Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Open Source Monkey Box
Open Source Monkey Box
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 Search this Thread
Old 11th February 2019, 07:28 AM   #731
KaffiMann is offline KaffiMann  Norway
Fanatic
diyAudio Member
 
KaffiMann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Grua, not far from Oslo.
Open Source Monkey Box
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
...
I do not understand how that model works. Since the box dimensions are the same for both curves, the resonances due to standing waves that develop between the walls of the box should be the same. This is clearly not what the model does. So what's the process/mechanism in this model that is responsible for the different results at different placements of the woofer in the box?
Again, at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, it is the placement of driver in relation to internal walls, bottom and top. It is the sole reason I prefer simulating BR boxes in Hornresp, and also why I use the horn segments and not the BR function for simulation. I want to see what issues might surface, smooth curves on simulations makes me think that not everything is accounted for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
Assuming there is a way to make sense of the underlying processes that result in the different model outputs, the following would be interesting:
  • Can you run that model with a "stuffed port" (i.e., no port at all)? It would be interesting what the model does with those resonances, and how it compares to what I am observing in the real world.
  • In a next step, it would be interesting to see what the model does with the woofer placement as it is in the Monkey Coffin (since we cannot change that a lot), but with the port at different positions. Where is the best position for the port?
No port = nowhere the resonances can escape. A closed box would also have more stuffing, so any internal reflections would not cause resonances to the same degree.

There are some limits on where I can simulate port placement.
But following logic and reflections, a tubed port would be better in the middle, since that is the optimal driver placement.
And a slot port would be much better at the opposite side from the 12", IE the top of the enclosure. But you and Paul had some strong objections against this, mainly because of issues with diffraction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
Now this is beyond me. Can you explain? What is the meaning of "equal length and size, front and center"? What's the idea here?
The port should not be any smaller, it might cause problems with turbulence at certain frequencies/volumes. To retain the same tuning, a port with equal cross sectional area, should also be of the same length. I do suspect you might end up with a slightly higher measured tuning anyway, since the tube port will have slightly less drag resistance/allows higher air speed in the center.
__________________
To think properly inside the box, it helps to have a good understanding of what goes on outside it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2019, 04:19 PM   #732
mbrennwa is online now mbrennwa  Switzerland
diyAudio Member
 
mbrennwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
KaffiMann, I believe I am missing some crucial piece of context. I can't make sense of your model curves, and I feel pretty stupid about this. I'd like to understand what's going on behind the scenes of your model runs, and how to interpret the model curves. I am trying to understand the processes that lead to the curves you have shown. So here I go again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
Again, at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, it is the placement of driver in relation to internal walls, bottom and top.
Well, yes, I understand that. But why does the driver placement make a difference in the model? What is the process behind this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
No port = nowhere the resonances can escape.
Uhm, what about the driver? If the air inside the box resonates, the driver cone will go with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
A closed box would also have more stuffing, so any internal reflections would not cause resonances to the same degree.
Sure. But I am just trying to make sense of what the model does, and how it does it. That's why I asked for the "no port" model run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
There are some limits on where I can simulate port placement.
But following logic and reflections, a tubed port would be better in the middle, since that is the optimal driver placement.
Let's assume for a moment that I'd understand why+how driver placement would make a difference. The next question would then be: why would the optimal port placement where the optimal driver placement is? What is the logic behind this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
And a slot port would be much better at the opposite side from the 12", IE the top of the enclosure.
Why would the optimum placement of a slot port be different than for a round tube?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
But you and Paul had some strong objections against this, mainly because of issues with diffraction.
Yes, placing the port on the front panel next to the mid+tweeter might not be great considering diffraction. But what about the port on the back of the enclosure. Anything wrong with that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
I do suspect you might end up with a slightly higher measured tuning anyway, since the tube port will have slightly less drag resistance/allows higher air speed in the center.
I am aware of this. My idea was to compare the tuning(s) between the current slot port and the round tube by measurement (impedance, nearfield SPL, cone excursion).
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2019, 04:52 PM   #733
BYRTT is online now BYRTT  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
BYRTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Open Source Monkey Box
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
...I'd like to understand what's going on behind the scenes of your model runs, and how to interpret the model curves...
Well blank myself about acoustics inner of ported system and also running Hornresp, that said think if we did spend few minutes on below page should get us more or less going about using Hornresp and ported system understanding.

The Subwoofer DIY Page - Ported Systems
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2019, 05:33 PM   #734
KaffiMann is offline KaffiMann  Norway
Fanatic
diyAudio Member
 
KaffiMann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Grua, not far from Oslo.
Open Source Monkey Box
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
KaffiMann, I believe I am missing some crucial piece of context. I can't make sense of your model curves, and I feel pretty stupid about this. I'd like to understand what's going on behind the scenes of your model runs, and how to interpret the model curves. I am trying to understand the processes that lead to the curves you have shown. So here I go again...
I see. Well, to be honest, I do not have the full understanding myself, you would have to ask David about this.
But after spending some years doing a few hours of simulations every single day, I've come to see patterns that say something about the distances inside the box. I am no good at maths, and horrible at theory, but I do have a fairly good spatial understanding, and can easily manipulate shapes, signals and reflections in my head.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
Well, yes, I understand that. But why does the driver placement make a difference in the model? What is the process behind this?
It coincides with measured results, it is caused by certain frequencies bouncing around between the internal surfaces. Ask David about the math behind it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
Uhm, what about the driver? If the air inside the box resonates, the driver cone will go with it.
You are correct, but the increase in damping material will largely negate the effect. (and it does not show up in the simulation quite the same way, the effect may be overly reduced by the "closed box" simulation).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
Sure. But I am just trying to make sense of what the model does, and how it does it. That's why I asked for the "no port" model run.
It does not come up the same way in closed box simulations, I aim for getting realistic simulations, not pretty simulations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
Let's assume for a moment that I'd understand why+how driver placement would make a difference. The next question would then be: why would the optimal port placement where the optimal driver placement is? What is the logic behind this?
This only counts for the tube port, because that is a point in the box where the 250hz does not resonate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
Why would the optimum placement of a slot port be different than for a round tube?
Because it is very unpractical to place a slot port in the middle of the enclosure. Better to use an existing boundary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
Yes, placing the port on the front panel next to the mid+tweeter might not be great considering diffraction. But what about the port on the back of the enclosure. Anything wrong with that?
You're welcome to try, I do not like it because I find it can boost some room mode issues much more than a front port. And I find a front port gives more "impact" (not more sound) even at low volumes, this is why I also like to have the port higher up from the floor, the measured sound is not directional, but the initial pressure change is. It is a bit like hearing a reflection vs hearing the same sound unreflected, only very low in frequency.
If you like having the port on the back and have no room issues, please continue to enjoy the rear port.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
I am aware of this. My idea was to compare the tuning(s) between the current slot port and the round tube by measurement (impedance, nearfield SPL, cone excursion).
I will look forward to seeing your results.
__________________
To think properly inside the box, it helps to have a good understanding of what goes on outside it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2019, 06:52 PM   #735
mbrennwa is online now mbrennwa  Switzerland
diyAudio Member
 
mbrennwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by BYRTT View Post
...think if we did spend few minutes on below page should get us more or less going about using Hornresp and ported system understanding.

The Subwoofer DIY Page - Ported Systems
I had a quick look at the link, and it does explain the internal resonances. As far as I can tell, it's just good old standing waves that develop between the (parallel) panels of the box. As he changes the "Lrc" parameter (the depth of the box) to 0.4m, a standing wave develops at 2 x Lrc = 0.8m, which shows up at 343m/s / 0.8m = 428 Hz (simple Kindergarden math). Note that this result does not depend on the position of the driver in the box. KaffiMann suggested something else, so I guess there must be something in Hornresp that I am missing (and I refuse to believe the Hornresp curves as long as I don't understand them ).

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
I see. Well, to be honest, I do not have the full understanding myself, you would have to ask David about this.
Who is David? Can you please ask him?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
...This only counts for the tube port, because that is a point in the box where the 250hz does not resonate.
Naaaah. It is not possible for an internal resonance (standing wave) to occur only at some spots in the enclosure, but not at others. Either it's everywhere, or it does not exist. After all, a standing wave works by filling the whole box!

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
You're welcome to try, I do not like it because I find it can boost some room mode issues much more than a front port.
Why would that be the case? For a tuning frequency of 50 Hz, the wavelength is 6.9m (and longer for lower tuning frequencies), and the sound irradiation in spherical. Moving the port from the front to the back of the enclosure would move the "center of the sphere" back by about 40 cm, which is less than 6% of the wavelength. I would have thought that's pretty much irrelevant.

I can see only one situation where a rear port would be a problem. If the speaker would be positioned very close to a wall or cramped into a bookshelf, a rear port would be blocked by the wall (and the books).

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
I find a front port gives more "impact" (not more sound) even at low volumes, this is why I also like to have the port higher up from the floor, the measured sound is not directional, but the initial pressure change is.
Well, the "initial pressure change" is only directional if it's frequency is higher than the baffle step, which means well above 100 Hz. I'd prefer if the port would keep this lower midrange sound inside the box instead of acting as a leak that allows lower midrange sound to escape from the inside of the enclosure. Stopping this leakage would require stuffing some damping material into the port. This would also reduce the low frequency bass from the port, which we don't want. The only way to deal with this I can see is to send the "leaking midrange" backwards, away from the listener. The directionality would help to keep this "leakage" away from the listener a bit -- but I don't know how well this idea really works out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
I will look forward to seeing your results.
Me too... I am pretty sure I will learn a few things, possibly the hard way.

Last edited by mbrennwa; 11th February 2019 at 06:56 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2019, 11:00 PM   #736
KaffiMann is offline KaffiMann  Norway
Fanatic
diyAudio Member
 
KaffiMann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Grua, not far from Oslo.
Open Source Monkey Box
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
I had a quick look at the link, and it does explain the internal resonances. As far as I can tell, it's just good old standing waves that develop between the (parallel) panels of the box. As he changes the "Lrc" parameter (the depth of the box) to 0.4m, a standing wave develops at 2 x Lrc = 0.8m, which shows up at 343m/s / 0.8m = 428 Hz (simple Kindergarden math). Note that this result does not depend on the position of the driver in the box. KaffiMann suggested something else, so I guess there must be something in Hornresp that I am missing (and I refuse to believe the Hornresp curves as long as I don't understand them ). ...
I am really not suggesting anything else, you got it wrong.
I just do not know how to explain it to you, so you can understand.
There is no magic involved.

What is resonance, and why do parallel surfaces trigger them?
Very, very short explanation:
If a driver has short distance to boundaries it will trigger resonant behaviour in higher frequencies.
If a driver has longer distance to boundaries it will trigger resonant behaviour in lower frequencies.

Higher frequencies are easier to damp down because they have a shorter wavelength, therefore resonant behaviour pushed up higher will be easier to isolate.
Lower frequencies are harder to damp down because the wavelengths are longer, and resonant behaviour in low frequencies require much more material to deal with.

I like you Matthias, but you show some very flawed logic.
By your line or reasoning there should be no difference in sound pressure level througout a room. And all resonances should come through at an equal volume and pressure no matter what surfaces they trigger from.

This is false.

You can easily hear the phase disturbance by reflection of a boundary, it is not double or half signal strength, it is disturbance in phase from reflections that come in adittion to the original signal. And these reflections cause a "perceived" boost or loss, pending on where in the room the signals meet.

It is the exact same thing that happens inside a speaker box, only on a much smaller scale.

You can hear the phase variations in room modes yourself, extremely easy to do, you just have to really understand that it is not a boost in signal strength, it is a reflection of the signal, skewed in phase in relation to the original.

Software tools can only simulate so much. I used to run a lot of akabak sims, but after a while I came to see that Hornresp was much easier to use, and eventually came incredibly close to the akabak results, so seeing as akabak is no longer in development, and requires an XP machine, I came to rely more on Hornresp.

David Mcbean is the creator of hornresp, he has a sticky thread in the subwoofer forum.

Do not trust Hornresp? Not a problem for me, but then by your definition that 250hz resonance should not exist.
__________________
To think properly inside the box, it helps to have a good understanding of what goes on outside it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2019, 07:39 AM   #737
KaffiMann is offline KaffiMann  Norway
Fanatic
diyAudio Member
 
KaffiMann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Grua, not far from Oslo.
Open Source Monkey Box
Oh, wow, so many typos.
I will blame it on being rushed, no time to proof read.
__________________
To think properly inside the box, it helps to have a good understanding of what goes on outside it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2019, 02:48 PM   #738
mbrennwa is online now mbrennwa  Switzerland
diyAudio Member
 
mbrennwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
I like you Matthias, but you show some very flawed logic.
Ok, I will try to improve on the "but" part then

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
I am really not suggesting anything else, you got it wrong.
You suggested the resonance depends on the placement of the woofer in the box. My explanations showed that the resonances shown in BYRTTs link just depend on the internal dimension(s) of the box, and they are not related to the placement of the woofer. This simply means we are not referring to the same processes. It does not mean that I got it wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
[...regarding room modes...] By your line or reasoning there should be no difference in sound pressure level througout a room ... This is false.
This would be very wrong indeed! However, that's not what I was referring to. I believe this shows the root of where our misunderstanding(s) come from.
Here's what I wrote: "It is not possible for an internal resonance (standing wave) to occur only at some spots in the enclosure, but not at others. Either it's everywhere, or it does not exist. After all, a standing wave works by filling the whole box!" Note that I did not write anything about sound pressure. I was just referring the to wave as a whole, which is characterised by sound pressure and acoustic particle velocity.
Now, for a standing wave between two parallel walls (of a room or a loudspeaker enclosure), the particle velocity is zero at the walls (nodes), because the walls block any movement. For the first mode, the particle velocity is largest in the center between the walls. For higher modes, there are nodes in between the walls where the particle velocity is zero. At the same time, the sound pressure is at its maximum at the nodes. You are therefore right that sound pressure is not spatially uniform for standing waves, but the wave as a whole (pressure+velocity) still exists everywhere!

Now that I believe to understand your "pressure-centric" view at standing waves I wonder if you're saying that the bass reflex port or the driver should be placed where the nodes of the standing waves occur (or possibly also the other way round: away from the nodes)? Is this it? If so: what would be the explanation for it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
Software tools can only simulate so much ... Do not trust Hornresp?
It's not that I don't trust Hornresp. It's just that I don't understand the processes that are included in the model, so I find it difficult to interpret the results. As long as I don't know what processes are in the model I cannot interpret the results such that I can use them to tweak a real-world loudspeaker system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaffiMann View Post
...but then by your definition that 250hz resonance should not exist.
My logic is the other way round. I know the 250 Hz resonance exists, because that's what the measurements tell me. I'd like to do something against this resonance, so I need to understand the process that causes it. A computer tool that works on a model with processes that are unknown to me will therefore not help me.

The only thing I understand so far is that the 250 Hz effect is not easy to explain with a standing wave within the enclosure because (a) the effect goes away if the port is stuffed (which has nothing to do with internal standing waves) and (b) the box dimensions don't match the 250 Hz frequency.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2019, 05:16 PM   #739
KaffiMann is offline KaffiMann  Norway
Fanatic
diyAudio Member
 
KaffiMann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Grua, not far from Oslo.
Open Source Monkey Box
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
You suggested the resonance depends on the placement of the woofer in the box. My explanations showed that the resonances shown in BYRTTs link just depend on the internal dimension(s) of the box, and they are not related to the placement of the woofer. This simply means we are not referring to the same processes. It does not mean that I got it wrong.
Yes, it does change. What can a loudspeaker enclosure be compared to? Hmmm. Lets see if there's anything around us that is comparable, oh! maybe, I dunno, a room?
Does the sonic characteristic, the resonant frequencies, the nulls and the peaks, change, pending on where in the room you place a loudspeaker?
What happens inside a loudspeaker enclosure is directly comparable to what happens to sound waves in a room. A loudspeaker = a small room inside another room/space.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
"It is not possible for an internal resonance (standing wave) to occur only at some spots in the enclosure, but not at others. Either it's everywhere, or it does not exist. After all, a standing wave works by filling the whole box!" Note that I did not write anything about sound pressure. I was just referring the to wave as a whole, which is characterised by sound pressure and acoustic particle velocity.
Now, for a standing wave between two parallel walls (of a room or a loudspeaker enclosure), the particle velocity is zero at the walls (nodes), because the walls block any movement. ...
The walls do not primarily block movement, it is reflected. More below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
Now that I believe to understand your "pressure-centric" view ...
If there's any way to understand my view, it would be best described as "wave centric".
I imagine the frequencies emitted from the drivers as waves, the waves come from a disturbance in the space, spread out throughout the enclosure, reflect off surfaces, collide with each other, some times null each other out because that is what happens when two waves of inverted phase meet. Some times you get small waves on top of bigger waves, some times the phase difference will make waves seem stronger when they are merely disturbed.

Waves are not equal throughout a volume, put your finger in a box/container with water, you create waves, the waves are reflected off the surrounding surfaces, pending on where you create the waves you will change where the waves are reflected, where they cancel each other, where they add to each other. If you use a round container you get a completely different result from if you use something like the square deep pan from the oven. It is the same inside a room, or inside a loudspeaker.

I've had some of this discussion before, with Silverprout, will try and find the thread.

In my limited experience, the "wave centric" view holds up very well.
Please remember that I am entitled to some insanity.

The 250hz resonance can be dampened in the port, because that is where it escapes.
You can for instance imagine lines from the speaker cone, one goes up, reflects off the top, enters the port. It could also go other ways. How long is it from the speaker cone, to the top, then to the bottom of the port?

You will have to accept any typos, I got to watch the kids use hammers and nails.
__________________
To think properly inside the box, it helps to have a good understanding of what goes on outside it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2019, 09:18 PM   #740
mbrennwa is online now mbrennwa  Switzerland
diyAudio Member
 
mbrennwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
The postman delivered the round bass reflex ports (Monacor BR-100HP) I ordered for testing. I installed one in the Monkey Coffin (centered on the rear panel) and measured the nearfield SPL response of the woofer:
  • Red curve: front/slot port open, rear/round port closed (filled with compressed foam)
  • Blue curve: Rear/round port open, front/slot port closed (filled with compressed foam)
  • Black curve: Both ports closed (filled with compressed foam)

You can clearly see that funny things happen at 250 Hz with the front/slot port open (red curve). No such resonance happens with the rear/round port, which is quite a bit shorter than the front/slot port. This indicates that the 250 Hz issue happens within the long slot port, not in the enclosure.

I'll continue by taking a closer look at the bass reflex tuning with the new port, and also do some listening tests.
Attached Images
File Type: png acoustic_nearfield_woofer.png (31.1 KB, 74 views)
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Open Source Monkey BoxHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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
[Open source] TINA The total open source Audiophile Player based on Beaglebone Black DragonWar PC Based 7 18th December 2016 03:31 PM
Ultimate Open Source XMOS USB-I2S: The source to end all sources. krfkeith Digital Source 4 14th June 2013 04:54 PM
Volume / Source selector - open source project ? AuroraB Analog Line Level 22 22nd September 2012 03:21 PM
Open call for suggestions on Open Source DIY Audio Design gfergy Everything Else 1 15th April 2007 08:33 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 14.29%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2019 diyAudio
Wiki