Rebuilding and Redesign the Creative Sbs 370 original sub enclosure

[dannyjmf]

hi

i previously long own a pc speaker creative sbs 370 ... it has a subwoofer of 5.25inches housed in a around 5 liters of internal volume with a vent length of 5inchs and 1.8inch diameter ... and it gone out of service since the original transformer decided to fail

now having already sourced a replacement transformer ... i decided too to redesign the small and boomy box to something a upgraded 8.5 liters of internal volume and some tweak to the EQ circuit ... the box still will be vented but this time bigger size and a 2inch diameter port with around 5.5inchs length with huge flares on both the intake and exit ... the original port was not flared

So is there any benefits of these mods (kinda lower bass ... cleaner bass ... less port noise) from these mods i've proposed? or i just better off stick with the original box designed for the drivers? thanks

There are some pictures of the old boxes ... the aeroport ... and the new proposed layout ... the new design will be firing downwards instead of front firing

 

[Brian Steele]

Looks like a nice experiment and some decent mods. I think the driver may the limiting factor, as the smaller box would have likely reduced its excursion a bit for a given input voltage. Let us know how it works out.

BTW, I ran into a similar issue with my Logitech X-530 Pc multimedia system a few years back. The transformer blew and I couldn't get the damned thing out of the box. So I built a separate box to hold the electronics and powered it off an external PSU wired into the power input section of the board, and I also built a separate subwoofer module based around the Dayton Audio DCS205 8" driver (see my "Boom Unit" project on my website). The combination is still in use with my main PC, in combination now with a separate DSP unit. Way overkill I know, LOL, but is where I do most of my listening now, so...

 

[dannyjmf]

thanks ... ya a bit of off topic here ... i just want to refer back to the link to my previous 4th order bandpass microsub with excursion problem

Microsub redesign 4th order bandpass enclosure with know TS parameters

i am curious that 4th order bandpass should be able to curb excursion issues? this is the driver in question

 

[Chompy]

The unvented part of a bp4 enclosure is a sealed box. Which controls excursion exactly like a sealed box does. Additionally, the vented part gives an excursion minimum at the tuning frequency.

By comparison, a standard bass reflex similarly gets an excursion minimum at the tuning frequency, but doesn't have anything to control excursion below that, so excursion skyrockets below there (without a protective highpass filter, at least).

A bp6 gets *two* excursion minimums (it's vented on both sides), but similar to a bass reflex has nothing to control excursion below the lowest tuning.

 

[dannyjmf]

Looks like a nice experiment and some decent mods. I think the driver may the limiting factor, as the smaller box would have likely reduced its excursion a bit for a given input voltage. Let us know how it works out.

BTW, I ran into a similar issue with my Logitech X-530 Pc multimedia system a few years back. The transformer blew and I couldn't get the damned thing out of the box. So I built a separate box to hold the electronics and powered it off an external PSU wired into the power input section of the board, and I also built a separate subwoofer module based around the Dayton Audio DCS205 8" driver (see my "Boom Unit" project on my website). The combination is still in use with my main PC, in combination now with a separate DSP unit. Way overkill I know, LOL, but is where I do most of my listening now, so...

today the rebuild was done but in a raw state ... without the amplifier plate unit installed yet ... the results i am getting were quite interesting and now it was configured into a downfiring setup and a large flare port was used instead of the unflared one ... improvements from moving to larger box and better port while slight tweaking the EQ results in more natural bass and more low end extension rather than the boominess in the original enclosure ... port noise also reduced significantly ... so conclusion an improvement

i have been wondering why creative labs designed a small and boomy enclosure for their drivers while end users found that the slightly larger ones and flared port gives way better result ... for a reputable brand they should be designing it how it supposed to be

 

[Brian Steele]

Probably because their target market prefers smaller boxes over better low end output.

My "Boom Unit" box takes up considerably more space than the little Logitech subwoofer that it replaced. It's however using up space that was basically unusable to me otherwise, so the size doesn't bother me at all.

 

[dannyjmf]

i am actually quite surprised that from almost same port size moving from double unflared end to double large flare end makes such a huge difference ... and i am getting this one piece port quite cheap (inner diameter 2.17 inch) ... i plan to do more experiment on this port kinda equivalent port air volume using a 3 inch port vs a pair of these huge 2.17inch port mounted in 2 box of same volume same driver and tuned to same tuning frequency applied and see if that makes any difference

Another small topic here ... i was using this port temporary also on my 4th order small bandpass enclosure ... previously it was a 3 inch port of 5 inches ... now i've replaced it using this port results in inner diameter of 2.17 inch and it seems has moved the fB of the bandpass downwards ... And the over excursion problem seems to have disappeared using the same power last time it was applied

 

[dannyjmf]

ok some final looks of the rebuild enclosure ... and their new sats and some leds ... the flared port was prepared for a purple candy finish effect ... feedbacks welcomed