Thanks. I've still got bit of work to do on it, as I've got a few ideas to explore. For example, I'd like to figure out if there's any benefit to going with the angled internal panels as laid out in Art's design rather than the simplified layout I provided - and being able to change the sim to easily swap between those two options should show what the resulting differences would be. Art has obviously done a LOT of work on this design, so there's probably good reason for his decision to go with an internal layout that's a bit more complex than what's picture in my BOXPLAN sheet.
I'd also like to see if the sim'd impedance curve is a decent match to the measured impedance curve of a built KS just to see if the model requires any fine-tuning, but I'd need the owner of one to perform the measurement with the KS outdoors and share the resulting ZMA file with me.
Note: for the model I assumed that the expansion to S5 started at S4, which basically translates to the cutout for the mouth starting at the center of the driver. This seems to be reasonably close to how the mouth is located in the KS.
BTW, I've uploaded the current version of the BOXPLAN workbook to my website, just in case anyone wants to have a look. Note that it's definitely not completed yet, but you can mess around with different box dimensions and driver locations to see what the impact on the corresponding Hornresp model will look like. I will likely upload updated versions over the next few days. Location: https://www.diysubwoofers.org/sheets/
I'd also like to see if the sim'd impedance curve is a decent match to the measured impedance curve of a built KS just to see if the model requires any fine-tuning, but I'd need the owner of one to perform the measurement with the KS outdoors and share the resulting ZMA file with me.
Note: for the model I assumed that the expansion to S5 started at S4, which basically translates to the cutout for the mouth starting at the center of the driver. This seems to be reasonably close to how the mouth is located in the KS.
BTW, I've uploaded the current version of the BOXPLAN workbook to my website, just in case anyone wants to have a look. Note that it's definitely not completed yet, but you can mess around with different box dimensions and driver locations to see what the impact on the corresponding Hornresp model will look like. I will likely upload updated versions over the next few days. Location: https://www.diysubwoofers.org/sheets/
Last edited:
Awesome build!!
what drivers you loaded the cabs with?
hey the small boxes next to the keystone looks like the Jbell cubes or CUBOS , what are those ?
do you use them as kicks and did you time aligned them with the keystones ?
and syntrips as tops ?
18sw115-4 with cubo as kick and syntrips as top 🙂. Right now we have a no name fp10000q clone for the keystone but might go the sanway road soon!
We will measure them outside tomorrow and we didn't had the chance to delay the bass stack for tonight, just the top. 🙂
We will build some jmod V2 top when they get released this month
Final setup to have the kick at chest level:
We will measure them outside tomorrow and we didn't had the chance to delay the bass stack for tonight, just the top. 🙂
We will build some jmod V2 top when they get released this month
Final setup to have the kick at chest level:
Last edited:
Nice!!!
hey you guys do not have those deal breaker duty fees (Tariffs) that we have in the US
Ohh the JMOD designer is going to release a V2? nice!!
hey is there too much BAZZ at the DJ table location ?
why you do not cluster the 2 keystones together for more SPL
We have some rap live show, we will cluster them tomorrow night for a night without live music!
V2 will be released this month, can't wait to build & hear them <3
And yes, can't wait to test the sanway without us taxes 😂
V2 will be released this month, can't wait to build & hear them <3
And yes, can't wait to test the sanway without us taxes 😂
The expansion in the last section was to avoid a secondary set of parallel walls to reduce the pipe resonance/standing wave potential.
The keystone shaped exit was found to be the best compromise between smooth extended upper response and maximum lower response with the chosen expansion and path length.
Of interest, extending the path length using the same fold and expansion required a different exit shape to satisfy the goal of smooth extended upper response and maximum lower response.
When you update, you might note my last name as Welter, Weltersys is an abbreviation of my company name, Welter Systems (Incorporated).
The company name is based on the dictionary definitions of the words 😉.
The noun "welter" means "a state of wild disorder", the intransitive verb, " to rise and fall or toss about in or with waves", or "to be in turmoil".
The noun "system" means "an organized set of ideas or theories or a particular way of doing something".
Art
Ah, I just updated the "Sheets" page accordingly with the corrected information, thanks.
Adjusting the workbook to include the additional angles is proving to be ... challenging. I think I can switch to conical expansion up to S3, but that means that I won't be able to include the steeper angle for the short internal section connected to the baffle. Interestingly enough the response really doesn't change that much ...
(and yeah, I have to sort out the driver's angle too).
Adjusting the workbook to include the additional angles is proving to be ... challenging. I think I can switch to conical expansion up to S3, but that means that I won't be able to include the steeper angle for the short internal section connected to the baffle. Interestingly enough the response really doesn't change that much ...
(and yeah, I have to sort out the driver's angle too).
I've finished updating the workbook to allow the baffle to be placed at an angle (and supported by the optimization rule). There are still a few more updates that need to be made, but based on the results so far, angling the baffle and adjusting the other internal panels accordingly doesn't seem to make much difference to the predicted FR curve in the usable passband (just under 40 Hz to just over 100 Hz) Above that, the 90-degree baffle version seems to be a little better. Of course this does not take into consideration the shape of the mouth on the response curve, the effect of the baffle-step, etc...
Anyway, I've loaded up the latest version of the workbook to my site, just in case you want to have a play with it.
Anyway, I've loaded up the latest version of the workbook to my site, just in case you want to have a play with it.