So welcome Tony. Wayne is a master.
He is super generous with his knowledge over on the Audio Round Table forum.
Pi Speakers - unmatched quality and state-of-the-art performance
Cheers.
He is super generous with his knowledge over on the Audio Round Table forum.
Pi Speakers - unmatched quality and state-of-the-art performance
Cheers.
Last edited:
Shared port
Hi. I'm new to bouilding speaker enclosure. I wonder if my understanding of ported enclosure is correct.
My plan is to build subwoofer ported enclosure with double V port, where half of port is shared between two chambers, other half is for every enclosure. Is this correct or should be shared part of the port size*2 ?
Hi. I'm new to bouilding speaker enclosure. I wonder if my understanding of ported enclosure is correct.
My plan is to build subwoofer ported enclosure with double V port, where half of port is shared between two chambers, other half is for every enclosure. Is this correct or should be shared part of the port size*2 ?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited by a moderator:
If I may, ordinarily 2*(the individual sections) would be the right way to primarily get the same result as a single. I think that if the shared section is any smaller than 2*(the individual sections), then the shared section would become the primary determinant of effective port length. On the other hand, that could potentially also make the individual sections act as port flares, which is interesting. TBH, I'd measure to be sure 
I have seen subwoofer boxes that's like that, though not exactly.
As AllenB said, the cross section area needs to be half in the single sections. You will also need to consider that the port is actually 'continuing' a short distance even when one side dissappear.
In short, it works, but it might be difficult to predict exactly how (if that's important for you).
As AllenB said, the cross section area needs to be half in the single sections. You will also need to consider that the port is actually 'continuing' a short distance even when one side dissappear.
In short, it works, but it might be difficult to predict exactly how (if that's important for you).
I would love to get his input on this, but I think my questions stands valid for a traditional builder. Im worried that the cone breakup will be too noticeable for a 700 Hz LR4 crossover but would like some input. Linkwitz uses U22REX/P-SL for his at 700 Hz with has smoother response, he has also used CA22RNX which has somewhat smoother response.
Thanks, this driver has a nasty peak at 3k and in need of some correct between 1-2k. Going active I think it should be fine as well. But some confirmation is nice.
If there is still a problem with the peak then there are a number of ways you can deal with it as well, if you are going passive, it could be as simple as a cap (with potentially a resistor in series) in parallel with one of the coils in your woofer crossover.
There are also dedicated series or parallel notch filters as possibilities. If going active, especially if DSP based then the problem area (if it is a problem) should be easily dealt with.
Tony.
There are also dedicated series or parallel notch filters as possibilities. If going active, especially if DSP based then the problem area (if it is a problem) should be easily dealt with.
Tony.
My 2c. I once had a speaker with a blown mid. After years of theorising I now had a chance to see what I could do. I had no internet, no books on the subject. That mid project alone showed me woodworking and box stuffing. It showed me what a driver could and couldn't do, where it sounded good and where not, about sensitivity, about crossovers. It led me to learn box calcutations, then to my first hand drawn crossover simulations before I decided to build my first speaker from scratch.
You may be aware of things when you read them but you don't 'know' them until you have done them.
This may be a big topic but there's no need to get ahead of what you are ready to accomplish. Trying to build a perfect example without making a few failed ones along the way, having to discard them and start again.. is beyond normal human capabilities imo. Copying, though fine, won't show you what the design decisions were, but making your own mistakes leads you to the things you need and want to read about.
You may be aware of things when you read them but you don't 'know' them until you have done them.
This may be a big topic but there's no need to get ahead of what you are ready to accomplish. Trying to build a perfect example without making a few failed ones along the way, having to discard them and start again.. is beyond normal human capabilities imo. Copying, though fine, won't show you what the design decisions were, but making your own mistakes leads you to the things you need and want to read about.
Yes I totally agree with Allen, you can get paralysis by analysis. The only real way to learn is to actually do it. Starting off modest and learning what works and what doesn't without breaking the bank is definitely recommended.
Going in with an attitude of "I'm not going to spend too much as it may not work out as well as I wanted, but at least I'll learn something". Is definitely better than spending countless hours deliberating and finally spending a large sum of money and potentially ending up disappointed.
My original three way speakers (which I modified from some that were given to me) served me well for years, they sounded better than most anything anyone else I knew had, but I didn't realize that they still weren't very good till I heard some truly brilliant speakers. Those speakers had many things wrong with them but still managed to sound pretty good (relative to other things I had heard). You don't have to produce something perfect to be happy. It's more of an ongoing journey than a specific destination
Tony.
Going in with an attitude of "I'm not going to spend too much as it may not work out as well as I wanted, but at least I'll learn something". Is definitely better than spending countless hours deliberating and finally spending a large sum of money and potentially ending up disappointed.
My original three way speakers (which I modified from some that were given to me) served me well for years, they sounded better than most anything anyone else I knew had, but I didn't realize that they still weren't very good till I heard some truly brilliant speakers. Those speakers had many things wrong with them but still managed to sound pretty good (relative to other things I had heard). You don't have to produce something perfect to be happy. It's more of an ongoing journey than a specific destination
Tony.
For anyone designing and building their own speakers, may I suggest an open baffle design. Your chances of success are much higher and build times are quicker if you leave off the cabinet. Clarity is good, and bass compensation can be done by increasing the bass or an equaliser. My last OB design was quite OK with a 35W per side vintage amp - I just have to complete the thing.
A design like this looks good:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/123512-ultimate-baffle-gallery-162.html#post4278754
Over the years I have built several speakers and none have given me the satisfaction as the open baffle speakers I have recently built:
1991: Bookshelf speaker 6.5 inch Radio Shack 40-1011 woofer, tweeter
1995: 6 inch woofer and two 3" computer speakers (satellite subwoofer system)
2003: PC speakers using 4: woofer and 1 inch tweeter
2014 to present: Bookshelf speaker, desktop speaker, on - wall open baffle, desktop open baffles one design with 6 inch and 4.5 inch woofer and 1 inch tweeter. Right now I am experimenting with crossovers tweeters and coils to get the sound right. Everything points to my ending up with enjoyable speakers with good clarity of sound.
This looks like a good design as well:
Miniature Full Range Open Baffle for the Desktop | Parts Express Project Gallery
A design like this looks good:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/123512-ultimate-baffle-gallery-162.html#post4278754
Over the years I have built several speakers and none have given me the satisfaction as the open baffle speakers I have recently built:
1991: Bookshelf speaker 6.5 inch Radio Shack 40-1011 woofer, tweeter
1995: 6 inch woofer and two 3" computer speakers (satellite subwoofer system)
2003: PC speakers using 4: woofer and 1 inch tweeter
2014 to present: Bookshelf speaker, desktop speaker, on - wall open baffle, desktop open baffles one design with 6 inch and 4.5 inch woofer and 1 inch tweeter. Right now I am experimenting with crossovers tweeters and coils to get the sound right. Everything points to my ending up with enjoyable speakers with good clarity of sound.
This looks like a good design as well:
Miniature Full Range Open Baffle for the Desktop | Parts Express Project Gallery
Last edited:
Be careful about building your own speakers. I have only built two sets but have countless hours of planing the next one. It is a most addictive hobby. It can be a simple as following instructions for building a kit or as complicated as a PHD in physics with a arts major thrown in for good measure. And when you get done the room and speaker placement changes everything.