Go Back   Home > Forums > >

QTS Method vs EBP for Full Range TangBand
QTS Method vs EBP for Full Range TangBand
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 19th January 2021, 03:23 PM   #1
incredible80 is offline incredible80
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Default QTS Method vs EBP for Full Range TangBand

Hi, I am currently designing a speaker for my bedroom. I have read many post regarding to speaker compatibility in sealed or closed encosure and saw two different method for calculating it. Some say QTS >0.5 is better for sealed and some say EBP <100 is better for sealed.

My problem lies in the current driver that i own where the QTS is 0.641 but the EBP is 130-ish. My question is, better sealed or ported for my driver in small listening room (bedroom TV)? Keep in mind that the speaker will almost have no gap to the walls (approx. 1-2cm).

I have modeled it on WinIsd, and on the ported enclosure the cone excursion is more than 10mm below tuning frequency (20W Input). Is the WinIsd cone excursion simulator accurate? As i am afraid to damage my drivers via over excursion since i don't know what the Xmax rating of my drivers are.

Help is appreciated, many thanks!

P.S. I attached the driver files obtained via TangBand
Attached Files
File Type: pdf W3-2001S LMS.pdf (54.9 KB, 28 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2021, 04:01 PM   #2
waxx is offline waxx  Belgium
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Wodecq, Belgium
EPB is the most important one for this, and with an EPB of 130 i would use ported, but more likely a TL with that high QTS.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2021, 05:42 PM   #3
incredible80 is offline incredible80
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
I currently have no resource to build a TL. If i placed the speakers right up against the wall, will it be worth the trouble designing it as a rear ported speaker (Can't make it a front ported because of size constraint)?
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2021, 06:33 PM   #4
Scottmoose is offline Scottmoose  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
EBP is a 1st order approximate guideline which attempts to provide a rapid indication what types of load a drive unit is suited to. Personally I regard it as bordering on worthless, since it can lead people right up the garden path, assuming that a driver 'can't' be used in xyz when that is not necessarily the case in practice.

Short version: it doesn't matter what the EBP derivation is if the alignment suits your requirements. The latter is what counts, so if you can hit your desired alignment, job done.

Driver excursion is a completely different matter. A vented box ultimately unloads 4th order (24dB/octave) at some point below tuning, exactly where & how depending on the specific implementation. So if you feed it with material that has a lot of output significantly below Fb, the driver will unload & flap about as though it's in free air (because in essence, it is at those frequencies where it no longer has any air-load from the enclosure). A sealed box is always safer in that sense. You might want to look at a folded TABAQ, it was designed for the TB units, so this one may suit (I haven't time to check right now, but it looks in roughly the ballpark from memory) and should get to to 50Hz. These are all small drivers though, so ultimately a little mechanical sympathy / expectation management (aka common sense) is required: there is only so much air you can shift with a 3in cone, so if you see it moving a large amount, turn the volume down.
__________________
www.wodendesign.com (commercial site)
www.frugal-horn.com www.frugal-phile.com (community sites)

Last edited by Scottmoose; 19th January 2021 at 06:41 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2021, 08:50 PM   #5
waxx is offline waxx  Belgium
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Wodecq, Belgium
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottmoose View Post
EBP is a 1st order approximate guideline which attempts to provide a rapid indication what types of load a drive unit is suited to. Personally I regard it as bordering on worthless, since it can lead people right up the garden path, assuming that a driver 'can't' be used in xyz when that is not necessarily the case in practice.

Short version: it doesn't matter what the EBP derivation is if the alignment suits your requirements. The latter is what counts, so if you can hit your desired alignment, job done.
That is true, it's a rough guideline, of what is most likely the best way in general, but not an absolute rule. For me it's what i try to sim first and see if it fits my needs.

And about the bass quality of a 3", it's true that it won't give much bass, for that you need a bigger driver. A 5 or 6" can do a lot more than any 3" on that. I would pair it with a woofer if you want to use this driver and have bass. And the winisd is accurate on xmax and how much bass you get from your driver.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2021, 10:39 PM   #6
planet10 is online now planet10  Canada
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
QTS Method vs EBP for Full Range TangBand
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottmoose View Post
... it doesn't matter what the EBP derivation is if the alignment suits your requirements.
What Scott says. The Qt can give you a ballpark of what the sims will look like but in the end i pay little attention and just look at the shape of the curves i get.

EBP is something i pay zero attention to.

dave
__________________
Stay safe. Stay home. Respect the 2m bubble.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2021, 10:42 PM   #7
planet10 is online now planet10  Canada
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
QTS Method vs EBP for Full Range TangBand
Quote:
Originally Posted by waxx View Post
And about the bass quality of a 3", it's true that it won't give much bass, for that you need a bigger driver.
There is only a loose relationship between cone size and how low they can go. I just did a sim for a fellow and one of the 8 he chose would not go any lower than the Alpair 5.2/3. Of course it can move more air and play louder.

dave
__________________
Stay safe. Stay home. Respect the 2m bubble.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2021, 02:40 AM   #8
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
FWIW: Enclosure Dilemma
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2021, 05:49 AM   #9
incredible80 is offline incredible80
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
So, I sim some more on WinIsd and come up with an enclosure size of 8.1L which give me a QTC of 0.717 in a sealed box. I attached some files of my sim and wanted to ask if the ported is a better way to go or just build a sealed box and just add a sub since it will be easier to implement (12db roll off). Thanks!
Attached Images
File Type: png Response.png (61.4 KB, 151 views)
File Type: png Cone Excursion @30W.png (59.4 KB, 152 views)
File Type: png Group Delay.png (38.9 KB, 151 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2021, 06:09 AM   #10
bansuri is online now bansuri  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dolceacqua
Quote:
Originally Posted by incredible80 View Post
I have modeled it on WinIsd, and on the ported enclosure the cone excursion is more than 10mm below tuning frequency (20W Input). Is the WinIsd cone excursion simulator accurate? As i am afraid to damage my drivers via over excursion since i don't know what the Xmax rating of my drivers are.

The program is right and yes you can damage the drivers with low frequencies content.
I guess your driver can only swing +/-1 or 2 mm, because of the relativly high efficiency. Similar TB 3" indicate this.

Also the enclosure will be quite large for a reflex, better and cleaner bass with a TL, a target of 100Hz would require a short 75cm line.


Only a closed box wouldn't need a high-pass filter could be small, but has high f3.
If you mount the chassis diagonal in the corner, there would not be any baffle step but even an increase in bass energy(+3dB), maybe your program can simulate this too.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


QTS Method vs EBP for Full Range TangBandHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Would it be okay to mix Low qts and high qts of the same sub? icecreamxd Subwoofers 7 4th December 2013 09:00 PM
what sounds best . . . Low Qts in small cab or higher Qts in bigger cab mikelm Subwoofers 18 15th July 2009 11:46 AM
EBP and QTS horus Multi-Way 27 2nd January 2007 01:29 AM
What if instead of a speaker with a Qts=1 I use a different Qts?? Tuliman Multi-Way 2 14th December 2004 12:54 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:11 AM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 14.29%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2021 diyAudio
Wiki