Hi Gentlemen,
I'm getting back into single driver speakers after several years away and have an urge to build some approxomately 8L bookshelf-standmount speakers using pair of Tang Band W4 1337 drivers I have.
I have been researching what other folks have done but none of those designs are as small as I want, so I have used WinIsd and thoughts based on several of Scott Lindgren's designs to come up with a couple of concepts that I would like to get feedback on.
Both designs have the following in common: 8.3 gross interior volume; 3/4 inch baltic birch construction; driver centerline 4.5 inches down from top of cabinet. 2"diameter front port 6.5 inches long for a tuning frequency of 62Hz; all interior surfaces lined with 3/8" medium density jute headliner material.
All of the comonalities are based on Scott Lindgren's designs. I have come up with two possibilities for the cabinet. The first has dimensions of 7" wide X 13" tall X 9.5" deep. The second is 7.8" wide X 13" tall X 8.5 deep. The first is the one I like best aesthetically, the second is based on the cabinet dimension ratios Scottmoose used in a couple of his simple reflex designs.
I am certain that designing a proper cabinet for a specific driver is tremendously more complex than using WinIsd and trying to emulate characteristics of proven designs. However, I have found this to be a very helpful and friendly forum so I thought it would be OK to post these for input.
Comments on which of these two would probably perform better or suggestions for improvements given the volume limitation would be appreciated.
Best,
Jay
I'm getting back into single driver speakers after several years away and have an urge to build some approxomately 8L bookshelf-standmount speakers using pair of Tang Band W4 1337 drivers I have.
I have been researching what other folks have done but none of those designs are as small as I want, so I have used WinIsd and thoughts based on several of Scott Lindgren's designs to come up with a couple of concepts that I would like to get feedback on.
Both designs have the following in common: 8.3 gross interior volume; 3/4 inch baltic birch construction; driver centerline 4.5 inches down from top of cabinet. 2"diameter front port 6.5 inches long for a tuning frequency of 62Hz; all interior surfaces lined with 3/8" medium density jute headliner material.
All of the comonalities are based on Scott Lindgren's designs. I have come up with two possibilities for the cabinet. The first has dimensions of 7" wide X 13" tall X 9.5" deep. The second is 7.8" wide X 13" tall X 8.5 deep. The first is the one I like best aesthetically, the second is based on the cabinet dimension ratios Scottmoose used in a couple of his simple reflex designs.
I am certain that designing a proper cabinet for a specific driver is tremendously more complex than using WinIsd and trying to emulate characteristics of proven designs. However, I have found this to be a very helpful and friendly forum so I thought it would be OK to post these for input.
Comments on which of these two would probably perform better or suggestions for improvements given the volume limitation would be appreciated.
Best,
Jay
Hi Drjay,
Placing T/S data for W4-1337SD into WINISD, I get 3.50 liter vented cab as the optimum.
Placing T/S data for W4-1337SD into WINISD, I get 3.50 liter vented cab as the optimum.
Greets!
At a glance using Hornresp and using the pioneer's max power handling Vs box size alignment: Vb = Vas/1.44 = ~3.38 L net tuned to Fs with a 1.75" dia. x ~8.72" long vent yields a near dead on max flat alignment with ~full use of its 25 W power handling at a ~21 m/s vent mach; whereas your ~ 7.65 L net tuned with a 2"dia. x 6.5 inches long alignment yields a ~3 dB peaking at 62 Hz Fb [under-damped] limited to ~11 W at the same ~21 m/s vent mach, so WRT best overall tuning, how much power limiting is acceptable and will there be a separate woofer system?
Re cab aspect ratios: any typical golden or acoustic ratio is fine since it's presumed to have a ~uniform particle density.
GM
At a glance using Hornresp and using the pioneer's max power handling Vs box size alignment: Vb = Vas/1.44 = ~3.38 L net tuned to Fs with a 1.75" dia. x ~8.72" long vent yields a near dead on max flat alignment with ~full use of its 25 W power handling at a ~21 m/s vent mach; whereas your ~ 7.65 L net tuned with a 2"dia. x 6.5 inches long alignment yields a ~3 dB peaking at 62 Hz Fb [under-damped] limited to ~11 W at the same ~21 m/s vent mach, so WRT best overall tuning, how much power limiting is acceptable and will there be a separate woofer system?
Re cab aspect ratios: any typical golden or acoustic ratio is fine since it's presumed to have a ~uniform particle density.
GM
Thanks for the input so far. The reason why I planned on using the 8.3L cabinet is because there is no plan to use a sub. I modeled the 3.38L cabinet at the outset and got the same results as GM above. The F3 for that one is 90Hz, while by using the bigger cabinet the F3 is 60Hz. That is a big difference. The F6 for the bigger cabinet vs. the smaller is 53Hz vs.70 Hz, which is not as pronounced, but I am hoping to get some appreciable bass without using a sub. The maximum SPL of the better aligned cabinet is 3 db greater than larger cabinet, but the bigger cabinet max SPL is 95db which is plenty for me in a small room.
In the opinion of those more experienced than I, am I making a mistake to pursue the better F3 and F6 numbers? Would the technically better aligned design with the less good looking bass numbers actually sound better overall than my proposed design, given the fact that they will not be used with a sub?
Thanks!
Jay
In the opinion of those more experienced than I, am I making a mistake to pursue the better F3 and F6 numbers? Would the technically better aligned design with the less good looking bass numbers actually sound better overall than my proposed design, given the fact that they will not be used with a sub?
Thanks!
Jay
Here's a decent project. It's designed with a filter, but the use of a filter is up to the builder.
3CR-Ti | Parts Express Project Gallery
3CR-Ti | Parts Express Project Gallery
It’s still a 4” driver doc.........so low frequency extension is going to be problematic with dynamic content even at 88db.
Harmonic distortion for the 1337 isn’t that great to begin with, but below 120hz it get’s Really bad....quickly.......as do most 4” drivers.
My money would be on the smaller enclosure for less HD and improved impulse response augmented by a sub which will get you extension lower than any alignment could produce with the 1337. Sub plate amps are fairly cheap and enclosures easy to design. Still to this day, after sooooo many years at the DIY thing my favorite listening system at home remains the same........a 2.1. As a recording engineer, it took years for me to wrap my head around that......what should have been all too obvious in that we listen to and perceive low freq content in the center........the Omni directional pattern and looooong wavelengths wouldn’t have it any other way.
Harmonic distortion for the 1337 isn’t that great to begin with, but below 120hz it get’s Really bad....quickly.......as do most 4” drivers.
My money would be on the smaller enclosure for less HD and improved impulse response augmented by a sub which will get you extension lower than any alignment could produce with the 1337. Sub plate amps are fairly cheap and enclosures easy to design. Still to this day, after sooooo many years at the DIY thing my favorite listening system at home remains the same........a 2.1. As a recording engineer, it took years for me to wrap my head around that......what should have been all too obvious in that we listen to and perceive low freq content in the center........the Omni directional pattern and looooong wavelengths wouldn’t have it any other way.