Supravox RTF64 design options (long)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#21
Greets!

You're welcome!

Hmm, the procedure I have is a bit more complex and requires more info such as the OPT's Kva along with its primary and secondary DCR, so can't do a comparison.

Anyway, I didn't reverse engineer the Singular, but ignoring any Qts rise from OPI (which will increase the pipe's Q (Qp)), the RTF wants to 'feel' a ~8.778 ft^3 Vb if tuned to Vp = Fs. Factor in the QPI and it jumps to ~12 ft^3! A nfb SE amp wants to 'feel' a flat impedance though, so net Vb falls a bit to ~7.325 ft^3, but Fp rises to 108.5 Hz for the former and 88.8 Hz/~8.3 ft^3 for the latter. As you shrink Vb for a given Vp, F3 rises just like any other vented alignment.

GM
 
#23
Greets!

You're welcome! Sorry 'bout that, I figure if an explanation is to have any validity it must include at least some of the techno-babble it's derived from just in case it needs to be corrected and/or elaborated upon by others.

GM
 
#24
Some Other Boxes

Hello !

First, Sorry for my poor English vocabulary

Some other ideas for Supravox :

http://www.audiofanatic.it/Diffusori/Tqwt215/TQWT215_1.html

http://www.yildiz.edu.tr/~ilkorur/speaker/supravox.htm


I've tested the supravox TQWT, this one with the front vent ; Quite nothing below 150hz !
Another idea in a sealed box, 42 liters, give a good response from 75hz ( my actual home system )
I'm working on a MLTL, around 92 liters, the preliminary tests seems to give the good way ....

R.C.
 
#27
Scott....
But in this case isn't better into a baffle?
Something like this?
 

Attachments

  • option.jpg
    option.jpg
    10.5 KB · Views: 304
#28
Hi,

Scott's MLTL posted recently seems like the best compromise to me now WRT size and performance. I mean the footprint is more manageble compared to the Tannoy type BR a few pages back. I'm interested in the Non-Bicone so the dims would be a bit larger than what he posted due to higher Vas.


Hi Scott,

Got your email. I just replied! Thanks!🙂

fred
 
#29
I see that the measured T/S parameters from this site
http://www.yildiz.edu.tr/~ilkorur/speaker/supravox.txt

are much more different from these of the manufacturer. Has anybody else tried to measure them?
I haven't any experience with loydspeakers, could this kind of descrepancy between measured-published specs be typical?
Or in other words: should i take the published spes nicht for granded?

Thanks in advance
Konstantinos
 
#30
#31
schiller said:
I see that the measured T/S parameters from this site
http://www.yildiz.edu.tr/~ilkorur/speaker/supravox.txt

are much more different from these of the manufacturer. Has anybody else tried to measure them?
I haven't any experience with loydspeakers, could this kind of descrepancy between measured-published specs be typical?
Or in other words: should i take the published spes nicht for granded?

Thanks in advance
Konstantinos
Click to expand...

Greets!

Not me, and yes, it's too often typical, though the industry as a whole considers +/- 10% exceptable, which these meet.

Anyway, the top sim is a T/S max flat using published specs and the bottom one is the measured specs in the same cab. It has marginally better acoustic efficiency, but the trade-off is somewhat degraded transient response which can be improved back to 'stock' with a minor increase in damping, so the spec differences are no big deal IMO for all but the perfectionists among us. 😉

That said, it's not wise to assume that all driver published specs are within +/- 10% or that using them will be 'close enough' for max performance.

GM
 

Attachments

  • supravox 215 rtf64 published vs measured specs.jpg
    supravox 215 rtf64 published vs measured specs.jpg
    66.3 KB · Views: 252
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom