Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

261 - 280 of 475 Posts
G

·
A few minutes after I originally posted, I looked up the dimensions of the Conquest and did some calculations on my own regarding port tuning. I came to the conclusion that it would be very unlikely for the Conquest to be tuned below 20Hz with both ports open.

At or slightly above a 20Hz tune, it would have 2x the port cross-sectional area vs triple 3.5" ports, and even just a tad more than that vs dual 4" ports.

Still, not quite an LLT though ;)
According to what Chad Kuypers told me in a recent telephone conversation, the Conquest is tuned to less than 20hz, but I'll leave it to him to share the exact frequency if he so chooses...

Ross
 

·
Elite Shackster
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
Discussion Starter · #263 ·
Sorry, flip what I had said: the top graph is the sealed DIY LMS-5400, and the bottom graph is the sealed PB13U.
:fireworks1: :fireworks2:

We have a winner! Peter has just won a bag full of bragging rights on all HT forums. :D
 
G

·
HAHA, thank you thank you :D

Cheers to myself, Ilkka, and the Ferrari driver from Finland who took the world championship crown by 1 point from McLaren :)
 

·
Elite Shackster
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
Discussion Starter · #265 ·
According to what Chad Kuypers told me in a recent telephone conversation, the Conquest is tuned to less than 20hz, but I'll leave it to him to share the exact frequency if he so chooses...

Ross
Hi Ross,

You have a Conquest? A simple measurement could give us the exact tuning frequency. Do you have a mic/RS meter and know how to use the Room EQ Wizard?
 
G

·
Hi Ross,

You have a Conquest? A simple measurement could give us the exact tuning frequency. Do you have a mic/RS meter and know how to use the Room EQ Wizard?
Hi Ilkka,

First let me say how much respect I have for the work you do in conducting the subwoofer tests and really appreciate the great info you freely share with the community!

Yes, I do have a Conquest, but have yet to learn or use REW and would need to get an external soundcard for my laptop and probably a decent mic (only have an RS analog meter). Perhaps I will do this when I get back from vacation in earl/mid-November.

Cheers,
Ross
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,398 Posts
noah said:
A driver optimized for sealed has a higher Q for two reasons:

1) High Mms (which raises Q) will be needed to get a reasonably low Fc

2) Being a single-mass system, it will be overdamped with low Q; vented systems need extra damping to control the second mass (port air/PR)
Nah, I disagree with both statements. If you want anything resembling a flat FR in a small enclosure, it helps to start off with a really low Q so that the EQ needed isn't extreme. A small enclosure won't provide much damping, so you need to get it from the driver's suspesnion. Use a high Q driver in a small sealed enclosure and you've just made it very difficult to achieve any low end linearity in FR. Also, really low Q drivers don't work all that well for low tuned ported designs, as the low end gets too peaky.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
If you have any way to generate freq, you can get quite close by using a low level and feeling for the lowest woofer excursion while lightly touching it.
 

·
Elite Shackster
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
Discussion Starter · #269 ·
Nah, I disagree with both statements. If you want anything resembling a flat FR in a small enclosure, it helps to start off with a really low Q so that the EQ needed isn't extreme. A small enclosure won't provide much damping, so you need to get it from the driver's suspesnion. Use a high Q driver in a small sealed enclosure and you've just made it very difficult to achieve any low end linearity in FR.
Steve,

You have it backwards. Low Q driver will start to roll off higher and has less deep bass output.

Also, really low Q drivers don't work all that well for low tuned ported designs, as the low end gets too peaky.
That's correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
"If you want anything resembling a flat FR in a small enclosure, it helps to start off with a really low Q so that the EQ needed isn't extreme."

Try modeling it and you'll find otherwise. Start with any driver you like, then lower Q by decreasing Mms or increasing BL (which you can do by lowering Qes).

A guess part of what you say is true; in a really small box you'll need to use a high Q driver, but the EQ will need to be extreme becuase it will need to overcome the back EMF of the driver on top of the extra box air stiffness.

"Also, really low Q drivers don't work all that well for low tuned ported designs, as the low end gets too peaky."

Try the same modeling experiment as above and you'll see that as Qts increases so does low end peaking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,398 Posts
If I'm graphing a TC3k 15" with a .261 Qts in 70 liters (small) to achieve a .537 Qtc, and an old Adire Brahma 15" with a .474 Qts in 70 liters liters to achieve a .818 Qtc, the TC3k sub will have a stronger low end for a given amount of power, as the low end is more sensitive. The Brahma will have a flatter top end.
 

·
Elite Shackster
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
Discussion Starter · #272 ·
If I'm graphing a TC3k 15" with a .261 Qts in 70 liters (small) to achieve a .537 Qtc, and an old Adire Brahma 15" with a .474 Qts in 70 liters liters to achieve a .818 Qtc, the TC3k sub will have a stronger low end for a given amount of power, as the low end is more sensitive. The Brahma will have a flatter top end.
You can't compare two totally different drivers. That's because also other parameters affect the FR. Use the same driver but only change the Qes value. Unibox comes very handy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,398 Posts
noah said:
Try modeling it and you'll find otherwise. Start with any driver you like, then lower Q by decreasing Mms or increasing BL (which you can do by lowering Qes).
Hmm, increasing Bl, decreasing Qes, and decreasing Qts seems to round off the top end a little and give me more overall sensitivity.
 
261 - 280 of 475 Posts
Top