Help with cabinet dimensions while rebuilding speaker

Jump to Latest
W

w2olves

Member
Joined 2016
#1
Hello,

Long story short, I am moving to Europe from USA and have decided to take my Tannoy Arden Speakers with.

More info on these speakers here:

Tannoy Arden Loudspeaker (each) – Upscale Audio

Main specs are as below:
Frequency response: 35 Hz-30 KHz ±6 dB
Recommended Amplifier Power: 20-300 W
Power handling: 150 W continuous, 600 W peak
Sensitivity: 93 dB
Impedance: 8 ohm
Crossover Frequency: 1.1 kHz
Enclosure: Triple distributed port
Dimensions (HWD): 35.8" x 23.7" x 14.25" (910 x 602 x 362 mm)
Net weight: 41 kg (90 lb)

Due to shipping restrictions, I will not be able to take the cabinets, I am planning to take the drivers and rebuild the cabinets in Europe.
Not ideal but this is the best I can do at the moment.

So my questions are:

1) If I keep the same cabinet volume, but make the enclosure narrower and deeper, would I lose anything soundwise ?
2) The speaker has 3 vents, 5.5 inches wide, 8 inches long. Could I do two vents 7 inches wide and 8 inches long and keep the same tuning and sound characteristics ?
3) Can I move the forward facing ports to be rear facing and will this significantly change the sound characteristics ?

Anything else I should consider ?

Thanks
 
#2
Greets!

Yes in that a narrower baffle may/will require changing the XO due to baffle step loss issues [BSC]: Baffle Step Compensation


Hmm, have no way to accurately sim multiple pipe vents, but doing a comparison of pipe end corrections it doesn't tune the same, i.e. the dual 7" will tune lower unless shortened ~0.915",** though may not be audible.

It can since it increases the amount of delay in blending with the driver output plus there's the changed room modes, boundary reflections, though if tuned low enough to blend into the room's acoustics, normally not an obvious changed and why folks like me that prefer near/at a room boundary location prefer bottom/side/rear venting for cosmetic reasons.

Ideally need an internal baffle width [or depth] at least 1.5x the woofer's diameter [depth] to ensure minimal 'breathing' room.

edit: Just realized the dual 7" has ~ 8% more area, so 8" may be fine as or at least audibly 'close enough'.
 
Last edited:
#4
Moving the ports to the back will have an effect, given I don't think that Tannoy will have just willy nilly placed them there. Port placement involves phase and such, and when it has been calculated as part of the design when the port is on a specific spot, moving it can mess up the corrections that they factored in.
 
#6
GM said:
Greets!

Ideally need an internal baffle width [or depth] at least 1.5x the woofer's diameter [depth] to ensure minimal 'breathing' room.

edit: Just realized the dual 7" has ~ 8% more area, so 8" may be fine as or at least audibly 'close enough'.
Click to expand...

I think what you are saying is if the woofer is 1 cm deep, the box should be atleast 1.5 cm deep.

However if you look at the specs, the cabinet is unusually shallow at
(HWD): 35.8" x 23.7" x 14.25" (910 x 602 x 362 mm)

The cabinet is actually shallower than the woofer itself. The woofer is 15inches.

Thoughts on why they would go with such an unusual design ?
 
#8
best is to redesign the whole speaker cabinet when you change something in my experience. Can you measure the drivers T/S parameters (or know someone). If you got those you can redesign a different form cabinet but with the result of the old one.

If you only change the form (but keep the internal volume) and keep the ports like they were, you can get away with it, but to change the ports you really need to start from the T/S parameters.
 
#9
Do you plan to throw the original cabinet away? What a loss. Don’t touch them IMO. Sell them in US complete and buy new in Europe, and do the same when you move back. Or ask a friend/family to keep them (intact with driver). You can’t throw away such amazing speakers. Building a cabinet from scratch might work but if you plan to use the same crossover you must also keep the design. But it would be a shame destroying such a great speaker. If you want to build something start from scratch with a Beyma 15” coax or something:
Speakers based on beyma 15xa38nd
 
Last edited:
#10
w2olves said:
I think what you are saying is if the woofer is 1 cm deep, the box should be atleast 1.5 cm deep.

However if you look at the specs, the cabinet is unusually shallow at
(HWD): 35.8" x 23.7" x 14.25" (910 x 602 x 362 mm)

The cabinet is actually shallower than the woofer itself. The woofer is 15inches.

Thoughts on why they would go with such an unusual design ?
Click to expand...

Correct.

OK, didn't know how deep the driver is, was just reciting typical basic design considerations; not to mention the Altec 604 fits, so didn't 'ring any [duplex] alarm bells'. 😉

Note that by depth we're interested from the back of the diaphragm, ergo using typical driver depth gives plenty of 'cushion', so guessing the cab's depth is sufficient.

They obviously had a specific alignment in mind and to meet the goal meant a depth too short for the driver; 'been there, done that' with the 604 in a studio monitor, which is what I assumed the Arden basically is.
 
#11
The Arden (at least the original 1970's version) is not really a studio monitor. It's a great sounding speaker, but not flat or neutral at all (like all tannoy big dual concentrics). My ex-girlfriend had a pair in her house so i know them wel. She also got a set of Harbeth HL5+ who are way more neutral (but also not neutral) sounding. It's one of the better speaker for classical that i know and works very well with all acoustic music, but does not electronic music very well.

And i would not change the design neighter like fabricadetabaco says. But if you do it at least start from the specs and don't guess. That driver is too good to make a bad tuned speaker from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom