I'm planning out a two way box with a sealed woofer section and full range crossed at something like 100-200Hz.
The woofer section I want to use a linkwitz transform to augment bass extension, 30Hz/90dB is my target there.
To meet the needs of size as well as personal preference, I have arrived at using two 6-1/2" units mounted opposing as the preferred arrangement. Woofer cavity at 9L is nice, but up to about 13L would still be acceptable.
Which comes to the woofers themselves - highly preferable if they were available in Australia.
So far I've come up with the Peerless 830874 and the SB17NRXC35-4 as options, which would still fit ok in my budget. That's a big deal as there are four of them. The SB is a bit marginal as far as excursion owing to the smaller 6" size if I really wanted to push all the way to 30Hz/90dB, and the Peerless I will have to deal with matching up the ohms when paralleled.
One big assumption that I'm also making here is that these woofers will have noticeably better performance than just any generic units when being used towards their full strokes.
If anyone sees flaws in my rationale and/or has suggestions to other woofer options, it would be appreciated if you could offer your comments.
The woofer section I want to use a linkwitz transform to augment bass extension, 30Hz/90dB is my target there.
To meet the needs of size as well as personal preference, I have arrived at using two 6-1/2" units mounted opposing as the preferred arrangement. Woofer cavity at 9L is nice, but up to about 13L would still be acceptable.
Which comes to the woofers themselves - highly preferable if they were available in Australia.
So far I've come up with the Peerless 830874 and the SB17NRXC35-4 as options, which would still fit ok in my budget. That's a big deal as there are four of them. The SB is a bit marginal as far as excursion owing to the smaller 6" size if I really wanted to push all the way to 30Hz/90dB, and the Peerless I will have to deal with matching up the ohms when paralleled.
One big assumption that I'm also making here is that these woofers will have noticeably better performance than just any generic units when being used towards their full strokes.
If anyone sees flaws in my rationale and/or has suggestions to other woofer options, it would be appreciated if you could offer your comments.
SB do some new metal cone 6" units. The factory is in Indonesia so PM them for availability.
Have you considered the 8" Hivi M8A or M8N? It come in a gold colour not unlike the CHR 70 gold.
Edit, I didn't notice the cab size/sealed preference, not sure the Hivi's work in that size but they do work well sealed. Also look at the dayton ND-140, works well sealed
Have you considered the 8" Hivi M8A or M8N? It come in a gold colour not unlike the CHR 70 gold.
Edit, I didn't notice the cab size/sealed preference, not sure the Hivi's work in that size but they do work well sealed. Also look at the dayton ND-140, works well sealed
Last edited:
We fit a pair of silver flute W14 into 10 litre and they work nicely -- not sealed mind you.
We also have them in a much larger push-push ML-TL.
dave
Interesting, interesting,
I do like my sealed bass a lot though
8" drivers:
If I were to go to 8" woofer, I would tend to want to use one only as 2 of them seems to be an overload for this box volume. But I'd lose the force cancellation effect which I think would be quite useful in such a cab (given that it may not be on dedicated stands)
Alcones:
Not really sure about the advantage of going to alcone, particularly the SB alcone since there would be a regular alternative - I wouldn't have thought that the cone's effect on distortion and stored energy would be significant (at 200Hz and lower) which then mostly leaves the drive motor and frame effects.
I do like my sealed bass a lot though
8" drivers:
If I were to go to 8" woofer, I would tend to want to use one only as 2 of them seems to be an overload for this box volume. But I'd lose the force cancellation effect which I think would be quite useful in such a cab (given that it may not be on dedicated stands)
Alcones:
Not really sure about the advantage of going to alcone, particularly the SB alcone since there would be a regular alternative - I wouldn't have thought that the cone's effect on distortion and stored energy would be significant (at 200Hz and lower) which then mostly leaves the drive motor and frame effects.
You will want to chamber the CHR70 when in a sealed box.
You dont want an LT 8" woofer to destroy it.
Take a look at the Dayton RS225-8, 10L gives you a Q of .96 which looks good for an LT setup.
You dont want an LT 8" woofer to destroy it.
Take a look at the Dayton RS225-8, 10L gives you a Q of .96 which looks good for an LT setup.
I was wondering how you were going to cross them, active, passive line level or passive crossover?
Passive crossover @ 200hz would require RIDICULOUSLY large capacitors and inductors that would easily out price the drivers if you go high end.
Seriously @ 200hz you're looking at 60uF caps and 11mH inductors.
Are you looking for a nice thin profile and that's why you'd like side firing woofers?
If not, then the RS225-8 @ 13L front firing crossed at 400hz would be much easier to do.
The impedance bump of the CHR-70 will be pretty difficult to work with below 250Hz.
At 250Hz you'd end up with 47uF/9mH & 51uF/8.2mH.
The CHR-70 in 3L sealed and the RS225 in 9L sealed.
Passive crossover @ 200hz would require RIDICULOUSLY large capacitors and inductors that would easily out price the drivers if you go high end.
Seriously @ 200hz you're looking at 60uF caps and 11mH inductors.
Are you looking for a nice thin profile and that's why you'd like side firing woofers?
If not, then the RS225-8 @ 13L front firing crossed at 400hz would be much easier to do.
The impedance bump of the CHR-70 will be pretty difficult to work with below 250Hz.
At 250Hz you'd end up with 47uF/9mH & 51uF/8.2mH.
The CHR-70 in 3L sealed and the RS225 in 9L sealed.
Last edited:
These are both paper....which I prefer. I have a few design models that are FAST designs that I have not followed through on for one reason or anther. One design utilizing a CHR-70 and a 12" woofer. I have evaluated woofers from 12" down to 5 1/4" for FAST principal. These 2 both are very attractive for both sealed and ported designs as long as you don't cross them too high.
http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-919-tang-band-w6-1139sif-specifications.pdf
http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-917-tang-band-w5-1138smf-specifications.pdf
There is a nice 8" version as well but it is better suited for a ported alignment. Not sure about availability in your country.
http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-919-tang-band-w6-1139sif-specifications.pdf
http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-917-tang-band-w5-1138smf-specifications.pdf
There is a nice 8" version as well but it is better suited for a ported alignment. Not sure about availability in your country.
@ Einric
Yep, I do know that the woofer and fullrange will need their own cavities, and I am using active XO. I guess impedance matching between the drivers may have pointed at another direction, however that is because it would be best if I could use as few variations on voltage rails as possible.
Also the force cancellation is more the desired effect over the slim looks as far as sidefirers are concerned - once you line them up some drivers end up being pretty deep anyway (the 6-1/2" tang bands suggested would be at least 220mm - and I wouldn't... couldn't put their magnets right on back to back. Regular woofers I would be looking at about 180mm width)
@ harvylogan
Those Tang Band's spark interest if not only for the fact that they have massive stroke, though minuses include the depth and I can't find any reasonable review with some tests that are more than just a FR curve.
Based on this youtube vid it sounds a little nasty in places when he does the sweep, though the excursion on the video admittedly looks excessive. Sweet 6.5" subwoofer! tang band w6-1139SIF - YouTube
But prices look like they will be quite similar to getting a hold of the SB and Peerless options, so that drive system's gotta live up to it for me to go there.
Yep, I do know that the woofer and fullrange will need their own cavities, and I am using active XO. I guess impedance matching between the drivers may have pointed at another direction, however that is because it would be best if I could use as few variations on voltage rails as possible.
Also the force cancellation is more the desired effect over the slim looks as far as sidefirers are concerned - once you line them up some drivers end up being pretty deep anyway (the 6-1/2" tang bands suggested would be at least 220mm - and I wouldn't... couldn't put their magnets right on back to back. Regular woofers I would be looking at about 180mm width)
@ harvylogan
Those Tang Band's spark interest if not only for the fact that they have massive stroke, though minuses include the depth and I can't find any reasonable review with some tests that are more than just a FR curve.
Based on this youtube vid it sounds a little nasty in places when he does the sweep, though the excursion on the video admittedly looks excessive. Sweet 6.5" subwoofer! tang band w6-1139SIF - YouTube
But prices look like they will be quite similar to getting a hold of the SB and Peerless options, so that drive system's gotta live up to it for me to go there.
I have read that published data has been an issue for some with Tang Band but I have not used any of their drivers so I cant comment.
MLC
MLC
- Status
- Not open for further replies.