So, having 2 8ohm woofers in series, the qts shoots up, similar to an 8ohm resistor hooked up in series ?
so the box would need to be way bigger than simply double what a single driver needs ?
It does make sense, similar to how a baffle step inductor does throw the qts off a bit...………………...
so the box would need to be way bigger than simply double what a single driver needs ?
It does make sense, similar to how a baffle step inductor does throw the qts off a bit...………………...
Last edited:
That's the idea.
Even worse, the back EMF can drive the other speaker instead of being swallowed by the amp, so it's worse. If the speakers were absolutely identical, in identical environments, in theory, this would not be a problem, but your Qts and Fs would still shift.
Even worse, the back EMF can drive the other speaker instead of being swallowed by the amp, so it's worse. If the speakers were absolutely identical, in identical environments, in theory, this would not be a problem, but your Qts and Fs would still shift.
Revisiting TMM vs MTM vs TMW in Vituix...now that I am understanding better what I see in the polar...all 3 of those configurations seem to have comparable polar width on the vertical plane...
Planet 10. I think I was imagining high current LF transients being affected by the inductance and wondering how on or off base the idea was. Thanks for your answer.
Norman, thanks for giving the space on your thread to ask.
Norman, thanks for giving the space on your thread to ask.
Have a look what happens when you move the XO down to where the centre-to-centre is less than a quarer wavelength of the XO.
dave
I don't want to see it...ignorance is bliss and I can't cross below ~400hz or get my horn any closer than it is to the 15" lol! (yes I know it opens up = )
Last edited:
🙄
I know a document i sent you a year ago where their is evidence this is not this simple ( hint: Dave pointed you the track). 😀
Last edited:
all else the same...yeah it is...keep spacing the same, same XO....go from TM to MTM just add another mirror polar at XO....TMM the vertical sweet spot is about the same beamwidth as TM and MTM....
Polar width is likely too crude of a word to use...to be more exact...the vertical sweet spots are comparable between the 3.
I know I am leaving out a lot of other details...but if its not in the sweet spot....its not that important is it? Yes, I know, even off axis response, is desirable...but on the vertical plane...this aspect gets neglected a lot from what I've seen....only MTM would offer a symmetrical polar on the vertical axis yet its still no where ideal.... non of them are idea until you move the XO down to where the centre-to-centre is less than a quarter wavelength of the XO.
A document you say....teaser lol
Polar width is likely too crude of a word to use...to be more exact...the vertical sweet spots are comparable between the 3.
I know I am leaving out a lot of other details...but if its not in the sweet spot....its not that important is it? Yes, I know, even off axis response, is desirable...but on the vertical plane...this aspect gets neglected a lot from what I've seen....only MTM would offer a symmetrical polar on the vertical axis yet its still no where ideal.... non of them are idea until you move the XO down to where the centre-to-centre is less than a quarter wavelength of the XO.
A document you say....teaser lol
Last edited:
LR is already symmetrical, so is no different upside down 😕
I have to disagree with you that vertical gets neglected. Ok, it may get compromised, but neglected is a harsh term.
I have to disagree with you that vertical gets neglected. Ok, it may get compromised, but neglected is a harsh term.
If its not under a quarter wavelength then its wrong. lol I'm just being overly critical about it...of course we set standards and try to stick to them....10-15+/- degress at XO is fine for genelec its fine for us right!?
Attachments
Last edited:
It doesn't. Assuming identical drive units, Fs & Q are unchanged relative to a single driver for a series-wired pair, so you design your box for the series pair using the same Fs, Qt, with doubled Re, Mms, B*L, Sd and Vas. Job-jibbed.
True, but within reason, most amplifiers will have lower distortion when pumping less current. The main issue with series wiring is with dissimilar units; compliance in particular can be variable. So it's generally best done, especially if they share the same volume, with drivers made to close tolerance, where any differences are small enough to be insignificant.
A very good woofer with high QC. You are probably fine, Still it wouldnot be a bad idea to measure the 4 (you have 4) and match them up.
dave
Good talk.
And true, I would enjoy To hear a mtm more as a point source if the sizes worked out.
Even 2 x 4” with 2” flanged tweet, ideally cross thinking a 10” driver, so 1.4khz.
Not many tweets like it that low.
But I had 3 rat shack lineaum ribbon mtm center channel.
Probably crossing above 3khz.
3 across the front, amazing, just no midbass.
They certainly didn’t follow the point source rule.
And the Klipsch epic line cf3 mtm had 10” drivers and the center horn was close to 10” top to bottom. It crossed 1.5khz. The cf4 had 12’s, same horn, also crossed at 1.5khz. And there was an inch between woof frames and the tweet horn also.
And true, I would enjoy To hear a mtm more as a point source if the sizes worked out.
Even 2 x 4” with 2” flanged tweet, ideally cross thinking a 10” driver, so 1.4khz.
Not many tweets like it that low.
But I had 3 rat shack lineaum ribbon mtm center channel.
Probably crossing above 3khz.
3 across the front, amazing, just no midbass.
They certainly didn’t follow the point source rule.
And the Klipsch epic line cf3 mtm had 10” drivers and the center horn was close to 10” top to bottom. It crossed 1.5khz. The cf4 had 12’s, same horn, also crossed at 1.5khz. And there was an inch between woof frames and the tweet horn also.
Last edited:
