Altec Driver Parameters?

[Drugolf]

So I diving into WINIsd of the first time, trying to learn it.

Can't go very far it seems without driver parameters. What is the best source for known driver parameters? Is there a master list somewhere that has been compiled. There seems to only be a couple Altec drivers listed in the native driver folder on WINIsd.

Sorry if this is a stupid question.

BTW I am using 0.7.0.950 release.

Thanks!

PS - Too bad most of the Youtube tutorials for WINIsd are for car subwoofer applications.

[RMC]

Hi Drugolf,

There is no one single source where one will find everything, sniff. It would be too easy...

You can try:

GPA web site

alteclansingunofficial.nlenet.net

You should be able to find some on the above two sites, maybe some on lansing heritage also.

As for learning Win ISD I suggest you read the help files to learn how it works, you should be OK after that.

I have a few driver databases, so if you can't find info for one driver let me know MAYBE I have it somewhere...
Regards,

Richard

[Chas]

If you’re looking for Altec 414 T/S parameters, I never had any luck getting them. Maybe Earl has?

[RMC]

Hi Chas,

I have the TS for Altec 414 8C and 8E. Are these the ones sought? Let me know, I'll be back later no time now gotta go...

Richard

[more10]

Hi Drugolf,

alteclansingunofficial.nlenet.net
Richard

http://alteclansingunofficial.nlenet.net/Thiele-Small.html

[Drugolf]

Hi Drugolf,

There is no one single source where one will find everything, sniff. It would be too easy...

You can try:

GPA web site

alteclansingunofficial.nlenet.net

You should be able to find some on the above two sites, maybe some on lansing heritage also.

As for learning Win ISD I suggest you read the help files to learn how it works, you should be OK after that.

I have a few driver databases, so if you can't find info for one driver let me know MAYBE I have it somewhere...
Regards,

Richard


Gosh, I guess I thought I might have been missing a database in my initial quest, but apparently not. Like you say, I was thinking it would have been easy enough by now as a collective. Funny.

I have been seeing info here and there as you suggest.

[Drugolf]

If you’re looking for Altec 414 T/S parameters, I never had any luck getting them. Maybe Earl has?

I think he did use them for a 414Z. Let's hope he sees this and chimes in as he doesn't take PM's.

[Drugolf]

http://alteclansingunofficial.nlenet.net/Thiele-Small.html

WELL HERE WE GO! Home Run by more10. This should be pinned somewhere, no?

Thanks man!

[Drugolf]

So when referring to the chart at the link below and inserting those values into the WINISD set of parameters, do we just fill in the values in the order they are shown in the chart? I know there is some magic to the order.

EDIT: The WinISD instructions has the following:

The suggested procedure for entering driver parameters is following (check first that "Auto calculate unknowns" option is checked):
1. Enter Mms and Cms
This gives fs. If either is not available, then enter fs and other parameter.
2. Enter Sd, Bl and Re
Now, you should get all but Qms (and Qts), Vas. Please note that Vas may not match exactly what is specified by manufacturer, because exact value of Vas depends on environmental parameters. See FAQ (file:///C:/ProgramData/winisd/help/faq/faq.html).
3. Enter Rms or Qms.
Either one will do, although I tend to prefer Qms over Rms, because it can usually be measured in driver measurement procedures.
4. Enter Hc, Hg and Pe.
If Hc or Hg or either is available, then enter Xmax and optionally either Hc or Hg if available.
5. Enter number of voicecoils.
This procedure is most accurate. Also note that it also calculates true SPL (1W/1m) value. So it might not match the marketing SPL value, which is generally somewhat vague. Not in all cases, though.
6. Correct Znom, if necessary.
If there are several voicecoils, then you must be careful when entering parameters in that case, because many manufacturers give Bl in voice coils in series, because it yields double value for Bl against parallel connection. If driver manufacturer gives Qes, Bl and Cms or Mms, then you can check how Bl is specified. For that, you can enter following parameters to calculate Re: Qes, Fs, Mmsor Cms and Bl. Connection mode can be changed by changing the combobox selection. The driver editor then converts Bl and Re values accordingly.
Equivalently, you can check for Bl by entering:
Qes, Fs, Mms or Cms and Re (for desired connection mode).
If you enter resistance for parallel connection and get about half of advertised Bl, then you know, that Bl was specified that way.
Like in Driver-tab (file:///C:/ProgramData/winisd/help/usingwinisd/boxdesign.html#drivertab) in project window, you'll probably noticed the driver icon in bottom of the driver editor window. you can drag the driver object into some project by just dragging the icon.

[Earl K]

Hi,

I'll post my clutch of collected Altec ts parameters tomorrow morning ( these I've I've collected over the years ).

Currently I'm knackered from dealing with our latest ( on-going ) snow event.

Anyways, be aware that these are other peoples measurements made under all sorts of unknown conditions .

Also, TSp ends up being more of a guideline ( IME ) when tossing a woofer in a tuned box hoping for a good alignment ( especially considering the age of many of these components ).

Remember that a box ( with a port ) has a "tuning" > add a woofer and one gets "an alignment" .

OT, I agree that one would think there would be a large definitive library of this stuff by this point ( in the life of the internet ) but for reasons unknown Altec die-hards are typically not into measuring there stuff ( there are of course exceptions ). This used to drive Zilch nuts ( RIP ).

:)

[RMC]

Hi More 10, Thanks for posting the link you saved me from some work.

Hi Drugolf,

The procedure to follow for entering the T/S in Win ISD is now obsolete... One had to enter the data in a certain way in the previous Pro version otherwise it would bug...

Now with the 2016 Edition of Win ISD Pro you don't NEED to follow a particular data entry way as in the past. In the new version I enter the T/S as they come and have not experienced any bug like it did previously.

The help files were written for the previous version of Win ISD Pro and have remained there (still relevant) though the data entry bug was fixed in the 2016 version. So that part of the help files was not updated and is now deemed not necessary.

One thing you should keep in mind ALL THE TIME with Win ISD Pro use: the program has a default QL 10 as box losses assumption which is too optimistic in many cases (mid size and large size boxes). The software author indicates in the help files that QL 10 is used because a good box should meet that number.

But in real life what is a good box? Somewhat subjective, varying with persons, for some good enough is a good box! Not in this context though: it MUST be completely and absolutely sealed (except for vent hole) and air in the box MUST have NO WAY, how minuscule it may be, to escape from the enclosure. That means silicone on all joints, around the vent inside the box, around terminal connectors inside plus even on the small holes some terminal connectors have on the inside face, a GOOD gasket for each driver, etc.

For some this seems too much work, but this is what is REQUIRED to reach a higher QL number like ten and above (meaning low loss). Removable enclosure panel requires even more air leak precautions: gasket inside AND removable caulking on the joint seen from the outside of the box. Bullock mentioned (from memory) that he cannot overemphasize the importance of chasing all possible air leak paths and plug them. He gives a number of examples to watch for. Those attributable to drivers (some offenders exist) are delicate to address without tampering with the driver, better not get involved with this, so one should rather give his 110% to those easily curable but still a pain in the neck doing...

The standard box loss assumption in the industry is QL 7 (sort of in the middle number between QL 5 and QL 10 where most of the boxes fit under Small/Bullock) not QL 10 as in Win ISD Pro. The QL number used has an effect on box size, therefore on LF driver response and is easy to see in Win ISD Pro by varying the QL number in the software and watch LF response change.

Since box losses tend to increase with box size, Small, Leach and Bullock seem to agree on the following: use QL 5 for large enclosures, QL 7 for mid-size ones and QL 10 for small ones. Assuming they're all good boxes.

In the Win ISD Pro software you CAN and should change the default QL 10 according to box size you are modeling. When In box Tab, go down at bottom of screen where it shows "advanced" click on it and you will see a small window opening with three numbers: QL, QA and QP. In QL the default number 10 is there and can be changed by entering instead 5 or 7 in that box for example. You close that box and bingo, for now...

The next project modeling defaults back to QL 10 so you have to change it EACH TIME a new project starts. Except when a particular project was saved with QL 7 for example when re-opening that project it should show QL 7 because it was saved this way. New project, new QL assessment...

QL is the box loss figure, QA is absorption from damping material thickness used in the box, and QP represents port (vent) losses. Based on Bullock and Small, both QA and QP may be ignored (leave as default) in most cases unless something special applies: e.g. using thicker than usual glass wool in the cabinet, use of a high power driver with a too restrictive vent, etc. In practice in most cases QA and QP being so low they are considered amalgamated in the QL number as told by Bullock who refers to Small on this.

I hope this can help you understand the enclosure losses issue which is capital for good bass and right box size. Regards,

Richard

[Drugolf]

Excellent guys and thanks. My sister is in Wisconsin Earl so she too is getting wolloped with cold and snow.

RMC, thanks for the info pertaining to sequence. Most threads I came across about using WINISD are pre 2016 for whatever reason. Same with the video tutorials so I have been unsure of a few things like that.

[Earl K]

Okay, here's what I have for Altec, Altec-GPA + a couple of others that were posted by other people.

The 414z included here is originally from ( I'm pretty sure ) a poster by the name of Vuki ( found on some forum or another > maybe here ? ).

Many values have been interpolated ( by WinISD' auto-calculation feature ).

Place these .wdr files into WinISD's "driver" folder, which is typically found inside the WinISD folder which is typically auto-created ( I think ) inside the "Documents" folder ( for the current Windows User. )

:)

[grumpy]

I'd suggest you measure each 414z individually. Of the four I have, two were sort of matched, one was... nominal/useable, and one was a bit out there.
These are really old drivers, and some age better than others.

[TW14MB]

Just so happens I was looking for 414z specs today (regarding my "Zobel for 2.5 way" thread) and found the Vuki post here in case that helps anyone.

https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/114311-onken-finished-post1396122.html


Okay, here's what I have for Altec, Altec-GPA + a couple of others that were posted by other people.

The 414z included here is originally from ( I'm pretty sure ) a poster by the name of Vuki ( found on some forum or another > maybe here ? ).

Many values have been interpolated ( by WinISD' auto-calculation feature ).

Place these .wdr files into WinISD's "driver" folder, which is typically found inside the WinISD folder which is typically auto-created ( I think ) inside the "Documents" folder ( for the current Windows User. )

:)

[Drugolf]

Mine are 414A. 414Z numbers same?

[Earl K]

Mine are 414A. 414Z numbers same?

More or less.

Unless you are prepared to learn how to measure your own driver's TS parameters then it's best to not fixate over numerical differences ( as if they are the deciding factor here > they're not ! ).

Woofers as old as yours are ( dollars to donuts ) no longer up-to-spec, so my advice; run the WinISD numbers and learn something .

:)

[Drugolf]

Oops, I posted this in another thread too but probably should go here as a follow-up.

SO here is my initial Winisd graph for a Malibu configuration box. There are two of the 411A woofers and using the plans it appears that the cabinet volume is 7.5 Cf. I took that down to 6.8 for loss for bracing drivers etc.

Sealed box. .707 Max Flat amplitude response alignment.

Does this appear as it should? What is it telling me?

83313

[RMC]

Hi Drugolf,

Congratulations, your first LF modeling! A few general comments.

So what you have as box overvolume for loss, drivers and bracing for a 6.8 cu. ft. enclosure is 10%, not a whole lot for that size, probably the bare minimum. Which QL number did you use for modeling? Default?

Win ISD default response is max flat amplitude. But you are not obliged to stick with that you can modify LF response, in this sealed box case, by changing cab volume: larger = more dropping LF and smaller = flatter LF.

It does look like a max flat response babana shaped, some like some don't, with a typical sealed box roll-off.

To me it appears like a too large box generating an early roll-off response, and to someone else it could mean great because he had intended to place the box at the junction of 2 or 3 boundaries therefore raising the low frequency output. But I'm not familiar with the Malibu configuration...

You decide what suits your expectations vs use and box placement. However, you can possibly do better LF wise with a vented box (or smaller sealed volume without being max flat?).

Any reason (e.g. driver Qts?) why you have not modeled it as a vented box? Regards,

Richard

[Drugolf]

Thanks RMC. I did not adjust Ql for this initial effort/test on my part. But I get what you explained earlier and wen I actually know I am doing this correctly otherwise, I will make the adjustment.

EarlK isn't comfortable with my results so he is checking on his end for me.

[RMC]

Hi Drugolf,

Your Vented box modeled in the other thread is tuned too high giving a quite bumby LF response: + 4.5 db @ 75 hz which may not be desirable sound wise.

By tuning it lower you WILL reduce that LF peak and probably reach a little further into deep bass than the sealed box.

RE: "Tuning Freq on the green vented line I adjusted to 40 (see I remember Earl)."


As far as I recall Earl didn't say one must not tune below 40 hz, period. If I'm right he said that an Fs 40 hz driver should not be tuned lower than Fs, 40 hz in the case mentioned earlier regarding another woofer.

However, here the data you entered in Win ISD shows the 411 driver has an Fs of 18 hz (confirmed by the spec sheet I have). Therefore you are NOT limited here by the "40 hz tuning rule" with the 411 woofer, but rather by the "18 hz tuning rule". I would try again with a tuning frequency in the 30-35 hz or so range to try to get a flatter LF response from the box. Doesn't have to be perfectly flat, but I usually try to stay within one db or so...

Though Altec's recommended enclosure (4.5-8 cu.ft.) is sealed box, driver having EBP at 48.7, it can still be used in a vented box to benefit from vent(s) LF distortion reduction. As indicated by Eminence in "Understanding Loudspeaker Data" re driver EBP: "This is merely a starting point. Many well-designed systems have violated this rule of thumb! Qts should also be considered." And here the Qts you entered in Win ISD for 411 is 0.33, certainly not an "out in the field" number for a vented box, in fact many with such Qts number are loaded in vented.

Finally, a single 4" port isn't a reasonable assumption for a TWO 15" woofer box. TWO 5" dia. min. ports would definitely be a better choice as long as length fits properly in the enclosure, if not you bend the vents or try just a bit smaller diameter ( 4.875, 4.75 or 4.5) and see where it leads to length wise... Regards,

Richard

[Drugolf]

Hi Drugolf,

Your Vented box modeled in the other thread is tuned too high giving a quite bumby LF response: + 4.5 db @ 75 hz which may not be desirable sound wise.

By tuning it lower you WILL reduce that LF peak and probably reach a little further into deep bass than the sealed box.

RE: "Tuning Freq on the green vented line I adjusted to 40 (see I remember Earl)."


As far as I recall Earl didn't say one must not tune below 40 hz, period. If I'm right he said that an Fs 40 hz driver should not be tuned lower than Fs, 40 hz in the case mentioned earlier regarding another woofer.

However, here the data you entered in Win ISD shows the 411 driver has an Fs of 18 hz (confirmed by the spec sheet I have). Therefore you are NOT limited here by the "40 hz tuning rule" with the 411 woofer, but rather by the "18 hz tuning rule". I would try again with a tuning frequency in the 30-35 hz or so range to try to get a flatter LF response from the box. Doesn't have to be perfectly flat, but I usually try to stay within one db or so...

Though Altec's recommended enclosure (4.5-8 cu.ft.) is sealed box, driver having EBP at 48.7, it can still be used in a vented box to benefit from vent(s) LF distortion reduction. As indicated by Eminence in "Understanding Loudspeaker Data" re driver EBP: "This is merely a starting point. Many well-designed systems have violated this rule of thumb! Qts should also be considered." And here the Qts you entered in Win ISD for 411 is 0.33, certainly not an "out in the field" number for a vented box, in fact many with such Qts number are loaded in vented.

Finally, a single 4" port isn't a reasonable assumption for a TWO 15" woofer box. TWO 5" dia. min. ports would definitely be a better choice as long as length fits properly in the enclosure, if not you bend the vents or try just a bit smaller diameter ( 4.875, 4.75 or 4.5) and see where it leads to length wise... Regards,

Richard

Thanks Richard. I see what you are saying there with teh Fs for the 411. I didn't catch that it was down that low. I will carry on with doing some modeling as I determine some potential builds with these particular drivers. I am expanding on that aspect over in my other VOTT thread.

Just a FYI, the 411A is 12"

[RMC]

Hi Drugolf,

Sorry for the driver size, my mistake then. Since data sheet didn't give nominal woofer size I guess I concluded too quickly from its 15 5/16" diameter and 14 3/16" mounting hole it would be a 15".

An unusually large 12" though VS my two pairs of 12s having diameters of 12"+ and mounting holes of 11"+ ...

Since these woofers are oversized compared to usual 12 inchers, two > 4" vents may be more appropriate.

BTW Though EBP and Altec may indicate or suggest that 411 is more suitable for sealed box, it does not mean it is automatically unsuitable for vented box use. Regards,

Richard

[Earl K]

Thanks Richard. I see what you are saying there with teh Fs for the 411. I didn't catch that it was down that low. I will carry on with doing some modeling as I determine some potential builds with these particular drivers. I am expanding on that aspect over in my other VOTT thread.

Just a FYI, the 411A is 12"

The 411-8a is very much a 15" woofer ( by all definitions ).

411-pdf from GPA (http://greatplainsaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/411-8A_lfspkr_spec_sheet.pdf);)

Perhaps you're thinking about the Altec 412 ?

http://www.voiceofthetheatre.com/images/412C.415C.1.jpg

:)

[RMC]

Thanks Earl for the precision.

I initially used the exact same 411A spec sheet from GPA dated 9/75 as Earl posted to indicate it was a 15" driver, at least in my view. But I could have been wrong which I readily admitted, though it seemed curious to me.

When I googled "Altec 411A" the first item in the results was that pdf spec sheet from GPA, I relied on it since GPA is a known reliable Altec source in absence of the manufacturer... Regards,

Richard

[Drugolf]

OOps guys, I'm sorry. My bad yes 15" for the 411. I was typing 411 but thinking 414 like I am using in my actual build thread. Altec and there darn numbering system. Tough on us newbies.
The data here has been for the 411. I will continue this for the 414A's over in my other VOTT thead where I am aiming for the Mailbu build.

[Ed Kreamer]

Hi Drugolf,

I'm a bit confused here. Are you building ( or rebuilding ) a malibu with 414',s Or a total re-think with 411"s?

On the Issue of venting the 411's ; it can be done with good results, BUT BEWARE! The 411 is capable of going sub-sonic. Especially at high volumes. I have witnessed this. We vented the box the old fashioned way at around 20Hz. It was the one I described in your Santiago rebuild thread. I worked with an Altec commercial contractor on the design. Gadzooks did it reproduce low bass!

But warped records would send the cones into the outer realms.

Ed

[RMC]

Hi Ed,

I agree with your BEWARE. And I'm glad to hear that "411s can be done in vented box with good results".

In his other thread "Altec custom VOTT something" Earl has also warned Drugolf previously about too low box tuning. In that same thread in post # 65 Drugolf wrote: "Richard in my parameters WINISD thread suggested I could drop the tuning down since the 411A FS is pretty low at 18.31."

Yes, but in the present thread in post # 21 I mentioned "I would try again with a tuning frequency in the 30-35 hz or so range to try to get a flatter LF response from the box." Not going subsonic. That was for the 411A box he modeled in Win ISD. Still away from subsonic range. And I hope Drugolf didn't get the idea that he should go as low as earthquake requires...

If he does go vented box as I suggested for lower LF distortion, prudence also dictates the use of a steep high-pass filter, as with most bass reflex cabs. For example, E-V suggests a HPF with an F3 at about 0.8 X Fb (e.g. a 30 hz Fb would then mean a HPF with an F3 at 24 hz). Regards,

Richard

[Ed Kreamer]

Hi Richard and Drugolf;

If agree with the idea of the high pass filter use with a vented 411. I did mine in the mid '70's when all pre-amps and most receivers had rumble filters. I eventually closed up the box, and it was still good for 25 hz.

Have you ever heard the Altec 9848? By all the gods of Egypt that thing was good for 20Hz and it was sealed. Specs. are in the library.

Ed

[Drugolf]

I have two things going on that I am trying to use Winisd with...or at least learn to use it with.

First is the potential Malibu build (or something based on the Malibu design) because I have 4 of the 414A woofers. That effort is the evolution of my VOTT Something thread. Those came in large homemade cabinets with 811B horns, 802-D drivers and a N-500-E network. The initial issue with those that EarlK identified was the poor port design and his suggestion to improve that aspect. This had me looking at Winisd to see how Earl came up with his recommendations. like I said, this is now evolving into a potential Malibu build.

Second, I had 4 Santiago's. I restored one pair fully as seen below. They sound great and yes, depending on what I am listening to they seem to be able to dig deep. Sealed cabinets with the 411's.

The 2nd set of Santiago's are where a new modified build will occur. The original cabinets on those were dinged up enough that we felt it would be best to start fresh. All original components and recapped so they wont need anything done with all of that unless called for with cabinet adjustments. The question in that thread was basically since we are putting in the effort to rebuild cabinets, are there any shortcomings with them related to the original cabinet design, particularly their size? Thus the Winisd exercise there.

Hope that clears up my mess a bit.
83335