I wonder how the SLAPS will work with the xls12.
Since I have experience with the matching 300g Mms (50+% lower) PR with half the Fs, double the Qms and 1/4th of the Xmax......
Got no idea witch one would make better result.
The north Creek Thunder Sub was a truly High-End, very precise, super tight unit for sure!
Since I have experience with the matching 300g Mms (50+% lower) PR with half the Fs, double the Qms and 1/4th of the Xmax......
Got no idea witch one would make better result.
The north Creek Thunder Sub was a truly High-End, very precise, super tight unit for sure!
Use winisd for simulation to get a feel for the performance.
Overall I would think 2 x XLS PRs + 1 XLS is the best sound quality wise option ... but quite expensive
1 x XLS PR + 1 XLS .... not the best option as the PR will run out of steam
1 x SLAPS M12 + 1 XLS, will give you lots of low end output
2 x SLAPS + 1 x XLS, probably more or less as good as with 2 XLS PRs, but overkill PR wise
2 x SLAPS + 2 XLS ...... would be a bad *** solution
1 x XLS + port. Works quite well but you'll need a very long port, and bending it will cause some distortion as mentioned
Overall I would think 2 x XLS PRs + 1 XLS is the best sound quality wise option ... but quite expensive
1 x XLS PR + 1 XLS .... not the best option as the PR will run out of steam
1 x SLAPS M12 + 1 XLS, will give you lots of low end output
2 x SLAPS + 1 x XLS, probably more or less as good as with 2 XLS PRs, but overkill PR wise
2 x SLAPS + 2 XLS ...... would be a bad *** solution
1 x XLS + port. Works quite well but you'll need a very long port, and bending it will cause some distortion as mentioned
I tried to model it in winISD, but not really working.
If I add the numbers from the application notes, the numbers are not the same.
Got no idea, if the d=9cm is the outer or the inner of the tube?
WinISD uses or net volume? Or I have to add the port and the displacement too?
Is it worth it to buy a PR, (spl and quality wise) or if I follow the app. notes, it will be OK?
BTW the app notes numbers are for net volume?
If I add the numbers from the application notes, the numbers are not the same.
Got no idea, if the d=9cm is the outer or the inner of the tube?
WinISD uses or net volume? Or I have to add the port and the displacement too?
Is it worth it to buy a PR, (spl and quality wise) or if I follow the app. notes, it will be OK?
BTW the app notes numbers are for net volume?
For winisd:
Tube diameter = inner measurement
Vol = net volume
PR: I think PRs are better in both ways; quality and SPL, but at an added cost of course.
I would start by looking at how big I can accept the sub to be.
For the XLS + SMAPS M12 I would go 40 liter if this is ok size wise in your room, otherwise I think 30 liter is usable. 40 liter will give you about 3 db more at 25 Hz!
You will need a bit of electronics for filtering. Go for a DSP for this, with all the benefits of being able to tweak and tune it.
See pictures for the T/S parameters I use for sim'ing the SLAPS M12. Not 100% sure these are correct, so it will be a little try and error. Build a cheap box first to try it out. Then you can later make the perfect box for it, when you are sure.
I will try out 30 liter myself firstly, and then just use a bit more power, to get the XLS to max out. With a tuning of about 26 Hz you'll need 600W (use a class d amp for this and an SMPS) ... resulting in 106 db @ 25 Hz
The SLAPS will only move +-28mm at 25 Hz, so plenty of headroom here.
It will be some weeks/months before I get down to business with my build ... I have other projects more pressing ... e.g. my Earthquake DBXi15 + SLAPS 15
Tube diameter = inner measurement
Vol = net volume
PR: I think PRs are better in both ways; quality and SPL, but at an added cost of course.
I would start by looking at how big I can accept the sub to be.
For the XLS + SMAPS M12 I would go 40 liter if this is ok size wise in your room, otherwise I think 30 liter is usable. 40 liter will give you about 3 db more at 25 Hz!
You will need a bit of electronics for filtering. Go for a DSP for this, with all the benefits of being able to tweak and tune it.
See pictures for the T/S parameters I use for sim'ing the SLAPS M12. Not 100% sure these are correct, so it will be a little try and error. Build a cheap box first to try it out. Then you can later make the perfect box for it, when you are sure.
I will try out 30 liter myself firstly, and then just use a bit more power, to get the XLS to max out. With a tuning of about 26 Hz you'll need 600W (use a class d amp for this and an SMPS) ... resulting in 106 db @ 25 Hz
The SLAPS will only move +-28mm at 25 Hz, so plenty of headroom here.
It will be some weeks/months before I get down to business with my build ... I have other projects more pressing ... e.g. my Earthquake DBXi15 + SLAPS 15
Attachments
Last edited:
I think I will stay with the app notes and simply port it.
Any significant difference with the port placent? (front, bottom, rear)?
What annoys me, in winisd I added the perfect parameters, but port length never comes to the suggested 51cm for the d=9cm.
Also no idea, why Martin Audio, Meyer Sound D&B Audiotechnik and others uses triangle shape corner vents, if its that bad as someone suggested?
Or these big corporations employs retarded sound engineers?
There must be an acceptable answer for this phenomenon other than the looks of the units.
Any significant difference with the port placent? (front, bottom, rear)?
What annoys me, in winisd I added the perfect parameters, but port length never comes to the suggested 51cm for the d=9cm.
Also no idea, why Martin Audio, Meyer Sound D&B Audiotechnik and others uses triangle shape corner vents, if its that bad as someone suggested?
Or these big corporations employs retarded sound engineers?
There must be an acceptable answer for this phenomenon other than the looks of the units.
Hmm, All things considered it seems like a TL terminated with a PR would be best overall.
GM
Depends on where it's located in room, though for a true sub, personally prefer floor loaded, so no PR
Different programs use different math and why one should start too long and cut off as required.
Prosound use them as corner braces plus allows them to use larger vents on narrow/small baffles, while some others apparently use them for looks.
In general though, need to size them based on diameter, not area, for simming, so will have a larger area to offset the triangle's much greater friction losses.
GM
So if I choose to go with the corner, triangle ports, I have to calculate with a larger overall diameter?
is there a percentage for it?
I can have the net. 40 liter box, and the only reason I would use the triangle because than I can have front ports with the smallest front area.
Otherwise I would go with a double flanged round port at the back, probably even better results. isn't it??
The last would be a slot port under the woofer.
or to buy a 130€ PR (the 30w-0-0-0, most likely) The SLAPS isn't a PR for this driver....
When I built it with the 830547 PR, it was something I only heard from double 18 inch PA sub at 50% power, but it reached way much lower freq.
is there a percentage for it?
I can have the net. 40 liter box, and the only reason I would use the triangle because than I can have front ports with the smallest front area.
Otherwise I would go with a double flanged round port at the back, probably even better results. isn't it??
The last would be a slot port under the woofer.
or to buy a 130€ PR (the 30w-0-0-0, most likely) The SLAPS isn't a PR for this driver....
When I built it with the 830547 PR, it was something I only heard from double 18 inch PA sub at 50% power, but it reached way much lower freq.
?? Never bothered to figure a percentage increase, I just drew whatever diameter I wanted, then drew a triangle around it to make a template.
This is another advantage to triangle ports I'd forgotten, I wasn't limited by readily available tube sizes.
While I've rounded over baffle thickness ports [couldn't buy them AFAIK back in my main speaker building 'career' that ended in '75] and made slot and 1/8 WL horn ports, never did any comparison between them or with tube ports, just made sure they were at least 1/4x [Sd] for low power, 1/3x for [low] bass and later 1/2x when increasing Xmax and the high power to drive them became available. The pioneers had figured all this out before I was born, so saw no need to try and fix what wasn't broke.
OK, make a vent that matches the PR's acoustic equivalent, i.e. my observation to convert a vented box alignment to just one long vent [TL] and accept it will be larger.
GM
This is another advantage to triangle ports I'd forgotten, I wasn't limited by readily available tube sizes.
While I've rounded over baffle thickness ports [couldn't buy them AFAIK back in my main speaker building 'career' that ended in '75] and made slot and 1/8 WL horn ports, never did any comparison between them or with tube ports, just made sure they were at least 1/4x [Sd] for low power, 1/3x for [low] bass and later 1/2x when increasing Xmax and the high power to drive them became available. The pioneers had figured all this out before I was born, so saw no need to try and fix what wasn't broke.
OK, make a vent that matches the PR's acoustic equivalent, i.e. my observation to convert a vented box alignment to just one long vent [TL] and accept it will be larger.
GM
Why not make the baffle big enough to accommodate the appropriate sized round port? Seems easy enough, really only requires a slightly larger baffle and performs better.
Problem is with the 51cm long port.
If I keep the 28cm x 28cm inner size, it needs exactly 51cm length to get the 40l volume.
I have the braces and the front panel also, so there is a little room behind the flared port end to breath (like 6 cm or so)
This also gives some problem, if I want to put the port on the back, the driver is 13 cm deep, so the port isn't fit in, only if I bend it.
If I make the cabinet larger, it must be shorter, so that is why I wanted to go with the corner ports.
I might use 2 or 4 smaller round ports in the corner, to get the best result. (same total surface as the 1 x 9 cm port)
Or the slot port under the diver.
Decisions, decisions....... oh, my
Now I can't afford a PR for this project.
If I keep the 28cm x 28cm inner size, it needs exactly 51cm length to get the 40l volume.
I have the braces and the front panel also, so there is a little room behind the flared port end to breath (like 6 cm or so)
This also gives some problem, if I want to put the port on the back, the driver is 13 cm deep, so the port isn't fit in, only if I bend it.
If I make the cabinet larger, it must be shorter, so that is why I wanted to go with the corner ports.
I might use 2 or 4 smaller round ports in the corner, to get the best result. (same total surface as the 1 x 9 cm port)
Or the slot port under the diver.
Decisions, decisions....... oh, my
Now I can't afford a PR for this project.
bending the port(s) isn't an option, I guess. External port isn't looking professional and pretty fragile.
Todays idea: using a cca 300mm pvc pipe and 4 x 50mm pipe for the reflex port, all 51cm.
Than put the entire stuff into a box from 10mm plywood to get rid of the unwanted resonances and an additional rectangular box to get the desired 40 liter net volume.
might be working....
Todays idea: using a cca 300mm pvc pipe and 4 x 50mm pipe for the reflex port, all 51cm.
Than put the entire stuff into a box from 10mm plywood to get rid of the unwanted resonances and an additional rectangular box to get the desired 40 liter net volume.
might be working....
Collo has some interesting external ports.
Subwoofer Projects
Back in 2006 I did a design for the XLS12 that used a rectangular port on the bottom of the box. The outlet is not shown in the front view of the sketch but have a pic of it. It has been suggested that the angled pieces in the corners of the port are not necessary. This only added 88mm to the height of the box and there is no reason why it couldn't be added to the rear or side as long as the effective port length remains the same.
Subwoofer Projects
Back in 2006 I did a design for the XLS12 that used a rectangular port on the bottom of the box. The outlet is not shown in the front view of the sketch but have a pic of it. It has been suggested that the angled pieces in the corners of the port are not necessary. This only added 88mm to the height of the box and there is no reason why it couldn't be added to the rear or side as long as the effective port length remains the same.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.