Port conversion

[annunaki]

No. I have a DATS Version 2 Woofer Tester toy that I haven't figured out how to use. I played around with it before but had trouble with adding weight or something along those lines. Am I gonna have to figure that thing out?

Alex use a 1ft^3 test box as well. Much easier and more accurate than the added mass method.

 

[Alex2507]

Alex use a 1ft^3 test box as well.

I think I have something suitable with a removable baffle to play around with the next time I get time. It's a 2 cu ft enclosure with a removable baffle: somebody else's abandoned attempt at anelectric guitar setup. For the 15" RF, that bigger size will come in handy but would there a problem with using that bigger box to test RBH 10 inchers?

What size would you want for testing 4" and 6" drivers?

Quick update : After some ... maybe considerable consternation a cross of 60 Hz with bass being sent to both mains and sub was deemed soogin'. The sub sounds noticeably louder in reverse phase.

YPAO opted for reverse phase for the old sub as well but with this iteration, the difference is more noticeable. The gains were trimmed to make up for the gain the reverse phase caused. Then I trimmed them another couple of dbs after listening to some music. Maybe "BOTH" has an effect that normal rec'r test tones don't account for. Weird but whatev.

And now a real answer to Swerd's "turn off the sub" thing. These sub's of Mark's, well ... the boxes I build are anvils too but the bottom end is ... I've been sitting here for a bit trying to think of something that doesn't sound stupid ... not like anything I've heard. Turning the sub off while listening to Pat Benatar on vinyl was instantly disappointing. That special and new component it brings to most familiar music just stops being there, even with the Peerless 10s being sent the bass info as well.

I took the time to perch them up off the floor ... don't know what that does but it sounds marvelous. Night and day.

 

[TLS Guy]

I think I have something suitable with a removable baffle to play around with the next time I get time. It's a 2 cu ft enclosure with a removable baffle: somebody else's abandoned attempt at anelectric guitar setup. For the 15" RF, that bigger size will come in handy but would there a problem with using that bigger box to test RBH 10 inchers?

What size would you want for testing 4" and 6" drivers?

Quick update : After some ... maybe considerable consternation a cross of 60 Hz with bass being sent to both mains and sub was deemed soogin'. The sub sounds noticeably louder in reverse phase.

YPAO opted for reverse phase for the old sub as well but with this iteration, the difference is more noticeable. The gains were trimmed to make up for the gain the reverse phase caused. Then I trimmed them another couple of dbs after listening to some music. Maybe "BOTH" has an effect that normal rec'r test tones don't account for. Weird but whatev.

And now a real answer to Swerd's "turn off the sub" thing. These sub's of Mark's, well ... the boxes I build are anvils too but the bottom end is ... I've been sitting here for a bit trying to think of something that doesn't sound stupid ... not like anything I've heard. Turning the sub off while listening to Pat Benatar on vinyl was instantly disappointing. That special and new component it brings to most familiar music just stops being there, even with the Peerless 10s being sent the bass info as well.

I took the time to perch them up off the floor ... don't know what that does but it sounds marvelous. Night and day.

I would recommend about 1 cu.ft for your test box.

I'm glad you are pleased with that sub. Good subs subtly extend the bass, without screaming "listen to this sub and hear that bass". Subs that are abusive to music just abound. I'm pleased to have you report the the sub is working as intended. It is also interesting that not crossing over your mains, produced the best result. I have found that to be common actually, but then I don't use commercial speakers or subs for that matter and design for total system integration, by intent and not cobbling it together as an after thought, so to speak.

 

[Alex2507]

It is also interesting that not crossing over your mains, produced the best result.

Both systems, too.

This system got some test tones yesterday. Remember the old Rives disc? Well, as you predicted, output is first apparent at the 31.5 Hz tone and climbs steady enough until it peaks like crazy around 50 or 60 Hz. The other room did that too. I think it's a floor/ceiling thing. At higher frequencies the output falls off but the old Rat Shack SPL meter might be known for a bit of flakiness up high. Regardless, going through the sub 100 Hz tones sounded good, without any burps of rattles coming out of the box.

Moving the SPL meter around the room, actually even using my ears, the room modes in a couple of places were pronounced. A really thick sound panel might address that but with regular content the peaks and nulls aren't noticeable in the normal listening positions.

Still diggin' it.

 

[TLS Guy]

Both systems, too.

This system got some test tones yesterday. Remember the old Rives disc? Well, as you predicted, output is first apparent at the 31.5 Hz tone and climbs steady enough until it peaks like crazy around 50 or 60 Hz. The other room did that too. I think it's a floor/ceiling thing. At higher frequencies the output falls off but the old Rat Shack SPL meter might be known for a bit of flakiness up high. Regardless, going through the sub 100 Hz tones sounded good, without any burps of rattles coming out of the box.

Moving the SPL meter around the room, actually even using my ears, the room modes in a couple of places were pronounced. A really thick sound panel might address that but with regular content the peaks and nulls aren't noticeable in the normal listening positions.

Still diggin' it.

The Rat Shack SPL meter is not accurate at all in the last octave and falls off quickly below 60 Hz. It is useless for testing those frequencies.

 

[Alex2507]

The Rat Shack SPL meter is not accurate at all in the last octave and falls off quickly below 60 Hz. It is useless for testing those frequencies.

From the instructions: "The second set of tracks is not linear and is designed to compensate for the non-linearity of the Radio Shack analog SPL meter."

Of course I wasn't using those tracks until I read your comment and therefore the directions so thanks again. That reduced my peak at 50 Hz. I just wanted to see where the output began and I could do that with test tones. The tracks calibrated for the RS meter do show output even at 20 and 25 Hz with the bass being sent to just the sub.

I'm trying to work out why the difference in phase is affected by whether the bass is sent to Sub or Both and if my initial preference is simply a response to higher SPL ... it's confusing. The important thing to me at this point is that the sub works as expected which is bonus considering my fumbling around with the T/S values. I guess I managed to get it close enough. I should have just asked RBH for the parameters ... I guess I still could.