I found this woofer on Parts Express:
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=290-360
Qts = 1.09
Fs = 33
Xmass = 4.6mm
Price = $28.95US
The Xmass is a little light but everything else looks good for use as a dipole sub.
Anybody familiar with this driver? What do you all think??
Thanks -
Bruce
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=290-360
Qts = 1.09
Fs = 33
Xmass = 4.6mm
Price = $28.95US
The Xmass is a little light but everything else looks good for use as a dipole sub.
Anybody familiar with this driver? What do you all think??
Thanks -
Bruce
Taking the plunge...
Well, didn't get a lot of feedback on this one...
The drivers aren't that expensive so I ordered four of them. I'll put them in an H-frame cabinet and let you know how it goes.
Stay tuned -
Bruce
Well, didn't get a lot of feedback on this one...
The drivers aren't that expensive so I ordered four of them. I'll put them in an H-frame cabinet and let you know how it goes.
Stay tuned -
Bruce
Qt is over 1 so it will always be boomy- but the good news is that most people are used to that sort of bass- and a dipole will ensure it doesnt get boomier.
Cheers!
Cheers!
High or low Q, that is the question....
I am struggling with the concept Q in terms of an open baffled woofer. Many poeple on here are saying that high Q will need less EQ, but then it seems that there is way to have clean bass with a woofer that stores some much energy......can someone elaborate further?
Greg
I am struggling with the concept Q in terms of an open baffled woofer. Many poeple on here are saying that high Q will need less EQ, but then it seems that there is way to have clean bass with a woofer that stores some much energy......can someone elaborate further?
Greg
Qt = 0.5 'critically damped' with very good damping.
Qt = 0.7 Often chosen as a good compromise between extension and damping
Qt= 1.0 3db peak in response, boomy sound with several cycle overhang.
A low Qt results in no bass but a highly damped system- If you aim for Qt=0.7 its a good result. (car audio type)
The graphs reveal all!
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=366547#post366547
Qt = 0.7 Often chosen as a good compromise between extension and damping
Qt= 1.0 3db peak in response, boomy sound with several cycle overhang.
A low Qt results in no bass but a highly damped system- If you aim for Qt=0.7 its a good result. (car audio type)
The graphs reveal all!
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=366547#post366547
Re: High or low Q, that is the question....
With all due respect to mike.e those guidelines are meaningless with regards to your question.
The point of the high Q is to pick a driver with a large bump in the low freq response so that if you just trim down it's upper end plateau with your low pass filter you can get very close to a flat freq response.
If you go to diysubwoofers.org, download Brian's dipole.xls spreadsheet you can play with driver parameters, baffle size, and LP filter until it becomes clear.
studiotech said:
With all due respect to mike.e those guidelines are meaningless with regards to your question.
The point of the high Q is to pick a driver with a large bump in the low freq response so that if you just trim down it's upper end plateau with your low pass filter you can get very close to a flat freq response.
If you go to diysubwoofers.org, download Brian's dipole.xls spreadsheet you can play with driver parameters, baffle size, and LP filter until it becomes clear.
Yes, I get this, but then how does this fact NOT translate into sloppy bass with no pitch definition? This is where I'm not making the connection, because the same high Q woofer in a box would be very sloppy sounding, even if EQ'ed back to being more flat of a response, right? This is due to the stored energy correct?
That seems like a bad thing. Maybe this is why Mr. Linkwitz chooses a low Q woofer needing lots of EQ to get back to a proper freq. response.
Greg
- Status
- Not open for further replies.