ysen is 4 cm wider. But a bit shorter. It could be made almost that skinny, but i did not want to compromise on box width for the midTweeter (the X-section are of the box is fixed anyway)
I could fit 4 into the available volume but would give up 10-15 Hz of extension at the bottom.
As X suggests these drivers have been specifically designed for the application and go far beyond what we can pick off the shelf. But, even down to the active system included inside the boxes, anything we do will both be “cruder” and potentially less compromised as was suggested, way fewer boxes, convenience, and WAF are a key here. Compromise: one of the worst places for electronics is inside a loudspeaker.
dave
To me it looks like it is inserted and bolted from one side into the cabinet and other side/woofer sits in a groove in other side of the cabinet.
well this IS DIYaudio…
anyone know any shallow woofers that ARE good? Something that could be shoe-horned back to back into a 5”/130mm wide cabinet?
What about the new Sb Acoustics ? Sure it Only has 3mm Xmax but it’s a 10” cone. 1 per side…
https://sbacoustics.com/product/10-sw26sfc38-4-paper/
@HiFiCompass are you currently taking sponsored driver measurements?
Do you to have any off axis measurements of MarkAudio 10M
Might be good enough for +/- 45 degrees ?
anyone know any shallow woofers that ARE good? Something that could be shoe-horned back to back into a 5”/130mm wide cabinet?
What about the new Sb Acoustics ? Sure it Only has 3mm Xmax but it’s a 10” cone. 1 per side…
https://sbacoustics.com/product/10-sw26sfc38-4-paper/
@HiFiCompass are you currently taking sponsored driver measurements?
Do you to have any off axis measurements of MarkAudio 10M
Might be good enough for +/- 45 degrees ?
Last edited:
This Dayton (if offset vertically...)
https://www.daytonaudio.com/product/1257/ls10-44-10-low-profile-subwoofer-dual-4-ohm
https://www.daytonaudio.com/product/1257/ls10-44-10-low-profile-subwoofer-dual-4-ohm
Anyone got suggestions on how to do the shoe-horning? That is, mount the woofers in a forcing cancelling configuration?
When I looked at that driver I wasn’t particularly impressed. If you make a shallow driver I would expect it to be as good as a driver one size below eg, 10 In shallow as good as 8 inch normal driver; not a 6 1/2 inch.
I’m not yet willing to make those compromises.
Here’s the Voice Coil test bench review:
https://audioxpress.com/article/Test-Bench-Dayton-Audio-LS10-44-and-LS12-44-Shallow-Mount-Subwoofers
I’m not yet willing to make those compromises.
Here’s the Voice Coil test bench review:
https://audioxpress.com/article/Test-Bench-Dayton-Audio-LS10-44-and-LS12-44-Shallow-Mount-Subwoofers
I don’t think you need a special mounting method. You just need an appropriate list shallow driver, no?
The designer(s) of SB 10” shallow woofer has optimised the woofer for shallow by minimal depth by using inverted surround and compact motor. It is 75mm deep if you mount it flush, 70mm if you surface mount it
Thindriver is a performant shallow sub/woofer but the costs are high (Material cost plus new to market)
https://audioxpress.com/article/prescient-audio-td-12-a-new-12-thindriver
Using an offset design with four woofers could do force cancelling in both translational and rotational axis.
A 4.5" depth woofer might then fit in a 5" width. Driver choices increase eg Dayton Audio Reference Series RS270-8 10"
Just sum all forces to zero. In the x-axis thats easy. Torque wise the rotational axis will be floor contact so the design will need to have the feet height fixed. It looks possible to have zero net torque by designing the heights of the drivers to simply cancel the rotational forces, with woofers stacked R-L-L-R.
If for example, the slim box plus feet is say 110cm high with 0cm defined as the contact with the floor (the rotational axis) and the driver height set at eg 25cm 40cm 70cm 85cm then torque = (85 +25) - (40 +70) = 0
The compromises include:
- the lack of direct force cancellation from magnet to magnet direct contact with need for stiff construction. However most vibration will be in the y-axis and less detrimental to the front mounted mid and tweeter.
- driver separation distance limiting upper freq range
- box volume!
For a practical clone one’s attempt would have a minimum width would be defined like this… as long as you don’t have a pole vent (or don’t care if you cover it up).
This example is the silver Flute W14.
dave
This example is the silver Flute W14.
dave
Well in
Four 10" woofers is great, but will need a REALLY big box, and capable of more SPL than the 5" midrange.
@wolf_teeth our resident small speaker specialist, and recent Lifetime Achievement Award winner, used a best-in-class 5.25" midwoofer which is also affordable (well the whole SLS range is great performance and value) ;which he used to great effect in his tiny 6L 3-way Purveyors:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...th-concussive-tendencies.386164/#post-7021881
Driver link:
https://www.parts-express.com/Peerless-SLS-P830945-5-1-4-Paper-Cone-Woofer-4-Ohm-264-1604
Could probably adapt that for quad without too much work- series parallel and use the same passive radiator (SB 5x8") will need the twice the volume as the LS60 (24L) if you go with a passive design.
or might be suitable for sealed 12-15L with a bit of EQ but i haven't modelled it. @wolf_teeth ? how does it work in sealed for 3-4L?
Four 10" woofers is great, but will need a REALLY big box, and capable of more SPL than the 5" midrange.
@wolf_teeth our resident small speaker specialist, and recent Lifetime Achievement Award winner, used a best-in-class 5.25" midwoofer which is also affordable (well the whole SLS range is great performance and value) ;which he used to great effect in his tiny 6L 3-way Purveyors:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...th-concussive-tendencies.386164/#post-7021881
Driver link:
https://www.parts-express.com/Peerless-SLS-P830945-5-1-4-Paper-Cone-Woofer-4-Ohm-264-1604
Could probably adapt that for quad without too much work- series parallel and use the same passive radiator (SB 5x8") will need the twice the volume as the LS60 (24L) if you go with a passive design.
or might be suitable for sealed 12-15L with a bit of EQ but i haven't modelled it. @wolf_teeth ? how does it work in sealed for 3-4L?
Last edited:
We used the 830870 in the facets pictured earlier. Good little woofers. About 2x the cost of the W14 (but avaialble outside NA). They could achiev the 14dm width easily. 4 could be fitted in an mL-TL,
dave
Here is a sketch of 4 x 830970 in a 14cm wide ML-TL (anechoic F10 about 35 Hz) budgetBlade™ style, put the midTweeter or mid in an XRK dagger. Use your favorite 3” FR or 3” MR+T.
dave
dave
This one. It would allow for a pretty narrow cabinet. I would leave 1cm distance between magnets and you are at about 13.5cm width.
https://audioxpress.com/article/Test-Bench-Dayton-Audio-ES140Ti-8-5-5-Midwoofer
Also, i'd probably do it ported because none of the mentioned has enough Xmax and Xmech for dsp eq.
https://audioxpress.com/article/Test-Bench-Dayton-Audio-ES140Ti-8-5-5-Midwoofer
Also, i'd probably do it ported because none of the mentioned has enough Xmax and Xmech for dsp eq.
Agreed. If budget is no concern ES140Ti is a good one.
What about-
https://audioxpress.com/article/tes...e-subwoofer-from-the-dayton-audio-epique-line
I try and design for best passive, then push things to limit with active. Some select any woofer with enough Vd into a box and EQ for desired response, but I feel that makes passive conversion too difficult or impossible. Push the limits with acoustic design first then correct/improve electronically.
What about-
https://audioxpress.com/article/tes...e-subwoofer-from-the-dayton-audio-epique-line
I try and design for best passive, then push things to limit with active. Some select any woofer with enough Vd into a box and EQ for desired response, but I feel that makes passive conversion too difficult or impossible. Push the limits with acoustic design first then correct/improve electronically.
If you mount conventionally then forces are put into bending the cabinet and frame negating most of the benefits of force canceling. If you run rods for the mounting bolts the frame and rods flex plus the rods block the movement of air around the driver.
A reasonable job requires the magnets to be connected and to stiffly resist forces both pulling and pushing. I have seen DIYed wooden clamps which is a bit of a kludge. I was hoping for thoughts/examples on how to get close to commercial examples using normal drivers.
PS my speaker uses 4 x 5-6.5" woofers with a 5" coaxial in a 12" or so wide cabinet rather than an extremely narrow one like the LS60 but the mounting issues are likely to be fairly similar.
Not sure if I share the same concerns you have about dual opposed woofers in a conventionally designed cabinet.
If we're talking about budget constrained cabinet with with 9-15mm MDF that is not braced, with the centre of mass too high from the ground, which make it unstable and risk might tipping over, then I get that.
But a well designed, and by that I mean constrained layer damping with multi-ply MDF cabinet with rubber/foam gaskets under the frames and rubber o-rings under the screws, as documented here:
https://www.somasonus.net/box-construction-methods
then and taking into account the static forces due to the moment/torque of the centre of mass of the collection of drivers mounted far away from the ground, the reactive forces from soft parts movement (cone/spider/suspension) causes vibrations in the cabinet, that should be countered by equal and opposite reactive forces when doing dual opposed.
Are you saying your dual opposed woofers in your cabinet causes more vibration than when you have them mounted conventionally (all on the front baffle)?
Last edited:
I think that the initial start of this thread has been more than justified by the many great responses and DIY design ideas. The industry does seem to be in size reduction mode generally and though I would never pay $6000 for them some people will, (I've never bought any new audio equipment!) after all people buy 'I Phones' do they not? (£1500+!)
Regarding the inline bass drivers I would have thought this was as much as anything to reduce cabinet colouration due to vibration (whilst using a relatively thin and low cost cabinet) I don't see that it would have been to stop the speakers doing a cartwheel across the room, so I'm not so sure torque is as critical as cancelling axial opposing forces on the cabinet. (Happy to be proved wrong). It always amazes me how a small box can give good results on LF even when passive, I have some old 5" bass units and though having to mount them offset 🙁 it would be interesting to see what happened.
Regarding the inline bass drivers I would have thought this was as much as anything to reduce cabinet colouration due to vibration (whilst using a relatively thin and low cost cabinet) I don't see that it would have been to stop the speakers doing a cartwheel across the room, so I'm not so sure torque is as critical as cancelling axial opposing forces on the cabinet. (Happy to be proved wrong). It always amazes me how a small box can give good results on LF even when passive, I have some old 5" bass units and though having to mount them offset 🙁 it would be interesting to see what happened.
The design stalled at the design phase a few years back after I had bought the coaxials and half the distributed subs but not the woofers because I had yet to work out how to do the force balancing. I need to get back to it. It is a sealed on-wall design hence the lack of interest in narrow width. I have initial FEM/BEM models which I have tried to find but those for the on-wall mains are on a hard-disk that isn't currently mounted awaiting the sorting out of a replacement motherboard for my home server. I have found some results for the subs. The CAD design was developed in OnShape to assess it's capabilities (inadequate at the time) but I can't find my old login to check if copies of the files are still there. I am getting irritated and will have to use words for the moment.
The initial design has a single large radius on the front with straight sides a bit like the KEF blades but less deep, less tall and with a constant profile viewed from above. The cabinet for the coaxial though is separate and passively isolated removing the need for the woofer cabinet to be damped. The initial idea was to wrap thin layers of ply around a frame for the woofer cabinet construction. The small coaxial cabinet being strongly damped with a CLD construction with no requirement to be stiff. The coaxial cabinet was also designed to be rotated within woofer cabinets mounted flat to the wall. Unfortunately the cut-out for the coaxial cabinet weakened the woofer cabinet leaving a significant nodding mode within the woofer passband where the unsupported parts above and below the coaxial cabinet cutout nod towards and away from each other. I was pondering how best to address this along with how to mount the woofers when life got in the way.