PDA

View Full Version : E145



delahais
09-08-2003, 02:19 PM
hello,
I search the best enclosure volume and port length for the E145
and perhaps the values of network for 800hz with 12db/O ?
Thanks very,very much !

4313B
09-08-2003, 02:21 PM
4.0 cubic feet tuned to 40 Hz. Two 4" diameter ports each having a 6.5" duct.

http://www.jblpro.com/pub/manuals/enclgde.pdf

delahais
09-08-2003, 02:28 PM
Thank you GISKARD you're strong, better than
"giscard d'estaing" an old french president !

boputnam
09-08-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by delahais
I search the best enclosure volume and port length for the E145 Hey, delahais...

If you're interested in a few old dimension plans - these are for the K145 and 8- and 5-ft3 enclosures and baffles - send me a pm with your email. K145 was precurser to E145.

If we get our act together :nutz: these will soon be resident on the Heritage site, too.

4313B
09-08-2003, 02:49 PM
"If you're interested in a few old dimension plans"

Be forewarned - Many of those plans are quite old and the dimensions are actually multiples of each other (evil).

Take the 8 cubic foot enclosure as an example. Internal width of 24" and internal height of 36" with a ratio of 1.5 : 1? Internal depth of 16" and ratios of 2.25 : 1 and 1.5 : 1. Ooops!

Also, symmetry (evil) was real big back then as shown by the baffle drawings.

Feel free to build them and find out first hand though :)
I did :p

*****

"K145 was precurser to E145"

True but the E130, E140, and E145 are different animals with larger magnetic assemblies and fantastic flux density.

boputnam
09-08-2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Giskard
Be forewarned. Feel free to build them and find out first hand though :) I did :p

Me too... :D

4313B
09-08-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by boputnam
Me too... :D

And you still advocate using them as viable plans?

delahais
09-08-2003, 02:59 PM
thanks,
I just hope you ' ll have a nice day, i must go to sleep, tomorrow electricity of france will waiting for me ! it's my job !
bye.

boputnam
09-08-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Giskard
And you still advocate using them as viable plans? They provide still acurate detail on baffle cut-out dimensions for a number of the vintage drivers, and quite useful info on where bracing goes, port positioning and dimensions, etc. Plus, its dang handy to see some exploded views when DIY.

But I certainly advocate the off-set, non-symmetric baffle later indroduced.

boputnam
09-08-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Giskard
Take the 8 cubic foot enclosure as an example. Internal width of 24" and internal height of 36" with a ratio of 1.5 : 1? Internal depth of 16" and ratios of 2.25 : 1 and 1.5 : 1. Ooops! So, gimme some more of this rant? :D What's the optimum ratios?

*****


True but the E130, E140, and E145 are different animals with larger magnetic assemblies and fantastic flux density. Ah, but the baffle cut-outs are the same for the K-series, and with Router in hand, that's awfully useful...

4313B
09-08-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by boputnam
They provide still acurate detail on baffle cut-out dimensions for a number of the vintage drivers, and quite useful info on where bracing goes, port positioning and dimensions, etc. Plus, its dang handy to see some exploded views when DIY.
Yes, that's why we've been trying to post them for a couple of years now :) That, and the fact that it irritates me to see them for sale on eBay all the time :p


Originally posted by boputnam
But I certainly advocate the off-set, non-symmetric baffle later indroduced.
As well as avoiding simple dimensional ratios. ;)

4313B
09-08-2003, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by boputnam
So, gimme some more of this rant? :D What's the optimum ratios?
It's no rant. And I certainly didn't invent it, neither the problem nor the solution. Internal standing waves can ruin an otherwise decent design.

Allegedly the optimum ratio is the Golden Ratio, but ensuring no dimension is a simple multiple of any other works too. There was a time when the rage was to take the cubed root of the desired volume in cubic inches and use that result as the internal width. Then that width was multiplied by the Golden Ratio to get the internal height and the reciprocal of the Golden Ratio to get the internal depth. So, for 8.0 cubic feet = 13824 cubic inches the cubed root would be 24". The height would then be ~ 38-7/8" and the depth would be ~ 14-7/8"

Anyway, my point is, they are nice references and they are informative, but like I said, we should just be aware of their era.

boputnam
09-08-2003, 03:28 PM
Of course it's no rant - I just hope that Thesaurus to recur...!! :nutz:

And, here's the other reference to the Golden Rule...

"The ratio of the inside diameter of the subenclosure and it's depth is usually roughly equivalent to the "Golden" ratio:
(SQRT(5)+1)/2 or ~ 1.62 : 1 : 0.62"

Giskard, circa 2003

4313B
09-08-2003, 03:37 PM
Here's my post on the last forum

"The "ideal" ("Golden Ratio") dimensions for an 8.0 cubic foot enclosure would be:

8.0 * 1728 = 13824

Width = cubed root of 13824 = 24

Height = (((square root of 5) + 1)/2) * width ~ 1.618 * 24 = 38.832

Depth = (reciprocal of ((square root of 5) + 1)/2) * width ~ 0.618 * 24 = 14.832

Another decent multiple is (((square root of 5) + 4)/5) ~ 1.247 and it's reciprocal ~ 0.802"

And as Jon Fairhurst added

"The other trick is non-parallel sides. Some internal baffles may help."

I usually use (((square root of 5) + 4)/5) for my subs and it yields great results.

4313B
09-08-2003, 03:45 PM
Got it ;)

boputnam
09-08-2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Giskard
Got it ;) THAT's a good Giskard... :p

4313B
09-08-2003, 03:55 PM
It's none of those things though. It might be a rant to you but it's just fact spewing to me. :thmbsup:

boputnam
09-08-2003, 04:03 PM
Got it! :thmbsup:

4313B
09-08-2003, 04:04 PM
Why doesn't the puke icon work? :D

boputnam
09-08-2003, 04:06 PM
D'ju notice that last synonym...?

Neener-neener-neener... :rotfl:

Charley Rummel
09-08-2003, 04:55 PM
Hey, guys, there's alway the horn-loading option.....

4313B
09-08-2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Charley Rummel
Hey, guys, there's alway the horn-loading option.....
:p Good point! We didn't even ask the intended application :rotfl:

luxmanlover
09-08-2003, 08:11 PM
I need to build a 5.7 cu' Cabinet (5 cu'+ woofer + horn/tweeter + 2123 sub cabinet + ports) My proposed internal dimensions would be 18" wide x 13" deep x 42" tall. Will this combo be far enough away dimensionally from the danger zone?
Kelly

4313B
09-08-2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by luxmanlover
I need to build a 5.7 cu' Cabinet (5 cu'+ woofer + horn/tweeter + 2123 sub cabinet + ports) My proposed internal dimensions would be 18" wide x 13" deep x 42" tall. Will this combo be far enough away dimensionally from the danger zone?
Kelly

You're internal standing waves will be ~ 162 Hz (42"), ~ 377 Hz (18"), and ~ 522 Hz (13"). The ratios look ok. If you have any problems you can add a non-parallel panel inside to break-up the corresponding wave. The 2123 subenclosure will also create new standing waves but will help to break up the longer waves. Shorter waves aren't as bad because usually you are rolling off the bass transducer and that will attenuate the shorter/higher frequency waves. In addition, the fiberglass damping is more effective at reducing standing waves at higher frequencies. You should definitely build the 2123 subenclosure using the golden ratio if you're building a traditional rectangle. A sonotube is a better solution with the back plug angled. That will also help to reduce standing waves in the main chamber.

boputnam
09-08-2003, 08:46 PM
credits to Giskard, GordonW, et al....

boputnam
09-08-2003, 08:48 PM
closer-up

boputnam
09-08-2003, 08:50 PM
...to hold it on. NICE stuff!! :thmbsup:

luxmanlover
09-08-2003, 09:23 PM
The SonoTube inner cabinet looks by far the best solution, fast and easy. I was thinking about putting a "false " bottom on the outer cabinet slightly tilted to mess up the long waves that the tall cabinet would produce.
Bo... what's your cabinet tuned to? That port is real short!
Kelly

Robh3606
09-08-2003, 09:35 PM
Hey Bo

Those Sonotubes work great! . I just use Elmers Carpenters to hold it all together. Does that stuff dry faster??

Giskard

Good idea about the slanted rear plug. Thats something I hadn't considered

Luxmanlover

You are almost using the same dimensions as my mains. I forgot if you are using a slot?? Just watch the height. Don't make the same mistake I made and box, no pun intended, yourself into a corner if you do a vertical array. You should have enough baffle width to do a slot and 2405 in the future just do the 2123 off center and make provisions for seperate baffles so you can try different horn combinations without having to redo the whole box. That's where I am at now. Have to redo the cabinets to try a horn combination. Didn't think far enough ahead .


Rob:)

boputnam
09-08-2003, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by luxmanlover
Bo... what's your cabinet tuned to? That port is real short! Yea, no shit. A real surprise.

That, is a work in progress. The duct is not glued-in. Trying the 2.5-in (shown, 38Hz), 3-in (vintage JBL plans, 41Hz) and 8-in on suggestion of Giskard. Most troubling, is that ductless "sounds" best. :hmm:

I've not yet got independent measurements.

boputnam
09-08-2003, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Robh3606
Does that stuff dry faster?? That Goop is stunner. There are three or four different iterations, but this type is recommended for paper and wood.

It is nice and viscous. Goop it on, both pieces, let it dry 2- to 3- minutes, then bond the two. I've used the other types in numerous applications, and since it dries and stays very slightly pliable/plastic (i.e., non crystalline), it does not shear/shatter. Brilliant!

:rockon2:

luxmanlover
09-08-2003, 09:50 PM
Bo ... your comment about "ductless sound best" hits home ... I still prefer the sound of my set-up with the 2123 crossed way high ...like 5500hz high. ... it give the sound a warm feel?????

Rob... I was kicking around the idea of putting a 2370 sized hole in the baffle and putting a filler panel in till I find a set of 2370 lens. Funny how similar all these different systems can be. For now I have no plans for a super tweet, but if I find something to experiment with......
Kelly

4313B
09-09-2003, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by luxmanlover
I was thinking about putting a "false " bottom on the outer cabinet slightly tilted to mess up the long waves that the tall cabinet would produce.
Excellent idea. That would take care of the issue :)


Originally posted by boputnam
The duct is not glued-in. Trying the 2.5-in (shown, 38Hz), 3-in (vintage JBL plans, 41Hz) and 8-in on suggestion of Giskard. Most troubling, is that ductless "sounds" best. :hmm:
You probably need to get your LE14A's measured to see "what they're doing".

RobH - What volume are your LE14A's in again? What are the port/duct dimensions?

The 8-inch port is for an LE14H-1 in a 3.4 cubic foot enclosure (Citation 7.4). The 240Ti and 250Ti with the LE14H-1 used a 4.125" diameter port with 5.25" duct.

boputnam
09-09-2003, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Giskard
You probably need to get your LE14A's measured to see "what they're doing". Agreed. Thanks.

Robh3606
09-09-2003, 08:01 AM
Hello Giskard

They are in 4 cubic ft with 2 3" ports 6.6 long. Winisd says 32.5 hz.

Rob:)

4313B
09-09-2003, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by Robh3606
Hello Giskard

They are in 4 cubic ft with 2 3" ports 6.6 long. Winisd says 32.5 hz.

Rob:)

Ah, ok, so equivalent to one 4" x 4.9" then according to WinISD.
Just curious :)
Thanks!

FWIW - BB6P puts Fb with that port/duct and typical fill at 30.6 Hz and the JBL formula with that port/duct puts the Fb at 31.3 Hz.

Robh3606
09-09-2003, 08:23 AM
Thanks

Just got BBPro so I am on the learning curve with it. Nice program!
Didn't realize all I had to do was lock the volume and vent dimensions for it to show FB. Thanks for the example.

Rob:)

4313B
09-09-2003, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by boputnam
D'ju notice that last synonym...?

Neener-neener-neener... :rotfl:
HAHAHA! Yeah, I see it now!
Cut and pasted rant to the end of the list eh?

boputnam
09-09-2003, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Giskard
Cut and pasted rant to the end of the list eh? Man, it is dang hard to get even one measly step ahead of you! And that, while :rotfl: the whole time... Ha!
Man, that was funny.

I tell ya, what I've learnt in Paint makes me wonder how I return my copy of PhotoShop... Maybe I should post it in Marketplace?

Don McRitchie
09-12-2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Giskard
Why doesn't the puke icon work? :D

Does now. Renamed it "barf", and that worked. No idea why.

:barf: :barf: :barf:
:barf: :barf: :barf:
:barf: :barf: :barf:

Mr. Widget
09-12-2003, 12:16 PM
Don, I am glad to see that you are putting your time to such noble tasks.:D

Don McRitchie
09-12-2003, 12:20 PM
An admin's gotta do what an admin's gotta do :dancin:

boputnam
09-12-2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Widget
Don, I am glad to see that you are putting your time to such noble tasks.:D True, but why'd he use NINE of them... :confused:

Some sorta Beatles flashback going on...? :shock:

4313B
09-12-2003, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Don McRitchie
Does now. Renamed it "barf", and that worked. No idea why.

:barf: :barf: :barf:
:barf: :barf: :barf:
:barf: :barf: :barf:

Awesome! You have no idea how stiffled I felt not being able to use the barf icon :) I will go forth and use it right now!

Thanks Don!

Don McRitchie
09-12-2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by boputnam
True, but why'd he use NINE of them... :confused:

Some sorta Beatles flashback going on...? :shock:

number :barf: number :barf: number :barf:.........