Speakerplans.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Plans > X1
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - x1 sub with rcfl18p300?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

x1 sub with rcfl18p300?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Message
tb_mike View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc


Joined: 01 October 2004
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 2744
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tb_mike Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 October 2004 at 12:33pm

Hiya Thanks for the input. The Qts of the RCF isnt MUCH higher-and is still certainly in the range to be used for BP6. Perhaps not optimal however-but regardless it models similar to SD18.

Ofcourse Power compression is more readily apparent with lower Bl drivers.

really! i didnt know about this new Xmax measurement! Certainly it must comply with DUMAX specifications????

Should i email all respective speaker companys to see who complies with DUMAX -and who responds ! ;-)

Back to Top
Elliot Thompson View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc
Avatar

Joined: 02 April 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5175
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Elliot Thompson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 October 2004 at 2:02pm
Originally posted by mobiele eenheid mobiele eenheid wrote:

Quote The t/s specs are quite similar

Lower Qts and much higher BL that is, Rog used to call it a mushmotor and also stated it wasn't meant to use in a 6th order bp.

Also the true Xmax of the RCF isn't 13 mm at all. More like 8 mm. Some of the major brands use a new way of calculating Xmax. That is in fact, compared to the normal calculation, misleading big time.

 

One of the Main things I learned from Rog, was how the QTS dictates the overall sound of the box, you are planning to build.

As for the RCF, A few years ago, I made a post on the Old Lab regarding the RCF's xmax, and, got the mathamatical xmax rating of  6mm, from a gentleman. I don't know where the 12 mm started from (Actually I do........The Marketing Department) but, its not 12 mm

Hag = 15 mm

Lvc = 24 mm

Best Regards,

Elliot Thompson
Back to Top
mobiele eenheid View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc


Joined: 15 August 2004
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 1568
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mobiele eenheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 October 2004 at 2:33pm

Hmm.. For me a Qts of 0,26 or 0,35 is a respective difference. BL is a major difference. In the old forum Rog dis-advised to use the RCF in 6th order bandpass. Wigge says it doesn't sound good in a X1. WinISD shows a warning, that it's not suited enough for calculating 6th order. So my conclusion would be not to use the RCF in a X1.

About the Xmax: I've e-mailed 18sound about it, as they are the only brand, that actually shows the used "new" calculation in the specsheets, off course I didn't get any response. Well, returning e-mail doesn't seems to be usual for a lot of companies anyway, so if it means something?

A lot of brands give a Xmax in the specsheet, that you won't be able to calculate back. So if possible always calculate Xmax yourself.

Among these brands (which I noticed for so far) are RCF, 18Sound, B&C, DAS, Beyma and even PD. They don't use it always tho. P.Audio seems to add a little bit extra now and then, not always and most time not as much as the others. SD-18 for instance gives the true Xmax (5 mm). Calculated the new way it would be something like 9 mm. Sounds much cooler don't you think.

Didn't spot it on Ciare and BMS yet. And didn't find the required information on the Voids yet. Neither on Eminence, tho my guess is that they are using the the old calculation. Otherwise some speakers would be really crap .

A way to explain the new calculation is the fact that some models have way thicker poolplates now and thus will have more control. Also the lost of control by exceeding Xmax will be slower.

The other explanation is off course the marketing department going nuts.

Didn't discover it myself tho, Contour pointed me at it. I just checked a lot of speakers.

If you can read Dutch:

http://www.speakerstore.nl/htm/xmax.htm

Cheers

Back to Top
Elliot Thompson View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc
Avatar

Joined: 02 April 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5175
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Elliot Thompson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 October 2004 at 2:46pm

mobiele eenheid,

There's a way to find out the xmax of the driver using the Hag, and, Lvc.

Unfortunately, I forgot the formula

I may need to scoot over to DiyAudio and search one of my post if you don't know it.

I'm not driving my woofers at the edge, neverthess. Most of the research I did was just to get a better understanding of the woofer itself.

Best Regards,

Elliot Thompson
Back to Top
tb_mike View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc


Joined: 01 October 2004
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 2744
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tb_mike Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 October 2004 at 2:52pm

Elliot-its inbuilt into winisd pro-when you enter parameters it tells you -its a REALLY simple formula-simpler than the above link.

"Max linear excursion, usually calculated as abs(Hc-Hg)/2"

Hc
Height of coil.
Hg
Height of airgap.

Mobiele-atleast if the real Xmech is high theres no problem with destruction ;-) And the Xmax semantics can be largely forgotton +-30% no worries.

Apparently Hvc defined xmax, * 1.15 for DUMAX Xmax-approximately.

 

Back to Top
mobiele eenheid View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc


Joined: 15 August 2004
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 1568
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mobiele eenheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 October 2004 at 5:10pm

@Elliot: I know the formula for calculating the Xmax. How else do you think I have compared al those speakers given Xmax with the true Xmax. Fortune telling, astrology?  (thanks anyway ).

Xmax = (Hc-Hg)/2 is the normal way.

The new approach is (Hc-Hg)/2 + 1/4 Hg

So they just take a quarter of the poolplate in account. The thicker this one is, the more control the speaker will have on the cone.

The problem is that for calculating horns for instance, speakers will lose efficiency after true Xmax and thus the simulated results will give a better result as in practice. After exceeding the Xmax some important parameters will get bad. Also distortion will increase after the true Xmax.

I've driven speakers in the past in the zone between Xmax and Xmech and personally I think it sounds f**ked up, corresponding to the same speaker within it's Xmax.

Quote simpler than the above link
Ehhrr.. they seem to be exactly the same, to me. Am I missing something here?

 

Back to Top
freddyi View Drop Down
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 22 September 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 936
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote freddyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 October 2004 at 5:39pm
hahaha - my JBL M151 have no overhang (don't believe are underhung) and are rated 6.4mm xmax

my Altec 421 have ~ equal winding length to gap height and play imo cleaner up to 0.12" peak than some 6mm rated stuff
Selenium uses a 10% distortion figure (relative to what???)

mush - mush!


Back to Top
Wigge View Drop Down
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 12
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wigge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 October 2004 at 5:45pm

hello!

 

does anyone have a working design for l18p300  ?

HORN? BASSREFLEX?

i have tried to use 160l bass reflex and it work good   but i think its not the best i can get from the drivers...

Thanks  Daniel 

Back to Top
Timber_MG View Drop Down
Registered User
Registered User
Avatar

Joined: 27 March 2004
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 1454
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Timber_MG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 October 2004 at 5:57pm
<ramble>

All marketers should die (slowly and painfully). Speaker manufacturers should disclose complete Kippel, DUMAX and/or other non-linear metrics. As it stands at the moment, the PA branch is starting to go the way of car-audio, and it's not pretty. Most manufacturers are too affraid to show their products for what they are, even the much touted 18-Sound (who propogate their warez as the only real thing and not give out manly specs? hehehe, what a bunch of )

</ramble>

There is some method behind the madness of the pole-plate thickness, but this varies between designs and the only way to know, is to see BL/excursion and KMS/excursion curves (like Adire for instance) along with other metrics. Distortion plots at 10% of Pe in sensible usage situations with a clearly visible percentage scale would be a big plus too. This is how the industry wil advance  (but I'm affraid sound doesn't matter to bean-counters in the least so one wouldn't expect anything to happen...arghhhh)

*hernia alert, automated shutdown initiated*

Martin
Back to Top
Elliot Thompson View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc
Avatar

Joined: 02 April 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5175
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Elliot Thompson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 October 2004 at 2:24am
Originally posted by Wigge Wigge wrote:

hello!

does anyone have a working design for l18p300  ?

HORN? BASSREFLEX?

i have tried to use 160l bass reflex and it work good   but i think its not the best i can get from the drivers...

Thanks  Daniel 

 

Yeah. I do. I use two in a 453.1 liter enclosure, tuned to 36 Hz, which gives me a f3 of 34 Hz.

In the states, common practice is to use the RCF L 18P 300 in reflex boxes.

Best Regards,

Elliot Thompson
Back to Top
Elliot Thompson View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc
Avatar

Joined: 02 April 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5175
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Elliot Thompson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 October 2004 at 2:34am

Originally posted by Timber_MG Timber_MG wrote:

<ramble>

All marketers should die (slowly and painfully). Speaker manufacturers should disclose complete Kippel, DUMAX and/or other non-linear metrics.

Martin

 

You know this will never happen. Most of the bigger companies have used their methods of measurements for decades. I've even seen Beyma starting the use the AES spec to inflate their wattage.

Best Regards,

Elliot Thompson
Back to Top
minaximal View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc
Avatar

Joined: 26 September 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1780
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote minaximal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 October 2004 at 2:53am

am i right with my rough calculatoin of the pd 1850 as being

 only a bit over 8mm xmax!?..

when modeling a 3.6m (yes looong) horn i've been getting nearly 19mm displacement graphs at 35hz with 1600w. the horn has a flare cutoff of 31hz.. and i want it to get to 35hz, which it does (in a pair),but is 19mm dangerously beyond the xmax or is it usual to design horns up to their displacement limits? (the 1850 is 32mm)

in a previous post some one said that there wasnt much power down in the low frequency end and so it wasnt such a problem.. but i didnt quite understand.. i am kinda a newbie and any advice appreciated

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.06
Copyright ©2001-2023 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.