Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

The "designing the perfect subwoofer driver" thread...


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
733 replies to this topic

#721 of 734 OFFLINE   Kyle Richardson

Kyle Richardson

    Screenwriter



  • 1,076 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 01 1998

Posted October 19 2002 - 04:03 AM

Seth, yes, there are specials on both of the Stryke 18" PR's. One is $100 and the other is $110
Kyle Richardson
Acoustic Visions

AOL Instant Messenger Name: kyler70
MSN IM: acousticvisions@hotmail.com

#722 of 734 OFFLINE   Chris Popovich

Chris Popovich

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 64 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 18 1999

Posted October 19 2002 - 05:25 AM

Are these parameters for the coils individually, in series or parallel?

My sims are showing something that isn't right... and I don't trust my guesses.


Thanks,
Chris

#723 of 734 OFFLINE   Jack Gilvey

Jack Gilvey

    Producer



  • 4,952 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 13 1999

Posted October 19 2002 - 05:43 AM

Quote:
Still VERY close to the original alignments, though (we doinked around with the gap to get the Qes where it makes the response curves very similar).

That's what I found playing with the new numbers: similar response curves in smaller boxes...at least for reflex. Can't really complain about that, although the sealed option is considerably less impressive now without eq (although I've already got the LT circuit TonyG built me).

Quote:
As far as PRs go, I don't know of any PRs that I'd trust to work long-term.

Long-term?! Who're you kidding? I just need 'em to least until I get bored. Posted Image

Quote:
The listed Le is in parallel; in series, it should be four times that value (around 4.2 mH). My mistake! Still pretty low for a driver with lots of excursion...

Ok, that's what I thought. So, unless one is going to drive a 1-ohm impedance, the Le to model is 4.2mH...a bit of a hump (?).

Quote:
Something around 44 liters net (about a 16" external cube), LT'd down to an F3 of 20 Hz and a Qtc of 0.577 looks real nice to me... In fact, we're working on some custom boards specifically for the Hypex amps we carry that will have a full LT on them. So you can bolt on a stout 750-1500W to the box with your LT built in.

Wow, that sounds really cool. Something to make the hardware forum Velodyne cultists wet themselves. Posted Image
SVS Customer Service
http://www.svsound.com
sales@svsound.com
techsupport@svsound.com

#724 of 734 OFFLINE   DanWiggins

DanWiggins

    Second Unit



  • 325 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 15 1999

Posted October 19 2002 - 05:43 AM

Seth,

They'll take that mass, although I wouldn't go much higher. LspCAD Pro shows PR excursion around 65mm p-p, which is beyond spec (when powered with 1400W), and my experience with LspCAD is that it is EXTREMELY accurate in terms of excursion estimates (as empirically confirmed by measuring excursion of an actual driver under power). Scale back to 1200W or so to get excursion of each PR back under 60mm p-p.

However, I personally wouldn't run that alignment to start with. IMHO, it's too peaky in the low end. I'd personally look at a smaller box, with a lower tuning frequency to get a smoother frequency response. That's just my input - I personally would look at something in the 130-140 liter range, and tune down around 16 Hz or so, to get what I consider better response from the system.

As far as the shift in parameters goes, it's pretty darn subtle. You can see the differences here. This is for your alignment - 181 liters, tuned to 19.4 Hz via the PRs.

Note that there's about a 0.5 dB variance between the curves in the 25 Hz range. However, of bigger interest to me is the flatter response with the new driver from 50 Hz and up. Add in the impact of a crossover, and with the original parameters your design would have been rolling off a good 10-12 Hz below your XO point; the newer design is a bit better, as with XO points in the 60-100 Hz range your actual XO point will be within a few Hz of where you set it.

In any case, the parameter changes are pretty subtle - there's not a big change at all. And in either case, I personally would go with a smaller, lower Fb box just to get a response curve more complementary to most rooms. But that's my personal take on it.

Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio

#725 of 734 OFFLINE   DanWiggins

DanWiggins

    Second Unit



  • 325 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 15 1999

Posted October 19 2002 - 05:52 AM

Jack,

Include the effects of a low pass crossover, and see what you get unequalized... In 2 cubic foot box with 32 ounces of polyfill, Qtc is around 0.62, and the -3 dB (relative to peak) is 29 Hz; F8 is 18 Hz...Posted Image

Of course, we were pretty much always talking about LTs and IBs in the first place, which means that stock sealed performance wasn't the prime goal.

Inductance is a bit higher, so you get a slight lift (less than 1 dB) around 80 Hz; however to overall curve is still pretty flat. Not high enough to make much of a difference at all, really.

One thing people should also keep in mind is that you don't HAVE to run to the limits of the driver! Pushing this driver to 25mm one way will still out-displace about anything else out there, but it'll be exceptionally clean. How about 100+ dB SPL from 20 Hz and up with less than 3% THD, in a sealed box? You can do that without pushing the driver near its limits. THAT is a major advantage - huge range of linear motion, meaning very high SPL levels with exceptionally clean bass. To me, that's the biggest advantage of the high excursion limits - not that last dB or two in SPL that you can get, but the fact that you can get higher than just about any subwoofer out there in SPL, while maintaining lower THD. Lots of CLEAN bass.

Anyway, this is what we can actually build that will be long-term reliable. Note that people reading this thread can now see some of the issues involved in taking a design from concept to release - sometimes your plans just won't quite work exactly as hoped for, and you have to change a few things to keep the same basic performance in the target applications.

That and the fact that custom spiders can take 6-8 weeks to turn-around...Posted Image

Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio

#726 of 734 OFFLINE   Seth_L

Seth_L

    Screenwriter



  • 1,553 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 05 2002

Posted October 19 2002 - 06:46 AM

Quote:
However, I personally wouldn't run that alignment to start with. IMHO, it's too peaky in the low end. I'd personally look at a smaller box, with a lower tuning frequency to get a smoother frequency response. That's just my input - I personally would look at something in the 130-140 liter range, and tune down around 16 Hz or so, to get what I consider better response from the system.
Dan, You seem to be missing the fact that there are no PRs (that I know of) that will give you a Fb of 16Hz in a 130L box. I have an equalizer and I can flatten any peaks that arise with my design.

The designs you're suggesting (enclosures) aren't really practical. The PR one can't be made because there aren't PRs (that I know of) that can take the mass needed. You're ported design has an inherent flaw in it's 80" long port. A port resonance at about 100Hz. Even with a very very steep crossover slope you're bound to excite this frequency. You also get compression from the air slowing down in the corners from friction.

What I gather from your posts is that unless we're building a LT in a sealed box your sub isn't a really very good choice.

It seems to me that you're trying to talk me and others out of buying your product. This seems kinda odd. I think it's time to go take another look at the Stryke AV15.

Seth

#727 of 734 OFFLINE   DanWiggins

DanWiggins

    Second Unit



  • 325 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 15 1999

Posted October 19 2002 - 08:08 AM

No, I'm not trying to talk you out of it, just trying to give you some of my perspective. PRs can work, and if you WANT the alignment you're designing for, go for it! Personally, I'm looking at other alignments, tuned lower.

And you'll run into this kind of limitation with pretty much ANY high-displacement driver. You need lots of PR area, meaning lots of heavy PRs. Stick it in smaller boxes, and the weight goes even higher. Unless you want a bit of a peak in the low end - then you're OK. Personally, I wouldn't want that. But that's me.

As far as port resonances go, if you bend the port a few times, you really attenuate the resonance mode of the port. An 80" long vent folded back on itself 3 times (to create a 4-segment port) has very little resonance issue at 100 Hz; primary resonance issues are at 450 Hz (each segment is a bit shorter than 20"). A 4th order XO at 70 Hz will deal with those quite effectively.

Seth, I'm not "dissing" or dragging on anyone. I'm just trying to make sure people understand some of the tradeoffs involved. If you took offense, I'm sorry - none intended. If you want your alignment you have, then by all means go for it! It can work. Does that mean I would use your alignment? No. And from your posts, you probably wouldn't like my alignment, either.

Now, as far as PRs that can give you 16 Hz in a 130L box - there are LOTS of them! A pair of PR-15s can get you there. Do they have enough linear excursion to allow full output of the Tumult? No, but a pair would get you within a couple of dB of absolute peak output. With a 16 Hz rumble filter, you're looking at fine performance all around. Personally, I'd be willing to trade off that last couple of dB of output (you'll be well over 115 dB SPL in-room anyway) for much lower distortion - driver, PRs, system as a whole is pushed not quite as hard.

That's just my take on it. If you don't like it, you don't have to listen to me! You're reading WAY too much in to my posts - they are meant (and I post specifically) as my take on what I'd do.

Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio

#728 of 734 OFFLINE   Seth_L

Seth_L

    Screenwriter



  • 1,553 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 05 2002

Posted October 19 2002 - 09:02 AM

Dan,

Why do you think the peak in the low end is a problem? It's easily tamed with a BFD. Using heavy fill takes care of the problem as well. What exactly is wrong with this design?

http://stereo.d2g.co...._Tumult_HF.gif
http://stereo.d2g.co...._Tumult_HF.gif

Seth

#729 of 734 OFFLINE   John E Janowitz

John E Janowitz

    Second Unit



  • 448 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 30 2000

Posted October 19 2002 - 09:21 AM

Just a note on the 18" PR's are being offered. These are capable of 2000gram Mms or higher. They use dual spiders to help better distribute the mass load. Our 15" PR's are able to handle up to 1800grams or so with only single spiders. The dual spiders used in the 18" PR's are stiffer, and have a wider weave which will support the weight better. We have used these with up to about 3000grams and have had no long term use problems.

Here's a comparison showing the Tumult, HE15, and UE15. The box is a 22" cube with dual 18" 2500gram PR's. You can see the response in nearly the same on the low end, hoffman's law. The we have used HE15 and UE15 both with 2500grams on the 18" PR's and have had no problems with long term durability. The UE15 also has DUMAX verified Xmag of 31mm in one report and 33mm in another. We have not had any issues with damaging PR's due to the high excursions and motor strength. A pair of the 18" PR's offer about 18L of Vd at 3" P-P excursion. More than enough to keep up with a Tumult.

John

#730 of 734 OFFLINE   John E Janowitz

John E Janowitz

    Second Unit



  • 448 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 30 2000

Posted October 19 2002 - 09:32 AM

Dan,

I withdraw my concerns. I will let those who have contacted me state their own concerns. I hope that if they do state their concerns publicly that you will treat them as issues to be dealt with, and not an attempt to damage your sales.

John

#731 of 734 OFFLINE   DanWiggins

DanWiggins

    Second Unit



  • 325 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 15 1999

Posted October 19 2002 - 09:58 AM

Seth,

If you have a BFD and want to use it, go for it... As long as the peak is above 20 Hz you're OK. They don't really EQ below 20 Hz though. I didn't realize you had an EQ and were planning to use it that heavily. Even so, my preference is still towards lower Q alignments.

Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio

#732 of 734 OFFLINE   John E Janowitz

John E Janowitz

    Second Unit



  • 448 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 30 2000

Posted October 19 2002 - 11:01 AM

Dan, with regards to the spider change, the source I heard it from was very reliable, so I though it could have been a possibility. Notice also I said there was mention of the spiders being changed. I did not say that they definitely were. Also, with regards to the 10" DUMAX report, yes, Stephen has stated that he cannot get an accurate measurement, but he has stated that the curve SHAPE is consistent between all of them. Although the parameters are not representative of the driver, the shape of the curve is. Also, this seems to be somewhat a contradiction that the report is wrong after yourself and David Hyre both posted publicly that DUMAX reports are very accurate when I expressed concerns about my measurements.

John

#733 of 734 OFFLINE   DanWiggins

DanWiggins

    Second Unit



  • 325 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 15 1999

Posted October 19 2002 - 03:11 PM

John,

I'd suggest you contact Stephen again, then. I have all 3 of his tests, and all 3 have not only radically different BL shapes, but radically different T/S parameters. THAT is why Stephen wanted to contact TC (who was supposed to keep the sheet confidential), to see if they could make sense of what was going on. It didn't line up with previous DUMAX results of Brahmas or other XBL2 motors.

As far as the spider change, your source is wrong. If you have a question about the driver, ask me. I don't care who your source was, they are mistaken. If it wasn't from Adire Audio, then it should be discounted. Lots of people think they know what's going on in the internals of the driver and how it's built, but VERY few actually understand it. A lot fewer that think they do.

As far as DUMAX tests go, once they get a driver "settled down", they are quite accurate. In the case of the 10" Brahma under question, it most likely is an issue with getting the machine dialed in right. The driver is being returned to us so we can measure it on our own BL/Cms jig, as well as take a full T/S measurement (and Le curves) so we can compare notes, and help them identify some issues with measurement of this specific driver.

Note that most other drivers they have measured agree very closely with FEA and with our own jig measurements - it's an issue with this specific driver that does not even maintain consistency in terms of measurements (+/- 60 grams Mmd, for example). That some would choose to make "market hay" over a driver test that is clearly LABELED as not accurate by the test lab is disingenuous, at best.

I look forward to customers who have questions about Brahmas contacting me.

Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio

#734 of 734 OFFLINE   Jeff Rosz

Jeff Rosz

    Second Unit



  • 337 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 24 2000

Posted October 21 2002 - 02:52 AM

hey folks,
a few questions.

i know it probably doesnt matter but i just have to know, what is the nominal and peak power rating total to the driver? the highest number ive seen is 1600w.

i know jack asked about the Le and the value given was for parallel coils(4.2 for series). so that is clear.

a Qes of .4 looks to be series (or parallel) for an individual coil Qes of .8 ?

Re=2.6ohms, series? as in brahma? edit: i edited a bunch of crap about Re after i looked at the brahma's website.

what does its mass come out to be?

will there be a lspcad version including this driver on adire's site? please, please, please.


thanks
why have one when you can have two for twice the price?


Back to Archived Threads 2001-2004


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Forum Nav Content I Follow