Sorry, 255w was a typo...
I know about the subsonic filter but unsure if active xos have it, any link to one please?
No, rather technically speaking, my implication was if you model an enclosure (particularly horn-loaded) to handle a narrower bandwidth like 20-60 instead of 20-80 for it'd better perform in the lower-end, so I was just telling you I'm a alright with 20-60 over 20-80 if necessary, am I correct on this assumption...?
I was actually interested in a P6BP (for which this thread was opened) as well as you at first, but y'all began to deviate me then (and by that I myself began learning more and more about subwoofers), and thanks to y'all anyway am now interested in "horns", but it's another story that I gotta know 6BPs usually have an unforgivable group-delay comparing to others...
Now, back to the point, my intension was neither driver visibility and ease of replacement nor questioning the intrinsic nature of the "infinite baffle" in a rhetoric sense (I personally love its stereophonic accuracy in hi-fi listening), but this is all about SPL, I heard the TQWT usually takes the full energy of both front & back of the driver into account for optimal SPL gain, but this doesn't, why (am I being too serious on this)...?
If the above SPL statement is right, how about this, I put both inside (pretty bad edit btw)...?
Attachments
Last edited:
Haha! Should visit...i like the BIB concept a LOT too!
theres one recenty with a couple hivi b4ns in it that had an agreesive expanding shape that then was terminated into a mass loaded port which was offset slightly from the actual 'other closed end' and the results were crazy.
two odd (harmonc)points of interest got snatched up it seemed and the bandwidth was esentially flaiwless for a fullrange apllication as an MtM.. like a QW hypedup Overnight Senseations pair?
that FB group is "quarterwave Theory" benjermin dodson.
its active and growing quick finally.. if any of you guys are bored and wanna add another place to goof off and spitball qw and similar ideas, youre already accepted, done deal
I heard the TQWT usually takes the full energy of both front & back of the driver into account for optimal SPL gain, but this doesn't, why (am I being too serious on this)...?
If the above SPL statement is right, how about this, I put both inside (pretty bad edit btw)...?
For pure SPL, you want a regular TH, which is what you created when you moved the speakers inside the enclosure in your attachment.
TQWT/TQWP are for ease of build. There are no angles. They are between a TH and T-TQWT/T-TQWP when it comes to SPL efficiency.
T-TQWT/T-TQWP is for the smallest box for given tune. It still provides more SPL efficiency than sealed and BR.
Okay, two more things to know...
1. Which is better for digging deep (~20hz), the original kind (using only the front energy) or the modified kind (using both energies)?
2. What program can best model it (if HR isn't that capable) as I can't find its original dims online?
No, I'm alright with angles.
Tapped MLTL with offset driver positioned at the first fold of three segments almost exactly equal in length. In fact, if using a csa split with the first two as a large predetermined cm2 and the last as half of it, the first length vwith be 0.349 of the total before hand as .334, .334 and .334 previously. Almost exactly if you satisfy the vas and qts for the driver ideally.
This results in the widest and most phase wonderful babdwidth you cn ever acieve in a simple qw pipe as far can see or have ever built?
This results in the widest and most phase wonderful babdwidth you cn ever acieve in a simple qw pipe as far can see or have ever built?
Understood, my remarks have nothing to do with prosound or BP/whatever alignments, but more realistically presenting how much usable power a speaker can handle without exceeding Xmax.
As for room loading sims, HR assumes no losses regardless of pi loading, so better IME to limit sims to 1pi for corners and if it winds being more in reality, lucky them.
Right, ideally the speaker's roll off slope match's the room's increasing gain with decreasing frequency and better too much than too little as it's better to trim than boost.
As others have pointed out, 'sub' drivers can be loaded however you want, just there's always trade-offs based on the needs of the app.
Actually my favour is low-passing @ 60hz..... I need deep-digging lows as well as crystal-clear highs...
OK, then 20-60 Hz with a 20 Hz Fs = 2*20/60 = 0.667 Qtc', so fairly common and since the Infinity has a lower Qts, any increase due to wiring, heat rise probably won't raise it enough to exceed it.
Anyway, for such a narrow BW [~ 1.465 octaves], a TH [parallel BP6] is better for 'deep-digging lows' and 'crystal-clear highs' is your stereo's responsibility.
??? Based on ~confirmed specs in this thread, quite the opposite!
Yes, parallel BP6, fundamentally like your original box design except its two chamber's volume [Vb] + all the vent's volume [Vv] is at its simplest is combined into a single fold parabolic horn tapered pipe, so much more acoustic loading than your design since it will have an acoustic path-length of ~ 34400/4/~[20*0.81] = ~531 cm/209" minus some pipe end correction, folded in half at minimum, so most folks have to fold it more times to fit in typical size rooms, but if you have high ceilings.........
Yes, parallel BP6, fundamentally like your original box design except its two chamber's volume [Vb] + all the vent's volume [Vv] is at its simplest is combined into a single fold parabolic horn tapered pipe, so much more acoustic loading than your design since it will have an acoustic path-length of ~ 34400/4/~[20*0.81] = ~531 cm/209" minus some pipe end correction, folded in half at minimum, so most folks have to fold it more times to fit in typical size rooms, but if you have high ceilings.........
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.