ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down

Author Topic: Brad Litz's design  (Read 5226 times)

Sound Construction

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Brad Litz's design
« on: May 19, 2004, 02:51:52 am »

I just saw the pics of Brad Litz's subs. There are some definate improvements there. Is this considered v.3? Have the plans for Brads modifications been published anywhere yet? have they been tested and are the results posted anywhere yet? Brad are you out there.  
Logged

Sound Construction

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: Brad Litz's design
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2004, 02:24:57 pm »

Thanks Brad, just found the predicted charts for V.3. -right in front of me. I still would like the revised plans when they are avail.
Logged

Brad Litz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
Re: Brad Litz's design
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2004, 08:27:28 pm »

v3.0 is together. I'm planning to measure their performance by this weekend.
Logged
Brad Litz

Randy Smith

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
Re: Brad Litz's design
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2004, 09:42:44 pm »

Brad
Are you planning to test them both as one as your picture, or separately as most of us will be without the extra flare.

I would be interested in seeing the results of one labhorn., and also both stood side by side.

Then it would also be cool to see what difference that extension makes to it.
That would be three separate tests, but it looks like there are alot of us really interested in your modifications, and would like to see your results and if you will (when you get time as we know your spending every second you can to finish them)post your plans so we can make your design as I suspect it will be smoother and go lower.

Randy
Logged

Brad Litz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
Re: Brad Litz's design
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2004, 11:02:38 pm »

I'm going to measure two side by side like they are normally used, without the mouth extension. They'll be in 1/4 space, that is, pointing out of my partially opended garage door with a plywood baffle board on each side. This will load the speakers similar to a group of four on an open ground plane.
Logged
Brad Litz

Phil Pope

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
    • http://www.apacheacoustics.co.uk
Re: Brad Litz's design
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2004, 07:44:08 am »

there is a 3d model at

http://www.geocities.com/hulkss/

but I think you need Pro/Engineer to use it(?)

Can anyone convert this model to autocad/.dwg or .dxf files?

Phil
Logged

raj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
    • http://-
Re: Brad Litz's design
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2004, 01:28:40 am »

I hope with version 3.0 we can X-over at around 120hz directly to the top boxes,will it be ok if a deley is not used for the mids&highs
Logged
RL

Brad Litz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
Re: Brad Litz's design
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2004, 02:04:28 am »

raj wrote on Fri, 21 May 2004 00:28

I hope with version 3.0 we can X-over at around 120hz directly to the top boxes,will it be ok if a deley is not used for the mids&highs


You really need to delay the top boxes. The horns are long and the driver cones are heavy so there is a significant time delay in the LABsub. 120 Hz XO should be OK. I'll post some measured data later today.
Logged
Brad Litz

Mark Seaton

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
Re: Brad Litz's design
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2004, 11:08:19 am »

raj wrote on Fri, 21 May 2004 00:28

I hope with version 3.0 we can X-over at around 120hz directly to the top boxes,will it be ok if a deley is not used for the mids&highs


Hi Raj,

Unless you have your subs and mains large distances away, such as sometimes happens in dance clubs, my assertion is that delay is quite important, where its importance increases as the crossover is raised in frequency.  Can it sound impressive without proper delay?  Certainly, but integration will be much better and the system should sound more natural and cohesive when properly configured.  Digital crossovers are super cheap now, so there's not much of an excuse anymore.

Brad - FYI, you will have your runts to play with integration next week; they should go out today.
Logged
Mark Seaton
Seaton Sound, Inc.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood..." - Daniel H. Burnham

Phil Pope

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
    • http://www.apacheacoustics.co.uk
delay (was Re: Brad Litz's design)
« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2004, 12:53:20 pm »

I saw a figure in the archives of 5ms delay at about 100Hz.  I can't believe that a delay of 5ms is audible itself but this much delay is going to cause phase cancellation at the crossover frequency.  the 100Hz signal coming from the sub and the 100Hz signal from the midrange will cancel each other rather than adding to give a smooth response.  Am I right here?  If so rather than use a delay could you not simply invert the signal going to the subs so that the signals are back in phase at the crossover frequency?

Phil
Logged

Michael Strickland

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 383
Re: Brad Litz's design
« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2004, 09:47:51 pm »

Keep in mind that the speed of sound 1130 feet per second. 5 ms is a little less than 5 feet. One cycle of roughly 200 some-odd Hz is 5 feet.
That's quite a physical displacement.

This is just one of the numerous adavantages of a digital crossover.
Logged
"Can you turn the monitors down please, IT HURTS!" - M.I.A.
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.118 seconds with 20 queries.