Sorry I’m working my way up the replies instead of down - thanks for the links.
No I haven’t modelled any of this, I don’t know how to be honest - I’m a bit of a newbie at all this.
I have build both labyrinths with chn50. Bloodhound is good, I like the specific chn50 Labyrinth more
I designed the Galion TS Voyager TL speaker with 9mm birch ply and it’s very rigid from all the TL walls acting as bracing. The baffle is still 18mm thick though.
It keeps the cabinet very light and easy to transport.
While I routinely used 5mm plywood and 8mm MDF internally for TL partitioning and bracing, the box walls and baffle had to be thick and strong (you might double-layer). I think your stepped TL design would be better if the first partition wall were slanted, to make a taper and reduce direct reflection, and the critical last partition 1cm for a more typical taper ratio or better yet, adjustable at least during testing.
Maevan TLonken with 1m line and more complex folds:
Last edited:
Very nice. Eyeball 0.7m 6:1 taper yields ~80hz quarterwave; probably useful bass down to 60s. (You will find TL longer is better haha.)
edit. Had the driver been paper cone CHN-50P I would have repeated recommending slanted board for reducing mid-high frequency bounce-back through the cone.
Last edited:
Okay last one I promise, I'm going to bed now. This is v3 with a longer line (~1.2m), a shallower taper (7:2), a larger exit port, and with the driver placed 2/3 along the line. Any thoughts on this would be very welcome!
You have to use hornresp. It can model up to 4 segments. Its able to model the labyrinths we talked earlier.
Scotts designs are advanced. They take the bends into considerations which acts as lowpass filter and reduce ripple in the lower midrange/higher bass band. HR cant do this.
This way one can reduce damping and increase output.
The port position relative to driver is also important.
Why do you want the port at the front, other than looks?
I have this boxes close to the wall which works well. It also helps to improve bass.
Scotts transmissionline designs are highly functioning designs, which to my knowledge take so much into consideration what is known about transmissionline theroy.
If one wants a well working box, I think there is no reason not to build them, other one is highly experienced as well or want to tinker and try and error.
Scotts designs are advanced. They take the bends into considerations which acts as lowpass filter and reduce ripple in the lower midrange/higher bass band. HR cant do this.
This way one can reduce damping and increase output.
The port position relative to driver is also important.
Why do you want the port at the front, other than looks?
I have this boxes close to the wall which works well. It also helps to improve bass.
Scotts transmissionline designs are highly functioning designs, which to my knowledge take so much into consideration what is known about transmissionline theroy.
If one wants a well working box, I think there is no reason not to build them, other one is highly experienced as well or want to tinker and try and error.
This thread, and I think theres a follow up number 2 gives introduction how to use HR to model transmissonlines with taper and offset.
In this thread I wanted to describe an improvement to the transmission line alignment. This improvement may be documented already on the forum, but I haven't seen it. If it has, my apologies for the redundancy!
First, I need to define what a transmission line is.
In a transmission line loudspeaker, the sound from the rear of the cone is transmitted through a quarter wave tube. This is different from a vented box, as a transmission line is only delayed ninety degrees. Some may prefer the sound of a TL to...
First, I need to define what a transmission line is.
In a transmission line loudspeaker, the sound from the rear of the cone is transmitted through a quarter wave tube. This is different from a vented box, as a transmission line is only delayed ninety degrees. Some may prefer the sound of a TL to...