AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › the HouseWrecker. 11hz Twin CVX-15 Tapped Horn
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

the HouseWrecker. 11hz Twin CVX-15 Tapped Horn - Page 6

post #151 of 385
8/17/11 at 6:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dB-Kicker View Post

It is more than enough bracing. The panels are dead at full chat. You forget - we create 170dB SPL competition vehicles....... I wasn't about to let this thing be sub par...

I will take your word for it. I only wondered how it turned out because I designed and built a very high power TH design myself with what I thought would surely be enough bracing only to find that I needed a little more after running some very high power sine sweeps. Anyway...You answered already.

Did you guys tie it into the truck bed structurally?

Mike answered the other question I had which was whether it had the mouth/s open into the truck cab. That would've been ridiculous. If you guys investigate how a large bass horn interacts when opened into a small confined cabin that would be interesting to see as well.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #152 of 385
8/17/11 at 6:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricci View Post

I will take your word for it.

If you look at the enclosure photo's you will see that the high pressure side (narrow center section) is boxed in with two panels forming the end, un-supported panels no larger than ~~ 7"s, with 4 additional braces tying each side if the chamber to the other and providing a small amount of compression chamber effect. It is also excruciatingly well sealed and glued using PL.

The low pressure side (high velocity) mouth has the panels adequately tied together and braced for simple vibration / flexion. You don't see in the photo's the 6" tall edge panel brace running the width of the cabinet at the end opposite the drivers. We tested every panel and ran 135dB sweeps from 28hz through 80hz to verify the enclosure was adequately ‘tied together’. Then we beat the beans out of it with ‘Bass’ CD’s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricci View Post

Did you guys tie it into the truck bed structurally?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricci View Post

If you guys investigate how a large bass horn interacts when opened into a small confined cabin that would be interesting to see as well.

We are in the process...... So far - the same as a sealed / ported / band-pass enclosure... (IOW roughly 35dB gain at 20hz)

The little 6.5" 30hz Tang-Band TH was insanely capable in vehicle. We're working on 10" and 12" CVX TH's for a Civic, Mustang, and PT Cruiser at the moment.....

And some other stuff.....
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 385
8/17/11 at 6:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilmike View Post

I remember what you asked. The concern I had (and still have) was simply that the "room" is not much larger than the "horn", so I doubt the complex enclosure would be worth the effort, it is easier to just brute-force it. We're working on a little test to validate (or invalidate) that concern. 600 watts, just a single 12. 7 Cubes. 30 Hz. We'll see what the SPL meter tells us regarding a tapped horn and cabin gain.

Remember - this is not ported into the cab of the truck, this is open to the world. I actually wanted to use 6 drivers initially, cause 6-packs and pickups kinda go together.

I was hoping LTD02 would help use the cabin as the last segment in the horn, basically tune the enclosure a little higher itself so that the windows would be the mouth, though they would be much too small for 25Hz I assume?
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 385
8/17/11 at 7:03pm
i was thinking about that kw, but i didn't think it would be worth the time. :-)

one thing that might get lost in some of these frequency response plots is that the driver often runs out of xmax before it runs out of power handling.

what is the real xmax on these drivers or even better how about just the top plate thickness and coil length?
Reply
Reply
post #155 of 385
8/17/11 at 7:05pm
What are the external dimensions? Why do I envision this at home bein akin to the cine monster?
Reply
Reply
post #156 of 385
8/17/11 at 7:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpmbc View Post

What are the external dimensions? Why do I envision this at home bein akin to the cine monster?

they are different. the cinemonster has a higher tuning. mike went for more extension.

attached is a very rough comparo. cinemonster marked with red arrow.
LL
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 385
8/17/11 at 7:21pm
The drivers in the 9/11 box are power limited above the corner.
Reply
Reply
post #158 of 385
8/17/11 at 7:22pm
Thread Starter 
This unit is 90" x 16.5" x 49".

Anyone in here intimately familiar with using REW, the M-Audio Midi Sport Midi interface and the Feed Back Destroyer Pro 1124p?

I am in dire need of ..... assistance getting REW to talk to my 1124 through the Midi...

IM me offline if so......
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 385
8/17/11 at 7:37pm
"The drivers in the 9/11 box are power limited above the corner."

is that right? are you sure? 2000 watts into that enclosure with two drivers will push them to 33 mm at around 16 hz.
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 385
8/17/11 at 7:37pm
It's not the house wrecker but for the size and with some room gain it'd be a beast as well.
Reply
Reply
post #161 of 385
8/17/11 at 7:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

"The drivers in the 9/11 box are power limited above the corner."

is that right? are you sure? 2000 watts into that enclosure with two drivers will push them to 33 mm at around 16 hz.

9/11 box is not the housewrecker.

I know this thread was about the housewrecker, but dB posted up our latest distraction. I can assure you, the 9/11 box is power limited. dB ran out of amp at 2 KW or so during testing. ~133 dB at a meter, the drivers were loafing.
Reply
Reply
post #162 of 385
8/17/11 at 7:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

"The drivers in the 9/11 box are power limited above the corner."

is that right? are you sure? 2000 watts into that enclosure with two drivers will push them to 33 mm at around 16 hz.

While past xmax, that 33 mm is still under xmech.
Reply
Reply
post #163 of 385
8/17/11 at 7:58pm
"9/11 box is not the housewrecker."

sorry mike. sometimes it gets confusing trying to keep up. did you post the 9/11 box?

i just modelled up 4 of those drivers in a th with a 25hz corner. i see what you mean when you say "power limited above the corner". those will go loud and look nice. appears to be a nice driver for a th too...nice flat reponse save that inevitable one peak at the top end that is a function of tapped horns, not your design or the driver.
Reply
Reply
post #164 of 385
8/17/11 at 8:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

"9/11 box is not the housewrecker."

sorry mike. sometimes it gets confusing trying to keep up. did you post the 9/11 box?

Not yet. I will.
Reply
Reply
post #165 of 385
8/17/11 at 8:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

appears to be a nice driver for a th too

It's a fantastic TH driver... one of the most ideal I know of. I came incredibly close to using it for Wolfhorn SDX. Not being able to easily get one at a good price was the deal killer for me. That and the fact I was really in love with the idea of a thin design.
Reply
Reply
post #166 of 385
8/17/11 at 8:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

i was thinking about that kw, but i didn't think it would be worth the time. :-)

one thing that might get lost in some of these frequency response plots is that the driver often runs out of xmax before it runs out of power handling.

what is the real xmax on these drivers or even better how about just the top plate thickness and coil length?

well what do you know. TBH I was hoping with the soloX threads it would get dB-Kicker to comment on why the soloX wasnt good... how about this for a chime in?
Reply
Reply
post #167 of 385
8/17/11 at 8:36pm
Thread Starter 
The 9-11 sub is a Quad driver box. at 1kw per driver it see's less than 16mm above the corner with 1kw (IF MEMORY SERVES) I will post the models tomorrow.

It is designed for 'sound reinforcement' application - IOW outside. It will provide bass during the parade, then bounce bass of buildings in an outside environment - it was never meant to be the 'Nth degree deep bass sub".

If you're familiar enough with the driver requirements for TH's - and can model them, you'll immediately see why CVX's make ideal TH drivers - and Solo-X's are better suited to other enclosures.

I'm not here to 'sell' one or another type of driver.
Reply
Reply
post #168 of 385
8/17/11 at 9:49pm
What drivers are those in the 9/11?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilmike View Post

9/11 box is not the housewrecker.

I know this thread was about the housewrecker, but dB posted up our latest distraction. I can assure you, the 9/11 box is power limited. dB ran out of amp at 2.6 KW or so during testing. ~133 dB at a meter, the drivers were loafing.
Reply
Reply
post #169 of 385
8/17/11 at 10:11pm
"If you're familiar enough with the driver requirements for TH's - and can model them, you'll immediately see why CVX's make ideal TH drivers - and Solo-X's are better suited to other enclosures."

the solo x can work in tapped horns depending on what you want to do. while it can benefit from a higher compression ratio horn, even at a 3:1, you can get a model that looks a lot like the danley th50 with the mtx driver and that really isn't too bad. ;-)
LL
Reply
Reply
post #170 of 385
8/17/11 at 10:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilmike View Post
Not yet. I will.
I attached the model I based the design on.

Though we looked at everything Kicker has on the shelf (even some things we'd love to see on the shelf...), the drivers we ultimately chose to use in this project are Kicker's 2010 Comp VX 15, with dual 2-ohm coils. Model number 10CVX152.

You can buy this exact driver on the street today for ~$250 shipped.

Ironically, as I was modeling options and discussing them with dB through the countless emails, texts, and phone calls during this project, this model was entry 911 in my hornresp data file. That was not intended or planned, just how it worked out.

It is an honor to have been a part of this project.

 

9114cvx.txt 0.4189453125k . file
Reply
Reply
post #171 of 385
8/17/11 at 10:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

"If you're familiar enough with the driver requirements for TH's - and can model them, you'll immediately see why CVX's make ideal TH drivers - and Solo-X's are better suited to other enclosures."

the solo x can work in tapped horns depending on what you want to do. while it can benefit from a higher compression ratio horn, even at a 3:1, you can get a model that looks a lot like the danley th50 with the mtx driver and that really isn't too bad. ;-)

True. It can, and it has a decent BL^2/Re/Sd number for use in a tapped horn. To be honest, that was the first driver we looked at. They can handle the compression too.

There is a little more to it than frequency response though. When you have the chance, listen to two identical tapped horns, one loaded with a driver with a Qes of 0.3, and one with a Qes of 0.7.

I have.

I know which I prefer.
Reply
Reply
post #172 of 385
8/18/11 at 12:30am
"You can buy this exact driver on the street today for ~$250 shipped."

looks like there is a seller on amazon for $207 shipped. only six left in stock...order soon! ;-) somebody should send him a note to stock up before the 9/11 parade. i don't think six is going to meet demand.

"listen to two identical tapped horns, one loaded with a driver with a Qes of 0.3, and one with a Qes of 0.7."

ack...this is a tough one. do you think that such a test is possible? man, trying to control every other variable in order to narrow it all the way down to just qes and nothing else seems like it would be a beast of an engineering chore in a tapped horn. i suspect what you are preferring are many artifacts that attend a particular design, not simply qes, but as always, i could be wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #173 of 385
8/18/11 at 6:30am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

" i suspect what you are preferring are many artifacts that attend a particular design, not simply qes, but as always, i could be wrong.

High QES drivers have less electromagnetic control of the woofer cone / air in enclosure than lower QES drivers... They take longer to 'Start' and 'Stop', and more time to develop full cycle's.

In system they sound less articulate, have worse transients, tend to 'drone', or sound 'muddy' when asked to drive resonators or horns.
Reply
Reply
post #174 of 385
8/18/11 at 6:35am
I just noticed that the SoloX has >940g of moving mass. That is a little over 2lbs.

Deon mentioned QES. I tend to agree with him that high QES drivers, especially those with heavy moving assemblies, do better when in sealed enclosures, or when used for mainly the very lowest bass frequencies.
Reply
Reply
post #175 of 385
8/18/11 at 6:38am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post

they are different. the cinemonster has a higher tuning. mike went for more extension.

attached is a very rough comparo. cinemonster marked with red arrow.

I just caught this. The 9-11 truck sub is not theHouseWrecker. As mike said it's our latest 'distraction'. Uh...... Finished distraction anyway. This sub design is a tapped horn ~~30hz TH – That HR says will generate 215 Acoustic Watts, or uh…. get Really loud….

This is also with only 4 CVX 15’s, and 1,000 watts per CVX. At its highest efficiency it clocks in at ~~65% efficiency
LL
LL
LL
Reply
Reply
post #176 of 385
8/18/11 at 6:48am
Thread Starter 
Couple more pix.
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
Reply
Reply
post #177 of 385
8/18/11 at 7:37am
Yeah, TH designs do best with a Qes closer to 0.3. I haven't tried one with drivers at 0.7, but I can pretty much imagine what it would sound like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dB-Kicker View Post

Couple more pix.

That thing is just sick looking. I love it
Reply
Reply
post #178 of 385
8/18/11 at 10:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post


"listen to two identical tapped horns, one loaded with a driver with a Qes of 0.3, and one with a Qes of 0.7."

ack...this is a tough one. do you think that such a test is possible? man, trying to control every other variable in order to narrow it all the way down to just qes and nothing else seems like it would be a beast of an engineering chore in a tapped horn. i suspect what you are preferring are many artifacts that attend a particular design, not simply qes, but as always, i could be wrong.

That was a quick post from my phone last nite - guess I could have worded it better. I do think a test such as this is possible, I've done several that are quite similar already, and will do more. What I have done (so far) is use several different (but still appropriate) drivers in the T-6 design, as well as a precursor to it that was similar to the Insubnia that Erich flat-packed.

While the frequency response modeled flat, and measured similarly, the drivers with higher Qes just did not sound as detailed or accurate. This was not just my ears either - several others noticed immediately. The sub was muddy and simply not able to articulate music as well.

So - I tried a little science project. After making sure that all else was as equal as I could make it (same horn, same amp, same measurement gear, same day, same setting, just different drivers), I measured things again to try and figure this out.

I'm still not 100% sure that I have, but I do have a theory. In a simple frequency response plot, I can definitely tell you that this difference is not evident - the higher Q driver actually has a flatter response, and "should" sound better as a result, but that was simply not the case.

Look at a waterfall plot for both measurements though - the difference is as clear as day. Once excited, the horn's resonances take longer to decay with a high Qes driver, cause it "has weak brakes", which leads to a muddier sound with real-world content. I also found that my little amp did not like driving the higher Qes driver, it actually overheated and shut down. The DC resistance and impedance of the drivers was similar, and appropriate for the amp. When I switched up to a much stronger amp, the sound improved, but so did the sound of the lower Qes driver.

Anyhow - this is a work in progress.

The more I learn, the more I find out that I need to learn more......
Reply
Reply
post #179 of 385
8/18/11 at 1:02pm
Thread Starter 
Qes defines the electrical Q of the driver at Fs. It is a measure of the driver's resonance at Fs, based on its electromagnetic properties. The driver's overall resonance (Qts) characteristics are usually dominated by Qes. Qe / Qt is an electrical circuit analog representation of the motors force to area / mass and resistances.

Think of a drag strip, and a pair of cars. 1. A bracket drag racing car might weigh 3,000 lbs and get slammed down the strip with 800 bhp or more at the wheels. 2. Your average Joe Grocery Getter, might weigh 4,000lbs, and wheeze down the track with only 200bhp... Which one will accelerate down the track quicker? Qe is an expression of pounds per horsepower in effect

Lower Qe / Qt motor's have a higher ratio of electromotive force to mass / area. I.O.W. the Motor (Engine) is stronger relative to the forces it has to act against.

Lower Qe motors (more horsepower per pound so to speak) will as mentioned above, Stop and Start the cone faster.

Higher Qe / Qt motors will resonate longer.
Reply
Reply
post #180 of 385
8/18/11 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilmike View Post

That was a quick post from my phone last nite - guess I could have worded it better. I do think a test such as this is possible, I've done several that are quite similar already, and will do more. What I have done (so far) is use several different (but still appropriate) drivers in the T-6 design, as well as a precursor to it that was similar to the Insubnia that Erich flat-packed.

While the frequency response modeled flat, and measured similarly, the drivers with higher Qes just did not sound as detailed or accurate. This was not just my ears either - several others noticed immediately. The sub was muddy and simply not able to articulate music as well.

So - I tried a little science project. After making sure that all else was as equal as I could make it (same horn, same amp, same measurement gear, same day, same setting, just different drivers), I measured things again to try and figure this out.

I'm still not 100% sure that I have, but I do have a theory. In a simple frequency response plot, I can definitely tell you that this difference is not evident - the higher Q driver actually has a flatter response, and "should" sound better as a result, but that was simply not the case.

Look at a waterfall plot for both measurements though - the difference is as clear as day. Once excited, the horn's resonances take longer to decay with a high Qes driver, cause it "has weak brakes", which leads to a muddier sound with real-world content. I also found that my little amp did not like driving the higher Qes driver, it actually overheated and shut down. The DC resistance and impedance of the drivers was similar, and appropriate for the amp. When I switched up to a much stronger amp, the sound improved, but so did the sound of the lower Qes driver.

Anyhow - this is a work in progress.

The more I learn, the more I find out that I need to learn more......

This is very interesting discussion regarding the effect of the individual parameters and their effect on sound quality in spite of measuring flat. I've read where many achieve flat and think it's the be all end all and call it a day. There's always a lot of subjective discussion about speakers but with subs it's usually criticized without graphs to make sure everything lines up.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › the HouseWrecker. 11hz Twin CVX-15 Tapped Horn