Monoprice is selling some new speakers using a new type of transmission line. I threw together a Akabak model, to see if their box type is worth the hassle.
Here's the frequency response and excursion of an Alpine SWS-10D2 in a fairly conventional transmission line.
Here's the frequency response and excursion of an Alpine SWS-10D2 in a "kinetic bass amplification system."
Not much to see here, IMHO. The 2nd chamber that's been added to the transmission line in the "kinetic bass amplification system" acts as a coupling chamber. This is similar to putting one at the throat of a horn or transmission line. But in this case, the coupling chamber is offset.
The "KBAS" still has a dip in the out-of-band response, like all conventional TLs do, but the dip is broader. This could be a feature or a defect, depending on how you look at things.
Note: The box volume of the KBAS and the tuning point was made identical to the transmission line. I did this so I could do an apple-to-apples comparison.
The Monoprice "KBAS" appears to include stuffing. Akabak can't simulate that, AFAIK. Hornresp *can* simulate stuffing, but I can't see an easy way to sim a "KBAS" in hornresp. It might be possible by using the multiple entry horn wizard.
Anyways, I know this is a bit of a boring post, but I was curious to see how the "KBAS" works.
Last edited:
Specify stepped segments and a tapered stub at S3.
There is nothing really innovative about the K-BAS topology, except perhaps the name - "kinetic bass amplification", indeed 🙂.
Attachments
Yes, cute name.
Sim'able or not, that sort of mishmash of labyrinth, ARU, leaky box, BR, etc. looks OK to me conceptually if not aurally. Just like a Karlson.
No need to be purist about designs. The box is there mostly to corral the rear wave and, if possible, get a boost from it, if that can be managed without distortions.
Prolly heterogeneity leads to better sound than purity of engineering design as in using multiple subs around a room. Too bad that isn't as soul-satisfying for many folks as going with a single concept.
Long pipe to sequester rear wave
B.
Sim'able or not, that sort of mishmash of labyrinth, ARU, leaky box, BR, etc. looks OK to me conceptually if not aurally. Just like a Karlson.
No need to be purist about designs. The box is there mostly to corral the rear wave and, if possible, get a boost from it, if that can be managed without distortions.
Prolly heterogeneity leads to better sound than purity of engineering design as in using multiple subs around a room. Too bad that isn't as soul-satisfying for many folks as going with a single concept.
Long pipe to sequester rear wave
B.
Last edited:
Rather like a Karlson.
The OP diagram looked like a lot of stuffing behind drivers. Good idea.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.