| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Audio Discussions » Macondo’s MiniMe or about Pilot Acoustic Systems (214 posts, 11 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 11 (214 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 5 » ... Last »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Suggested target curves and setup techniques for Pro Au..  Contacting Thorsten...  Didital Things  Forum     9  90120  03-23-2005
  »  New  “A” sound from “B” system?..  Re: “A” sound from “B” system?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     13  98295  05-22-2005
  »  New  A quest for a better monitor...  Dome tweeters and brightness in SL600...  Audio Discussions  Forum     97  709846  06-08-2006
  »  New  Rightsizing from extreme systems......  It is Hot! The summer playback...  Audio Discussions  Forum     7  51195  06-17-2006
  »  New  Monitors: Wishful thinking..  Digital crossover...  Audio Discussions  Forum     8  76365  07-23-2006
  »  New  Cool running AB amplifier.. with good sound...  How about more current integrateds?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     11  77103  07-25-2006
  »  New  Macondo Frame modification...  Parquet...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     46  334543  12-22-2006
  »  New  The inflatable speakers dumping and no only...  Labyrinth?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     8  49342  05-30-2007
  »  New  The foolishness of multiple playback systems...  The foolishness of multiple playback systems....  Playback Listening  Forum     0  11136  04-09-2008
  »  New  Help to identify the LF driver...  Shell I install some kind of finding award? I might…...  Audio Discussions  Forum     2  19440  09-06-2008
  »  New  The low-power SET and dead speakers..  Expiring Cygnets (Back to Bass-ics)...  Audio Discussions  Forum     2  22248  01-18-2009
  »  New  Off-the-wall playback or the 'hamster solution'...  Spacial information...  Audio Discussions  Forum     6  35472  02-26-2009
  »  New  Macondo listening experience..  Actually I disagree with your assessment....  Playback Listening  Forum     4  37379  06-16-2009
  »  New  Yamaha B-2 V-FET amplifier...  I do like my B-2...  Audio Discussions  Forum     19  133913  07-20-2009
09-17-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 21
Post ID: 8304
Reply to: 8299
Deep boxes and long ports..

Romy,

Regarding your first illustration:

Some time ago I intentionally made two different boxes for my ScanSpeak drivers to see what will happen, because I do not believe in theories and trust only to my ears. The boxes had exactly the same internal volume and front baffle width, so the only difference was in their actual proportions (height and depth). The first one was very tall and very shallow, the second one was little in height but very deep.

There was HUGE difference in sound. The deep box sounded much more articulated and with ease at the dynamic peaks. The improvement in sound was most remarkable in the upper range of the driver. The only reasonable explanation I have for that is that the back wave form the driver bounce back to the cone and interfere with the front fired wave, adding delayed signal with high amplitude. If the back wall is very far from the driver’s diaphragm, the energy of the reflected wave is very low thus the sound is more clear and better defined. In comparison the sound of the shallow box was some kind of polluted at MF, loosing definition and dynamics (micro and macro), the midbass was quite excessive and unlistenable, although SS is quite nice driver.

So I think the depth of your box is of much greater importance than the exact location of the ports at the bottom and I definitely think the design “B” is going to have better sound.

My thoughts about your second illustration:

I’m not sure if my interpretation of the picture is right, but the port of speaker “B” seem veeery long to me. That means the tuning will be extremely low and the acoustic system should behave more like sealed box rather than typical bassreflex design. It is true if you tune it below approximately 20Hz but I hardly see any sound benefits from this kind of bass loading. The longer the port is, the lower the Fb will be and vice-versa (if the port area is the same). What is your motivation to use so long port?

Best Regards
Petar


"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
09-17-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 22
Post ID: 8307
Reply to: 8304
Overly ridicules?

 haralanov wrote:

Some time ago I intentionally made two different boxes for my ScanSpeak drivers to see what will happen, because I do not believe in theories and trust only to my ears. The boxes had exactly the same internal volume and front baffle width, so the only difference was in their actual proportions (height and depth). The first one was very tall and very shallow, the second one was little in height but very deep.

There was HUGE difference in sound. The deep box sounded much more articulated and with ease at the dynamic peaks. The improvement in sound was most remarkable in the upper range of the driver. The only reasonable explanation I have for that is that the back wave form the driver bounce back to the cone and interfere with the front fired wave, adding delayed signal with high amplitude. If the back wall is very far from the driver’s diaphragm, the energy of the reflected wave is very low thus the sound is more clear and better defined. In comparison the sound of the shallow box was some kind of polluted at MF, loosing definition and dynamics (micro and macro), the midbass was quite excessive and unlistenable, although SS is quite nice driver.

So I think the depth of your box is of much greater importance than the exact location of the ports at the bottom and I definitely think the design “B” is going to have better sound.

I am sorry, you might mistyped. You meant to say the design “A” is going to have better sound, do you? The design “A”  has more deep box.

 haralanov wrote:

My thoughts about your second illustration:

I’m not sure if my interpretation of the picture is right, but the port of speaker “B” seem veeery long to me. That means the tuning will be extremely low and the acoustic system should behave more like sealed box rather than typical bassreflex design. It is true if you tune it below approximately 20Hz but I hardly see any sound benefits from this kind of bass loading. The longer the port is, the lower the Fb will be and vice-versa (if the port area is the same). What is your motivation to use so long port?

Well, I have no other motivation then juts to make it comprehensible that the ports lengths are different. I certainly am not planning to go it so long, but I was wondering how the length of the port and the most important the proximity of it to boundary affects sound. I might have the same port diameter and the same length but the port might stat from an open middle of the box vs. the port might start a few mm from an opposite wall. That what I was trying to depict. So, Petar, what would please to comment on it. Also, if the exit of the pot is important for pressure synchronization (you use horn-like profile and I like it) then can we presume that enters of the how might be benefited from gentile pressure transformation? Would in such case something like this to look overly ridicules?

Horn.JPG


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-18-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Lbjefferies7
Southern California
Posts 49
Joined on 01-11-2008

Post #: 23
Post ID: 8309
Reply to: 8307
Port Predicaments
 Romy the Cat wrote:


...but I was wondering how the length of the port and the most important the proximity of it to boundary affects sound.



A general rule is to keep the end of the port at least twice its diameter away from walls.  I have placed ports right up next to a parallel wall and had no problems at all.

Now, as for your drawing of the exaggerated port flaires, it is excessive.  A port is not a horn and, from an engineering standpoint, I treat them very differently.  A port is a resonator.  They opperate almost exactly as do passive radiators.  Nothing very fancy is needed to keep a port from "chuffing."  The first step is to design a port that is not too small.  Small ports mean more compression and greater velocity.  I have just used a simple .75" round-over and have been perfectly happy with it.  Having said that, Petar's port design looks very good, but when using eight or ten ports, adjustability will be a must.  The greater surface area of the mulitple ports will cause more friction against the moving air and will screw up the Fb.

Using ports as anti-compression devices is just plain bogus, in my estimation.  Above the port's tuning frequency (Fb), the enclosure acts just as a large sealed enclosure.  Below the Fb, it acts as a quasi-infinite baffle system.  When the driver reproduces the Fb, the port "opens up" at the Helmholtz frequency...where the air masses in the box and in the port reach a "balance" where the output of the port is 365 degrees out of phase with the driver.  The responces of each resonator combine and create a greater overall response.  By tuning the port, the port's output can extend the sealed response of the acoustic system.  This is how I understand it, at least.

Now, Petar is spot on when he says that the Fb must not be below the resonant frequency (Fs) of the driver.  If it is, you will certainly get a horribly disgusting cone-flapping sound and may just fry your drivers.  The vision of murder will be dancing in your head...like sugarplums on steroids!

LBJ


I'm not interested in having an orchestra sound like itself. I want it to sound like the composer. Leonard Bernstein
09-18-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 24
Post ID: 8311
Reply to: 8309
Please educate me, perhaps I am missing something.

 Lbjefferies7 wrote:

Now, as for your drawing of the exaggerated port flaires, it is excessive.  A port is not a horn and, from an engineering standpoint, I treat them very differently.  A port is a resonator. 

Oh, sure I understand it and drew it excessively solely for the sake of illustration. I have see a few companies did the exit of the horn in semi-horn profile, so that lead to a question of the entrance of the Helmholtz resonator might be benefited from the semi-horn shape.

 Lbjefferies7 wrote:

Using ports as anti-compression devices is just plain bogus, in my estimation.  Above the port's tuning frequency (Fb), the enclosure acts just as a large sealed enclosure.  Below the Fb, it acts as a quasi-infinite baffle system.  When the driver reproduces the Fb, the port "opens up" at the Helmholtz frequency...where the air masses in the box and in the port reach a "balance" where the output of the port is 365 degrees out of phase with the driver.  The responces of each resonator combine and create a greater overall response.  By tuning the port, the port's output can extend the sealed response of the acoustic system.  This is how I understand it, at least.

Yes, it is a perfect explanation and it is how I understand it but read below…

 Lbjefferies7 wrote:
Now, Petar is spot on when he says that the Fb must not be below the resonant frequency (Fs) of the driver.  If it is, you will certainly get a horribly disgusting cone-flapping sound and may just fry your drivers.  The vision of murder will be dancing in your head...like sugarplums on steroids!

Ok, this is exactly where I am a lost. As long we keep the port’s resonance below driver’s resonance then I agree that we are at more or less save ground. Even I - the person who never experimented with poet in my live- have written about it at in past. However, if we accept this premise then we defeat the entire purpose of using ports. Of cause we would like to have LF EQ on the enclosure in compare to a sealed solution. Of cause we would like to drive the port’s resonance below the driver/enclosure resonance to get more bass out of the situation, without use of ultra low Fs driver and increasing the size of the box. Or cause we would have a sever driver reactance when the resonances “meet”. Aren’t they all the ideas of port use and isn’t it how it works in all bass reflex loudspeakers. I was under presumption that by embracing the horn idea we are by default let the amplification, filtration and other thighs to deal with driver “comforting” during the cone-flapping… If we keep the Fb above the Fs then why do we need to a port to begin with?

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-18-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
haralanov


Bulgaria
Posts 130
Joined on 05-20-2008

Post #: 25
Post ID: 8313
Reply to: 8311
How to teach the port do not sound like a port
Principally there are many many theories and papers about ports and how they must be calculated/constructed/placed/used. But none of these theories explains the relation of port design to the SOUND.  That’s the reason why so many engineers get so horrible results with their speakers. We do not make ports and speakers – we build sound. That’s why everything should be tried in practice and the designer should listen to the results he/she achieves.

I personally very much hate ported designs, but it is not impossible to eliminate the nasty “port sound” and use the benefits of bassreflexes in terms of dynamic extension. In my experience the port sounds better if it uses side wall as an extension along it’s  length. I do not know what the real reason is but it sounds less ported this way.  If the port is placed in the middle of the baffle you get more of this damn “ported” sound. If the port does not have flaring, it sounds too aggressive and with some kind of strain, no matter how loud you listen music IMO. Something you should consider to be mandatory and of great importance for sound is to FILL the ports with natural wool. It suppress the midrange resonances inside the port and restricts the leakage of sound at higher frequencies. Here is a picture of my last design using big flare at the both ends of the port (removed the wool intentionally):

port before wool filling.jpg



LBJ, your theory is right, but I don’t think you get my idea of using ports. The method I described above consider using the port’s output, but only FRACTION of this output, just below the point where the port sound like a separate source of blurred bass, screaming “BUU, BUUU, Here I am, I’m a port, look at ME”….

In the graphic below there shown 3 different bass loadings using identical driver. The blue line represent excursion of the driver in sealed enclosure, the gray one represents the standard port loading, while the yellow line represent my idea (port with reduced efficiency) due to lowered output caused by internal port damping. My golden rule is with lowering the frequency the driver’s excursion must not be lowered at any point. That is the point where the “Port sound” takes over, polluting the Music:

port vs filledport vs closedbox.jpg

 Romy the Cat wrote:
Of cause we would like to drive the port’s resonance below the driver/enclosure resonance to get more bass out of the situation, without use of ultra low Fs driver and increasing the size of the box. Or cause we would have a sever driver reactance when the resonances “meet”. Aren’t they all the ideas of port use and isn’t it how it works in all bass reflex loudspeakers. I was under presumption that by embracing the horn idea we are by default let the amplification, filtration and other thighs to deal with driver “comforting” during the cone-flapping… If we keep the Fb above the Fs then why do we need to a port to begin with?

The tuning above driver Fs is used by the people in a very wrong way – they want to gain some extra bass of their drivers without overloading them. If some filling inside the port is used it stops acting like a port and this is the only way dealing with them. If this rule is applied there is no problem using very low port tuning.


"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -A.E.
09-18-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,157
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 26
Post ID: 8315
Reply to: 8307
Servo?
Romy, it sounds like you've got your heart set on getting LF from your MF drivers in BR boxes.  But perhaps for this to happen you will have to crank up the LF power, anyway.  Maybe this calls for a separate, stuffed "LF" box-in-a-box with a "long throw" servo.

Anyway, if Fs of those little drivers is 80Hz, you might just hate the sound from them below 120 Hz, or even higher.

As I hear it, one of the main ideas of the BR port is to "raise" the low end of a driver a little and at the same time give it some resistance to damp ringing as it approaches Fs  By this I mean to say that IMO it has never been "proper" BR to just "tune" the thing the Hell down there to wring out every last Hz.

Best regards,
Paul S
09-18-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 27
Post ID: 8316
Reply to: 8315
Considering that I am jaded about ported sound generally…

I do not know what the Fs of the drivers that will be using. I did not measure them yet.  I have one of them in ¼ cub feet box with a port making 65Hz and two of them in 1/2 cub feet box making 38Hz. If I found more of the them then will be unit 4 of them per box, so I presume that I will be able to go quite low in 2-3 cub feet box. If I do have a notion in my head that the ported bass will suck anyhow then why do not get a full bass?

Well, here where I hit a problem. The “suck ported bass” is not a Boolean but it has moderation and it might be “the better crappy ported bass” and “worse crappy ported bass”. The keys in it are some kind of agreeable with subjective results moderation that would greatly depends of the specific implementation.   If you look at the LBJ, Petar and few others who try to help me in the MiniMe thinking then it is obverses that there are some “kinks” that would move the posted bass from “bad” to “horrible” but I am affair that without the trials and actual evaluation of the results it is very difficult to say how it will works, particularly if I am willing to get MORE bass and to drive the port resonance all the way down as far as the array of the 4 driver permits me.

So, at think moment I think where the get those drivers of mine and when I get them then I will come up with some kind of steel enclose the THEN will be bitching to anyone that it sounds very “porty”. However, the single 4” woofer that I found in ¼ cub feet with port (with temp tweeter), even those it has all characteristic of the “bad port sound”,  still does excellent in context of the requirement and defends I impose to the  MiniMe acoustic system. If I have in my final MiniMe version the same LF Sound that I am getting now from ¼ cub feet box (I hope to get less port noise due to 4 drivers and much larger enclosure) then supplementing with much-much better tweeter and spiced some interesting techniques the those woofer allow to employ (Some form of the “Resonant Oops”) I feel it will be happy like clam.

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-18-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,157
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 28
Post ID: 8324
Reply to: 8316
A horn analogy, perhaps?
I am not selling BR (honest), but if you - a horn guy - think about running a 150 Hz horn down to 150 Hz, perhaps that would put this into perspective.

As one who has heard only "horn-sounding" horns, if I ever get to making some horns it will essentially be a leap of faith.  Still, no need to start right out by running the horns down into themselves, right?

Best regards,
Paul S
09-19-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Lbjefferies7
Southern California
Posts 49
Joined on 01-11-2008

Post #: 29
Post ID: 8325
Reply to: 8316
Sealed, Ported, and Less-than-Ported Summer Listening

For the sake of helpfullness, I think that we may separate the differences of the ported speaker designs of myself and Petar.  What I have described is the standard, pedistrian model of a vented speaker.  Petar's is a hybrid aperiodic-ported design.  It is a less-than-vented design tuned to a particular frequency.  It's nice and can probably produce a nicer sound than a purely vented design, but in Romy's application (getting somewhat acceptable bass from 4 inch drivers) it may cut the effect of the port to severely.

Let me tell you about the small speakers that I built and had mentioned earlier.  They used the Peerless 830854 poly midwoofer with an Fs of about 75 Hz.  The goal of the speaker was essentially the same as Romy's...Small with relatively okay bass.  After a lot of modifications (including an Oops resonating soundboard back) to the origional design, it was successful.  I could play Bach's 2nd Cello Suite on them and enjoy it without the port farting out an indistinct noise.  They were very pleasant in the context of non-serious listening.  They measure just about 5.5 inches deep, 11 inches high, 7.5 inches wide (roughly) and I powered their 87 dB sensitivity with a barbarian Crown amplifier.  Once I have a place at home to set up, I'll be using them again, exactly as I did before...As my "its not a musical instrument but it won't piss me off" speaker.

I am very familiar with the ported M-Audio BX-5a "studio monitor."  Perhaps I am dimwitted, but I have no idea how these commercial companies can be so talented at making a port sound like a port!!!  Not only does the carbon fiber cone impart such a revolting, idiotic, tone, but the wildly flaired port blows and humms until my ears run with blood!  Not even in my days of dumpster diving for free drivers have I gotten such bad port sound as I have heard from nearly all commercial speakers.  It may relate to the thin walled plastic or cardboard ports they use.  My newer ports are made exactly like your horns, just with a straight profile...Stacked and glued MDF.  One difference of the port in my MiniMe speakers is that they are ABS pipe that have been damped and lined with an idea that I ripped off from B&W.  Their big thing is dimpling their flaires like the surface of a golf ball.  Not to be outdone (I was like that in those days), I spread on epoxy and lined the inside of the port with silica gel balls!  The damping effect of this treatment was probably much more beneficial that the aerodymic aspects, however.

Anyway, the best advice I can give is to make your enclosure very versitile.  With your drivers, with your amps, with your sources, with your goals, and your music, they are going to need to be very much your speakers...not mine or anyone else's.  Building a purely ported design could bring the results I think you are looking for. 

As for tuning the ports below the drivers Fs; give it a try... I've heard the "flapping cone" sound, I did some hands-on research.  I recently repaired the amplifier of a pair of self-amplified Bose speakers.  I pluged the passive speaker into my system and listened to it produce some really screechy, shouting, terrible sound.  Once I had the amp fixed, I fired them up to hear the really bad cone flapping drone without the shout or the peaky mid frequencies.  Obviously, Better Sound Through Research means using an equilizer to "fix" a fundamentally flawed speaker.  So, with the recent findings, I am reconcidering my "impossible to use port's below Fs" attitude.

Kindest Regards,
LBJ


I'm not interested in having an orchestra sound like itself. I want it to sound like the composer. Leonard Bernstein
09-19-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 30
Post ID: 8329
Reply to: 8325
Ok, we are getting somewhere…

Thanks, LBJ, I ma slowly getting into where I would to be in term of understanding, at least it is what I think I do. You are perfectly identified what I am shooting for: "its not a musical instrument but it won't piss me off", it is exactly what I would like it to be.

I few more questions. Take a look at the image below:

Port_long3.JPG

The difference would be juts the volume of the boxes and the consequentially the lower loading of the drivers in infinite baffle state, theoretically in larger box I might drive the driver have in “sealed state” but would be port acting in oversized box differently? I can make the box at tall as 72” but I do not think that my driver will be able to pressurize this volume. As I understand the port shell kick-in at the bottom of the acoustic suspension (hypothetically spanking). So, if I get 8 of those drivers then I can pressure-load a larger box and let the port to do less. Correct me if my assumptions are wrong.

 And one more question. What you feel would be a difference between those 3 cases?

Port_long4.JPG


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-20-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Lbjefferies7
Southern California
Posts 49
Joined on 01-11-2008

Post #: 31
Post ID: 8345
Reply to: 8329
MiniMe or Fat Bastard
Okay, here's a graph that shows theoretically what will happen when the volume is doubled and a few other circumstances.  It should give you an idea of what's going on.
 
Enclosure Differences.JPG

It is important to note that when the Vb is doubled, the port lenght will be roughly half if you want to maintain the origional Fb.  If the port is left the same length, the Fb will be much less...and as you can see from the yellow line, this may be a useful situation.  How two enclosures with different volumes and different port tunings will interact is anybody's guess; but with a lot of careful tuning, you might just get a deeply extended bass.  It will at some point become just a fight with physics, which never seems to end well whenever tried.  I would not expect much under 40-50 hz, which is pretty impressive.

"What you feel would be a difference between those 3 cases?"

Hmm, this is a difficult thing to say.  I would expect there to be literally no difference between the first and second speakers.  In the third speaker, the port tuning would be definitely screwed up.  It could be tuned, just not by mathematics.  It is possible that the port could 'ring' with the vibrations picked up from the enclosure.  I've never experimented with such a method.  Also, I am not absolutely sure where the Fb changes from being in the "Sound-Range" and the "Air-Pumping-Range."  In my low frequency channels, the ports are tuned to about 22 hz.  With the ports open, the speaker becomes an air pump and I would preferably low-pass them at 60-80 Hz...just a guess.  Until I have my mid-upper-bass channels built (coming soon hopefully), I have them sealed and run them up to about 125 Hz...definitely in the Sound-Range.  If I understand correctly, your smaller enclosure part of MiniMe may be tuned in the Sound-Range at which point, the port will become more critical, and less desirable.

Either way, I would not anticipate very many higher-frequency sounds comming from the port.

Hope this helps, and feel free to ask more questions; I haven't had the luxury of thinking this much about tangible things in a whileSmile

Regs
LBJ


I'm not interested in having an orchestra sound like itself. I want it to sound like the composer. Leonard Bernstein
09-20-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 32
Post ID: 8348
Reply to: 8345
OK, I think I am all set with idea regarding the MiniMe.
Very, good, now I a clear pictures of what I will be doing and all that I need now is to spend some time on phone with London trying to find out where I can source a dozen or so those “unique” drivers on mine…. The 70-20XR tweeter will be arriving in a month, so I have some time to harass those funny-speaking Brits… As I learned the driver never was sold in US. When I have the drivers (and know how many of them I might get) then I will be drawing the MiniMe box….

The Cat

PS: BTW, I sometimes ago have expressed an about an idea to put inside of a ported box a small inflated party balloon:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=4500#4500


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-21-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Lbjefferies7
Southern California
Posts 49
Joined on 01-11-2008

Post #: 33
Post ID: 8352
Reply to: 8348
MiniMe with Raal Ribbons

Very good.  Raal 70-20XR...interesting.  Where are you planning to cross these over?

I remember the discussion about the internal balloon.  That is a very good idea and this may be the perfect opportunity to try it.  It will also be interesting opportunity to work on enclosure damping methods.  Being made of steel, they will probably make all kinds of noise without some help.  I have used frequency sweeps and a stethoscope to find the resonant modes in enclosures and strategically damped them out.  It worked out very well.  Today, I thought of something that may be worth trying.  With a steel enclosure, you might try glueing (silicone glue would be perfect) some hockey pucks over the most resonant areas.  It should work, they are easily removed if it doesn't, and best of all, hockey pucks cost 99¢ each.

LBJ


I'm not interested in having an orchestra sound like itself. I want it to sound like the composer. Leonard Bernstein
09-21-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 34
Post ID: 8353
Reply to: 8352
Here are some MiniMe ‘secrets’.

 Lbjefferies7 wrote:
Very good.  Raal 70-20XR...interesting.

Oh, yes, the 70-20XR is very interesting. I did not have this driver but Alex allowed me to experimented with some elements of it’s design in context on my “Water Drop” tweeter and it was quite remarkable. I end up do not use those “elements of it’s design” with “Water Drop” as my tweeter has different objectives but in context of the 2-way MiniMe the 70-20XR’s “elements of it’s design” shell show themselves vey very positively.

 Lbjefferies7 wrote:
Where are you planning to cross these over?

You have no idea how loaded this question. The crossover point with the MiniMe is not a tactical question but actually the very strategic question of the entire speaker, let me to explain why. The woofers that I use are fairly bizarre – they are what made me to think about the MiniMe. They have diaphragms made with reinforced fabric, the outer suspension is rubber. However, the reinforced fabric is semi-soft in the similar elasticity as the outer suspension. So, it is not a piston motion (like in foolish ceramic drivers) but rather motions with a lot of break ups – the right motion in my books. But then is the kink of the driver- the dust cap. The dust cap is inverted dome of aluminum and it the way how it placed makes the dust cap as the literally keystone of the diaphragm resonance. It is sort of the resonance’s lighting rod – if you see the driver then you understand why I got enthusiastic about it. Now, the woofer goes up, let say to 4K-5K and the dust cap begin to ring. The similar effect to JBL LE8 that also has metal dust cap. Here is where I will be playing with my woofer – to tune by ears the dust cap’s resonances. You see, that dust cap ring in a very measured dosage is in fact very good (in context of these speakers) as it works like the “Oops-resonator”. I will damp the dust cap by painting the driver with volcanic ash (no speaker white cones in my home!!!). That will extend the safe operation of the driver for 500-1000Hz up but the primary tuning tool for me will be the crossover point. So, I will be searching for crossover point by just listening the Oopses with witch the woofer’s dust cap will resonate – where it will become too much Oops then I will cross right there… Well, here is the question: how the woofer’s dust cap will behave if I have 6-8 woofers per channel and the excursion of each woofer is substantially minimized? I have no answer now but I think I will found another 2K of response. Then we have the HF’s cancelation coming from the line-array configuration… It will eat the HF but will it each the dust cap Oops-resonances with the same appetite? I have no answer now… How the “not eaten” residues of the HF woofer resonances will be “subjectively friendly” to the distortions of the 70-20XR tweeter’s lower knee? I have no answer at this point. I need to found the woofers, to build the box to screw the array of the woofers and the tweeter in and start to run the crossover point up and down, to hear how it will work all together. I have no planning to cross at a specific point I will cross it wherever it will be, I anticipate that it will be somewhere between 2K and 6K, most likely a second order.

 Lbjefferies7 wrote:
I remember the discussion about the internal balloon.  That is a very good idea and this may be the perfect opportunity to try it.  It will also be interesting opportunity to work on enclosure damping methods.  Being made of steel, they will probably make all kinds of noise without some help.  I have used frequency sweeps and a stethoscope to find the resonant modes in enclosures and strategically damped them out.  It worked out very well.  Today, I thought of something that may be worth trying.  With a steel enclosure, you might try glueing (silicone glue would be perfect) some hockey pucks over the most resonant areas.  It should work, they are easily removed if it doesn't, and best of all, hockey pucks cost 99¢ each.

Hm, in interesting idea – to offset the box resonances by targeted mass-damping – sort of rotationally balance a car’s wheel by adding mass on one side. I think it might work with light enclosures. I do not think it will work with heavy and stiff enclosure as I am planning to do. As you understand from my previous paragraph it will be a lot of active resonances radiated out of this speaker, so I presume that the enclosure resonances will be a least of my problem. I do not decided with steel finally. I know that I am not willing to do anything myself with enclosure. I will design it (after I know how many woofer I will be able to fish out), get a quote for my machinist and then see what other material are available. It will not be 1” of wood but a few mm of something very strong- steel, aluminum or architecture plastic (Perhaps the material-savvy Jessie could advise something). Anyhow I will try to keep the dimension of the baffle as little as possible….

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-22-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Lbjefferies7
Southern California
Posts 49
Joined on 01-11-2008

Post #: 35
Post ID: 8355
Reply to: 8353
MiniMe Material
 Romy the Cat wrote:

It will not be 1” of wood but a few mm of something very strong- steel, aluminum or architecture plastic


If you have an industrial plastics company close, you might look into a material called G10. Its available in any thickness you would want (I've seen from .005 to 3 inches) and it comes in black (although Patricia Barber will literally appear in you room if they are that nice "Pimp Purple" that Kharma has). You would definitely want to talk to your fabricator about the details because it's a bitch to work with. A waterjet cutter should work perfectly.

LBJ


I'm not interested in having an orchestra sound like itself. I want it to sound like the composer. Leonard Bernstein
09-24-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 36
Post ID: 8368
Reply to: 8353
Chasing the drivers…

 Romy the Cat wrote:
You have no idea how loaded this question. The crossover point with the MiniMe is not a tactical question but actually the very strategic question of the entire speaker, let me to explain why. The woofers that I use are fairly bizarre – they are what made me to think about the MiniMe. They have diaphragms made with reinforced fabric, the outer suspension is rubber. However, the reinforced fabric is semi-soft in the similar elasticity as the outer suspension. So, it is not a piston motion (like in foolish ceramic drivers) but rather motions with a lot of break ups – the right motion in my books. But then is the kink of the driver- the dust cap. The dust cap is inverted dome of aluminum and it the way how it placed makes the dust cap as the literally keystone of the diaphragm resonance. It is sort of the resonance’s lighting rod – if you see the driver then you understand why I got enthusiastic about it. Now, the woofer goes up, let say to 4K-5K and the dust cap begin to ring. The similar effect to JBL LE8 that also has metal dust cap. Here is where I will be playing with my woofer – to tune by ears the dust cap’s resonances. You see, that dust cap ring in a very measured dosage is in fact very good (in context of these speakers) as it works like the “Oops-resonator”. I will damp the dust cap by painting the driver with volcanic ash (no speaker white cones in my home!!!). That will extend the safe operation of the driver for 500-1000Hz up but the primary tuning tool for me will be the crossover point. So, I will be searching for crossover point by just listening the Oopses with witch the woofer’s dust cap will resonate – where it will become too much Oops then I will cross right there… Well, here is the question: how the woofer’s dust cap will behave if I have 6-8 woofers per channel and the excursion of each woofer is substantially minimized? I have no answer now but I think I will found another 2K of response. Then we have the HF’s cancelation coming from the line-array configuration… It will eat the HF but will it each the dust cap Oops-resonances with the same appetite? I have no answer now… How the “not eaten” residues of the HF woofer resonances will be “subjectively friendly” to the distortions of the 70-20XR tweeter’s lower knee? I have no answer at this point. I need to found the woofers, to build the box to screw the array of the woofers and the tweeter in and start to run the crossover point up and down, to hear how it will work all together. I have no planning to cross at a specific point I will cross it wherever it will be, I anticipate that it will be somewhere between 2K and 6K, most likely a second order.

Sucks, my illusionary idea to find more of those woofers it looks like is condemned fail. I have 5 of those woofers, hat makes 2 pairs useable. I would like to have 8 of them but I feel that I will hardly find them… They were made for a brand XXX by British Mission very short period of time over a year and a half and then the XX Company started to use in the same model different drivers (ceramic I believe). Mission was sold out since then but the new company still has a division that still cares the Mission name. I spoke with their part department and they do not have the past since 2001. Mission did not prose the drivers by they were sourced in China. I spoke with the Chinese guys why made the speakers for Mission and they did not make own drivers then. The drivers were made by Malaysian Company Eastern Asia Technology. They made a few run for Mission and it was long time ago. Speaking with the company rep that cares inventorially I learned that: “I am sorry that I can't help you finally as I was informed that we have disposed off those old drivers.”

So, it is no luck for me and I need to hunt in used market the speakers and get my woofers from them (that why I do not divulge the brand and model under which Mission sold my woofers).  Well, those guys who do mass production of speakers – they are in so cool state – the can make any specification for any diver then want…

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-24-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Wojtek
Pinckney (MI), United States
Posts 159
Joined on 09-01-2005

Post #: 37
Post ID: 8372
Reply to: 8368
Serial number ???
Funny , I visited a guy who  ususally picks up audio stuff from the curb (garbage picking) and noticed some 4 small Mission midbass woofers with crossovers. He said cab wasn't worth to save . What are the serial/ type numbers on yours, maybe they are what you're looking for ?.
REgards, W
09-24-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 38
Post ID: 8373
Reply to: 8372
The Drivers.
 Wojtek wrote:
Funny , I visited a guy who  ususally picks up audio stuff from the curb (garbage picking) and noticed some 4 small Mission midbass woofers with crossovers. He said cab wasn't worth to save . What are the serial/ type numbers on yours, maybe they are what you're looking for ?.
REgards, W


http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=8182#8182

The serial shell be in there...

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-01-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 39
Post ID: 8424
Reply to: 8261
Something like this.
I have found how to get the necessary divers, so, it will be 4 per channel. I decided to make two large opening at top and bottom with stud-bolted interchangeable covers. In the covers will be drilled holes with ports, I will go doe larger ports and shorter pipes. My very preliminary estimate suggest that 4 drivers will load the enclosure (4.5”x6”x40”-60”) down to F=~50-55Hz. The top port in thin case will be tuned to F minus 5Hz and the bottom port will be tuned for T minus 10-15Hz. This is groundwork idea, will see how it will work out in practice…

MiniMe_model.jpg

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-02-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 40
Post ID: 8428
Reply to: 8138
Some talks about port/s in this thread.

The 6moons’ Srajan Ebaen published a writing about Austisn David Haigner’s loudspeaker where David goes into some extend taking about his implementation of the bass reflex idea. The article made as Srajan’s narrative but in fact it is obvious that the “review” is juts David’s dictations. With the same success Srajan might juts record the Haigner’s comments and to attach to the review as mp3 file (you will see this practice coming very soon). The Srajan’s review has no comments about the sound of the Haigner’s loudspeaker. Sure why to make any comments! If to say that it sound not good then David would pull out the advertising from 6moons site. If to say that the speaker sounds very good then somebody not-deaf might buy the loudspeaker and to witness that Ebaen is a full of blabbering shit. Probably it is better to make sexy still-life pictures and publish the transcripts of the word of other, presenting it as own “wisdom”. Here is the way to go Mr. Reviewer!

Anyhow, if somebody is interested in the David Haigner’s thinking then here it comes:

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/haigner/rho.html

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/haigner/sidebar.html

I find it interesting but not too useful for myself as I do not fell that David connect subjective character of Sound with technical-measurable data. I presume that Mr. Haigner has some methodologies how to deal with it but it did not make in his commentaries to the 6moons’ guy.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 2 of 11 (214 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 5 » ... Last »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Suggested target curves and setup techniques for Pro Au..  Contacting Thorsten...  Didital Things  Forum     9  90120  03-23-2005
  »  New  “A” sound from “B” system?..  Re: “A” sound from “B” system?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     13  98295  05-22-2005
  »  New  A quest for a better monitor...  Dome tweeters and brightness in SL600...  Audio Discussions  Forum     97  709846  06-08-2006
  »  New  Rightsizing from extreme systems......  It is Hot! The summer playback...  Audio Discussions  Forum     7  51195  06-17-2006
  »  New  Monitors: Wishful thinking..  Digital crossover...  Audio Discussions  Forum     8  76365  07-23-2006
  »  New  Cool running AB amplifier.. with good sound...  How about more current integrateds?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     11  77103  07-25-2006
  »  New  Macondo Frame modification...  Parquet...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     46  334543  12-22-2006
  »  New  The inflatable speakers dumping and no only...  Labyrinth?...  Audio Discussions  Forum     8  49342  05-30-2007
  »  New  The foolishness of multiple playback systems...  The foolishness of multiple playback systems....  Playback Listening  Forum     0  11136  04-09-2008
  »  New  Help to identify the LF driver...  Shell I install some kind of finding award? I might…...  Audio Discussions  Forum     2  19440  09-06-2008
  »  New  The low-power SET and dead speakers..  Expiring Cygnets (Back to Bass-ics)...  Audio Discussions  Forum     2  22248  01-18-2009
  »  New  Off-the-wall playback or the 'hamster solution'...  Spacial information...  Audio Discussions  Forum     6  35472  02-26-2009
  »  New  Macondo listening experience..  Actually I disagree with your assessment....  Playback Listening  Forum     4  37379  06-16-2009
  »  New  Yamaha B-2 V-FET amplifier...  I do like my B-2...  Audio Discussions  Forum     19  133913  07-20-2009
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts