I used the "centerline" approach: that gave me 245.8 cm
Your approach gives me (262.4*229.6)^0.5 = 245.5 cm, which isn't much different.
Taking the measured Fc and working backwards, the path length should be around 231 cm.
I suspected there would be some variation - I didn't expect that much though
.
OK, didn't know how you figured it. I'm surprised though, it has worked well with TLs, FLHs, BLHs using 1130ft/sec, so have to wonder if there's something kinky going on in tapped variants and HR's math isn't allowing for it. For sure, you're not the only one that's had this shift problem.
GM
To avoid any other threadjacking, I've started a new thread about the spreadsheet here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/171747-spreadsheet-folded-horn-layouts.html
Hi Jeremey
What are you expecting out of a tapped horn?
Here are some questions to consider:
Size of enclosure.
Bandwidth. How low do you want to go. Lower = larger
efficiency? You can trade off efficiency for bandwidth.
Types of music you like. Acoustical, jazz, chamber, orchestral all shine well on a low distortion box like a tapped horn. Rock does not always but it's not bad. Hip hop and the like that are extremely processed will not sound like what one would be used to.
So answer some oh dem questions and something can happen for you.
Mark
What are you expecting out of a tapped horn?
Here are some questions to consider:
Size of enclosure.
Bandwidth. How low do you want to go. Lower = larger
efficiency? You can trade off efficiency for bandwidth.
Types of music you like. Acoustical, jazz, chamber, orchestral all shine well on a low distortion box like a tapped horn. Rock does not always but it's not bad. Hip hop and the like that are extremely processed will not sound like what one would be used to.
So answer some oh dem questions and something can happen for you.
Mark
Well here's my dilemma,I am a sometime Dj (when I get the work) and I want to have a subwoofer build up of all the same subs, seeing as mine are all different sizes. I would like to hear the quality and SPL differences between bass reflex's and tapped horns. I run double and single 18" BR'S and 2 (21") single BR's and a couple 18"folded horns as my system, that I have built myself, under my company name. I would love to be able to get into providing sound for larger events using my own using brand of speakers.
So what I'm looking for is a sub that is about 40"x 16"x24" (maybe a 12" TH)? , 120 dB rms/average spl ,123 dB max spl at the VERY LEAST, f3 of 35-40 hz to play dance ,rock, reggae and electronic music through.
I have a Crest CC 5500 sub amp that I would like to run 6 -15" folded horns or (4-6) double 15"s or up to 12 -12" (4 ohm,nominal)tapped horns. I would like to have more smaller speakers that are easier to lug around than a few big ones that will break my back. And with many smaller ones I can more easily scale to different size shows.
I have access to RCF loudspeakers which I will soon begin modeling on horn response and /or high power car audio subs(Lanzar), whichever will work the best. I have also looked at the peavey 15" lowrider woofers as an option.
I have multiple amps for my whole system as it is tri-amped and am going to be buying more sub amps to further my system along.
I run my subs @ 35-90 hz with a 48 dB/oct high and low pass with a dcx-2496 and my mid bass's from 90 hz up.
I also am a big believer in having amps with 1.5 times the rms power of the subs as it provides for greater dynamic capabilities and do not like having my amps run at clipping.
Of course I want the best sound quality with the lowest distortion and am willing to run more speakers @ lower power in order to achieve this.
I hope this helps you understand my situation better.
So what I'm looking for is a sub that is about 40"x 16"x24" (maybe a 12" TH)? , 120 dB rms/average spl ,123 dB max spl at the VERY LEAST, f3 of 35-40 hz to play dance ,rock, reggae and electronic music through.
I have a Crest CC 5500 sub amp that I would like to run 6 -15" folded horns or (4-6) double 15"s or up to 12 -12" (4 ohm,nominal)tapped horns. I would like to have more smaller speakers that are easier to lug around than a few big ones that will break my back. And with many smaller ones I can more easily scale to different size shows.
I have access to RCF loudspeakers which I will soon begin modeling on horn response and /or high power car audio subs(Lanzar), whichever will work the best. I have also looked at the peavey 15" lowrider woofers as an option.
I have multiple amps for my whole system as it is tri-amped and am going to be buying more sub amps to further my system along.
I run my subs @ 35-90 hz with a 48 dB/oct high and low pass with a dcx-2496 and my mid bass's from 90 hz up.
I also am a big believer in having amps with 1.5 times the rms power of the subs as it provides for greater dynamic capabilities and do not like having my amps run at clipping.
Of course I want the best sound quality with the lowest distortion and am willing to run more speakers @ lower power in order to achieve this.
I hope this helps you understand my situation better.
Last edited:
Oh boy don't get me started on that one!
Firmly in the classical camp since 1984 although I listened to quite a bit of rock up till then and still do on the radio when at work. Classical not so popular you see.
Jeremey
Looks like you are needing the JBell tapped horn. Highly optimised and a better design cannot be had.
Mark
Firmly in the classical camp since 1984 although I listened to quite a bit of rock up till then and still do on the radio when at work. Classical not so popular you see.
Jeremey
Looks like you are needing the JBell tapped horn. Highly optimised and a better design cannot be had.
Mark
So a tapped sounds different on certain music....could it be due to a >/< amount of group delay? due to ......is it ...the rear wave being 90 deg out of phase? because its very close to if not spot on a 1/4 W.L.( please don't laugh I have a basic understanding of how they work( and even then I might be wrong), but no experience building them), and is there a way to excite the fundamental pipe(horn flare) dimensions( thru resonances) to reinforce the wave as it travels thru the flare in each segment thereby producing even more output? As in if each segment has a different resonance that would cover the next lower range of frequencies from the previous till you get to the mouth /rear of sub protion which would resonate( because of dimensional proportions) to reinforce the lowest frequencies that the Tapped horn itself is designed to reproduce. Or is it all due to expanding flare rate that couples the driver high pressure area(front wave to the output of the rear of the cone) to the low pressure of the room and nothing to do with the aforementioned? Has anyone looked into this or am I just blowing hot air.
Like say take a 1/4 WL that does the good job of helping us in transmission lines and horns and equate it to this .... we can't easily build full wavelength horns and whatnot ...or even 1/2 WL due to size constraints for most people, so we build 1/4 WL horns because a 1/4 WL is the shortest horn length that works properly( 1/8 WL??), but what if we scale every thing to 1/4 WL for the internal flare dimensions as being the equivalent of a full WL( bear with me) and use the 1/4 of a 1/4 WL? Or 1/2 of a 1/4? which I think? would be 1/16 or 1/8 (respectively) of the flare portion pipe reinforcing resonance that would amplify the wave as it passes thru that portion????????? WTF ,that was hard to think thru, let alone type And it all happens at the speed of sound so there might be some minor delays and upper harmonic ringing due to the resonances but I'm sure they could be corrected for. HmmmMMM?
Like say take a 1/4 WL that does the good job of helping us in transmission lines and horns and equate it to this .... we can't easily build full wavelength horns and whatnot ...or even 1/2 WL due to size constraints for most people, so we build 1/4 WL horns because a 1/4 WL is the shortest horn length that works properly( 1/8 WL??), but what if we scale every thing to 1/4 WL for the internal flare dimensions as being the equivalent of a full WL( bear with me) and use the 1/4 of a 1/4 WL? Or 1/2 of a 1/4? which I think? would be 1/16 or 1/8 (respectively) of the flare portion pipe reinforcing resonance that would amplify the wave as it passes thru that portion????????? WTF ,that was hard to think thru, let alone type
And it all happens at the speed of sound so there might be some minor delays and upper harmonic ringing due to the resonances but I'm sure they could be corrected for. HmmmMMM?
Last edited:
Oh gosh, I can't decide which is the more damning thing to say about THs, either "works best with car audio drivers" or "value depends on the kind of music you are playing"?
I finished Toole's book last night; he doesn't think a good sound system is constrained by type of music - except for earthquakes in movies but then that isn't music.
I am partly kidding of course. But Top Shelf's remark made me think of the value of boomy BRs for playing disco music... and nothing else.
But given Top Shelf's loudness needs and his sharp but variable subsonic cut-off, TH may be a suitable enclosure after all. And back to the thread, therefore they really need to be auditioned in a big hall (or a typical TH customer location, church basement rec halls).
Oooops, is found in "church basement rec halls" another damning thing to say about a speaker?
I finished Toole's book last night; he doesn't think a good sound system is constrained by type of music - except for earthquakes in movies but then that isn't music.
I am partly kidding of course. But Top Shelf's remark made me think of the value of boomy BRs for playing disco music... and nothing else.
But given Top Shelf's loudness needs and his sharp but variable subsonic cut-off, TH may be a suitable enclosure after all. And back to the thread, therefore they really need to be auditioned in a big hall (or a typical TH customer location, church basement rec halls).
Oooops, is found in "church basement rec halls" another damning thing to say about a speaker?
Last edited:
Jeremy
What you are after in a horn does not really exist. Lower will always mean longer. A true horn acts like a long level on a fulcrum. It gets more done with the same amount of effort. A properly optimised horn will be almost 10 db more efficient than the same driver in a vented or closed enclosure. That is 12 times the efficiency of the driver in the free air or on a box. So there is right off the bat a lot less driver excursion per given sound pressure level. That is the beginning of the lower distortion benefits. Second part of the lower distortion outcome is the way sound travels. We hear excited air molecules that brush up against our ear drums right? Well a horn has the ability to excite more air molecules per given movement of the cone than any other method. The horn mouth when properly sized also plays a large part in the interface between the driver/box combination and the room. A large mouth or a composite large mouth in a pro sound setup where you have a stack will give the driver a very even amount of acoustical impedance to the room. That basically means that the air coming out of the cabinets will not be very violently pushed around at high pressures but more gently closer to the air pressure levels in the room. It is a lot more complicated than that but when you work with lage mouth horns my best explanation is that as the mouth gets larger the beneficial effects to the room increase. That I know for a fact.
The other thing that I think you are missing the point on is that there is a very specific combination of length and shape of tapped horn that will yield some decent efficiency. There is no way to get efficiency and small size. No reduction in length will get you an enclosure that will even meet the drivers basic free air SPL.
If you model a lot of tapped horns you will notice that there are two peaks in the response. Actually there are three when you check out the impedance plots. You should be getting three at least. They should be evenly paced at the high and low end of the boxes pass band and there should be a middle impedance spike that will tell you the area where the two sides of the horn are trading off the baton.
That is a fuction of horn path length and the position of the drivers in the path. At higher frequencies the wavelength of sound is quite short. Lets take 150 hz as an example. The wavelength is 7.5 feet. Half wavelength is where it will begin exciting the box so we are talking 3.75 feet. On most tapped horns this is where things on the upper end start to poop out. Now take a desired 30 hz wavelength. That is 37.5 feet. Again the half wavelength point is where it will start exciting the enclosure. So you need a enclosure that is about 18.75 feet long. That would be for a Front loaded horn. At one half wavelength the ripples in the response can be made very small. At one quarter wavelength the efficiency drops and the ripples become dominant in the response. To smooth out the ripples the horn needs a rear chamber to anull the mismatch. But then the efficiency drops through the floor.
What a tapped horn has accomplished is used both sides of the driver and effectively multiplied a portion ofthe horn path length to get the lower sounds out of a physically shorter enclosure. It is not acoustically shorter. What it ends up being is acoustically 18.75 feet long. It uses both sides of the horn path and sums or adds up both sides of the horn path at different frequencies. That dip in the middle is where the two paths begin to meet and cause you some problems. They can be tailored as discussed by driver position, path length, fold geometry, fold dimensions.
But you will always end up with lower distortion on the low end.
And most popular music is engineered to take great advantage of grossly distorted low end that consumers have been fed. It is an old acoustical trick that when a pure tone is modulated by a higher frequency distorted tone you get a resulting combination that sounds lower. A fuzz box on a guitar will do that. Reeds on a pipe organ do that. And over blowing on a brass instrument will do that.
I used to do car subs and the best even alignments that I came up with, those that where actually flat in car were the ones most hated. Every last client wanted an undersized box that gave a huge peak in the response right around the fabled kick drum thud. 100 to 150 hz. They were not looking for real low bass. In fact few had even heard low bass. A proper 32hz wave washes over you rises and falls like a wave. It envelopes the entire space and is omnipresent. 16 hz is even more interesting. You can actually count the rise and falll times as you feel the pressure waves. Tell me how many times you have had that experience.
I played close to a kick drum for years and they do not thud. I also played relatively close to a bass drum and they do go boom but it is a very clean attack and decay. Not a flubby tubby smoosh that so many modern sound tracks contain. A high efficiency low distortion sub will give what was there in the mix. All of it. It is not music dependant. It is clean to the signal. The problem lies in the signal and the engineering. There is no such thing as a rock speaker or a classical speaker. There is a clean undistorted speaker. That can be had for different amounts of money. A diyer can do that in the form of a proper line source and a clean sub. But the sound does take a lot of getting used to. Recordings that you thought had awesome bass were merely cahining in on weak kneed subwoofers that have distortion products up to the 10 and 20% levels or even higher. Strap on a horn sub and you will end up with distortion levels that are in the low single digits at the most.
A case in point is a friend I have that used to be a sound engineer. We assembled a whack of equipment I had built for clients and had a weekend where we blew the rafters off of the house listening to all and sundry CD's. The combined power level was 1200 watts with two subs and associated equipment. The sound was state of the art. The positioning gave us a wide sweet spot and the sub placement was tuned to the room by two dudes who knew what they were doing. We listened to tons of my Cd's and he was really impressed. Classical, big orchestral, huge pipe organ and intimate lute and such. Then we popped in a pop CD. Yellow I think. The oh yeah track. We could hear every edit and every mike change. The system took it apart. It was the same system that let you hear into the depths of a pipe organs innards or give you the spatial realisim that you could close your eyes and pick out every player in an ensemble. We couldn't listen to it. So we tried other pop CD's. Well there are a boat load of CD's that are engineered by monkeys or heck if I know. We found some good ones in almost every genere. But you have to look.
I think that it is a comment on the state of the recording art that there are a great many recordings that are still at the top of their form.
And unfortunately to the state of the recording art there is a huge bone pile of mediocre to excreble recordings that are offered up.
Just take the plethora of MP3 recordings that hamstring the music to the point that it does. 128 kbps is not high fidelity to the original signal. I listen to high bit rate MP3's in my car everyday. I have nothing against them. In fact I have a 32Gb USB stick chock full of my best a brightest. At 320kbps they are quite close to the CD which I have compared them to head to head hundreds of times. But that is in a noisy car environment. Not a quiet house. The same recordings listened to on good headphones (Shure in ear buds) slowly drive me nuts. They are not quite right. The most evil recordings to show this up are ones with sharp quick transients. Harpsichord recordings are a prime example.
So yes I listen carefully. Yes I have been in live concert performances from the seat and from the performers perspective. I review classical music on occasion and my reviews are well recieved as balanced and well informed. And my advice for the production of live sound is to keep the setup you have. Keep a balnce of the types of boxes that you have so you can get the best of both worlds. If you want to design and market your own stuff check out the Bill Fitmaurice line. He is a good designer. And his plans are well thought out.
If you are set on tapped horns Again Jbell's design is a hard act to follow. Does pretty much what you are asking for with a set of drawings and measurements to boot.
Mark
What you are after in a horn does not really exist. Lower will always mean longer. A true horn acts like a long level on a fulcrum. It gets more done with the same amount of effort. A properly optimised horn will be almost 10 db more efficient than the same driver in a vented or closed enclosure. That is 12 times the efficiency of the driver in the free air or on a box. So there is right off the bat a lot less driver excursion per given sound pressure level. That is the beginning of the lower distortion benefits. Second part of the lower distortion outcome is the way sound travels. We hear excited air molecules that brush up against our ear drums right? Well a horn has the ability to excite more air molecules per given movement of the cone than any other method. The horn mouth when properly sized also plays a large part in the interface between the driver/box combination and the room. A large mouth or a composite large mouth in a pro sound setup where you have a stack will give the driver a very even amount of acoustical impedance to the room. That basically means that the air coming out of the cabinets will not be very violently pushed around at high pressures but more gently closer to the air pressure levels in the room. It is a lot more complicated than that but when you work with lage mouth horns my best explanation is that as the mouth gets larger the beneficial effects to the room increase. That I know for a fact.
The other thing that I think you are missing the point on is that there is a very specific combination of length and shape of tapped horn that will yield some decent efficiency. There is no way to get efficiency and small size. No reduction in length will get you an enclosure that will even meet the drivers basic free air SPL.
If you model a lot of tapped horns you will notice that there are two peaks in the response. Actually there are three when you check out the impedance plots. You should be getting three at least. They should be evenly paced at the high and low end of the boxes pass band and there should be a middle impedance spike that will tell you the area where the two sides of the horn are trading off the baton.
That is a fuction of horn path length and the position of the drivers in the path. At higher frequencies the wavelength of sound is quite short. Lets take 150 hz as an example. The wavelength is 7.5 feet. Half wavelength is where it will begin exciting the box so we are talking 3.75 feet. On most tapped horns this is where things on the upper end start to poop out. Now take a desired 30 hz wavelength. That is 37.5 feet. Again the half wavelength point is where it will start exciting the enclosure. So you need a enclosure that is about 18.75 feet long. That would be for a Front loaded horn. At one half wavelength the ripples in the response can be made very small. At one quarter wavelength the efficiency drops and the ripples become dominant in the response. To smooth out the ripples the horn needs a rear chamber to anull the mismatch. But then the efficiency drops through the floor.
What a tapped horn has accomplished is used both sides of the driver and effectively multiplied a portion ofthe horn path length to get the lower sounds out of a physically shorter enclosure. It is not acoustically shorter. What it ends up being is acoustically 18.75 feet long. It uses both sides of the horn path and sums or adds up both sides of the horn path at different frequencies. That dip in the middle is where the two paths begin to meet and cause you some problems. They can be tailored as discussed by driver position, path length, fold geometry, fold dimensions.
But you will always end up with lower distortion on the low end.
And most popular music is engineered to take great advantage of grossly distorted low end that consumers have been fed. It is an old acoustical trick that when a pure tone is modulated by a higher frequency distorted tone you get a resulting combination that sounds lower. A fuzz box on a guitar will do that. Reeds on a pipe organ do that. And over blowing on a brass instrument will do that.
I used to do car subs and the best even alignments that I came up with, those that where actually flat in car were the ones most hated. Every last client wanted an undersized box that gave a huge peak in the response right around the fabled kick drum thud. 100 to 150 hz. They were not looking for real low bass. In fact few had even heard low bass. A proper 32hz wave washes over you rises and falls like a wave. It envelopes the entire space and is omnipresent. 16 hz is even more interesting. You can actually count the rise and falll times as you feel the pressure waves. Tell me how many times you have had that experience.
I played close to a kick drum for years and they do not thud. I also played relatively close to a bass drum and they do go boom but it is a very clean attack and decay. Not a flubby tubby smoosh that so many modern sound tracks contain. A high efficiency low distortion sub will give what was there in the mix. All of it. It is not music dependant. It is clean to the signal. The problem lies in the signal and the engineering. There is no such thing as a rock speaker or a classical speaker. There is a clean undistorted speaker. That can be had for different amounts of money. A diyer can do that in the form of a proper line source and a clean sub. But the sound does take a lot of getting used to. Recordings that you thought had awesome bass were merely cahining in on weak kneed subwoofers that have distortion products up to the 10 and 20% levels or even higher. Strap on a horn sub and you will end up with distortion levels that are in the low single digits at the most.
A case in point is a friend I have that used to be a sound engineer. We assembled a whack of equipment I had built for clients and had a weekend where we blew the rafters off of the house listening to all and sundry CD's. The combined power level was 1200 watts with two subs and associated equipment. The sound was state of the art. The positioning gave us a wide sweet spot and the sub placement was tuned to the room by two dudes who knew what they were doing. We listened to tons of my Cd's and he was really impressed. Classical, big orchestral, huge pipe organ and intimate lute and such. Then we popped in a pop CD. Yellow I think. The oh yeah track. We could hear every edit and every mike change. The system took it apart. It was the same system that let you hear into the depths of a pipe organs innards or give you the spatial realisim that you could close your eyes and pick out every player in an ensemble. We couldn't listen to it. So we tried other pop CD's. Well there are a boat load of CD's that are engineered by monkeys or heck if I know. We found some good ones in almost every genere. But you have to look.
I think that it is a comment on the state of the recording art that there are a great many recordings that are still at the top of their form.
And unfortunately to the state of the recording art there is a huge bone pile of mediocre to excreble recordings that are offered up.
Just take the plethora of MP3 recordings that hamstring the music to the point that it does. 128 kbps is not high fidelity to the original signal. I listen to high bit rate MP3's in my car everyday. I have nothing against them. In fact I have a 32Gb USB stick chock full of my best a brightest. At 320kbps they are quite close to the CD which I have compared them to head to head hundreds of times. But that is in a noisy car environment. Not a quiet house. The same recordings listened to on good headphones (Shure in ear buds) slowly drive me nuts. They are not quite right. The most evil recordings to show this up are ones with sharp quick transients. Harpsichord recordings are a prime example.
So yes I listen carefully. Yes I have been in live concert performances from the seat and from the performers perspective. I review classical music on occasion and my reviews are well recieved as balanced and well informed. And my advice for the production of live sound is to keep the setup you have. Keep a balnce of the types of boxes that you have so you can get the best of both worlds. If you want to design and market your own stuff check out the Bill Fitmaurice line. He is a good designer. And his plans are well thought out.
If you are set on tapped horns Again Jbell's design is a hard act to follow. Does pretty much what you are asking for with a set of drawings and measurements to boot.
Mark
Mark
I have no illusions of trying to circumvent the laws of physics with regard to horn length, flare rate and mouth size. I am well aware of this but I was trying to further understand the discrepancy between the results that screamersusa was shooting for but had a hard time obtaining in his TH's. I believe he was using Danleys efficiency specs as his goal and came up a few dB short, now... as was discussed there could be some inflation of numbers,not saying there is, but I was just throwing out an idea I had to see if it had any viability to explain the higher spl of the danley boxes.
I have no illusions of trying to circumvent the laws of physics with regard to horn length, flare rate and mouth size. I am well aware of this
but I was trying to further understand the discrepancy between the results that screamersusa was shooting for but had a hard time obtaining in his TH's. I believe he was using Danleys efficiency specs as his goal and came up a few dB short, now... as was discussed there could be some inflation of numbers,not saying there is, but I was just throwing out an idea I had to see if it had any viability to explain the higher spl of the danley boxes.
Hi Jeremy
Illusions are just smoke and mirrors!
No I think you are an intelligent guy.
The difference in SPL efficiencies is the guy doing the design. Tom Danley has been doing horns longer than I have. And I have been doing them for over 16 years. Squeezing out the last couple of db's in efficiency is an enormous task in both engineering and design work. It' s all in the cabinet and driver. How it gets mixed is the hard part.
I have done two horns over the years that worked spot on the first time. I have done an enormous amount that required a great deal of tweaking. It's where to tweak that is the hardest part.
Mark
Illusions are just smoke and mirrors!
No I think you are an intelligent guy.
The difference in SPL efficiencies is the guy doing the design. Tom Danley has been doing horns longer than I have. And I have been doing them for over 16 years. Squeezing out the last couple of db's in efficiency is an enormous task in both engineering and design work. It' s all in the cabinet and driver. How it gets mixed is the hard part.
I have done two horns over the years that worked spot on the first time. I have done an enormous amount that required a great deal of tweaking. It's where to tweak that is the hardest part.
Mark
I figured Mr.Danley would not have gotten where he was without
putting in a hell of a lot of hours , so I guess I have my work
cut out for me.I too have been designing and building speakers
since I was fifteen and all it took me to get started was a crappy
pair of store bought speakers and a borrowed copy of How to design,
Build and test complete speaker systems. But I digress, anyways I
appreciate the suggestion of the BFM plans but I'll keep doing it
for myself with help of HR. I may have to whip up a quick tapped box
and see the resultant output as compared to a BR seeing as there's
no takers on my offer... hope i'm surprised!
putting in a hell of a lot of hours , so I guess I have my work
cut out for me.I too have been designing and building speakers
since I was fifteen and all it took me to get started was a crappy
pair of store bought speakers and a borrowed copy of How to design,
Build and test complete speaker systems. But I digress, anyways I
appreciate the suggestion of the BFM plans but I'll keep doing it
for myself with help of HR. I may have to whip up a quick tapped box
and see the resultant output as compared to a BR seeing as there's
no takers on my offer... hope i'm surprised!
Last edited:
Built my first good speaker 28 years ago.
Been at professionally and semi-professionally since 1989. Did driver design in the early 90's. And still do consulting. So I know the feeling.
My first impression with your request was for home sound.
But what you are looking for is not as easy to come by.
If you have the build skills go for JBell's design. It is by far the best worked out design for live use.
Mark
Been at professionally and semi-professionally since 1989. Did driver design in the early 90's. And still do consulting. So I know the feeling.
My first impression with your request was for home sound.
But what you are looking for is not as easy to come by.
If you have the build skills go for JBell's design. It is by far the best worked out design for live use.
Mark
Thanks for the vote of confidence mark -- I appreciate it.
Jeremy, even though I haven't even built this thing yet -- start here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/170771-single-sheet-th-challenge-5.html#post2267000
Reverse engineer this drawing knowing the overall dimensions are 22x24x30. It's cheating if you look at earlier posts and see the cut list.... The reverse engineering process I have found to be quite valuable and educational. In fact, any more I'll start with figuring out a cabinet and a fold and overall dimensions, and then use hornresp to fill in the details and fix any response issues. If I start with hornresp -- many times I'll end up with something that is not buildable, or at the very least won't fit in a regular looking box. The opposite is also true -- sometimes I'll start with dimensions and a fold, and hornresp tells me that is a no-go.
Have fun, design is addicting.
Jeremy, even though I haven't even built this thing yet -- start here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/170771-single-sheet-th-challenge-5.html#post2267000
Reverse engineer this drawing knowing the overall dimensions are 22x24x30. It's cheating if you look at earlier posts and see the cut list.... The reverse engineering process I have found to be quite valuable and educational. In fact, any more I'll start with figuring out a cabinet and a fold and overall dimensions, and then use hornresp to fill in the details and fix any response issues. If I start with hornresp -- many times I'll end up with something that is not buildable, or at the very least won't fit in a regular looking box. The opposite is also true -- sometimes I'll start with dimensions and a fold, and hornresp tells me that is a no-go.
Have fun, design is addicting.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.