I would use an 8 inch for bass but after that your use of the drivers is excellent.
300 hz to 3k and 3k up.
I might try up to 8k on the mids and 8k plus for highs to keep vocals tight on one driver.
300 hz to 3k and 3k up.
I might try up to 8k on the mids and 8k plus for highs to keep vocals tight on one driver.
I am keeping the option of using big woofers for bass augmentation open if this arrangement fails to produce even 60hz flat.
So you've come to your senses after all and have accepted that the physics of the planet also apply to you?
Great!
A big step for you but a small step for mankind...
Great!
A big step for you but a small step for mankind...
@Turbowatch2 I am open minded guy! I never challenged physics. But historically many of innovations have worked (with few limitations and even flaws) despite going against established scientific rules. I am not the first one to extract low bass from small drivers. With one driver its impossible. I know that. with multiple drivers there is a way. which I want to explore. The benefits outweigh whether physics has been given its due respect or not!
until I build one and put it in my small listening room, I will not know. Adding woofers for bass augmentation is not a big deal. But I am interested in building a slim yet powerful sounding floor stander.
one more update is,
it might cost me less if I purchase SB10PGC21-4 drivers in bulk say 50 units at least. Infact they will cost be lesser than the Grandale 17e module which originally I selected. To give an idea SB10PGC21-4 has Fs=89hz while 17e has Fs=113hz. So If I end up purchasing 50 units, it gives me free hand to put more drivers for bass at the cost of slightly increasing width of box.
until I build one and put it in my small listening room, I will not know. Adding woofers for bass augmentation is not a big deal. But I am interested in building a slim yet powerful sounding floor stander.
one more update is,
it might cost me less if I purchase SB10PGC21-4 drivers in bulk say 50 units at least. Infact they will cost be lesser than the Grandale 17e module which originally I selected. To give an idea SB10PGC21-4 has Fs=89hz while 17e has Fs=113hz. So If I end up purchasing 50 units, it gives me free hand to put more drivers for bass at the cost of slightly increasing width of box.
If you purchased 50 drivers, you could have 12 in the front, and 12 in the rear of each enclosure to cancel out the reactive forces, plus you'd have two spare if any are damaged in transit.
Will check this bipole idea if it helps to reduce box volume. I don't have much knowledge right now.
Mankind has evolved, because the young ones did not have to repeat the fruitless experiments the old ones had to make.
If anyone had to repeat the process from finding a burning tree after a thunderstorm, to a rocket drive for a spacecraft, how far would we come in one lifetime?
I will tell you for free one of the greatest wisdoms I have learnt: If you can proof in theory that something does not work, you need not try it in practice.
For example, I can proof in theorie that an umbrella is not enough to land safely after jumping from a 10 story building. Do you have to try it, just because I only know in theory it doesn't work?
Another, very sad example: I know, in theory, that a tube made from carbon fibre can hold incredible pressure when I fill it with compressed gas inside. I also know that the same tube, with high pressure from the outside, will delaminate and, after some load changes, loose it's pressure resistance and fail.
You see: A good theory can save lives. So sad some ignore it.
PS If something works even as scientific rules say it doesn't, the rules have to be corrected. Nothing works without them on this planet. Sorry. (I keep religious exceptions out of the discussion)
If anyone had to repeat the process from finding a burning tree after a thunderstorm, to a rocket drive for a spacecraft, how far would we come in one lifetime?
I will tell you for free one of the greatest wisdoms I have learnt: If you can proof in theory that something does not work, you need not try it in practice.
For example, I can proof in theorie that an umbrella is not enough to land safely after jumping from a 10 story building. Do you have to try it, just because I only know in theory it doesn't work?
Another, very sad example: I know, in theory, that a tube made from carbon fibre can hold incredible pressure when I fill it with compressed gas inside. I also know that the same tube, with high pressure from the outside, will delaminate and, after some load changes, loose it's pressure resistance and fail.
You see: A good theory can save lives. So sad some ignore it.
PS If something works even as scientific rules say it doesn't, the rules have to be corrected. Nothing works without them on this planet. Sorry. (I keep religious exceptions out of the discussion)
Last edited:
https://www.stereophile.com/rmaf2006/102106ids/index.html
More proof of exactly that bass potential, in the shape of measurements can be found in countless line array threads on this forum. Old news really.
More proof of exactly that bass potential, in the shape of measurements can be found in countless line array threads on this forum. Old news really.
Let's see the science behind it, shall we?
Single driver no EQ:
25 drivers, no EQ, same amount of power for the complete array (1 watt)
Same amount of power per driver of the array (1 watt per driver, 14.14 volt on array):
Still only one watt per driver, just like on that single driver example. Nowhere near the limits of the driver itself.
So now that science and theory actually agree with the plans, can we stop being so clever?
It's just air we plan to move, with 25 drivers per side, the goal of 60 Hz bass should be doable. You'll need EQ for shaping FR though.
I know the plan isn't for an array as was used in this example, it may be wise to check the plans using some pré-modeling like this.
As mentioned in the Stereophile article, placement can further help with augmenting bass. (close placement to wall)
Single driver no EQ:
25 drivers, no EQ, same amount of power for the complete array (1 watt)
Same amount of power per driver of the array (1 watt per driver, 14.14 volt on array):
Still only one watt per driver, just like on that single driver example. Nowhere near the limits of the driver itself.
So now that science and theory actually agree with the plans, can we stop being so clever?
It's just air we plan to move, with 25 drivers per side, the goal of 60 Hz bass should be doable. You'll need EQ for shaping FR though.
I know the plan isn't for an array as was used in this example, it may be wise to check the plans using some pré-modeling like this.
As mentioned in the Stereophile article, placement can further help with augmenting bass. (close placement to wall)
Last edited:
It will not, what was being referred to is the active cancelation of reactive forces making it easier to build a good enclosure resonance-wize.
dave
I just got a new smart phone. The sound is impressing. Really. Some Dolby Atmos stuff.
If I buy 80 of them I can replace my 7.2 system?
If I buy 80 of them I can replace my 7.2 system?
I weigh 8 stone (50kg near enough) and some parasols (kind of an umbrella) are quite large, however I still wouldn't care to disprove your example.
Bad theorie will sometimes lead to catastrophic results.
If you ever stood near a landing para diver, you would be surprised how large such a thing is and how fast the guy, that hangs under it, comes down.
There will be no good ending for your experiment...
If you ever stood near a landing para diver, you would be surprised how large such a thing is and how fast the guy, that hangs under it, comes down.
There will be no good ending for your experiment...
Please note that cost of 50 units as I enquired today is well within my planned budget. Tc9 is out of stock so sb10pg is good as its back in stock here. Clearly it out plays grandale 17e. With 25 drivers to spare per side , not just the headroom for drivers even I get headroom to experiment 🙂
Aim is to make box as slim as possible. Below is sn excerpt from Murphys corner line array project,
https://trueaudio.com/array/index.htm
"Driver Selection
The performance of the full-range driver is critical for the project. The characteristics of the driver which are most important are upper frequency extension, distortion and excursion capability (both Xmax and maximum mechanical excursion). The driver has to be correctable to 20 kHz and must have enough linear volume displacement such that 24 drivers will provide adequate output to 30 Hz. Surprisingly, the F(s), Q(ts) and V(as) parameters, and even the box volume are not critical for this project as long as they are "reasonable" because the frequency response will be equalized to flat"
Aim is to make box as slim as possible. Below is sn excerpt from Murphys corner line array project,
https://trueaudio.com/array/index.htm
"Driver Selection
The performance of the full-range driver is critical for the project. The characteristics of the driver which are most important are upper frequency extension, distortion and excursion capability (both Xmax and maximum mechanical excursion). The driver has to be correctable to 20 kHz and must have enough linear volume displacement such that 24 drivers will provide adequate output to 30 Hz. Surprisingly, the F(s), Q(ts) and V(as) parameters, and even the box volume are not critical for this project as long as they are "reasonable" because the frequency response will be equalized to flat"
TC9 is a driver with lots of people liking it, the ones i had sucked.
Look at teh Mark Audio CHN-50.
dave
I don't know, you do the math, maybe if you drop them all at once they might move a similar amount of air.
Better keep them in the box though to enlarge surface area.
Technically this thing is so stupid simple and will soon hit the 100 posts mark.
Measure a single driver in your planed enclosure volume for it. Look at the frequency response.
Each time you double the number of drivers, add 3dB on the curve. Now you know what you can expect.
Someone here who remembers the tale about the inventor of the chess board and his king? One rice seed on the first field, two on the second, four on the third...
You need a whole lot of small drivers to rival even a very small sub woofer.
The idea of replacing a large woofer by the same cone area, spread over many small drivers, is the result of not knowing about the existance of resonance frequency and ignoring it's influence.
As we all have understood, the thread starter want's to create a predictable result for him self to proof he is wrong.
Maybe if he DSP's the s**t out of his construction, the result will satisfy him. Who knows, it is all subjective. Maybe the localy consumed music doesn't even need real bass and he will get rich with his construction.
So, good luck.
Measure a single driver in your planed enclosure volume for it. Look at the frequency response.
Each time you double the number of drivers, add 3dB on the curve. Now you know what you can expect.
Someone here who remembers the tale about the inventor of the chess board and his king? One rice seed on the first field, two on the second, four on the third...
You need a whole lot of small drivers to rival even a very small sub woofer.
The idea of replacing a large woofer by the same cone area, spread over many small drivers, is the result of not knowing about the existance of resonance frequency and ignoring it's influence.
As we all have understood, the thread starter want's to create a predictable result for him self to proof he is wrong.
Maybe if he DSP's the s**t out of his construction, the result will satisfy him. Who knows, it is all subjective. Maybe the localy consumed music doesn't even need real bass and he will get rich with his construction.
So, good luck.
Last edited: