Matttcattt - that sounds interesting. I don't see why it shouldn't work in principle - equal and opposite forces and all that. Dave?
Kay - no reason at all.
All the best
Steve
Kay - no reason at all.
All the best
Steve
Matttcattt said:
I have given thot to 4 on the sides of a cylinder, but 6 on a cube should work fine.
The only difficulty i see is that if you use a metal cube in the middle the box will get BIG or you will need drivers with a very small Vas.
dave
leadbelly said:
He is only a couple steps away -- flipping the one bank around, and wedging something between the magnets.
This is a concept i did for a big dipole:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
(deep linked from Dipole Concept on TLS.org)
dave
Way cool!
But how do you design the baffle? With the drivers back-to-back, some of the rear radiation is attenuated, so how do you know how wide to make the "wings" on either side, even for a straight panel and not a curved one?
But how do you design the baffle? With the drivers back-to-back, some of the rear radiation is attenuated, so how do you know how wide to make the "wings" on either side, even for a straight panel and not a curved one?
leadbelly said:
The easy answer is that the baffle is as big as you can put up with. These would be best if the other side was the front, but it worked better cosmetically this way.
dave
planet10 said:
Wow, what an amazing looking speaker. Have you still got it? Did it work? Tell us more.
Steve
7V said:
It was only ever a concept for a fellow with 120+ of the VIFA/PSB P17s it was intended to make a dent in.
dave
7V said:
If you do travel a 1/3 of the way around the world to BC, do plan on hitting Victoria. I'd also have some suggestions of ways (& places) to maximize your experience -- i think you can put 2 or 3 UKs into BC...
dave
planet10 said:
a ha now you are talking my language....
taking that concpet and pushing ti further using 7V's design a a model I might be able to come up with a slim tower that I need (WAF contraints).
does it makes sense to go push push for the midbass as well or only the 12" bass drivers need be push push?
planet10 said:
Yes, if I bring my speakers to BC, you will be my first port of call.
As for fitting 2 or 3 UKs into BC, what a great idea. That would get us out of Europe and improve the weather in one stroke.
How would you fit them, push-push?
Steve
Is there any chart or measurements showing the superiority of push-push to a similar well-made cabinet with both speakers front mounted? Or is it subjective, (not that that is invalid)?
AND, to ask kelticwizard's question but on dipoles...
Let's say we look at Dave's wowie design. The baffle width, unfolded, would be the 2 pieces mounting the drivers, the 1 piece joining them, plus Pi * R, with R being the radius of the curved pieces (is this correct?). How close would the actual response be to theoretical response of the unfolded baffle?
And, could those curved sections be cut from sonotube? Would 2 quarter pieces of sonotube be stiff enough to withstand vibration?
Let's say we look at Dave's wowie design. The baffle width, unfolded, would be the 2 pieces mounting the drivers, the 1 piece joining them, plus Pi * R, with R being the radius of the curved pieces (is this correct?). How close would the actual response be to theoretical response of the unfolded baffle?
And, could those curved sections be cut from sonotube? Would 2 quarter pieces of sonotube be stiff enough to withstand vibration?
kelticwizard said:
I believe that the bass response would be identical in terms of resonant frequency, efficiency, cut-off slope and other T/S parameters. However, the push-push would have significantly less vibration. This gives a subjectively deeper sounding bass and also means that the push-push arrangement is much more useful than the front mounted arrangement when it comes to use in separate subwoofers. Any vibration or harmonic over a couple of hundred hertz would be a dead give-away for direction.
Steve
leadbelly said:
The practical way to figure the "length" of the baffle is to run a string from the back of the driver to the front of the driver. The rolled edges serve 2 practical purposes -- they halp it stand up, and the make it look subtly smaller.
Sonotube is designed to fall apart (unwind) when you cut it. I have speculated that if you stabalized the edges at the cut, before cutting, you could keep the integrity of the tube. A sonotube would be a nice affordable way of executing this design.
7V said:
7V has it pretty much nailed. The significant cancelation of newtonian effects has 2 sonic effects. The major one for a sub is that the driver mechanically passes dramatically less energy into the box, reducing the sound of the box. The other is that with the drivers essentially motionless in space, the driver is capable of producing more subte information. The tighter the coupling the higher in frequency this effect.
dave
Probably not for a sub though. To make a section with a radius of 12", you would need a 24" sonotube, which are not cheap, and then you would still need to work on it to avoid unravelling.
It probably would be better to build out of wood using a stressed-skin design, since thinner plywoods (3/16", 1/4") would bend to a 12" radius without cracking if wetted first.
i forgot to ask when i started this thread, and it has just dawned on me, do i connect the speakers the same way round? they will be in parrellel to give 4 ohms. do i connect both drivers + connections together and the same with -, or + to - and - to +?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.