Has anyone done a design for the CSS WR125S with a ML TL or a ML TQWT which are common with the Jordan JX92. Thanks
I've noticed that the bass response is a little thin in a TL style cabinet. There have been suggestions of an aperiodic enclosure but I haven't tried that yet.
Timn8ter,
What is working for you with the WR125S? Full range, any XO? Cabinet size, port size? I would like to be able to maximize bass, and quality bass is more important than quantity. Thanks
What is working for you with the WR125S? Full range, any XO? Cabinet size, port size? I would like to be able to maximize bass, and quality bass is more important than quantity. Thanks
I've had good results with a small BR cab either 7 or 11 liter with a 1.5"D x 4"L port tube (55Hz tuning) and running the driver full range. The 7 liter will create a 3 db bump in the mid-bass while the 11 liter will have a less than 2db bump. The interesting thing is when this goes into a TL the bass begins to slope off just above 100Hz. I've heard it in a TL variant with internal bass traps (no specifics from the designer 😉 ) and while it sounded very sweet it was still a little thin.
This driver doesn't have the 'right' specs for a decent straight pipe sim, but this ML-TQWT should do OK down to 40Hz if the specs are close, though unless against a wall, BSC will kill what little efficiency there is, so doubling up on drivers, CSA, and vents is the way to go if you're not sitting in the nearfield:
L = 49.55"
Zd = 33.68"
Zp = 47.55"
SO = 0.763"^2 (comes to a point)
SL = 60.265"^2
rp = 1"
Lp = 3"
Minimal stuffing, with some down at the vent to damp the peaking at Fb (~0.2lbs^3 at its entrance).
GM
L = 49.55"
Zd = 33.68"
Zp = 47.55"
SO = 0.763"^2 (comes to a point)
SL = 60.265"^2
rp = 1"
Lp = 3"
Minimal stuffing, with some down at the vent to damp the peaking at Fb (~0.2lbs^3 at its entrance).
GM
GM said:
I've got my 4 16 ohm ones... this looks like a go....
This is similar to the GM pointy tip 40-1197 ML-Voigt with the driver at about 2/3.... i'd be tempted to stand it pointy end down 🙂
dave
Since you normally don't want to load the vent of a high Q pipe any more than what the driver parameters dictate (hence the high aspect ratio/low driver position), unfolded/upside down is the preferred layout and definitely looks non-speaker like/built-in if done mirror image in conjuction with a stylish stand/bookshelf or girder support system.
The dual driver variant would be big enough to add a nice record and/or book shelving stand system so I look forward to pics of what you decide on.
GM
The dual driver variant would be big enough to add a nice record and/or book shelving stand system so I look forward to pics of what you decide on.
GM
The vision I am working with is a "V" shape with side braces connected to a stone base. I figure the stone base will help off set the top heavy tipsiness. The side braces will be cut from the same piece of lumber as the V front baffle. The side braces will be right triangles to "fill in" the visual presentation from the front. The bottom cross section will be a "+" shape sitting on top
of the stone base, I love the presentation of a stone base it gives the speaker a lot of visual presence as well as mass. These babies are a lot heavey.
Another concept is the same V and to use 1" copper pipe legs 24" long and a mid length wrap around frame( sort og girdle like). I would have the pointy end lifted off the base. This would look quite cool. The wire hook up spot would be near the base but up a bit fromthe bottom of the V or maybe even in the stone base with the wires running up inside one of the copper legs.
Both of these ideas are bit too modern for my taste, I may mock up a prototype to see how things look.
What do you think?
of the stone base, I love the presentation of a stone base it gives the speaker a lot of visual presence as well as mass. These babies are a lot heavey.
Another concept is the same V and to use 1" copper pipe legs 24" long and a mid length wrap around frame( sort og girdle like). I would have the pointy end lifted off the base. This would look quite cool. The wire hook up spot would be near the base but up a bit fromthe bottom of the V or maybe even in the stone base with the wires running up inside one of the copper legs.
Both of these ideas are bit too modern for my taste, I may mock up a prototype to see how things look.
What do you think?
The vision I am working with is a "V" shape with side braces connected to a stone base. I figure the stone base will help off set the top heavy tipsiness. The side braces will be cut from the same piece of lumber as the V front baffle. The side braces will be right triangles to "fill in" the visual presentation from the front. The bottom cross section will be a "+" shape sitting on top
of the stone base, I love the presentation of a stone base it gives the speaker a lot of visual presence as well as mass. These babies are a lot heavey.
Another concept is the same V and to use 1" copper pipe legs 24" long and a mid length wrap around frame( sort og girdle like). I would have the pointy end lifted off the base. This would look quite cool. The wire hook up spot would be near the base but up a bit fromthe bottom of the V or maybe even in the stone base with the wires running up inside one of the copper legs.
Both of these ideas are bit too modern for my taste, I may mock up a prototype to see how things look.
What do you think?
of the stone base, I love the presentation of a stone base it gives the speaker a lot of visual presence as well as mass. These babies are a lot heavey.
Another concept is the same V and to use 1" copper pipe legs 24" long and a mid length wrap around frame( sort og girdle like). I would have the pointy end lifted off the base. This would look quite cool. The wire hook up spot would be near the base but up a bit fromthe bottom of the V or maybe even in the stone base with the wires running up inside one of the copper legs.
Both of these ideas are bit too modern for my taste, I may mock up a prototype to see how things look.
What do you think?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.