convienient irrational number (ie root(2), root(3), pi, e...)
dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: Back on track
Elegantly simple and clear, as usual. Thanks again.
planet10 said:
Elegantly simple and clear, as usual. Thanks again.
looks greek to me
set of ratios with irrational numbers should support lower Q resonances. Anywhere there is the possibility of a standing wave, edge resonance, etc i'll choose a convienient irrational number (ie root(2), root(3), pi, e...).......
i read..well i flipped through the pages of the speaker cookbook,,,,i didnt see one page i could make any sense out of. and now you guys talking the same language..sheesh.
im sure there must be a way to say what your saying in nice hobbiest english. im not one to be dense,,,,,, but this stuff just seems incomprhensible to me. ive been reading alot of diy loudspeaker stuff for well over a year,,and other than following some other guys recipy,,,im as ignorant as i was the first day i found out people actualy built their own speeks.
like alot of things,if you(or me) read enough about anything,some of it will stick and eventualy ill get at least a basic understanding......but not with this stuff.
im not complaining about you guys per say......more or less venting about my confusion thats all.
ahhhh, i feel better
roy
set of ratios with irrational numbers should support lower Q resonances. Anywhere there is the possibility of a standing wave, edge resonance, etc i'll choose a convienient irrational number (ie root(2), root(3), pi, e...).......
i read..well i flipped through the pages of the speaker cookbook,,,,i didnt see one page i could make any sense out of. and now you guys talking the same language..sheesh.
im sure there must be a way to say what your saying in nice hobbiest english. im not one to be dense,,,,,, but this stuff just seems incomprhensible to me. ive been reading alot of diy loudspeaker stuff for well over a year,,and other than following some other guys recipy,,,im as ignorant as i was the first day i found out people actualy built their own speeks.
like alot of things,if you(or me) read enough about anything,some of it will stick and eventualy ill get at least a basic understanding......but not with this stuff.
im not complaining about you guys per say......more or less venting about my confusion thats all.
ahhhh, i feel better
roy