Dual 10" Sub Design For Your Review

T

theater_lover

Enthusiast
Here is where I am currently with my design and I feel fairly comfortable with the numbers. This was calculated with WinISD.

SPEC:
Dual ACI SV10s
Passive Vented Design, with front/back opposed drivers, port also on back.
Enclosure of 2.85 cubic feet.
I will likely be using polyfill to get an effective %125 size increase.
Port will be 4" Diameter at 41.5" long.
Drivers, bracing and port are roughly .45 cubic feet.
This should result in a 3.0 cubic foot enclosure tuned between 16-18Hz.
I will have two of these.
This will ultimately be EQ'd.

At MAX POWER for the drivers (500 Watts for two), I get...

SPL:
94 dB at 10 Hz
106.6 at 20 Hz
111 at 30 Hz
112.6 at 40 Hz
113 at 50 Hz (with 1 dB up from there)

GROUP DELAY:
15.2 ms at 20 Hz
9.8 ms at 30 Hz
6 ms at 40 Hz
4 ms @ 50 Hz (drop from there)

PORT AIR SPEED: (I will have large flares on the ports)
19.6 m/s at 20 Hz
9.7 m/s at 30 Hz (continues to drop)

DRIVER EXCURSION:
XMax + 10%

Any thoughts/improvements on the design are welcome, but I think this should give a great result in not much space. Hopefully when combined with room gain and the equalizer, it will give quite the quality bang for the buck.

Agree? Disagree?

Thanks!
 
lsiberian

lsiberian

Audioholic Overlord
Here is where I am currently with my design and I feel fairly comfortable with the numbers. This was calculated with WinISD.

SPEC:
Dual ACI SV10s
Passive Vented Design, with front/back opposed drivers, port also on back.
Enclosure of 2.85 cubic feet.
I will likely be using polyfill to get an effective %125 size increase.
Port will be 4" Diameter at 41.5" long.
Drivers, bracing and port are roughly .45 cubic feet.
This should result in a 3.0 cubic foot enclosure tuned between 16-18Hz.
I will have two of these.
This will ultimately be EQ'd.

At MAX POWER for the drivers (500 Watts for two), I get...

SPL:
94 dB at 10 Hz
106.6 at 20 Hz
111 at 30 Hz
112.6 at 40 Hz
113 at 50 Hz (with 1 dB up from there)

GROUP DELAY:
15.2 ms at 20 Hz
9.8 ms at 30 Hz
6 ms at 40 Hz
4 ms @ 50 Hz (drop from there)

PORT AIR SPEED: (I will have large flares on the ports)
19.6 m/s at 20 Hz
9.7 m/s at 30 Hz (continues to drop)

DRIVER EXCURSION:
XMax + 10%

Any thoughts/improvements on the design are welcome, but I think this should give a great result in not much space. Hopefully when combined with room gain and the equalizer, it will give quite the quality bang for the buck.

Agree? Disagree?

Thanks!
Polyfill does nothing to increase internal volume actually(if anything it lessens it). It does serve to dampen the speaker making it have less distortion. Think of a speaker as a bell. By having dampening for the sound to hit you reduce the amount it shakes. Our goal in speaker design is to eliminate that shaking.

Polyfill is decent at it, but not great and is overly expensive. Not to mention it's bad with lower frequencies.

6lb or 8lb density mineral wool board is much more effective and a bit cheaper. Make it 4" thick where the back wave makes first contact. This will help with the noise coming through the voice coil and prevent the reflecting wave from distorting the driver as much.

The next thing to conside is bracing. You want to brace it such that the resonant frequencies are higher. In a sub you can get away with less bracing becasue it's frequencies are lower. Still you want to brace it every 6" on every axis if you can. For this I suggest dense oak bracing.

But it's not the best material for the job. 6 or 8 lb rockwool at 4" thick on the rear wall or behind the sub on a brace will be dramatic in it's improvement. You can get it pretty cheap from an insulation store.

Why don't you give us the T/S parameters so we can take a look. There is no reason to not get a second look before you start sawing.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Polyfill does nothing to increase internal volume actually(if anything it lessens it). It does serve to dampen the speaker making it have less distortion. Think of a speaker as a bell. By having dampening for the sound to hit you reduce the amount it shakes. Our goal in speaker design is to eliminate that shaking.

Polyfill is decent at it, but not great and is overly expensive. Not to mention it's bad with lower frequencies.

6lb or 8lb density mineral wool board is much more effective and a bit cheaper. Make it 4" thick where the back wave makes first contact. This will help with the noise coming through the voice coil and prevent the reflecting wave from distorting the driver as much.

The next thing to conside is bracing. You want to brace it such that the resonant frequencies are higher. In a sub you can get away with less bracing becasue it's frequencies are lower. Still you want to brace it every 6" on every axis if you can. For this I suggest dense oak bracing.

But it's not the best material for the job. 6 or 8 lb rockwool at 4" thick on the rear wall or behind the sub on a brace will be dramatic in it's improvement. You can get it pretty cheap from an insulation store.

Why don't you give us the T/S parameters so we can take a look. There is no reason to not get a second look before you start sawing.
Who gave you the idea that Polyfill will make Vb 125%? Not this site I hope!
 
lsiberian

lsiberian

Audioholic Overlord
I've taken a look and the best box I modeled for a single driver

is

2.152

tuned to 20.50 hz You can power it with a 300 watt bash amp and high pass it at 20hz with a 2nd order buttersworth.

Use mineral wool for the filling not polyfill. Make sure you wrap it in some cloth so stuff don't get in the voice coil.

Brace it every 6-8 inches.

Cover the back wall with 4" thick rockwool and then put some on the front half on the side top and bottom walls.

Your max volume will be 107 db per sub. I do suggest a seperate box for each. It will let you cancel out room modes and have more optimal bass.
 
T

theater_lover

Enthusiast
Isiberian, it sounds like we aren't too far off from one another.
While having 4 2.1 cubic foot subs would be great, that will result in too much floor space. Instead I will do two, dual driver enclosures (taking advantage of opposing drivers negating vibration). Also, the port length on that small an enclosure is prohibitive, so making one larger volume with two drivers helps out there. I believe at 2.1 cubic feet, the driver's max excursion is exceeded.

I am limited to 3 cubic feet for the external volume of the enclosure.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Isiberian, it sounds like we aren't too far off from one another.
While having 4 2.1 cubic foot subs would be great, that will result in too much floor space. Instead I will do two, dual driver enclosures (taking advantage of opposing drivers negating vibration). Also, the port length on that small an enclosure is prohibitive, so making one larger volume with two drivers helps out there. I believe at 2.1 cubic feet, the driver's max excursion is exceeded.

I am limited to 3 cubic feet for the external volume of the enclosure.
You are miles apart. You have not designed a sub that will be functional.

You have some miss apprehensions.

Polyfill will not increase your box size, but it will kill the box resonance Fb and stop your sub working.

I think you are under a miss apprehension about two drivers lowering box size.

If the drivers are in the same box VAS is doubled, so the box volume is doubled.

If you use two drivers joined in a tunnel, or where the drivers have the same opening and one driver has the magnet and motor sticking out into the room and the other one into the box. In the drivers sharing a tunnel one driver radiates to the outside and the other to the box. In these isobarik configurations VAS is halved, and enclosure size is halved. However you take a big hit to spl, sensitivity and efficiency. In the case of your drivers the box can not be practically tuned, because the port length is impossibly long.

You have made a serious error in the calculation of vent air speed velocity. The air speed velocity is 32m/sec which will cause severe port compression and chuffing. Port velocities need to be kept at 18 m/sec or less.

Your box is too small to tune with a sensible vent dimension. This is your optimal box, which also happens to be the box that is the smallest that can be practically tuned.

Here is your optimal box for those drivers. It will be mandatory to use a slot vent and not a tube port.


Type: Standard one-way driver
Company: Audio Concepts, Inc. (ACI)
No. of Drivers = 2
Mounting = Standard
Wiring = Parallel
Fs = 18.5 Hz
Qms = 4.205
Vas = 84 liters
Cms = 0.656 mm/N
Mms = 111.3 g
Xmax = 16 mm
Sd = 310 sq.cm
Qes = 0.394
Re = 2.72 ohms
Z = 4 ohms
BL = 9.48 Tm
Pe = 250 watts
Qts = 0.36
2.83-V SPL = 87.72 dB
-----------------------------------------
Box Properties
Name:
Type: Vented Box
Shape: Prism, square (optimum)
Vb = 3.305 cu.ft
Fb = 19.32 Hz
QL = 6.501
F3 = 25.05 Hz
Fill = minimal
No. of Vents = 1
Vent shape = rectangle
Vent ends = one flared
Hv = 2.25 in
Wv = 10 in
Lv = 47.95 in

Here are your drivers in Isobarik configuration.

Name: SV10
Type: Standard one-way driver
Company: Audio Concepts, Inc. (ACI)
No. of Drivers = 2
Mounting = Compound
Wiring = Parallel
Fs = 18.5 Hz
Qms = 4.205
Vas = 84 liters
Cms = 0.656 mm/N
Mms = 111.3 g
Xmax = 16 mm
Sd = 310 sq.cm
Qes = 0.394
Re = 2.72 ohms
Z = 4 ohms
BL = 9.48 Tm
Pe = 250 watts
Qts = 0.36
2.83-V SPL = 87.72 dB
-----------------------------------------
Box Properties
Name:
Type: Vented Box
Shape: Prism, square (optimum)
Vb = 1.511 cu.ft
Fb = 16.66 Hz
QL = 6.893
F3 = 20.18 Hz
Fill = minimal
No. of Vents = 1
Vent shape = rectangle
Vent ends = one flared
Hv = 2 in
Wv = 8 in
Lv = 104.3 in

That is an impractical vent.

Here is your box.

Name: SV10
Type: Standard one-way driver
Company: Audio Concepts, Inc. (ACI)
No. of Drivers = 2
Mounting = Standard
Wiring = Parallel
Fs = 18.5 Hz
Qms = 4.205
Vas = 84 liters
Cms = 0.656 mm/N
Mms = 111.3 g
Xmax = 16 mm
Sd = 310 sq.cm
Qes = 0.394
Re = 2.72 ohms
Z = 4 ohms
BL = 9.48 Tm
Pe = 250 watts
Qts = 0.36
2.83-V SPL = 87.72 dB
-----------------------------------------
Box Properties
Name:
Type: Vented Box
Shape: Prism, square
Vb = 2.85 cu.ft
Fb = 19.32 Hz
F3 = 26.72 Hz
Fill = minimal
No. of Vents = 1
Vent shape = rectangle
Vent ends = one flared
Hv = 2.25 in
Wv = 10 in
Lv = 56.09 in

All three models have a vent velocity of 18 m/sec. The max spl. for the standard configuration is 115 db, for the Isobarik just under 100db, as the isobarik design is power limited to 200 watts among the other losses, to prevent exceeding xmax. I would not build it.

The speaker volume Vd and the bracing will add 0.7 cu.ft to the optimal box, and 0.6 cu.ft to your box, So if you build your box it will end up with an internal volume of around 3.45 cu.ft and is you build the optimal box around 4 cu.ft.

You could just about build the 2.85/ 3.45 cu.ft box, but anything smaller and the vent will get impossibly long.

You need to rethink your design. Do not build what you propose it will be a waste of money, time and effort.

Your option is to use one driver, or get different drivers. I have to warn you however that two 10 inch drivers have the same area as a 15 inch driver and so you will be hard pressed to build what you propose.

I would up your volume limit. There is very little difference visually between a 3 and 4 cu.ft box.
 
Last edited:
T

theater_lover

Enthusiast
Hi TLS Guy,

Thanks for modeling all those for me. The effort is appreciated.

I feel my understanding of isobaric designs is fairly good, but that is not what I was describing in my design. I will only be doing opposed drivers to minimize cabinet vibration.

My comment about my design not being too far off of Isiberian's suggestions was in the big picture of things. Yes, an enclosure volume of 4.2 cubic feet would be the equivalent of his suggestion when using two drivers, which while 33% larger than my goal of 3 cubic feet, isn't as bad if he had come back with a 12 cubic foot design.

Using WinISD and Precision Port's online port calculator, I can not get the port air speed anywhere near 32 m/s (at 20 Hz). Giving different 4" port lengths, and varying the internal volume, I am always between 18-24 m/s. Any ideas how we are so far off there?

As for polyfill, I am confused on the subject. I have refered to this article on the subject (which covers enclosure size increases of sealed and vented designs, but does not mention port tuning changes):

http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1348/ultimate-polyfill-subwoofer-enclosure-resource

Say you have a design that calls for an "X" cubic foot enclosure, with a port tuned to "Y" at "Z" length without any fill.
-Are you saying that if you added fill to that design that X would become less because you are taking up space with the fill?
-If not, are you saying that the port tuning would not change? Why?

My thinking about using polyfill in a vented design was that if you kept the area between the drivers and the port opening clear, you could put polyfill elsewhere in the enclosure. As long as you didn't pack the fill too densely, it would, effectively, increase the volume of your enclosure and thus would influence the port's tuning.

I have also been considering a 15" passive radiator instead of a vent. While not producing as much output, it would remove the problems of a port, and would be tunable. What are your thoughts on that direction?

By no means is my design perfect, or ideal, but I do not see why it wouldn't work. That is of course unless WinISD is calculating something wrong, or I am.
 
Last edited:
lsiberian

lsiberian

Audioholic Overlord
Hi TLS Guy,

Thanks for modeling all those for me. The effort is appreciated.

I feel my understanding of isobaric designs is fairly good, but that is not what I was describing in my design. I will only be doing opposed drivers to minimize cabinet vibration.

My comment about my design not being too far off of Isiberian's suggestions was in the big picture of things. Yes, an enclosure volume of 4.2 cubic feet would be the equivalent of his suggestion when using two drivers, which while 33% larger than my goal of 3 cubic feet, isn't as bad if he had come back with a 12 cubic foot design.

Using WinISD and Precision Port's online port calculator, I can not get the port air speed anywhere near 32 m/s (at 20 Hz). Giving different 4" port lengths, and varying the internal volume, I am always between 18-24 m/s. Any ideas how we are so far off there?

As for polyfill, I am confused on the subject. I have refered to this article on the subject (which covers enclosure size increases of sealed and vented designs, but does not mention port tuning changes):

http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1348/ultimate-polyfill-subwoofer-enclosure-resource

Say you have a design that calls for an "X" cubic foot enclosure, with a port tuned to "Y" at "Z" length without any fill.
-Are you saying that if you added fill to that design that X would become less because you are taking up space with the fill?
-If not, are you saying that the port tuning would not change? Why?

My thinking about using polyfill in a vented design was that if you kept the area between the drivers and the port opening clear, you could put polyfill elsewhere in the enclosure. As long as you didn't pack the fill too densely, it would, effectively, increase the volume of your enclosure and thus would influence the port's tuning.

I have also been considering a 15" passive radiator instead of a vent. While not producing as much output, it would remove the problems of a port, and would be tunable. What are your thoughts on that direction?

By no means is my design perfect, or ideal, but I do not see why it wouldn't work. That is of course unless WinISD is calculating something wrong, or I am.
I'll take what TLS Guy says over Audiojunkies anyday. And I will defer to his expertise on designs.

I agree the port is very long in my proposal, but it can be acheived with a folded slot port design as TLS mentioned. My concern with the larger boxes are that the driver may not hold up as well.

I don't like the idea of putting 2 subs in the same box. For getting an idea of box dimensions check out boxnotes or the calculator here http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/enclosure-volume-calculator/ Made by our very own Aversfi.
 
Last edited:
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Hi TLS Guy,

Thanks for modeling all those for me. The effort is appreciated.

I feel my understanding of isobaric designs is fairly good, but that is not what I was describing in my design. I will only be doing opposed drivers to minimize cabinet vibration.

My comment about my design not being too far off of Isiberian's suggestions was in the big picture of things. Yes, an enclosure volume of 4.2 cubic feet would be the equivalent of his suggestion when using two drivers, which while 33% larger than my goal of 3 cubic feet, isn't as bad if he had come back with a 12 cubic foot design.

Using WinISD and Precision Port's online port calculator, I can not get the port air speed anywhere near 32 m/s (at 20 Hz). Giving different 4" port lengths, and varying the internal volume, I am always between 18-24 m/s. Any ideas how we are so far off there?

As for polyfill, I am confused on the subject. I have refered to this article on the subject (which covers enclosure size increases of sealed and vented designs, but does not mention port tuning changes):

http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1348/ultimate-polyfill-subwoofer-enclosure-resource

Say you have a design that calls for an "X" cubic foot enclosure, with a port tuned to "Y" at "Z" length without any fill.
-Are you saying that if you added fill to that design that X would become less because you are taking up space with the fill?
-If not, are you saying that the port tuning would not change? Why?

My thinking about using polyfill in a vented design was that if you kept the area between the drivers and the port opening clear, you could put polyfill elsewhere in the enclosure. As long as you didn't pack the fill too densely, it would, effectively, increase the volume of your enclosure and thus would influence the port's tuning.

I have also been considering a 15" passive radiator instead of a vent. While not producing as much output, it would remove the problems of a port, and would be tunable. What are your thoughts on that direction?

By no means is my design perfect, or ideal, but I do not see why it wouldn't work. That is of course unless WinISD is calculating something wrong, or I am.
I don't buy that article from some time ago. What was not measured was output. By adding stuffing you are converting the box to a highly misaligned aperiodic TL. I can assure you that if you stuff a ported box like that, F3 will be highly damped and you will have a very poor sub, so forget it.

Here are your alignments.

Your optimal box.

Your proposed box optimally ported, assuming you are adding 0.6 cu. ft. for drivers and bracing.

The above box with a 4" dia. port flared at both ends.

I don't know how you got your port vent velocities but they are not correct.

I think for the home constructor passive radiators are very problematic and I would avoid it, especially for the novice.

If you have not bought your drivers, this driver will meet your criteria. With one driver you get 106 db, which is plenty, and an f3 of 22 Hz.

JL audio drivers are excellent.

This JL driver would make an even smaller sub. This one gets you 110 db! Quite honestly either of those last subs will beat yours with two drivers.

I can not think of a decent sub driver, that you can put two into a box that small.
 
T

theater_lover

Enthusiast
Thanks again. It is great to get so much info. I will say that I am not feeling so thrilled about it though (I spent way, way, way too much time coming up with a solution I thought would work, albeit with trade offs), but that is why I am asking for help.

I actually started off with an idea for dual 8w7 subs. I even bought one. Then I found a good deal on the SV10s (four for less than one 8w7) and thought I would give that a go instead.

Let me take a step back and tell you what I am doing.
My budget was $1000 for stereo subs, EQ, and amplification.

These two "smallish" subs are to supplement my main monitors. I will be using a DCX2496 to do the crossovers and EQ. My thinking was that I should get these two subs to perform well in the 30-70 Hz range.

In the future I will also be building a larger sub for the LFE output, focusing on the 10-30 Hz range.

I already have the amp, the drivers, the dcx2496, and the enclosure material for the L/R stereo subs. I even have a bunch of polyfill. :)

With all that said, and the idea being to keep the enclosures small, focused on 30-70, using the SV10s, what would you do? Just do a sealed enclosure?

I could do a 4 cubic foot design if that is the only way to go, but I wish I could keep it smaller. I liked the passive radiator idea because it modeled well, avoided the problems and volume of a vent, and was tunable (this would hopefully make up for the novice design work). Downside? About $200.
 
lsiberian

lsiberian

Audioholic Overlord
Thanks again. It is great to get so much info. I will say that I am not feeling so thrilled about it though (I spent way, way, way too much time coming up with a solution I thought would work, albeit with trade offs), but that is why I am asking for help.

I actually started off with an idea for dual 8w7 subs. I even bought one. Then I found a good deal on the SV10s (four for less than one 8w7) and thought I would give that a go instead.

Let me take a step back and tell you what I am doing.
My budget was $1000 for stereo subs, EQ, and amplification.

These two "smallish" subs are to supplement my main monitors. I will be using a DCX2496 to do the crossovers and EQ. My thinking was that I should get these two subs to perform well in the 30-70 Hz range.

In the future I will also be building a larger sub for the LFE output, focusing on the 10-30 Hz range.

I already have the amp, the drivers, the dcx2496, and the enclosure material for the L/R stereo subs. I even have a bunch of polyfill. :)

With all that said, and the idea being to keep the enclosures small, focused on 30-70, using the SV10s, what would you do? Just do a sealed enclosure?

I could do a 4 cubic foot design if that is the only way to go, but I wish I could keep it smaller. I liked the passive radiator idea because it modeled well, avoided the problems and volume of a vent, and was tunable (this would hopefully make up for the novice design work). Downside? About $200.
Do you still have the JL audio 8w7.

For 1000 dollars. I suggest a single sealed Audiopulse Axis build. They use the TC Sound design and will get 120 db. Which is more than enough for your setup. A single Axis is better than almost anything else in your budget.
If you didn't have the size constraints I'd look into an LMS. As it's the best sub I know of.

There are many better options than your drivers on your budget.
MBMs are ideal for 150 to 50 hz not for 80 hz and below. These might be useful as MBMs, but MBMs should always be sealed.

For MBMs I suggest a 1.199 cuft sealed build for each unit.

Dampen it with Rockwool and brace ever 4 to 5 inches.
 
T

theater_lover

Enthusiast
MBM stands for Mid Bass Mid?

I do still have the 8w7.

I looked at a LMS 5400 at one point. Everything worked out great except the cost of proper amplification.

Likewise for an Axis driver.

With building supplies and EQ, that leaves about $700 for driver and amp.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Thanks again. It is great to get so much info. I will say that I am not feeling so thrilled about it though (I spent way, way, way too much time coming up with a solution I thought would work, albeit with trade offs), but that is why I am asking for help.

I actually started off with an idea for dual 8w7 subs. I even bought one. Then I found a good deal on the SV10s (four for less than one 8w7) and thought I would give that a go instead.

Let me take a step back and tell you what I am doing.
My budget was $1000 for stereo subs, EQ, and amplification.

These two "smallish" subs are to supplement my main monitors. I will be using a DCX2496 to do the crossovers and EQ. My thinking was that I should get these two subs to perform well in the 30-70 Hz range.

In the future I will also be building a larger sub for the LFE output, focusing on the 10-30 Hz range.

I already have the amp, the drivers, the dcx2496, and the enclosure material for the L/R stereo subs. I even have a bunch of polyfill. :)

With all that said, and the idea being to keep the enclosures small, focused on 30-70, using the SV10s, what would you do? Just do a sealed enclosure?

I could do a 4 cubic foot design if that is the only way to go, but I wish I could keep it smaller. I liked the passive radiator idea because it modeled well, avoided the problems and volume of a vent, and was tunable (this would hopefully make up for the novice design work). Downside? About $200.
I would make use of the drivers you have.

I personally would use the JL AUDIO 8 w7 vented. You could use these port dimensions if you can make it fit. These get the vent velocity down from 21 to 18 m/sec.

Hv = 2.25 in
Wv = 8 in
Lv = 45.91 in

You could use use two of your ACI SV 10 sealed.

Name: SV10
Type: Standard one-way driver
Company: Audio Concepts, Inc. (ACI)
No. of Drivers = 2
Mounting = Standard
Wiring = Parallel
Fs = 18.5 Hz
Qms = 4.205
Vas = 84 liters
Cms = 0.656 mm/N
Mms = 111.3 g
Xmax = 16 mm
Sd = 310 sq.cm
Qes = 0.394
Re = 2.72 ohms
Z = 4 ohms
BL = 9.48 Tm
Pe = 250 watts
Qts = 0.36
2.83-V SPL = 87.72 dB
-----------------------------------------
Box Properties
Name:
Type: Closed Box
Shape: Prism, square
Vb = 1.052 cu.ft
Qtc = 0.707
QL = 19.68
F3 = 44.29 Hz
Fill = heavy

This gives you an F3 of 44 Hz. However you can Eq a sealed unit which you can't a vented one. If you add Eq of 12 db/octave starting at 45 to 50 Hz you will have good output to 20 Hz.

You could use one of your ACI drivers vented. This is the optimal box.

Name: SV10
Type: Standard one-way driver
Company: Audio Concepts, Inc. (ACI)
No. of Drivers = 1
Fs = 18.5 Hz
Qms = 4.205
Vas = 84 liters
Cms = 0.656 mm/N
Mms = 111.3 g
Xmax = 16 mm
Sd = 310 sq.cm
Qes = 0.394
Re = 2.72 ohms
Z = 4 ohms
BL = 9.48 Tm
Pe = 250 watts
Qts = 0.36
2.83-V SPL = 87.72 dB
-----------------------------------------
Box Properties
Name:
Type: Vented Box
Shape: Prism, square (optimum)
Vb = 1.652 cu.ft
Fb = 19.32 Hz
QL = 6.862
F3 = 24.95 Hz
Fill = minimal
No. of Vents = 1
Vent shape = rectangle
Vent ends = one flared
Hv = 2.25 in
Wv = 5 in
Lv = 48.54 in

You could make a slightly larger box to extend F3, but I don't think I would, as you might have damage issues with those drivers, which are primarily intended for sealed use.

As far as passive radiators go, you still need the same size of box, and roll off is usually above 24 db per octave.

I think people chase to low an F3 on this forum and forget other parameters.

A sub that can deliver 110db or so to 25 Hz with room gain is going to be fine. My TLs have a calculated F3 of 27 Hz, however they actually measure to a little below 25 Hz. Their acoustic output is prodigious and you have to take care not to destroy the home or rupture an ear drum. So going for F3 below 20 Hz, is not necessary or desirable.

I'm not sold on this MBM idea. It sounds like a recipe for a really lumpy bumpy response. A decent main speaker should be able to reach the 60 to 80 Hz range with no trouble. Actually they should make the 40 to 50 Hz range, and many do. There should be no trouble splicing this with a sub.

I and my friend Dr Marin, have been surveying the loudspeaker scene in the Twin Cities of late. He has a good ear and owns B & W 800 Ds. Unfortunately most speakers remain pretty dreadful. Both he and I are yet to hear a speaker we could live with that did not originate from the British Isles. He is even more emphatic on that point than I am. So far we both agree that the only manufacturers whose speakers we could really live with that we have heard in the Twin Cities are by B & W and Spendor. And by no means could we live with everything from the B & W stable.

Just yesterday, we heard a set of speakers, (MRSP $3000 per pair range), that many members here own and aspire to own. The auditioning room was good and some B & Ws sounded excellent in it. These Canadian speakers had the most dreadful tubby misaligned bass with far too high a Q. However it could not disguise a rough shouty mid range and too fierce a high end. If I owned those speakers thet would get rolled off really high.

So far we have auditioned speakers by Revel, KEF, Mirage Omni, Gallo, Watt, Spendor, Vienna, B & W, Paradigm and a perfectly dreadful speaker from Switzerland, whose name I forget. Those latter were 15K per pair. The most expensive speakers auditioned and one of the worst was 50K per pair.

So having a really good pair of mains and a center if you use one, is vital. No amount of subs will make up for poor mains and center.

By the way it is generally not a good idea to mix subs with F3s apart more than an Hz or two. In fact when using multiple subs you should use the same ones if possible.

If you build either of the ported subs using one driver, I bet it won't be long before you find room for another.
 
T

theater_lover

Enthusiast
I didn't realize you couldn't EQ vented designs. Or are you saying you can do more with an EQ in a sealed design?

My monitors get down to 38Hz (Ushers).
Maybe I will do 4 small sealed enclosures, running them in parallel.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
I didn't realize you couldn't EQ vented designs. Or are you saying you can do more with an EQ in a sealed design?

My monitors get down to 38Hz (Ushers).
Maybe I will do 4 small sealed enclosures, running them in parallel.
You can only Eq a vented design above F3. If you apply Eq below F3 you get no output, just severely damage the driver. If you look at the cone displacement models in the pdfs. I sent you, you can clearly see that the driver decouples from the box very quickly below F3.

I don't think you can run the four subs in parallel, that would fry the amp and take enormous power below the point of Eq. The problem with applying Eq to extend the response of a sealed enclosure is the power required, which easily burns driver voice coils. For instance for the same spl. produced by 50 watts at 40 Hz will take 200 watts for the same spl. at 20 Hz, it you started the Eq at 40 Hz, and about 400 watts if you start the Eq at 50 Hz and Eq out to 20 Hz.

So when you apply Eq to flatten the curve out to 20 Hz, then the power response is much more limited compared to the same driver in a vented design that has an Fs 25 Hz or less.

There is no free lunch, and no substitute for size in speakers. As you reduce enclosure size power demands will increase and spl fall.

I can produce huge spls with my big lines and the bass amps don't even break a sweat, and the bass amps are just coasting and get barely warm.

So if you make small sealed enclosures and use Eq, your power output will be significantly limited. The answer to the question, "do speakers have to be really large?" Is "No, but it really really helps!"
 
annunaki

annunaki

Moderator
Using WinISD and Precision Port's online port calculator, I can not get the port air speed anywhere near 32 m/s (at 20 Hz). Giving different 4" port lengths, and varying the internal volume, I am always between 18-24 m/s. Any ideas how we are so far off there?

You are not inputting the power level you intend to use in the signal tab in WinISD. If you were, you would be seeing what TLS Guy has been mentioning regarding the vent velocity.

There are better driver options out there. What is your budget for drivers??
 
T

theater_lover

Enthusiast
You are not inputting the power level you intend to use in the signal tab in WinISD. If you were, you would be seeing what TLS Guy has been mentioning regarding the vent velocity.
I thought about that. I have 500 watts as my input signal, which is what I believe he had. What may be the difference is the tuning of 3.0 cubic feet at 16 Hz, vs 2.85 cubic feet at 19 Hz.

As for drivers, I want to give what I got a chance - see what I can get out of them - and go from there.
 
T

theater_lover

Enthusiast
I don't think you can run the four subs in parallel, that would fry the amp and take enormous power below the point of Eq. The problem with applying Eq to extend the response of a sealed enclosure is the power required, which easily burns driver voice coils. For instance for the same spl. produced by 50 watts at 40 Hz will take 200 watts for the same spl. at 20 Hz, it you started the Eq at 40 Hz, and about 400 watts if you start the Eq at 50 Hz and Eq out to 20 Hz.
Ah, I have a two channel amp, so parallel for two drivers per channel.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
I thought about that. I have 500 watts as my input signal, which is what I believe he had. What may be the difference is the tuning of 3.0 cubic feet at 16 Hz, vs 2.85 cubic feet at 19 Hz.

As for drivers, I want to give what I got a chance - see what I can get out of them - and go from there.
I doubt it is the tuning.

Using the drivers you have will be a learning experience for you. I hope we have given you a rational basis to proceed.

Just one final piece of advice. Box dimensions and tuning are critical. One properly aligned driver is far preferable to two misaligned drivers.

Keep us posted on your project, and publish photographs.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top