I took into account the baffle step loss...baffle is 35cm wide.
The sim at page 1 includes the baffle loss.
lojzek's sim doesn't include port response.
Thanks for the reply. I tried to simulate your driver in a 70 liter box tuned to 30hz in speakerbuilder pro that someone linked to, i can not see in the simulation why this driver should have more punch then 26w, if punch is not a frequency response thing what could be causing the punch? Driver surface area maybe or driver sensitivity?
The main thing for punch i think is efficiency, you need a balance between low end extension and efficiency.
If you want very deep bass from a modest size you sacrifice efficiency and the punch is usually lost.
But "punch" is subjective, the more efficient bass is usually more tuneful, easy to follow and has more jump factor IME.
Ok, 110l is not modest size but a 10 inch woofer for this box is usually too small.
Last edited:
I believe that the solution to this issue is now obvious. I advise to read the white paper by J.Bagby on Accurate In-Room Frequency Response to 10Hz, if not already done and redesign the speaker with new frd's. Btw, the vented box and port response was factored in.
edit: stick to the facts which is measured data, not audiophile beliefs on what a driver is or isn't capable of.
edit: stick to the facts which is measured data, not audiophile beliefs on what a driver is or isn't capable of.
Last edited:
As a possible replacement, you might check the Beyma 12BR70. 110L BR should suit nicely, you might want to retune the port, or not.
That said, I have heard the 4-ohm version (26W4534) in a 80-ish L BR, and the bass was impressive, even overwhelming since the owner had them placed very close to the front wall, and one in a corner. Pulling them out by about 40-50 cm improved the bass (reduced the boom). Stuffing the (front firing) BR ports with some wool, making them effectively aperiodic, made the bass "just right", IMO anyway. The system had a 5" Discovery bass-mid (15Wsomething) and a D2604 tweeter. Finally: the crossover was designed properly by a knowledgeable fellow DIY member, and the whole system behaved accordingly. The room and positioning was the limiting factor, by far.
That said, I have heard the 4-ohm version (26W4534) in a 80-ish L BR, and the bass was impressive, even overwhelming since the owner had them placed very close to the front wall, and one in a corner. Pulling them out by about 40-50 cm improved the bass (reduced the boom). Stuffing the (front firing) BR ports with some wool, making them effectively aperiodic, made the bass "just right", IMO anyway. The system had a 5" Discovery bass-mid (15Wsomething) and a D2604 tweeter. Finally: the crossover was designed properly by a knowledgeable fellow DIY member, and the whole system behaved accordingly. The room and positioning was the limiting factor, by far.
Last edited:
Well, I expressed my impressions about the 4-Ohm 26W in that box/drivers/crossover/system - it was positive. It was obviously a successful design. Doesn't make 26W better than it is, but it worked in that particular system. My opinion, for whatever it's worth. Others' may differ.
I agree that one can't predict how a driver will sound just by looking at the simulation. But I mentioned the Beyma since 12" (semi) pro drivers were mentioned, and this one should fit. BTW, I have a quad of them sitting for quite a while, and will most probably end up as 2x12 OB - the actual TS measurements are very favorable (the Qts is more like 0.6...)
I agree that one can't predict how a driver will sound just by looking at the simulation. But I mentioned the Beyma since 12" (semi) pro drivers were mentioned, and this one should fit. BTW, I have a quad of them sitting for quite a while, and will most probably end up as 2x12 OB - the actual TS measurements are very favorable (the Qts is more like 0.6...)
I can not help thinking that it is frequency response issues that causes the problem, if i were you i would try an electronic crossover between woofer and mid and then try different crossover frequencies and lp and hp levels
A good woofer in a good box in a good setup should sound good, if not then something is broken in this chain
A good woofer in a good box in a good setup should sound good, if not then something is broken in this chain
I am not saying the woofer sounds bad.
But in this speaker with very good mid and very good tweeter you are expecting the bass to be more qualitative.
At the cost of repeating myself, my 26w have qts of 0.38 and suitable for BR but in reality the flat bass they produce is not fast or defined but on the contrary is slow and muddy
But in this speaker with very good mid and very good tweeter you are expecting the bass to be more qualitative.
At the cost of repeating myself, my 26w have qts of 0.38 and suitable for BR but in reality the flat bass they produce is not fast or defined but on the contrary is slow and muddy
If you close the port you'll have a sealed box with a low Qtc. Did you like that bass? I do not think so.
What about RT below 120 Hz?
IMO you are looking for mid.bass as only a professional driver could give. Not hifi, not the Ciare you're watching.
Rigid suspension, very low Qts, no flat extension below 100Hz. And power to drive it.
But the room?
What about RT below 120 Hz?
IMO you are looking for mid.bass as only a professional driver could give. Not hifi, not the Ciare you're watching.
Rigid suspension, very low Qts, no flat extension below 100Hz. And power to drive it.
But the room?
There is a problem with classical T/S parameters, namely that the data is valid only at Fs, so this is just a guess for describing the behavior of the entire bass reproduction of the loudspeaker.
Scan-Speak has developed a new driver measurement method for a more realistic picture.
This data (advanced parameters) is available for some SS drivers on their datasheets and you can use that with the Scan-Speak Toolbox's Advanced tab.
For example if you use the 26W-8534G00 advanced parameters, you can see that the more realistic Qts of this driver is 0,49. Qes is 0,51, Fs is 23,69, EBP is 46.
I think this data is correlated with what the OP has heard. A low Fs driver with a weak motor that is not suit well for a vented box.
Generally, the classic T/S parameters are more optimistic than what is happening in the real world.
My experience with an another 26W driver is the same. The calculated freq response from the advanced parameters is exactly the same as what was measured in the builded box, and there was no thank-you relationship with the curve calculated using the classic T/S parameters.
That is why I suggest lower Qes (or Qts) and the highest sensitivity as possible, which is usually means a strong motor and high efficiency.
Scan-Speak has developed a new driver measurement method for a more realistic picture.
This data (advanced parameters) is available for some SS drivers on their datasheets and you can use that with the Scan-Speak Toolbox's Advanced tab.
For example if you use the 26W-8534G00 advanced parameters, you can see that the more realistic Qts of this driver is 0,49. Qes is 0,51, Fs is 23,69, EBP is 46.
I think this data is correlated with what the OP has heard. A low Fs driver with a weak motor that is not suit well for a vented box.
Generally, the classic T/S parameters are more optimistic than what is happening in the real world.
My experience with an another 26W driver is the same. The calculated freq response from the advanced parameters is exactly the same as what was measured in the builded box, and there was no thank-you relationship with the curve calculated using the classic T/S parameters.
That is why I suggest lower Qes (or Qts) and the highest sensitivity as possible, which is usually means a strong motor and high efficiency.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.