Jbl 2267h

[hlaari]

I like to know if someone have tech info for 2267H?
can 2267H be used in 2-way speaker?

4313b, did you ever get any info for 2267H?




Ari

[ivica]

I like to know if someone have tech info for 2267H?
can 2267H be used in 2-way speaker?

4313b, did you ever get any info for 2267H?

Ari

Hi

2267H

FS = 41Hz
QTS = 0.42
QMS = 8.3
QES = 0.44
VAS = 89L
EFF = 1.4 %
PE = 600 W
XMAX = 15 mm
RE = 4.8 Ω
LE = 2 mH
SD = 881 sq inches
BI = 22.64 N/A
MMS = 180 g

Vc = 100mm

Owing to the upper data as 15" driver, it seems to me as mid-bass
over 800H it would start to beam...., look Le=2mH.....

May be if two drivers used, or a kind of bass horn to reinforce LF region....would help

regards
ivica

[hlaari]

Hi

2267H

FS = 41Hz
QTS = 0.42
QMS = 8.3
QES = 0.44
VAS = 89L
EFF = 1.4 %
PE = 600 W
XMAX = 15 mm
RE = 4.8 Ω
LE = 2 mH
SD = 881 sq inches
BI = 22.64 N/A
MMS = 180 g

Vc = 100mm

Owing to the upper data as 15" driver, it seems to me as mid-bass
over 800H it would start to beam...., look Le=2mH.....

May be if two drivers used, or a kind of bass horn to reinforce LF region....would help

regards
ivica

I think at most of this information are wrong
first of all 2267 are 1200 watt not 600 and with all this X-max 15mm the Fs is much lower, more around 30Hz
I was told at 2267 are 15" version of 2269 same voice coils, dual 45 mm

you can see in the information for JBL VTX-S25 subwoofer at 2267 can go very low in frequency close to what 2269 does in VTX-S28




Ari

[ivica]

I think at most of this information are wrong
first of all 2267 are 1200 watt not 600 and with all this X-max 15mm the Fs is much lower, more around 30Hz
I was told at 2267 are 15" version of 2269 same voice coils, dual 45 mm

you can see in the information for JBL VTX-S25 subwoofer at 2267 can go very low in frequency close to what 2269 does in VTX-S28

Ari

Hi Ari,

As I can see from the
http://www.jblpro.com/ProductAttachments/VTX-S25_SpecSheet_4.13.15.pdf
there are TWO drivers in the box, so drivers mutual coupling is present, second that box is tuned round 35Hz and active EQ is applied
but I can not confirm that the mentioned TS are correct.
From the:
http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/thiele%20small%20parameters/theile%20parameters.pdf
may be more precise data

regards
ivica



regards
ivica

[hlaari]

yes, there are two 2267h in the VTX S25 and also VTX V25 but the thiele/small info are still wrong!


Powerful Low Frequency
2267H 15"and 2269H 18"Transducers
The 2267H was specifically-designed for VTX V25 and
has the same motor structure as employed in the 2269H
18" transducer featured in both G28 and S28 subwoofers.
The result? Four-inch diameter, dual voice coil, dual
magnet transducers with industry-leading AES 2 hr power
handling of 2000 Watts. Combined with uncompromised
Crown power amplification, VTX V25 low section output
is unequalled in its class and G28, S28 subwoofers
provide a solid foundation for high impact, very low
frequency reproduction.

[ivica]

yes, there are two 2267h in the VTX S25 and also VTX V25 but the thiele/small info are still wrong!


Powerful Low Frequency
2267H 15"and 2269H 18"Transducers
The 2267H was specifically-designed for VTX V25 and
has the same motor structure as employed in the 2269H
18" transducer featured in both G28 and S28 subwoofers.
The result? Four-inch diameter, dual voice coil, dual
magnet transducers with industry-leading AES 2 hr power
handling of 2000 Watts. Combined with uncompromised
Crown power amplification, VTX V25 low section output
is unequalled in its class and G28, S28 subwoofers
provide a solid foundation for high impact, very low
frequency reproduction.
Hi Ari,
Well, how to say, may be Your wishes are on one side, and the explanation, but JBL official TS data are the only things we are on the table, and from them, l don't expect 2267h to be a bass driver of normal user., but it can be EQ-ed, so may be it can be used as sub too, but I do not like such loudspeaker usage.
I do not know how it would work in bass horn loading....
I would not look only the magnet motor structure only, suspensions are important to, may be You can put its TS parameters in the calculation and can seen the results.
I do not know Your application, but for the home listening application I can imagine that 2269 wouldbe better decision, or some old school models sa 2235, (even 2231A as my favourite for smaller box about 150Lit), but not to be used say over 500Hz, a kind of 12inch midbass would be my suggestion up to 1200Hz,.....
Regards
Ivica

[hlaari]

I am only curious about the 15" 2267h
my friend have them in his VTX sound system an he said at they sound very good, big and deep bass!

I have no problem with my home audio, I have four 1501Al-1 and 476Mg/M2 waveguides that are waiting on the shelf for DSP system:)





Ari

[ivica]

I am only curious about the 15" 2267h
my friend have them in his VTX sound system an he said at they sound very good, big and deep bass!

I have no problem with my home audio, I have four 1501Al-1 and 476Mg/M2 waveguides that are waiting on the shelf for DSP system:)





Ari

Hi Ari,
Hmmm, 1501A, interesting, so 12inch midbass woul be more then adequate, in order to protect nice 476 frm too low frequecy loading, and be protected from 15inch driver beaming....
Regards
Ivica

[hlaari]

Hi Ari,
Hmmm, 1501A, interesting, so 12inch midbass woul be more then adequate, in order to protect nice 476 frm too low frequecy loading, and be protected from 15inch driver beaming....
Regards
Ivica


1501Al-1 and 476Mg work very well with passive network in the Everest models so there should be even less concerned in the DSP mode

the goal is to make the speaker as simple as I can, so first I am going for 2 - way speaker:)



Ari

[ivica]

1501Al-1 and 476Mg work very well with passive network in the Everest models so there should be even less concerned in the DSP mode

the goal is to make the speaker as simple as I can, so first I am going for 2 - way speaker:)



Ari

Hi Ari,
Yes, You are right that 2way system is nice thing, but I would suggest You to try (just as an experiment ) with midbass such as 2202 ,and after I am sure You will never move back.....

Regards
Ivica

[baldrick]

I like to know if someone have tech info for 2267H?
can 2267H be used in 2-way speaker?


I'm also curious about this 2267, would it be suitable in a 2 way or will it need to be crossed lower?

V25 is a 3way setup with 2267h, 2169h and 2430K, but I was thinking more of a 2 way crossed at aprox 800hz.

It looks pretty much as a 2216 on steoids :)

http://plazamusic.pe/3908/jbl-2267h-445460-001x-woofer-para-sistemas-vtx-v25.jpg

[hlaari]

I would like to try 2267h with D2430K/M2 waveguide
I have seen pictures of the 2267h coils and it look´s like same length as 2269h coils
yes I would say at 2267h look´s like 2216Nd on steroids




I'm also curious about this 2267, would it be suitable in a 2 way or will it need to be crossed lower?

V25 is a 3way setup with 2267h, 2169h and 2430K, but I was thinking more of a 2 way crossed at aprox 800hz.

It looks pretty much as a 2216 on steoids :)

http://plazamusic.pe/3908/jbl-2267h-445460-001x-woofer-para-sistemas-vtx-v25.jpg

[pos]

What makes you think steroids are a good thing? :D

[hlaari]

What makes you think steroids are a good thing? :D

steroids are not good thing for people if that is the question:p

2267h have a lot more X-max than 2216Nd so they are capable to handle the lowest frequency better than 2216Nd
but the question is does 2267h work as good up to 800Hz?

2267h are one of most expensive JBL woofer on the market, it cost 1500 USD each!

[pos]

For one thing the directivity behavior of the 2216nd is probably a better match for the M2 waveguide thanks to the geometry and material of its cone, as explained by Charles Sprinkle.

Also, while the larger VC surface of the 2267 will surely fare better with high power levels, the special VC wire material of the 2216nd is probably at an advantage when it comes to lower levels (ie hifi or monitoring levels), thanks to its lower power compression.

[hlaari]

2267h are different animal and need a lot of DSP changes settings to work with D2430K/M2 waveguide
they need also much more power to get the best out of them
2267h is basically 15" version of 2269g/h



For one thing the directivity behavior of the 2216nd is probably a better match for the M2 waveguide thanks to the geometry and material of its cone, as explained by Charles Sprinkle.

Also, while the larger VC surface of the 2267 will surely fare better with high power levels, the special VC wire material of the 2216nd is probably at an advantage when it comes to lower levels (ie hifi or monitoring levels), thanks to its lower power compression.

[baldrick]

This custom version is Pretty cool, liquid cooled with Carbon :)

[hlaari]

This custom version is Pretty cool, liquid cooled with Carbon :)


do you have the link to this hybrid 2267?

[baldrick]

It’s used in real horns and powered by 3xiTech 6000, 18kw 👍

They also use a similar 2269h

[hlaari]

It’s used in real horns and powered by 3xiTech 6000, 18kw 👍

They also use a similar 2269h


were did you find this, are them in Norway?

[Bassdabob]

Hello, you can check realhorns on FB or contact andreas plodek directly there. He upgraded the 8 2267 drivers in his big 4m horn due to cone fatique in the chamber. the 2269 he is using in his custom TCB subs are still original. for an 800Hz usage i would always recommend an driver with less mms. 2267 and 2269 are really subwoofers not intended to be used to 1k. i think you will loose many details with lower sound pressure levels- Realhorns is located in germany. the do some gigs per year in germany, netherlands and belgium which i wiould really recommend if you like the sound of big horns.

[Bassdabob]

http://www.realhorns.de/

[baldrick]

Anyone tried these now?

And are there any other TS for them? I agree with Ari that the info above seems a bir strange and could be wrong

[zimpah]

Hi everyone.

I would appreciate any input you may have, and let me say thank you in advance.

Here's my situation. I built a pair of ported 3 way speakers using JBL D2 tweeters, 2169 midranges, and 2267H 15" woofers. The cabinets are 16x19x31 (outer dimensions) and 14.5x17.5x29.5 (internal dimensions), and I used 6" ports that are 15" long. By my calculations that means the cabinets have roughly 4.338 cubic feet of air space (not including the displacement caused by the drivers, which is probably at least a cubic foot).

I'm running the woofers in parallel (so 4 ohms) and giving them each 1500 watts of power from a Crown I-Tech amp. They sound fine. But they don't sound right. And they don't have the low frequency rumble I expected to hear. I have a pair of 12" JBL's in other cabinets that i'm putting the same power into and they sound much better to me. They seem to hit lower, louder, deeper, with the appropriate rumble you expect from a woofer or subwoofer.

My question is:

Should I change the cabinets or the ports? I can't find much of any information on the 2267H woofers. There's no recommended volume of air space or cabinet dimensions provided by JBL. JBL doesn't suggest a frequency to tune them to. There's no suggestion of port size or length that I can find.

Since I couldn't find this information, I designed the cabinets by referring to the dimensions of a VTC-V25 cabinet (cut in half), since those have the identical drivers. Unfortunately, the VTC-V25 uses a slot port, so I couldn't get a port size or length there.

Does anyone know how to find out the appropriate volume for my cabinets? Port size and length? I'm guessing this stuff can be calculated from the Thiel parameters. But i'm not enough of an expert to know how to do the calculations.

Or maybe I should be emailing JBL and asking them? Does anyone have an email address of someone at JBL who I could ask and who would be able to provide this info?

THANK YOU! This is something i've been trying to deal with for a while and just haven't had any luck. So any help would be hugely appreciated.

And if anyone wants to see the speakers, there's a video on my youtube channel. Just search for "ethan zimmer" on youtube and you'll find the video.

Thanks again,
EZ

[Robh3606]

The T/S are listed here. Quick and dirty would be to determine the size of the slot's and just copy them. Use the attached list run them in a box program like WinISD which is a free download.

Rob :)


https://help.harmanpro.com/thiele-small-low-frequency-driver-parameters-and-definitions-(2)

[zimpah]

The T/S are listed here. Quick and dirty would be to determine the size of the slot's and just copy them. Use the attached list run them in a box program like WinISD which is a free download.

Rob :)


https://help.harmanpro.com/thiele-small-low-frequency-driver-parameters-and-definitions-(2)


Hi Rob,

thank you. I'll give WinISD a try.

I guess my problem is that I don't understand what the T/S mean. Hopefully WinISD will help with that. But based on the T/S parameters, what is the appropriate volume of air for this driver? And how do you calculate it?

And then a second question, what is the purpose of tuning a cabinet to a certain frequency? I have never understood this concept. Is it done because each driver has a certain frequency that it should be tuned to? Or is it done to get a different sound from the cabinet? Or is it done for efficiency's sake, or to compensate for a lack of amplification? I just don't understand the point of doing it.

EZ

[zimpah]

The T/S are listed here. Quick and dirty would be to determine the size of the slot's and just copy them. Use the attached list run them in a box program like WinISD which is a free download.

Rob :)


https://help.harmanpro.com/thiele-small-low-frequency-driver-parameters-and-definitions-(2)

Hi Rob,

one more question. When using WinISD, I input the parameters and measurements of the 2267H driver. When I input the cabinet volume, does WinISD automatically take the displacement of the driver into consideration? Or do I have to do that first before I input the cabinet's volume? My cabinets are 4.338 cubic feet without taking into account of the driver displacement. They are more like 3.33 cubic feet after taking the driver displacement into consideration. Do I input 4.338 or 3.33?

Thank you again
EZ

[RMC]

Hi Zimpah,

Welcome to the Lansing Heritage.

First its not clear to me how many drivers you have per box, specially woofer(s)

You say "I built a pair of ported 3 way speakers", which would imply one of each, however you then add "I'm running the woofers in parallel (so 4 ohms)", does this mean two woofers per box?? This impacts proper volume.

Your box volume calculation from internal dimensions is correct. Your driver displacement "at least a cubic foot" would be wrong for one woofer. A normal 15" takes .2 cu ft of space, yours is a deeper driver then add little more, i doubt you'd make it to .5 cu ft for one.

You need to ADD volume to the cab to compensate for space taken in the box by each driver (gross internal volume). But when modeling a box in software you input the NET box volume.

The 2267 has a very low Vas parameter for a 15" at 89 L, indicating a smaller box and a pretty stiff suspension. However, Qts (the other parameter influencing box size) is pretty high at .42, so its difficult to predict from the top of the head the box size outcome without modeling it in speaker design software.

RE "And they don't have the low frequency rumble I expected to hear."
There's a number of reasons why bass may be poor: box volume, box tuning, box placement in room, box losses (poorly sealed cab, except for vent), box poor bracing (LF vibrating the panels instead of producing bass sound). These need to be looked at.

Assuming the above is ok, then what you are looking for is not a difficult task, but it takes some time to make things right...

Richard

EDIT: Win ISD assumes box losses will be QL10 which is overly optimistic. The standard is QL7 a more reasonable number, leading to a little larger box compensating for losses. The QL number can be changed to 7 in Win ISD, which you should do.

[zimpah]

Hi Zimpah,

Welcome to the Lansing Heritage.

First its not clear to me how many drivers you have per box, specially woofer(s)

You say "I built a pair of ported 3 way speakers", which would imply one of each, however you then add "I'm running the woofers in parallel (so 4 ohms)", does this mean two woofers per box?? This impacts proper volume.

Your box volume calculation from internal dimensions is correct. Your driver displacement "at least a cubic foot" would be wrong for one woofer. A normal 15" takes .2 cu ft of space, yours is a deeper driver then add little more, i doubt you'd make it to .5 cu ft for one.

You need to ADD volume to the cab to compensate for space taken in the box by each driver (gross internal volume). But when modeling a box in software you input the NET box volume.

The 2267 has a very low Vas parameter for a 15" at 89 L, indicating a smaller box and a pretty stiff suspension. However, Qts (the other parameter influencing box size) is pretty high at .42, so its difficult to predict from the top of the head the box size outcome without modeling it in speaker design software.

RE "And they don't have the low frequency rumble I expected to hear."
There's a number of reasons why bass may be poor: box volume, box tuning, box placement in room, box losses (poorly sealed cab, except for vent), box poor bracing (LF vibrating the panels instead of producing bass sound). These need to be looked at.

Assuming the above is ok, then what you are looking for is not a difficult task, but it takes some time to make things right...

Richard

EDIT: Win ISD assumes box losses will be QL10 which is overly optimistic. The standard is QL7 a more reasonable number, leading to a little larger box compensating for losses. The QL number can be changed to 7 in Win ISD, which you should do.

Hi Richard,

thanks for the response.

To answer you, I built a pair of speakers, each has one 2267H woofer, one 2069 midrange, and one D2 tweeter. The woofers are wired in parallel to one amplifier channel in order to get the maximum power out of the amplifier into each woofer.

Inside the cabinets are the D2 tweeter and its lens, the midrange and it's lens, and the woofer. So I figure the three of them take up about 1 cubic foot of air space.

Now, you're saying that when I input the cabinet volume number, I want to input the net amount of liters? That makes sense except then why does WinISD ask for detailed woofer dimensional measurements? I presumed that it was taking those measurements into account when calculating box volume, port size, etc... Or am I wrong about this?

At any rate, after playing around with WinISD, it seems like the cabinets I built are almost exactly what WinISD suggests. I ended up going with one 6" wide 15" long round port in each cabinet. WinISD suggests a 4" wide 8" long port. But if I substitute a 6" port, it says it should be 14" long. So pretty close to what I built.

As far as the cabinets themselves, they're solid maple hardwood, carefully built, with all the edges both glued, caulked, and nailed together, then I put probably 15 coats of polyurethane on the outside. So the cabinets shouldn't be leaky or vibrating at all.

Anyways, let me know your thoughts on the above. And check out the video if you have time. The speakers are pretty nice, and you might enjoy the video. But you're obviously more of an expert than I in this field, and any feedback or input you have would be greatly appreciated. I'm always happy to learn more.

Here's a link:

https://youtu.be/xq0KgwQ4WMc


EZ

[RMC]

With the explanation given the cubic foot mentioned should be about right for all that's in the box.

Btw you stated the cab volume but not the tuning frequency i think, these go hand in hand to produce a LF alignment. ISD should have given you Fb (port tuning freq).

RE I want to input the net amount of liters? Yes net air volume is what the woofer works with.

RE why does WinISD ask for detailed woofer dimensional measurements? It seems you are wrong in the presumption. I'll take for granted here that you're not talking about parameter Sd for example which is about cone area, but rather you have in mind things such as driver frame diameter, depth, hole cutout, etc. If so these have nothing to do with software box modeling which uses only T/S parameters. Instead its more like "driver statistics" kept in the database for speaker building phase, a place where they're easily found if needed.

I use both Win ISD and Winspeakerz. ISD has a poor driver database vs 1500+ in the latter, its a good start. The reason i mention this is the vent tube diameter. The ISD 4" vent is totally unacceptable for that 15" at the drive levels you refer to. The 6" is a minimum. Winspeakerz takes into account driver input power to recommend a vent dia. or multiple vents with size and length. If i had modeled your cab would probably get over 6". At high drive vents eventually "choke" if not large enough, unable to pass the required amount of air. Cab then reacts more like a sealed box.

You complain about lack of bass and indicate the Win ISD box is about the same as the one you made. So, looking at other items:

Could there be in your system a LF high-pass filter you might have left activated?

We've seen before a member having overpowered his system and a number of crossover components where pretty "cooked".

I note your description didn't mention any bracing, this is surprising for cabs of this power, even with good wood used, you talked about 1500 watts of power that's a fair amount. Most cabs do require panel bracing.

RE Anyways, let me know your thoughts on the above

Its possible cab weakness might be bracing and vent size in view of power levels used. Put your hand on box at different places during high drive, feel vibrations? Might indicate a lack of bracing. Also, at low drive this time, say 50-100W, is the bass sound better (e.g. deeper) than at high drive? If so could be an indication of port choking at high level. I hope the above helps you.

Richard

[zimpah]

With the explanation given the cubic foot mentioned should be about right for all that's in the box.

Btw you stated the cab volume but not the tuning frequency i think, these go hand in hand to produce a LF alignment. ISD should have given you Fb (port tuning freq).

RE I want to input the net amount of liters? Yes net air volume is what the woofer works with.

RE why does WinISD ask for detailed woofer dimensional measurements? It seems you are wrong in the presumption. I'll take for granted here that you're not talking about parameter Sd for example which is about cone area, but rather you have in mind things such as driver frame diameter, depth, hole cutout, etc. If so these have nothing to do with software box modeling which uses only T/S parameters. Instead its more like "driver statistics" kept in the database for speaker building phase, a place where they're easily found if needed.

I use both Win ISD and Winspeakerz. ISD has a poor driver database vs 1500+ in the latter, its a good start. The reason i mention this is the vent tube diameter. The ISD 4" vent is totally unacceptable for that 15" at the drive levels you refer to. The 6" is a minimum. Winspeakerz takes into account driver input power to recommend a vent dia. or multiple vents with size and length. If i had modeled your cab would probably get over 6". At high drive vents eventually "choke" if not large enough, unable to pass the required amount of air. Cab then reacts more like a sealed box.

You complain about lack of bass and indicate the Win ISD box is about the same as the one you made. So, looking at other items:

Could there be in your system a LF high-pass filter you might have left activated?

We've seen before a member having overpowered his system and a number of crossover components where pretty "cooked".

I note your description didn't mention any bracing, this is surprising for cabs of this power, even with good wood used, you talked about 1500 watts of power that's a fair amount. Most cabs do require panel bracing.

RE Anyways, let me know your thoughts on the above

Its possible cab weakness might be bracing and vent size in view of power levels used. Put your hand on box at different places during high drive, feel vibrations? Might indicate a lack of bracing. Also, at low drive this time, say 50-100W, is the bass sound better (e.g. deeper) than at high drive? If so could be an indication of port choking at high level. I hope the above helps you.

Richard

Hi Richard,

Thank you. Great info and very helpful for me.

I'm surprised that WinISD asks for all the measurements of the driver but doesn't take them into account when calculating volume of air space, etc... It seems like an obvious thing to do. But now that I know for sure it doesn't automatically do that, I can make more informed decisions about the information i'm getting out of the program.

As far as port tuning frequency, I modeled the cabinets with a number of different frequencies. It seemed to me that tuning to 30hz gave the best response curve. I tried 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 30 had the flattest and largest response curve and the best at low frequencies. Is this the appropriate way to decide this issue? Again, i've never really understood tuning a cabinet or port to a frequency. I don't understand the purpose of doing it. My guess is that it's done because it affects the overall frequency response. So tuning to one frequency will give a better overall frequency response than a different tuned frequency. Is that correct?

As far as other concerns like filters/crossovers/etc... I don't think that's the problem. The whole setup is run from my PC into a MiniDSP active crossover, then output to the amplifiers. Each driver has it's own channel of amplification (except the woofers which share one channel). Each driver has specific crossover settings and PEQ filters applied based on measuring the driver with a mic and using REW to generate filters to flatten the frequency response of each. I have opted to simply turn off any DSP or crossover built into my amplifiers.

As far as cabinet bracing. You may be right. The cabinets have minimal bracing. I simply built them as carefully as possibly, glued them, nailed them, and silicone sealed them, then put 10 plus coatings of poly on the outside. The only bracing I used was two triangular wedges for every 90 degree corner. Basically, whenever two sides meet at 90 degrees, I added two 4 inch wooden triangles that fit into the 90 degree corner and glued and nailed them into both of the sides. This is probably not the clearest explanation. But I think you probably understand what I'm saying. Here's a picture of what i'm saying:
90126

This isn't my cabinet, but an example of something similar. Just basic corner wedge braces.

I'll do as you suggested and see if they're vibrating or flexing while in use.

One other thought, I installed steel ball bearing roller feet on both to make the cabs easier to move around. They are probably acting like isolation spikes since only the smallest portion of the round steel balls are actually in contact with the floor. Could decoupling the cabs from the floor be part of the problem? I imagine that free-floating, anti-gravity speakers would be less impactful since they wouldn't be anchored to anything. I'll try putting a soft mat underneath both cabs as a quick test. I don't know if this is part of the problem, but it seems relevant to me. I'm just not sure exactly how or why.

Again, thank you for your assistance. It's definitely instructive.

EZ

[RMC]

Winspeakerz too asks a ton of dimensional info, you're not required to fill all of them, in fact the software asks for more than i have data to enter. When my patience is depleted i enter the important ones only, e.g. Mfr, model, impedance, power capacity, size, depth. The TS parameters represent pretty much what the software needs to give you a picture of driver performance, maybe not dispersion pattern. The TS should all be entered for better/detailed results.

D.B. Keele has shown, with his approx vented box method, that only three parameters are required to model a box (Fs, Qts and Vas) in order to get Vb, Fb and F3. Naturally, you don't get all the nice extras such as excursion curve, max power curve, etc. In the old days this pocket calculator method is what audiophiles used, including me.

With regards to box tuning, you decide which response curve you prefer. Would be interesting if you post it. Personally i model for flat response or so, and don't lose sleep for a one db ripple. Yes, i think you got the trick, normally one tries to go for flat response and wide bandwidth. There's always exceptions, for a dance club box tuning for a bass bump might appeal to some DJs, less EQ required.

Oversimplified, think of box volume as determining driver LF capability and box tuning as a refinement adjustment for flat, bumpy, etc. frequency response. That's about as basic as i can explain it. Your woofer is a 40hz one and since it has a Qts of .42 in principle would lead to a fourth-order C4 low-frequency alignment. Not a "strong" C4 (like Qts .5 or .6) because its at the beginning of the range, but such alignment usually has some response ripple and the box is tuned somewhat lower than driver Fs. Your Fb is lower than driver Fs. You seem to be on the right track. I can take my retirement now!

What you show on pic is definitely not bracing, rather glue blocks or cleats. These reinforce the cab joints only. They don't reinforce the box panels to prevent them from vibrating. With the power levels you have in mind its important. Plus that might mean some more box volume addition for space taken in the cab by bracing.

On the other hand, since you're after the fact here (boxes already made), one way to try to "save the furniture" is to use cross shape bracing (+), front to back and left to right panels, midway. Used alone its not ideal in the present case but will improve the matter up to a point. Trying to "salvage" the situation to avoid new boxes and minimize space taken in the box by bracing (e.g. using pieces of 2"X2" glued and screwed).

RE Could decoupling the cabs from the floor be part of the problem?

YES. Most speaker softwares assume 2 Pi box placement. That means DIRECTLY ON THE FLOOR (or in a large wall). The ISD response you see on computer screen is a 2 Pi response. When cabs are elevated off the floor, low frequency diffraction loss sets in, reducing the amount of LF. So another item to take care of...

Richard

[zimpah]

Winspeakerz too asks a ton of dimensional info, you're not required to fill all of them, in fact the software asks for more than i have data to enter. When my patience is depleted i enter the important ones only, e.g. Mfr, model, impedance, power capacity, size, depth. The TS parameters represent pretty much what the software needs to give you a picture of driver performance, maybe not dispersion pattern. The TS should all be entered for better/detailed results.

D.B. Keele has shown, with his approx vented box method, that only three parameters are required to model a box (Fs, Qts and Vas) in order to get Vb, Fb and F3. Naturally, you don't get all the nice extras such as excursion curve, max power curve, etc. In the old days this pocket calculator method is what audiophiles used, including me.

With regards to box tuning, you decide which response curve you prefer. Would be interesting if you post it. Personally i model for flat response or so, and don't lose sleep for a one db ripple. Yes, i think you got the trick, normally one tries to go for flat response and wide bandwidth. There's always exceptions, for a dance club box tuning for a bass bump might appeal to some DJs, less EQ required.

Oversimplified, think of box volume as determining driver LF capability and box tuning as a refinement adjustment for flat, bumpy, etc. frequency response. That's about as basic as i can explain it. Your woofer is a 40hz one and since it has a Qts of .42 in principle would lead to a fourth-order C4 low-frequency alignment. Not a "strong" C4 (like Qts .5 or .6) because its at the beginning of the range, but such alignment usually has some response ripple and the box is tuned somewhat lower than driver Fs. Your Fb is lower than driver Fs. You seem to be on the right track. I can take my retirement now!

What you show on pic is definitely not bracing, rather glue blocks or cleats. These reinforce the cab joints only. They don't reinforce the box panels to prevent them from vibrating. With the power levels you have in mind its important. Plus that might mean some more box volume addition for space taken in the cab by bracing.

On the other hand, since you're after the fact here (boxes already made), one way to try to "save the furniture" is to use cross shape bracing (+), front to back and left to right panels, midway. Used alone its not ideal in the present case but will improve the matter up to a point. Trying to "salvage" the situation to avoid new boxes and minimize space taken in the box by bracing (e.g. using pieces of 2"X2" glued and screwed).

RE Could decoupling the cabs from the floor be part of the problem?



YES. Most speaker softwares assume 2 Pi box placement. That means DIRECTLY ON THE FLOOR (or in a large wall). The ISD response you see on computer screen is a 2 Pi response. When cabs are elevated off the floor, low frequency diffraction loss sets in, reducing the amount of LF. So another item to take care of...

Richard


Hi Richard,

You're the best! Thanks for your time and education. Your input has filled in a lot of gaps in my knowledge, and i'm confident I can do what needs to be done to get the best out of these speakers.

I'll repost after I have a bit of a chance to work some modification magic and see what my results are.

Cheers,
EZ

[short_circutz2]

The woofers are wired in parallel to one amplifier channel in order to get the maximum power out of the amplifier into each woofer.
EZ

600 watts at 8 ohms in stereo to each speaker, or 1200 watts from one channel into a 4 ohm load of 2 speakers in parallel resulting in...guess...600 watts to each speaker.

There is no logical reason to have things hooked up the way you do. Either way, the power to each woofer will be the same...

[Mr. Widget]

To answer you, I built a pair of speakers, each has one 2267H woofer, one 2069 midrange, and one D2 tweeter. The woofers are wired in parallel to one amplifier channel in order to get the maximum power out of the amplifier into each woofer.
If I understand your post, you have a stereo pair of speakers, but you are running the left and right woofers in mono and in parallel? If that's the case, you should try it wired conventionally and enjoy true stereo.


600 watts at 8 ohms in stereo to each speaker, or 1200 watts from one channel into a 4 ohm load of 2 speakers in parallel resulting in...guess...600 watts to each speaker.

There is no logical reason to have things hooked up the way you do. Either way, the power to each woofer will be the same...... and then there is that.


Widget