Impedance plot doesn't have the twin peaks you would expect from bass reflex:
https://www.danleysoundlabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CS30-Spec-Sheet.pdf
Internal layout claim here:
Subwoofer Size Versus Port Size and Chuffing | AVS Forum
heavily flared very long ported reflex?
https://www.danleysoundlabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CS30-Spec-Sheet.pdf
Internal layout claim here:
Subwoofer Size Versus Port Size and Chuffing | AVS Forum
heavily flared very long ported reflex?
Last edited:
The DSL CS30 uses a tapered semi-symmetrical slot loaded port with an Fb around 30Hz, the specification mentions a 30Hz minimum impedance.
The "IB Sub" 6/005/2008 impedance graph states "Cursor=5.7 ohms at 25.3 Hz (-5.4 degrees)" while the frequency/phase response graph states "Cursor=5.7 ohms at 25.3 Hz (90.4 degrees)".
The frequency/phase response graph phase agrees with what is stated in the specifications and is commensurate with a ported cabinet of that volume and Fb, while the impedance chart does not- likely a clerical error substituting a different cabinet ("Infinite Baffle"?) tested around the same time.
No laws of physics broken, just a spec sheet error 😉.
Art
Attachments
The impedance graph also shows 2 Ohms at 20 Hz, so it's probably not right.
So even if it was a measurement of the driver in an infinite baffle arrangement, it still does not look "right".
Basically it's a vented alignment, the "vent" being of the "butterfly" type, where it tapers from both ends towards the middle, one of the main advantages of doing this IMO being a lower Fb for the same vent length, while leaving it still large enough to minimize turbulence.
As for the likely spec sheet error, that reminds me of the argument JAG and I had over the spec sheet performance of the TH118, specifically the impedance plot, where it showed an Fb that was considerably lower than the TH115, which basically is the same TH, just with a larger driver. I said that it was impossible, and he gave all sorts of reasons how it could be possible. Turned out the spec sheet was incorrect.
In summary, if the spec sheet shows something that seems to be questionable, then it probably is.
So even if it was a measurement of the driver in an infinite baffle arrangement, it still does not look "right".
Basically it's a vented alignment, the "vent" being of the "butterfly" type, where it tapers from both ends towards the middle, one of the main advantages of doing this IMO being a lower Fb for the same vent length, while leaving it still large enough to minimize turbulence.
As for the likely spec sheet error, that reminds me of the argument JAG and I had over the spec sheet performance of the TH118, specifically the impedance plot, where it showed an Fb that was considerably lower than the TH115, which basically is the same TH, just with a larger driver. I said that it was impossible, and he gave all sorts of reasons how it could be possible. Turned out the spec sheet was incorrect.
In summary, if the spec sheet shows something that seems to be questionable, then it probably is.
Rubber surround and 400W AES power handling. Might well be a LAB12 variant, with an 8ohm (nominal) voicecoil.
Chris
Chris
Chris,
The minimum impedance of 6.5 ohms (for an "8 ohm" cabinet) would suggest an OEM variant of the LAB 12 made for DSL.
Though it looks like a LAB12 or LAB12C, both would have lower impedance at Fb, the 6 ohm LAB 12, 4.29 DCR, the 4 ohm LAB12C is only 3.11 DCR.
Art
The minimum impedance of 6.5 ohms (for an "8 ohm" cabinet) would suggest an OEM variant of the LAB 12 made for DSL.
Though it looks like a LAB12 or LAB12C, both would have lower impedance at Fb, the 6 ohm LAB 12, 4.29 DCR, the 4 ohm LAB12C is only 3.11 DCR.
Art
Possibly the DSL 12 or some evolution thereof? Basically, the DSL 12 is a Lab12 with a Lab15 motor on it.
Josh tested one a while back.
Data-Bass DSL 12
Josh tested one a while back.
Data-Bass DSL 12