2 hz tuning - pros and cons - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 12:16 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I've never been able to afford high xmax drivers until just lately with the release of the SI HT 18. So I never really bothered taking the time to simulate the possibilities. As expected, this type of driver is not a good choice for high tuning. Even with the ~ average 16 hz tuning you can't really use all the available xmax without dramatically surpassing the rated power handling (which may not even be an issue since this driver is apparently able to handle much more power than rated). So I kept lowering the tuning until I could actually use all the available xmax but the port size requirements ended up unrealistic. So I tuned even lower, just for fun to see what would happen. This is what I came up with.



That's dual SI HT 18 drivers in a Gjallerhorn size (external) ported box tuned to 2 hz with 1000 watts applied. Above 16 hz the Gjallerhorn wins but below 16 hz the SI box wins. (Comparing SI simulation with Data-Bass Gjallerhorn measured results, so it's not completely fair or accurate but that's the way it looks.)

I was surprised to see that I could get by with a 2 inch diameter port! It's 90 inches long but who cares, resonances are clearly not an issue and the entire port only takes up 10 liters or so of the box volume. Obviously it will chuff - but only below 3 hz, and who cares about that? Besides, applying a roundover on the port will probably make it chuff-free down to 2 hz and below that chuffing really doesn't matter much.

This can be used without any high pass filter at all, although amp turn on thump at full power will ruin your day in a dramatic way if that's not taken into account. You can see on the excursion graph that with 1000 watts there's no excursion problem until 1.5 hz and down.

The only problem I see is in other simulation programs, they show higher velocity and the velocity peak at ~ 75 hz might cause audible chuffing.

CONS
- large size (although just like a sealed box you can make it smaller and eq to taste)
- large excursion requirements (the high xmax, low cost driver takes care of that issue)
- it will chuff below 3hz (possibly 2hz depending on effectiveness of port roundover), and possibly at 75 hz also

PROS
- I see lots when I look at the graphs above (the blue line in each graph is IB response for the dual drivers for comparison purposes)

I should probably mention that even without a high pass filter, most amps are not flat to DC, so 2 hz tuning is not necessarily required to get the advantages shown here, even 5 hz tuning might be passable.

Opinions? Comments? Criticisms? I've never tried anything like this before so I have no idea if I might be overlooking something.
diy speaker guy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 12:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
notnyt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 4,495
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Liked: 458
You should really try to experience very low frequencies at high levels before going much further.
notnyt is online now  
post #3 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 01:06 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
You mean like thunder? I have real life experience. wink.gif

I'm not sure what your point is. That it will make me sick? That it will break my house? I'm aware those things could happen if abused but this is not a thread about human sensitivity to ultra low frequency, it's about seeing what can be done and finding out if I've overlooked anything in the simulation.

Like real thunder, I'm not planning to exaggerate the LF effect, just make it real in the short bursts that it appear in movie soundtracks.

I've never seen anyone argue AGAINST lower tuning (as long as there's adequate headroom through the whole frequency range) especially here in this forum, so again, I'm not sure what your point is. Especially since this is essentially the same thing (wrt frequency response) as sealed with eq but more output potential per driver.
diy speaker guy is offline  
post #4 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 01:24 PM
Member
 
Bushi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Alaska
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Have you compared this to a similarly sized sealed enclosure? It would seem to me that having such a low tuning negates most of the benefits of porting in the first place.
Bushi is offline  
post #5 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 01:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
notnyt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 4,495
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Liked: 458
The point is you're chasing something where the rewards are virtually nonexistent. You might want to throw in some sealed and i/b models into there, and perhaps a box tuned to 10hz or so.
notnyt is online now  
post #6 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 01:43 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushi View Post

Have you compared this to a similarly sized sealed enclosure? It would seem to me that having such a low tuning negates most of the benefits of porting in the first place.

The blue line in each graph is IB response for the drivers. Small sealed data for this driver is at Data -Bass.com.

So yeah, I've compared. You can do the same thing with small sealed boxes but it takes a lot more of them and a lot more power.
diy speaker guy is offline  
post #7 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 01:54 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

The point is you're chasing something where the rewards are virtually nonexistent. You might want to throw in some sealed and i/b models into there, and perhaps a box tuned to 10hz or so.

It cuts excursion in half down near tuning. If that's a nonexistent reward I guess I'm on the wrong forum.

Everybody was so excited about the fan sub with 3 hz capability. That thing needs a massive vent (bigger than the proposed design in post 1 for the vent alone) with stuffing and a fold to cut down on fan noise, and it needs a whole other room behind it to operate properly. Now I'm showing basically the same thing with regular ported boxes and 3 hz tuning is no longer cool or useful?

I'm completely bewildered by ANY comments saying low tuning isn't worth it. This is not a conversation about the value of being able to play 2 hz or the consequences of doing so, I can start another thread for that if you like. It's specifically about this design routine in which you can use what would regularly be considered a massively undersized port to achieve unbelievably low tuning with no response ripple, no need for a high pass filter, no excursion problems or chuffing until below 2 hz, double the spl with half the power vs sealed. In a 10 hz tuned box with same drivers, the port has to be unrealistically large and you can't use all the available xmax within the rated power handling.

All I'm trying to do is discuss the pros and cons of this design routine (not the usefullness or consequences of ultra low frequency reproduction or the pros and cons of different design routines with different tuning).
diy speaker guy is offline  
post #8 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 02:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
N8DOGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,792
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 322
Building with such a low tune is not the best idea. I'd rater use the 15hz tune and add more power. Actually if i had to choose between the 2, I'd go with the Gjallerhorn all day long. A tune that low will be only useful with a handful of movies.

Blasting brown notes for 10 years and counting!

N8DOGG is offline  
post #9 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 02:53 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post

Building with such a low tune is not the best idea. I'd rater use the 15hz tune and add more power. Actually if i had to choose between the 2, I'd go with the Gjallerhorn all day long.

Is there something specifically wrong with the simulation or is "not the best idea" personal preference? 2 of these (4 drivers total) should match (and probably beat) Gjallerhorn on the top end, but effectively extend the low end down to almost DC, and I think 4 of the SI are probably still cheaper than the Gjallerhorn driver.

You can tune these drivers higher, 10 or 15 hz, but as I mentioned you can't use the full xmax within rated power that way. These drivers can take more power than rated, that much is clear from the data bass testing. But how much more with clean uncompressed output? And how big are you prepared to make the port? How much response ripple can you put up with? (Large ports make large ripples.) How much of the available xmax are you comfortable wasting if it can't handle all this power uncompressed thermally?

Quote:
A tune that low will be only useful with a handful of movies.

True, but there are some, and from the reviews of people who own a fan sub, that 1/2 second of bass is well worth $13000. Dub King (a member here) makes music with 5 hz and maybe even lower IIRC. There IS media with content that low and there's more of it being produced every day. People are buying fan subs. Are they ignorant of something or just plain stupid? More money than brains? I don't know but there's at least one member here that owns one so we can easily ask him.
diy speaker guy is offline  
post #10 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 03:19 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
This isn't going the way I hoped. No one has commented on the simulation at all, it's not even clear if anyone read the post. All the comments have responded directly to the thread title, which has no context without the simulations. So I'll try this a different way and if this doesn't work I give up.

If the goal is to make a sub with the lowest possible FR that extends well over the highest crossover point you would ever need with no ripple (or at least minimal ripple) and no chuffing in a reasonably sized box (Gjallerhorn size at most), with a minimal amount of power, minimal power compression, and get the most spl possible within a low budget, is this a good way to do it or is there something wrong with the simulation?

Please stop telling me my goals are wrong and discuss the simulation.
diy speaker guy is offline  
post #11 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 03:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
WiSounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 921
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
1. Ashly KLR series amps are flat to 3hz.

2. If you do this, you become a card carrying member of the Krypto fan club.

 

Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice:
It's also the very sort of Voodoo Engineering that should never be done.

 

WiSounds is offline  
post #12 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 03:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,620
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Liked: 167
I was ready to dismiss this at 1st glance, but this is an interesting idea.

I guess the 75 Hz port resonance isn't an issue because the velocity is so low and it doesn't show up in the FR.

What occurs to me though is that even with 6 dB more output capability from the port, the fact that it's so small likely means it's not enough to be useful.

How about some SPL plots?

I suspect that's where it falls down compared to a fan sub.

Noah
noah katz is online now  
post #13 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 04:05 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

I was ready to dismiss this at 1st glance, but this is an interesting idea.

Thank you very much for looking over the simulations.
Quote:
I guess the 75 Hz port resonance isn't an issue because the velocity is so low and it doesn't show up in the FR.

It doesn't look like an issue at all in MJK's mathcad sheets (as shown) but if you model the same thing in WinISD (with port resonances turned on) that little blip at 75 hz turns into a huge chuffmaster spike. Not sure if the difference is due to damping (stuffing applied in my simulation but not in WinISD) or internal losses being calculated differently between the 2 programs or something else, but the WinISD equivalent sim makes me nervous.

(It should be noted that there is a bit of ripple in my sim, if I zoom in much closer than shown (shown at 7db/division) you can see it better. But it's not bad ripple by any means.)
Quote:
What occurs to me though is that even with 6 dB more output capability from the port, the fact that it's so small likely means it's not enough to be useful.
How about some SPL plots?
I suspect that's where it falls down compared to a fan sub.

You can see the difference the port makes in the graphs I showed in post 1, the red line is my design, the blue line is the same amount of the same drivers with the same power applied in IB. You can see the IB skyrockets in excursion whereas the ported design does not, so the port is contributing it's share just like any port. (As shown in the FR graph at 1000 watts, the IB is actually more than 2x past it's rated xmax limit down near tuning, so the IB can't actually go tht loud, but the response shape is still correct. In contrast, my design doesn't pass xmax until below 2 hz at the power level shown due to the port.)

How about spl plots? If you are referring to my design, that's graph #1 in post #1. If you are referring to a fan sub, I don't have any and that's a tricky proposition at best. No one (to my knowledge) has ever measured one outside of a room, so the measured responses I've seen have as much (if not more) to do with the room than the sub itself. So there's no real way to know how loud the fan would be in 2 pi, but I'm guessing not very loud - at least nothing close to even approaching the in room measurements, especially at 3 hz. At the same time, I'm not trying to say my design beats (or even keeps up to) a fan sub 1 on 1, I was just pointing out the similar tuning. But to be honest, I don't think my design would do as bad as you might think against a fan sub, due to room gain not being shown in my graph vs room gain being included in EVERY measurement of a fan sub I've ever seen.
diy speaker guy is offline  
post #14 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 04:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Seaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 6,063
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by diy speaker guy View Post

This isn't going the way I hoped. No one has commented on the simulation at all, it's not even clear if anyone read the post. All the comments have responded directly to the thread title, which has no context without the simulations. So I'll try this a different way and if this doesn't work I give up.

If the goal is to make a sub with the lowest possible FR that extends well over the highest crossover point you would ever need with no ripple (or at least minimal ripple) and no chuffing in a reasonably sized box (Gjallerhorn size at most), with a minimal amount of power, minimal power compression, and get the most spl possible within a low budget, is this a good way to do it or is there something wrong with the simulation?

Please stop telling me my goals are wrong and discuss the simulation.

I've built a few large boxes with tunings in the 9-10Hz range. You can certainly go lower, but it quickly gets very difficult to justify vs. other alternates, and you need to look at your electronics chain to insure you can throughput signal much below 10Hz.

The comments thus far come from the fact that most reading immediately threw a flag when a 2" diameter, 90" long port is suggested. A 2" port has limited airflow capability, and a 90" length likely won't help anything. In fact, it appears the porting gains you maybe 1dB of sensitivity gain at very low drive levels. The potential excursion reduction would be useful, but I'm pretty certain that real world testing and any program which simulates port compression will show that this situations only exists at very low power.

As the airflow in the port compresses, the driver excursion goes up until it approaches that of a sealed box where the airflow is heavily resisted. Taking a quick guess, by 100-250W the excursion profile would look pretty much like a sealed box. For all the effort employed, you would get much more benefit in just adding a 1-3 more drivers and some EQ to the exact same size sealed box. To be clear, the issue is that your excursion simulation for 1000W is highly unlikely to be accurate, and the real behavior will vary with level.

Mark Seaton
Seaton Sound, Inc.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood..." Daniel H. Burnham
Mark Seaton is offline  
post #15 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 04:46 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

I've built a few large boxes with tunings in the 9-10Hz range. You can certainly go lower, but it quickly gets very difficult to justify vs. other alternates, and you need to look at your electronics chain to insure you can throughput signal much below 10Hz.
The comments thus far come from the fact that most reading immediately threw a flag when a 2" diameter, 90" long port is suggested. A 2" port has limited airflow capability, and a 90" length likely won't help anything. In fact, it appears the porting gains you maybe 1dB of sensitivity gain at very low drive levels. The potential excursion reduction would be useful, but I'm pretty certain that real world testing and any program which simulates port compression will show that this situations only exists at very low power.
As the airflow in the port compresses, the driver excursion goes up until it approaches that of a sealed box where the airflow is heavily resisted. Taking a quick guess, by 100-250W the excursion profile would look pretty much like a sealed box. For all the effort employed, you would get much more benefit in just adding a 1-3 more drivers and some EQ to the exact same size sealed box. To be clear, the issue is that your excursion simulation for 1000W is highly unlikely to be accurate, and the real behavior will vary with level.

THIS is the stuff I wanted to talk about. You don't think the simulation is accurate. Fine by me, and I'd love to learn from this. What's the useful difference between port velocity (which I've shown in post #1, graph #3) and port compression for the purposes of this discussion, and which program simulates port compression (as opposed to velocity)?

I've never seen anyone mention that vent velocity simulations were inaccurate to the point of reverting to a sealed box when the simulation predicts 10 m/s or less at full power (which my simulation does until below 5 hz). Can we talk about this?

(Also, assuming I raised it to a 15 hz tuning, also at 10 m/s, do you still think the velocity prediction would be inaccurate?)
diy speaker guy is offline  
post #16 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 04:49 PM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 14,065
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 698 Post(s)
Liked: 916
Kryptonitewhite reincarnation?!?! redface.gif

My Dual 18" LLT subs 120dB down to 10hz

 

Plan9Reloaded Co-host

Listen to the Plan9Reloaded Gaming and Technology Podcast (may contain NSFW language)

https://soundcloud.com/plan9reloaded/sets/podcast - direct pod link

http://plan9reloaded.com/site/ - main website

Scott Simonian is online now  
post #17 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 04:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
N8DOGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,792
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by diy speaker guy View Post

Is there something specifically wrong with the simulation or is "not the best idea" personal preference? 2 of these (4 drivers total) should match (and probably beat) Gjallerhorn on the top end, but effectively extend the low end down to almost DC, and I think 4 of the SI are probably still cheaper than the Gjallerhorn driver.
You can tune these drivers higher, 10 or 15 hz, but as I mentioned you can't use the full xmax within rated power that way. These drivers can take more power than rated, that much is clear from the data bass testing. But how much more with clean uncompressed output? And how big are you prepared to make the port? How much response ripple can you put up with? (Large ports make large ripples.) How much of the available xmax are you comfortable wasting if it can't handle all this power uncompressed thermally?
True, but there are some, and from the reviews of people who own a fan sub, that 1/2 second of bass is well worth $13000. Dub King (a member here) makes music with 5 hz and maybe even lower IIRC. There IS media with content that low and there's more of it being produced every day. People are buying fan subs. Are they ignorant of something or just plain stupid? More money than brains? I don't know but there's at least one member here that owns one so we can easily ask him.

Theres nothing wrong with fan subs, they are pretty cool but how many people have the room needed for them? not too many. I've never heard one myself but I sure would like to. But they are a niche product, not for everyone. You sims look fine but with higher tune and some more power, it's would be even better. Most will agree with Mark, multiple sealed drivers is a great alternative.

Blasting brown notes for 10 years and counting!

N8DOGG is offline  
post #18 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 05:04 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post

Most will agree with Mark, multiple sealed drivers is a great alternative.

Yeah, I'll agree with that too if someone is willing to buy me the extra drivers and amps and rewire my house to power it all. In fact I'd prefer that design method greatly.

It all depends on your goals I guess, I'm personally not the least bit interested in sealed boxes for bass (unless somebody else wants to pay for it all). I actually like big boxes (within reason) and I LOVE spl on a budget.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily going to build this, I can't even afford it unless I sell a bunch of stuff, but now that these high xmax drivers are in my price range I'm getting enthusiastic. This is an interesting intellectual challenge though, and the simulation looks good enough that I might actually try to fund this and do it. I'm sure VISA won't have any problem funding it but I'm trying to avoid that route.

And like I said (3 or 4 times now) the higher tuning ported boxes with this driver will not reach xmax at rated power handling. Does NO ONE care about that? Or is it not an issue?
diy speaker guy is offline  
post #19 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 05:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,620
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Liked: 167
OK, I didn't loopk close enough to see that the 1st graph was for 1000 W.

Something seems funny though; I have MaelX 18 in my WinISD, and using a pair of those in your box size I only get about 1 dB difference in output at 10 Hz and 2 dB at 5 Hz., which isn't a significant difference and maybe not loud enough to be worthwhile.

Noah
noah katz is online now  
post #20 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 05:15 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Kryptonitewhite reincarnation?!?! redface.gif

That's the second Kryto reference so to be clear there's not much similar in this idea and what he was doing, not in any way except tuning. He was the ultimate basshead, I just want flat, extended response.

I have a lifelong admiration for his overwhelming passion and enthusiasm but I don't really like all the products he chose, the amount he paid for all of it, or the way he used them both in terms of design and frequency response. (IIRC he liked his subs to have flat response, but 50 db or so hotter than the mids.)

I did enjoy his posts though.
diy speaker guy is offline  
post #21 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 05:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jay1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: AZ
Posts: 3,981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by diy speaker guy View Post

Yeah, I'll agree with that too if someone is willing to buy me the extra drivers and amps and rewire my house to power it all. In fact I'd prefer that design method greatly.
It all depends on your goals I guess, I'm personally not the least bit interested in sealed boxes for bass (unless somebody else wants to pay for it all). I actually like big boxes (within reason) and I LOVE spl on a budget.
To be clear, I'm not necessarily going to build this, I can't even afford it unless I sell a bunch of stuff, but now that these high xmax drivers are in my price range I'm getting enthusiastic. This is an interesting intellectual challenge though, and the simulation looks good enough that I might actually try to fund this and do it. I'm sure VISA won't have any problem funding it but I'm trying to avoid that route.
And like I said (3 or 4 times now) the higher tuning ported boxes with this driver will not reach xmax at rated power handling. Does NO ONE care about that? Or is it not an issue?


I really don't understand why you're caught up on that. You're getting more useful output, and lower distortion from the same power level. Who cares if it doesn't hit the rated xmax?
Jay1 is offline  
post #22 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 05:21 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

OK, I didn't loopk close enough to see that the 1st graph was for 1000 W.
Something seems funny though; I have MaelX 18 in my WinISD, and using a pair of those in your box size I only get about 1 dB difference in output at 10 Hz and 2 dB at 5 Hz., which isn't a significant difference and maybe not loud enough to be worthwhile.

1 db of difference compared to what? Are you comparing dual sealed MaelX 18 against my design? If so check the excursion difference at rated power handling. (If not I have no idea what you are comparing.)
diy speaker guy is offline  
post #23 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 05:23 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1 View Post

[/B]
I really don't understand why you're caught up on that. You're getting more useful output, and lower distortion from the same power level. Who cares if it doesn't hit the rated xmax?

Because it's an expensive driver and I detest wasting xmax. Why buy a high xmax driver and waste available xmax? This makes no sense to me at all, it's bad design. Why not tune lower instead of just wasting it?
diy speaker guy is offline  
post #24 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 05:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
N8DOGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,792
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by diy speaker guy View Post

Yeah, I'll agree with that too if someone is willing to buy me the extra drivers and amps and rewire my house to power it all. In fact I'd prefer that design method greatly.
It all depends on your goals I guess, I'm personally not the least bit interested in sealed boxes for bass (unless somebody else wants to pay for it all). I actually like big boxes (within reason) and I LOVE spl on a budget.
To be clear, I'm not necessarily going to build this, I can't even afford it unless I sell a bunch of stuff, but now that these high xmax drivers are in my price range I'm getting enthusiastic. This is an interesting intellectual challenge though, and the simulation looks good enough that I might actually try to fund this and do it. I'm sure VISA won't have any problem funding it but I'm trying to avoid that route.
And like I said (3 or 4 times now) the higher tuning ported boxes with this driver will not reach xmax at rated power handling. Does NO ONE care about that? Or is it not an issue?

It's not an issue because you can add more power. IMO you shouldn't be hitting xmax ever.
You should just build it man, thats the whole part of DIY that makes it worth while, trying out new stuff. I was in your situation at one point, I wanted the biggest and baddest boxes on the block. I made 2 x 13.8 CF boxes tuned to 14hz and used them for years. Now even looking at the boxes makes me roll my eyes lol.

Blasting brown notes for 10 years and counting!

N8DOGG is offline  
post #25 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 05:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jay1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: AZ
Posts: 3,981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Because you're wasting useable out put higher in frequency. You can also use a lower cost driver....
Jay1 is offline  
post #26 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 05:37 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post

It's not an issue because you can add more power.

A few posts back I was talking about adding more power than the rated power limit. How much are you comfortable with? 3000 watts? If the driver can do that without any compression at all that changes my outlook. I'm not dead set on 2 hz tuning but I'll be cold and dead before I design a sub that wastes available xmax.
Quote:
IMO you shouldn't be hitting xmax ever.

Assuming the xmax spec is based on a Klippel report (and not a number made up by the marketing dept, which most are) I agree with you. But I don't have any problem approaching xmax until it sounds bad and then backing off a bit.
[/quote]
diy speaker guy is offline  
post #27 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 05:39 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1 View Post

Because you're wasting useable out put higher in frequency. You can also use a lower cost driver....

You are right of course, but from a different perspective your design method is wasting usable output lower in frequency (and has more response ripple, more power compression, etc, etc, etc). Again, it's all about goals.

Yes, I could use a lower cost driver but that is not the point of this excercise. I started out simulating THIS driver to see what it would take to extract it's full potential.
diy speaker guy is offline  
post #28 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 05:42 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

OK, I didn't loopk close enough to see that the 1st graph was for 1000 W.

I thought this was clear, but if not it should be mentioned. ALL the graphs in post 1 are shown at 1000 watts, including the port velocity graph, which shows 10 m/s or less until you get below 5 hz, and that's with no roundover on the port. (Still waiting for Mark's comments on this.)
diy speaker guy is offline  
post #29 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 06:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,620
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Liked: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by diy speaker guy View Post

1 db of difference compared to what?

Compared to a same size sealed box
Quote:
Originally Posted by diy speaker guy View Post

Because it's an expensive driver and I detest wasting xmax. Why buy a high xmax driver and waste available xmax? This makes no sense to me at all, it's bad design. Why not tune lower instead of just wasting it?

Not using the full xmax is a good thing; at xmax motor strength is down 30% from max, distortion is higher, and it's a rare driver that isn't mechanically noisy past ~20 mm.

Noah
noah katz is online now  
post #30 of 302 Old 12-09-2012, 06:22 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
diy speaker guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Not using the full xmax is a good thing; at xmax motor strength is down 30% from max, distortion is higher, and it's a rare driver that isn't mechanically noisy past ~20 mm.

This is true, I can't argue with it and I don't want to. But on the other hand on some material the extra distortion is not objectionable compared to the enjoyment of turning it up as far as it will go. Some drivers sound reasonable even past xmax on some material. I want xmax to be the limit, not the design itself. But this is not the point.

I can't afford 16 TC Sounds drivers like some of you lunatics can. Even if I could I have a moral objection to throwing money at problems when reasonable solutions can be attained for a fraction of the price. I would LOVE to have 32 or even 99 drivers and keep my highest excursion demands to under 1 mm, I'll set it all up and provide pics if anyone wants to donate to the cause.

Everyone keeps saying tune higher and use more power with no regard for thermal compression. I've asked several times how much power you guys are comfortable with pushing into this driver and no one wants to talk about any of that. So the options I've been presented are -
1. Tune higher and use more (undefined amount) of power (while smiling and accepting the increased ripply response and power compression).
2. Go sealed and buy a whole bunch of drivers and amps and rewire my house rather than build a ported box that does the same spl with 1/2 the drivers and 1/2 the power.

I don't really care for either of those options unless someone else wants to pay for it.
Quote:
Compared to a same size sealed box

Forget sensitivity, look at excursion limited max spl in sealed vs ported (use 2 hz tuning for the ported).
diy speaker guy is offline  
Reply DIY Speakers and Subs

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off