Yah, well, we'll see soon enough....You kick ass Zilch..
Yah, well, we'll see soon enough....You kick ass Zilch..
Was this directed to me? If so, I've already done that. Happy with the results. Currently sealed, which models to a -3dB of 47 Hz. Will be venting w/ a 2x2 vent gives box tuning of 29 Hz w/ a -3dB of 36Hz. Port resonance at 2000Hz.
Frankly, I don't quite understand what we're getting at w/ the stuff Zilch is doing, in a practical sense. What diiferences in sound are we hearing?
See Wayne Parham's posts relating to vertical patten control in this thread describing the nature of the forward lobe and the nulls in the response which define it. The objective is to optimize the location of the forward vertical axis such that the response is uniform at and about the desired listening axis.Frankly, I don't quite understand what we're getting at w/ the stuff Zilch is doing, in a practical sense. What diiferences in sound are we hearing?
See Wayne Parham's posts relating to vertical patten control in this thread describing the nature of the forward lobe and the nulls in the response which define it. The objective is to optimize the location of the forward vertical axis such that the response is uniform at and about the desired listening axis.
We've discussed the issue of interference when multiple sources are playing the same program material many times in this forum in different contexts such as stacking speakers and otherwise using multiples in the same acoustic space. The same problems arise in a more limited fashion with every multi-way speaker design, as the several drivers are playing the same frequencies in the crossover region, and thus interfere with each other.
In individual loudspeakers, this occurs in a predictable fashion, and with this recent work, we are discovering and defining the consequences, and manipulating them to maximum advantage in eWave designs for specific combinations of drivers and waveguides. It's a sophisticated system refinement which enhances performance over simply sticking drivers in a box, and eWave's controlled directivity affords us the opportunity of employing it to considerable advantage.... :thmbsp:
Zilch;3382505The objective is to optimize the location of the forward vertical axis such that the response is uniform at and about the desired listening axis.[/QUOTE said:In really simple terms, to make the sweet spot as big as possible
It is an art and a science...or is the art of science?
You mean the "Image Rendition Zone," of course....In really simple terms, to make the sweet spot as big as possible
Yes, there are compromises. The objective is slam-dunk off the shelf, and even in this "too-small" cab, DC300 has usable bass (-6 dB) down to somewhere between 35.5 and 38.5 Hz according to the BB6P sims, depending upon whether measured (violet) or published T/S parameters are used for the calcs.But given the summary, is the revised DC300 crossover specifically tailored to the PE Trap Cab? I ask because it does seem like the cab is a bit small for the DC300. I even seem to remember some Zilch guy mentioning that way back when the trap cab iterations were starting. The VAS for the DC300 is 133 liters.
You mean the "image rendition zone," of course....
Recall that the QSC waveguide spans the distance between the woofer opening and the top edge, placing the centers at 10.5". With each of these iterations, I am placing the different waveguides in the same location, removing that as a variable in comparing their performance.I see considerable vertical distance between the woof and the WG. I'm guessing you made the WG cutout so the WG would clear the woofer frame when both were front mounted. If you had planned for rearr mounting the woof would you have placed the WG closer to it or would tha tchange be irrelevant?
There is no speaker ring back there; it is direct-mount. This presents issues for rounding over the opening, but the answer is simple -- mount using clamps, which moves the mounting hardware outside the roundover circle. I hope to get that done this weekend so I can determine if the edge of that opening, which I believe is appearing in the response curves, should be treated.Further, is the woofer mounted directly to the baffle or is there a spacer?
Jack and Skywave have both moved it flush front, but face-mounting is also an option, attending to the detail of the small angle on the edge at that location, to expand the net internal volume even more. Edge rounding is an option in both cases. I'm working with the standard cab to establish the baseline for variants such as moving the baffle forward incrementally.Increasing the cab volume could be easily achieved by front mounting a new baffle over the edges of the sides (rather than inset) IF the edges of the sides were parallel. Unfortunately the tapered sides present non-parallel edges at the front. I might still be tempted to try.
Damn!.. those came out REALLY NICE TODD.. Can't wait to hear them next weekend.. .
One question though.. is that woofer meant to be in a sealed cab, or do you have the ports in the back? Do you know what the cab is tuned to? That could be some of the issue of the mids you were telling me about...
In beautiful Valencia cabinets, Rygen is "Official AK E'Waver" #82.... :thmbsp:
http://audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2260584#post2260584
There were no sealed Valencias. 846A had port openings either side of the horn, and 846B, two round ports down by the woofer.From what I researched, there are two versions of the Val's, one with a sealed cab, and another with 1 or 2" ports on each side of the horns, in the shape of rectangles.