dare I suggest that Mark's production volume / process would certain qualify for that classification?
when was the last time you received a pair of "hand-made" drivers with individual test results, and signed by the assembler (in this case, Taniguchi Kitagawa)
If you say so. I can only assume that you are taking baffle F3 (506Hz), the point at which the box gain drops away (approx. 165Hz) and ignoring everything else including the driver's own response and average room gain. Oh well.
The alignment is similar to the pensil boxes* I did for the MA drivers. And the Eikona has a rising LF response trend, like most of the MA drivers if you care to look at the published FR graphs. I don't have a problem seeing it. The specific details vary from unit to unit, as you would expect, but the basic trends remain.
You appear to be implying the MLTL I did above does not have useful output at 40Hz, which is strange given the graphs I provided show F6 under quasi-anechoic conditions to be that: 40Hz. Factor room gain into that, and draw your own conclusions about LF output.
Enough.
*one exception.
The alignment is similar to the pensil boxes* I did for the MA drivers. And the Eikona has a rising LF response trend, like most of the MA drivers if you care to look at the published FR graphs. I don't have a problem seeing it. The specific details vary from unit to unit, as you would expect, but the basic trends remain.
You appear to be implying the MLTL I did above does not have useful output at 40Hz, which is strange given the graphs I provided show F6 under quasi-anechoic conditions to be that: 40Hz. Factor room gain into that, and draw your own conclusions about LF output.
Enough.
*one exception.
If they were made over here, almost certainly.
True. Shades of the old Aston Martins, where the engine had a plate engraved with the name of the man who built it. Nice touch. Mine were made by Jeff Taniguchi-san. However, probably best discussed elsewhere.
Over the years i have seen Scott's designs evolve and we have built many. When he had little experience, attempts at maximum LF extension were the norm. As feedback came in, less LF extension was attempted.
Try to get too much extension and the critical midrange & top suffer, but the big complaints are about mid-upper bass being lean. When most people think of bass they are actually experiencing the top bit of the mid bass & the upper bass. Trying to go too low also makes what bass there is less tuneful. If one wants real bass in a room one needs multiple, optimally placed helper woofers.
My designs get even less bass, but is invariably very finessed,
dave
Try to get too much extension and the critical midrange & top suffer, but the big complaints are about mid-upper bass being lean. When most people think of bass they are actually experiencing the top bit of the mid bass & the upper bass. Trying to go too low also makes what bass there is less tuneful. If one wants real bass in a room one needs multiple, optimally placed helper woofers.
My designs get even less bass, but is invariably very finessed,
dave
Super like. Pretty much summarizes my experience over the past 2 years. No good making a speaker with plenty of LF extension but weak mid-bass.
It is interesting to note as you do that what most people think of as bass is actually in the 60 to 100 Hz range. Quite true...
But a well designed system that is good to say 30 or 40 Hz will generally greatly reduce the cone travel in almost an octave above that. The attached image is from an MLTL design that is -3dB at 30 Hz.
If you listen to non bass heavy music, then such a low tuning really does not impact the midrange. That of course is dependent on maintaining Xmax limits. So for drivers that stay linear with a large Xmax you can have the best of both worlds.
Just get a driver that meets the requirements!
The other thing to note is when that low bass note comes through your head is not hearing a delicate passsage and the composer didn't intend you to anyway.
I've been listening to full range line arrays (FR driver used many times) for quite a while and as such need to equalize. So I have an RTA constantly in sight. Darn rare to find much between 20 and 50. And when it is there you are meant to be feeling it, not hearing the inner nuances.
Attachments
Last edited:
I'd say 60 to 150.
The tuning you show does not appear to reduce excursion in this range so is counter to your argument.
dave
No it reduces excursion in the range that people are worried about. The almost octave above the lowered tuning point. That is what I said above. Tuning low is also not a source of a thin mid-bass. Though other design issues do.
Last edited:
Are you entirely certain about the reduction in driver excursion? The plot shown for the MLTL in post 166 indicates the approximate RMS deflection (so multiply by 1.414 for the actual travel) as being:
20Hz: 3.5mm
30Hz: 1.5mm
40Hz: 1.5mm
50Hz: 1.8mm
60Hz: 1.6mm
70Hz: 1.3mm
80Hz: 1.1mm
90Hz: 0.9mm
100Hz: 0.8mm
For the sake of interest / comparison, the equivalent RMS values for the box I did previously, and which appears to have caused such distress (so again multiply by 1.414 for the actual figure) are:
20Hz: 2.4mm
30Hz: 1.6mm
40Hz: 1.1mm
50Hz: 0.95mm
60Hz: 0.9mm
70Hz: 0.8mm
80Hz: 0.7mm
90Hz: 0.6mm
100Hz: 0.5mm
20Hz: 3.5mm
30Hz: 1.5mm
40Hz: 1.5mm
50Hz: 1.8mm
60Hz: 1.6mm
70Hz: 1.3mm
80Hz: 1.1mm
90Hz: 0.9mm
100Hz: 0.8mm
For the sake of interest / comparison, the equivalent RMS values for the box I did previously, and which appears to have caused such distress (so again multiply by 1.414 for the actual figure) are:
20Hz: 2.4mm
30Hz: 1.6mm
40Hz: 1.1mm
50Hz: 0.95mm
60Hz: 0.9mm
70Hz: 0.8mm
80Hz: 0.7mm
90Hz: 0.6mm
100Hz: 0.5mm
Last edited:
Scott, since we both use MJK's design tool I would assume that we are equally certain... But feel free to put in the numbers your self. You have all of the information that you need! Let me know if there is a discrepency...
Given that you make an interesting point that the design I have refereced provides significantly better response for largely the same cone displacement!
Let me know... this might be something worth sharing with others!
If need be I will provide you the MathCAD worksheet.
Mark
But I need to remind you that this was NEVER about an optimal low end. For that I use a much different approach. Full Range was NEVER about the optimal low end. For that Danley DTS 10 with Crown XTi 2002 bridged is my approach. Dave, no need for multiple anything... And honestly I am more about line arrays these days. But many of the above comments are simply not true for a good design. Thin midrange as the cost for extended LF response is just a poor design.
Last edited:
How do you define 'a significantly better response'? Do all people adhere to your stipulations?
You have said in several posts that an MLTL with an F3 of 30Hz greatly reduces driver excursion in the octave above tuning -an odd position since for the vast majority of vented enclosures, maximum excursion occurs in the octave above Fb -a well known and unremarkable fact. The excursion graph you posted shows the box in question to be no exception to this. For the sake of interest, I compared this plot to the equivalent for the box I did a couple of pages back, which has caused such distress, and the data, provided in my last post, shows the latter to have rather less driver excursion at all but one frequency (30Hz). At 50Hz, it's about half, and at 60Hz, less than 60%. How do you reconcile this with the claim of 'largely the same displacement?'
You have said in several posts that an MLTL with an F3 of 30Hz greatly reduces driver excursion in the octave above tuning -an odd position since for the vast majority of vented enclosures, maximum excursion occurs in the octave above Fb -a well known and unremarkable fact. The excursion graph you posted shows the box in question to be no exception to this. For the sake of interest, I compared this plot to the equivalent for the box I did a couple of pages back, which has caused such distress, and the data, provided in my last post, shows the latter to have rather less driver excursion at all but one frequency (30Hz). At 50Hz, it's about half, and at 60Hz, less than 60%. How do you reconcile this with the claim of 'largely the same displacement?'
Last edited:
Sure there are. Multiples help smooth room modes. It's not about the output from multiples (although that's nice). You must use a lot of eq with your dts-10? What if you have a large suckout?
Yes, Scott but for a FULL ocave more at less than a 2X increase in displacement in what is an exponential field (read function) is an engineering marvel! Go do your homework... Just look at the exponential increase in displacement as Hz decreases.
Just get a driver with good Xmax that is durable.
As I am actually sure you know, one does not beat "suck out" but we can deal with peaks... And clearly the purpose is that; from a transducer, power delivery and EQ perspective I can deal with the any space as best as possible. I do also have in use for the line arrays a DEQ 2496 and a DRC box.
So you've changed your tune yet again. You were talking about reduced excursion in the octave above tuning (utter twaddle since it is a rather well known fact that this is the region of maximum excursion in most vented box configurations, the one you posted self-evidently being no exception), and now you're acknowledging greater deflection levels as the tradeoff for increased LF extension since I provided some comparative values.
I don't think I'm the one who needs to 'do my homework.' I have maintained a consistant position supported by factual data, rather than constantly changing and, believe it or not, I know how to design MLTLs. I've been doing it rather a long time. You seem unable to understand that there are alternative alignments to attempting to extract maximum extension from a drive unit, and to have forgotten that had I wanted to do such a design, I would have done it. But I didn't. I wanted to give people an alternative. As the US Distributor of Jordan drive units TTBOMK, your attitude toward DIYers designing enclosures for these is products is unlikely to win you or Jordan a great number of friends, or encourage sales, which would be a great shame.
Either way, I'm out of here. I shall let Mr. Dikovics have the final word, since he's so desperate. It will be interesting to see whether it's a further attempt to misrepresent other people's comments or similar.
I don't think I'm the one who needs to 'do my homework.' I have maintained a consistant position supported by factual data, rather than constantly changing and, believe it or not, I know how to design MLTLs. I've been doing it rather a long time. You seem unable to understand that there are alternative alignments to attempting to extract maximum extension from a drive unit, and to have forgotten that had I wanted to do such a design, I would have done it. But I didn't. I wanted to give people an alternative. As the US Distributor of Jordan drive units TTBOMK, your attitude toward DIYers designing enclosures for these is products is unlikely to win you or Jordan a great number of friends, or encourage sales, which would be a great shame.
Either way, I'm out of here. I shall let Mr. Dikovics have the final word, since he's so desperate. It will be interesting to see whether it's a further attempt to misrepresent other people's comments or similar.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.