Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi everyone,
I am designing a unique pair of speakers that will have an enclosure with the woofer mounted on the top facing upwards and no other speakers in the case. This is similar to a subwoofer design except that the speaker will be facing upwards. Any ideas onto what value of Q I should shoot for in this enclosure. Also any tips about building this system would be greatly appreciated as I know it is not all that conventional. Thanks in advance. -Morgan Linton Carnegie Mellon University |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Don Pearce wrote
On 3 Aug 2003 21:55:33 -0700, (Morgan) wrote: Hi everyone, I am designing a unique pair of speakers that will have an enclosure with the woofer mounted on the top facing upwards and no other speakers in the case. This is similar to a subwoofer design except that the speaker will be facing upwards. Any ideas onto what value of Q I should shoot for in this enclosure. Also any tips about building this system would be greatly appreciated as I know it is not all that conventional. Thanks in advance. -Morgan Linton Carnegie Mellon University The one thing I would say is this - don't build a subwoofer with upward-facing speakers. No matter how good a grill cloth you have, stuff will always get in and lie on the cone. The result is a serious amount of buzzing. OK, you can always vacuum clean the speaker every time you use it, but that would really be a bit of a bore. So stick with designs that allow dust and grit to fall off the cone, not just sit there ready to rock and roll.. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com I used an up-facing 18-inch subwoofer sucessfully for well over a dozen years with no problems other than suspension sag that eventually took it out of service. There apparently wasn't enough dust-settle to cause problems as I never once dusted the cone. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Kevin McMurtrie wrote: The speaker direction changes the phase of the floor vibrations. No, it doesn't. The acoustical coupling to the floor far exceeds that of any mechanical coupling, and the phase of that coupling is dependent upon the distance between the woofer and the floor, but at the frequencies of interests, the wavelengths are very long anyway. Beyond that, it is influenced FAR more by resonant modes in the floor and such. It's probably not a big deal on anything but a slow and heavy subwoofer. And we find the "slow and heavy" argument also works against the notion of mechancial coupling ins several ways. First, as a pretty reliable general rule, "heavy" equates to "large diameter" suggesting the pressure coupling is more significant as well (indeed, the moving mass of cones is roughly proportional to their radiating area over some fairly narrow limits" Secondly, since the mechanical coupling is simply conservation of linear momentum at work, "slow" means less momentum means less mechanical coupling. Try it. I think there are factors that others have pointed out that migt recommend against the approach, such as sagging and the like. So what about an enclosure with TWO woofers, each on opposite sides, once facing up, one facing down. The speaker sits on a small plinth. Once a month, you pick the enclosure up, spin it around and place it down. The top woofer ends up on the bottom, the bottom suddenly finds itself on the top, and the dagging issue is solved. Or, horrors!, in the process of flipping it over, you accidently stop halfway. Sagging solved! :-) -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
GregS wrote: In article , (Morgan) wrote: Hi everyone, I am designing a unique pair of speakers that will have an enclosure with the woofer mounted on the top facing upwards and no other speakers in the case. This is similar to a subwoofer design except that the speaker will be facing upwards. Any ideas onto what value of Q I should shoot for in this enclosure. Also any tips about building I guess Q can have other effects. If the mechanical Q of the driver is too high, it may sag more than a driver with a lower Q. This may or may not be true depending of the construction. The mechanical Q is a measure of the fristional losses in the suspension. As such, it's difficult to imagine a causal linkage between Qm and how much something will sag. That's a function of the mechanical compliance and the moving mass of the driver. Now, over a period of time, there may be some cold-flow effects resulting in the driver taking on a permanet "set." But I suspect what correlations MIGHT exist between Qm and sagging are coincidental rather than causal. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 3/5) | Car Audio | |||
Preamp Design Fundamentals | Pro Audio | |||
Audio amplifier design trivial? | Audio Opinions | |||
Design parameters for hifi stand/rack | General | |||
Help choosing a system | Car Audio |