You have presented some graphs and you want to know if they are correct.
So firstly what is the input data for the Hornresp sims?
Is the input data correct to the layout of the speaker and how well has the path been simplified to suit the limited amount of sections in Hornresp? Hint here is to check the reported volume in Hornresp and see how closely the internal volume of the cabinet layout compares.
Obviously check the driver parameters, voltage and speaker placement - 2pi is commonly used for comparison.
What data have you for the Turbosound 118? - this is not a complete description of any Turbosound cabinet I know - It will use a custom driver and a cabinet layout that will not be freely available, so how are you going to compare it?
So firstly what is the input data for the Hornresp sims?
Is the input data correct to the layout of the speaker and how well has the path been simplified to suit the limited amount of sections in Hornresp? Hint here is to check the reported volume in Hornresp and see how closely the internal volume of the cabinet layout compares.
Obviously check the driver parameters, voltage and speaker placement - 2pi is commonly used for comparison.
What data have you for the Turbosound 118? - this is not a complete description of any Turbosound cabinet I know - It will use a custom driver and a cabinet layout that will not be freely available, so how are you going to compare it?
), the tham has more energy!
The Turbosound Bandpass horn - that you show in your picture would be about right at 105db/W - But needs to be simulated in multiples to get the low end extension correct.
The Tham box would be about 100db/W - Its advantage is based on its small size rather than its efficiency. Multiples of the tapped horn will not show the gains in low end performance that the bandpass horns will when used in groups.
The reflex cabinet will probably be 96db/W or less, so that's why the Tham has more energy. if you are concerned about efficiency of the speaker system I would look at a bigger design of tapped horn than the Tham series.
The Tham box would be about 100db/W - Its advantage is based on its small size rather than its efficiency. Multiples of the tapped horn will not show the gains in low end performance that the bandpass horns will when used in groups.
The reflex cabinet will probably be 96db/W or less, so that's why the Tham has more energy. if you are concerned about efficiency of the speaker system I would look at a bigger design of tapped horn than the Tham series.
Small, efficient, low bass - pick any two.
Hoffman's iron law.
I usually pick a low-frequency cutoff and then play around with the other two, favouring smaller cabinets and using multiples to get SPLs up.
Chris
That's how I prefer to roll.
I have 8x 15"s in small ported boxes tuned to 40Hz. I can use one for smaller gigs, and just bring more according to how loud it needs to be.
Others prefer just using one or two big cabinets.
Chris
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/272492-teeny-tiny-pa-15-subwoofer-12.html#post4939160
It's more like a ported box. ~95dB at 1w input.
Ciao,
Chris
It's more like a ported box. ~95dB at 1w input.
Ciao,
Chris
I've often heard this repeated, but I haven't seen any empirical tests to back it up, and the sims suggest otherwise. Granted, the change is not as large as say that for a FLH (likely due to the difference in mouth sizes), but the sims do suggest that there should be a difference.
Hmmm... I'm skeptical that boxes that small can do 40 Hz ~ 125 Hz at 100dB/1W/1M using an 8 ohm driver. I'd want to see some actual measurements that back that spec up.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.