Jump to content


Photo

ZOD Audio M.A.U.L. Test Results and Discussion


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#41 Infrasonic

Infrasonic

    Bass Overlord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 779 posts

Posted 22 July 2016 - 04:30 PM

Would require a whole different design. Not a small feat. Took long enough for Josh to get this one to it's finished state. He'd have to start all over with those design goals.

 

Can't just be "split in half" like a melon. :P



#42 lukeamdman

lukeamdman

    Bass Overlord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 829 posts
  • LocationBurnsville, MN

Posted 22 July 2016 - 05:04 PM

Some pictures would be nice... :P  :D



#43 Ricci

Ricci

    Super Bass Overlord

  • Moderators
  • 1,067 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 22 July 2016 - 05:28 PM

Thanks guys. This scores about a 1 on the bang for the buck scale and a 0 on the WAF meter but it's a solid 10 on the fun factor.

 

 

 

Too bad you couldn't easily split this design.  Like with half the woofers, half the output, and half the size without giving up extension.  :)  I think it'd be interesting to see a "slim" version maybe using a pair of IPAL-21s or, or maybe a driver like the IPAL-21 but with more excursion and higher impedance.

 

Who says you couldn't? Let me get this big post explaining things finished up and posted and a lot of things will clear up. The very short summary is this was designed for an exact placement into a room. There are no other placement options, no other shapes, no room to make the dimensions any larger. Making it 2 cabs is possible but they would end up side by side anyway and I'd lose some effective cab volume. Hell making it 4 cabs may? :unsure:  be possible? Although cutting this cab into four results in an external cab volume of <9.6cu ft to work with. That's a 25.5" cube for some perspective on what's going on here. That would be a tough design challenge itself.


  • SME likes this

#44 Contrasseur

Contrasseur

    Power Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 71 posts

Posted 22 July 2016 - 06:11 PM

Just...  amazing.  :o

 

I am struggling to get my head round how it appears to be virtually indestructible and has barely any distortion - I neeeeeeed to hear this!  but there is a rather large pond in the way :(

 

Apart from the trade-off of size, which is little issue for its intended application, it seems to pretty much tick every box that one could want to tick.  Ridiculous deep bass down to virtually single figures?  Not a problem.  Low distortion for a quality presentation?  Of course.  Not too taxing on whatever amp is chosen?  Yep.  Basically unkillable with pretty much most amplifiers on the market, so a safe bet for even cack-handed venue owners/operators?  Also yep.  Repeatable performance and reliability?  Another tick. 

 

I know I am noob and barely know how to screw in a driver, nevermind understand all the accoustic theory behind this sort of complex arrangement :wacko: so my opinion counts for little, but it does seem to me that this design could be a gamechanger if a strong marketing push was undertaken.

Well we would have known right away why it's unkillable if Ricci listed this as the 4x19" that it is!

 

Of course, that makes the fold even more impressive, because the T3-19 is a really tall driver. I think I'll take a stab at reverse engineering the fold if I get the time!



#45 BeastAudio

BeastAudio

    Ultra Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 318 posts

Posted 22 July 2016 - 08:16 PM

Too bad you couldn't easily split this design.  Like with half the woofers, half the output, and half the size without giving up extension.  :)  I think it'd be interesting to see a "slim" version maybe using a pair of IPAL-21s or, or maybe a driver like the IPAL-21 but with more excursion and higher impedance.

 

Dang, always sumpin. Josh just created a world ender sub and you are already looking for something different? Sheesh what does a guy gotta do here?!?! haha.


  • Contrasseur likes this

#46 Infrasonic

Infrasonic

    Bass Overlord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 779 posts

Posted 22 July 2016 - 09:46 PM

Something "lesser" too.

 

For shame, SME. :P



#47 SME

SME

    Super Bass Overlord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts

Posted 23 July 2016 - 10:46 AM

Who says you couldn't? Let me get this big post explaining things finished up and posted and a lot of things will clear up. The very short summary is this was designed for an exact placement into a room. There are no other placement options, no other shapes, no room to make the dimensions any larger. Making it 2 cabs is possible but they would end up side by side anyway and I'd lose some effective cab volume. Hell making it 4 cabs may? :unsure:  be possible? Although cutting this cab into four results in an external cab volume of <9.6cu ft to work with. That's a 25.5" cube for some perspective on what's going on here. That would be a tough design challenge itself.

 

Well, if the dimensions were adjusted slightly, I really think I could fit two half-size cabs in my living room.  Of course, it would be *my* problem to figure out how to stuff everything in a slightly different too small space.  :)  I doubt I'll actually go there, but it's fun to think about.



#48 SME

SME

    Super Bass Overlord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts

Posted 23 July 2016 - 10:48 AM

And to add, I'd rather have 2 MAULs worth of output in the form of 4 or 8 cabinets for array outdoors or for fighting room modes indoors.



#49 Ricci

Ricci

    Super Bass Overlord

  • Moderators
  • 1,067 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 24 July 2016 - 05:59 PM

Ok it's story time.

 

About 3-4 years ago I was rocking my pair Gjallarhorn's and feeling pretty good about it, but other guys were starting to build GH's for themselves or do similar style TH's, so I started to feel like I wasn't the coolest kid on the block anymore, which is unacceptable. Also my inner nerd starting saying crazy stuff like "Shit's weak" and "You're done here, tweeters bro". About that time I started thinking hey... I've learned a bit and I think I can push the envelope a bit more and make a few improvements. I started off where any typical bass head would, I need more output, I need it to go a little deeper too while we're at it. Also can I make the response a little smoother and improve the distortion performance? The usual stuff. Try to kick the old designs ass across the board.

 

So here was the original goals I started out working with.

 

1.)  Keep same cabinet size / shape. It had to fit into the same location/system as the current GH cabs.This entails the cab being tucked back into a corner with either a large desk or a large rack unit on a 3rd side and a large set of main speakers sitting on top. What this means is that all output must radiate from a single 45x24" side of the cab. The other cabinet walls are butted up very close to boundaries. There is no room for vents, PR's or drivers on any of these other enclosure faces.

 

2.) Increase headroom over the GH in the deep bass primarily but everywhere below 100Hz if possible.

 

3.) Improve distortion performance and response smoothness over the 60-120Hz octave.

 

4.) Increase long term reliability and ruggedness.

 

Ok so how do you get more performance out of the same size cab? You increase driver displacement capability, efficiency and power handling. Rather quickly I determined that no single driver was going to offer that much over the 5400. Any of the drivers that had a notable displacement advantage on the 5400 either had less thermal power handling, much higher distortion or simply did not have enough motor and/ or lacked the correct suspension to work in a TH or FLH of that size. Well then...Let's increase the driver count that way smaller drivers become viable. This allows the total VD of the drivers to be increased a lot more as well as allowing multiple voice coils to spread the power across. Win Win! And there are more options for drivers that might have the right set of attributes to work in a cab that size with the desired extension. Months of modeling followed. I probably have 300 discarded simulations in HR just looking for combinations that would work right in a FLH or TH cab that size. Double 15", triple 12", quad 10", double 18", quad 12", 6x10", you name it. I eventually identified some combinations that looked nasty in HR sim land. At this point the gears switched to designing a real cab that matched the simulation and fit into the space available. This part was tough and weeded out a few more contenders. Eventually I dismissed FLH as not having enough cab volume to effectively get low enough with enough sensitivity. I also gave up on doing an opposed driver, force canceling TH design as it greatly complicated the folding, wasted cab space internally and just didn't work well. Remember this was not a 35Hz tuned TH, but a whole octave lower so the path length is LONG. Eventually I developed a couple of TH cab designs that were build-able. Not pretty by any means but they could work. The favorite TH ended up having 6 10" drivers. It folded up the best, had a ton of motors to absorb heat and the drivers were less deep so the hatches were smaller. The bracing worked out better too. This design looked somewhat similar in folding to the GH version 2. At this point I started up Akabak and did the detailed script which included the drivers loading into different points along the horn path. The results were not good. The response changed some but the big concern was that the drivers behaved much different from each other. The excursion profiles vs frequency were different and it became quite uncontrolled on the drivers furthest from the throat. This simulation showed greatly reduced output before the drivers met xmech due to this and other issues. The design was scrapped. You may be thinking, well no duh, just design the throat and mouth of the horn to load all of the drivers the same. I tried, there's just not enough cab space to work with. Why not try 2 smaller symmetric horns joined into one cab? Tried it too. All of the extra folds use a LOT of extra wood increasing weight, cost and more importantly eating the internal volume. The big issue is trying to fit 2 15's or 18's with big ass motors requires double the mouth area or chamber area just to clear the motors and allow hatches,when the path is split into individual horns.

 

Back to the drawing board. At this point I started over completely and started looking at any and all options for making bass from a 45x45x24 cab. I looked at sealed with multiple drivers and as much SD as possible, looked at vented options, TH, FLH, back vented horn, 4th order BP, 6th order BP and 8th order BP. The limitation with the vented and sealed cabs goes back to the fact that all output must come from the single enclosure face. Sealed systems using a bunch of drivers look good but the sensitivity was still lower than a higher order system and there's a realistic upper limit on how much amplifier can be supplied. The vented systems looked better but still were limited by the amount of driver SD and vent area that could be placed on the front panel. Both sealed and vented were perfectly viable and much easier to design than the TH or FLH systems I'd already simulated but the sensitivity was lower. The horn systems looked a bit more powerful overall.  Also I liked the idea of putting the drivers inside the cab to protect them and to squelch mechanical noises and distortion from the drivers. I then looked at 4th order bandpasses which were quickly ruled out due to not having enough bandwidth. I then started looking at 6th order bandpasses which looked much better and seemed able to sit somewhere in between a TH and a regular vented cab. A little more gain can be had than from a vented sub up at the top of the 6th orders bandwidth but it can be kept smoother than a typical TH or undersized FLH. I then looked at 8th order bandpasses and here things seemed to become promising. You can get even more bandwidth and even more gain than with a 6th order or you can trade the extra bandwidth for even more gain. I developed a few 8th order simulations that looked very promising. I then set about trying to design them into a build-able cab. It quickly became apparent that this was a logistical nightmare. I tried round vents, slot vents, PR's instead of vents and all manner of combinations of chambers and vent types. The problem with 8th orders is that the vent sizes need to be very large to prevent overloading and with 3 of them this eats a ton of space in the cab. Additionally the vents and chamber sizes are extremely sensitive to each other. If something is off the performance can be affected in a large way. I simply couldn't get a workable design put together in the cabinet size and shape I had and the possible issues of having the performance be shifted off mark by vent/PR compression and the tuning being slightly off.

 

At this point I had exhausted 8th order, TH and FLH designs to my satisfaction, so I went back to 6th order as the next best thing that could actually be built somewhat practically. After a bunch more time spent simulating I came up with a 6th order system that looked good to me. By this point I was pretty firmly set on the drivers I wanted to use. At the beginning I was wanting to use either dual 21-Ipal's or dual 5400's. The 5400's were vaporware by then so I switched to focusing on the 21-Ipal's. These had the best efficiency, power handling and the amount of motor force needed to load a huge amount of SD into an undersized cab. After I began to finalize on a 6th order type system I continued to simulate a lot of variations on the drivers and compliment used and found that 4 of the 21-Ipal's actually looked even better, with double the total displacement capability, thermal handling, and increased mid-band sensitivity in the same size cab. Of course this is even more ridiculous than using 2 21's in the cab so of course I decided it now had to have 4 drivers. I then started working on designing the cab to match the HR sim. At this point I was still using an actual vent for the upper frequency chamber and I began running into trouble with the vent geometry inside of the small chamber. It began to look a bit odd and had some geometries that looked like it could end up affected the air flow and vent tuning. I wasn't feeling good about it. I remembered the way a slot loaded by a driver behaved back from simulating sealed and vented systems with drivers loaded into slots, from back when studying those system types for this design. (One work around I had for fitting more SD than would fit on only the front panel was slot loading the drivers.) I changed the design to slot loaded drivers for the upper frequency range, which looked a bit better and was much cleaner to design into the cab. At that point it was only logical to simulate the system with a slot with a negative taper and also the opposite having a positive horn like expansion, versus with the drivers simply slot loaded. The positive expansion was an improvement over a straight slot and could be adjusted quite a bit to modify the response, so this was the final decision. That is how I ended up using a 6th order system with a vented low frequency section and a short horn loaded upper end section.

 

As usual with my designs that must fit a certain set of space limits and other limiting critieria, there were some compromises that had to be made.  I started modifying the latest cab design again and attempting to reach a final cab design to build. The goal was always to use opposed drivers to help cancel vibrations. Since I was now using 4 21" drivers. This places very real limitations on their placement and mounting configuration. For one, the drivers have to be able to be accessed for mounting and replacement. For two, the motors have to clear each other and for three you have to be able to brace near the drivers effectively. Also I was planning to use venting of around 730cm area and a very long length so that must be cleared as well. The simplest approach was to place the drivers in a series loading into the short horn path. Now remember way back when I was trying to do a TH design with a series driver loading into the throat? I knew that since the very large drivers were loading into different points in the short horn they would react differently. I figured in this case the horn path is extremely short like a 6th or 7th of the length of the TH and also the drivers are only loading the horn from one section rather than 2 as in the TH. Logically I assumed the effects would be greatly diminished in importance in this case so I soldiered on. I settled on a basic layout with the central chamber being the large vented one containing the port and the drivers and the drivers being arranged firing outwards towards either side in 2 separate short horns. I did this arrangement versus the opposite in order to have one single large vent which should be superior to multiple smaller ones and it also conserves cab volume of the vented section and keeps the number of bracing components down. I decided to use a 12" Ceme-tube for a port at this point since I also had the idea that I could put an extra hatch behind the port and use the ability for the Ceme-Tube to stack to be able to adjust port tuning. I would be able to have the deep 16Hz area tuning and also remove the last section and get a tuning a little higher to really get extreme output going above 25Hz. Also if the tuning came in offset too far from where it needed to be I could cut back the plastic tubing to adjust it if need be. Another consideration is the thin plastic tube takes up less internal volume than an equivalent wood constructed slot port. I ended up with 8 hatches for driver access and 1 for adjusting the vent. I also began tweaking the upper end driver horn and loading by using the little tricks and features I like to put into the horns I'd built and designed over the years. I ended up with a final cab design and a simulated response of it that looked downright great to me. This finalization of the cab 3d model and the prints was somewhere around this same time of year in 2015 I think. 

 

 I was contacted by a cab builder not long after, who had built a number of Othorns for people and who was willing to help build any new cabs I might need for a reasonable cost. I thought it was worth a shot since it would likely take a very long time for me to build them myself. Their work looked good and the quoted price was reasonable. At this point I was thinking of having them do the Palehorn cabs and that is what we discussed. I soon decided I'd rather go for the M.A.U.L. cabs since they were bigger and more complicated. Also depending on how this cab turned out it would affect whether I'd even pursue the Palehorn design anymore. The next part needs some detailed explanation so I'll cover it in another post.


  • Infrasonic, lukeamdman, chrapladm and 4 others like this

#50 Ricci

Ricci

    Super Bass Overlord

  • Moderators
  • 1,067 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 24 July 2016 - 05:59 PM

Ok so by this point the cabinet size has ballooned a bit from 45x45 to 47x47". I went in and measured the spaces available and at maximum this is the biggest footprint I can fit. This still wasn't quite enough volume to fit everything in to the cab with the performance wanted so the height also grew from 24" high to 26" to 28". The projected weight and cost have also gotten way out of hand somewhere or another during the project.

 

Regardless it was now about time to fire this project off for real, so I do a very detailed Akabak script in order to be as absolutely sure as possible that I'm looking at the most accurate simulated performance data I can. I do this with every big project involving a higher order alignment. I didn't really expect to see much difference from the HR simulation on this one like I did way back with the TH and FLH sims using drivers which fire into the horn path at different spots. The horn path here is very short, the back volume is a vented space and the drivers only load into the horn in one spot in the path. I didn't think it would make much difference.

 

Wrong...Here is why I still am forced to use Akabak sometimes...

 
This first sim is the basic HR sim for the original quad 21-Ipal design with a 2v input. Looks great to me.
m.a.u.l. 21ipal basic sim.jpg
 
 
The second picture is the basic HR sim for the original quad 21-Ipal design with a 2v input versus the detailed Akabak sim accurately modeling the series loaded drivers. Hmmm. What's that notch in the AK sim? Looks like we lost some mid-band sensitivity too. 1-1.8dB in places. No big deal with this beast though.
m.a.u.l. 21ipal basic sim vs ak sim.jpg
 
 
 
Now here is the driver excursion from the initial HR design using the Ipal 21's. Looks good.
M.A.U.L. 21IPAL HR 225V EXCURSION.jpg
 
 
Then I modeled the offset drivers in Akabak.... Pic attached below. Uh oh...WTF? That is a HUGE difference in behavior.
MAUL IPAL EXCURSION.jpg
 
Keep in mind the sensitivity loss over the same frequency band too. So it lost sensitivity AND the driver excursion went through the roof and is erratic and uneven between drivers. In other words potentially dangerous and unhealthy for the drivers. If I drop the input voltage back to a point that puts the drivers back into the safe, but useful amount of excursion at maximum, say 23mm or so, the total loss is some 4-5dB over that range when counting the sensitivity loss. Not good at all. I cannot go forward with this design either. Frustrated with this entire deal by this point I think about giving up.
 
 Once again I'm back to looking for an answer on this design. For curiosity sake I start trying a bunch of different drivers in the sim to see if anything works. Most were other pro audio woofers because the drivers need a low qts to work well, but most of these give up displacement which I'm not happy about and even worse they exhibit the same problems with the driver excursion and loading. I try a bunch of long throw drivers as well and they all fail pretty badly as well. Efficiency and sensitivity go way down and the response gets much worse. The excursion issues are still there too. The only driver that did seem to work ok was the RF T3-19 which I had just become aware of a few months ago and been impressed with in testing and listening sessions. It had the correct attributes needed of: High power handling, displacement and low qts. For some reason its behavior is much better controlled than nearly all of the other drivers I plugged into the AK sim and varies only marginally from the basic HR sim without the correct driver placement modeling. The initial 19 sim is not as pretty as the 21Ipal sims and gives up mid band sensitivity, some efficiency, increases overall system weight by yet another 100lbs and increases cost yet again. On the positive the 19 drivers offer even more displacement, probably more long term power handling and the excursion is much better controlled. I've spent too many hours and days working on this stupid thing so I decide to go with it and cost, practicality and weight be damned. Here is the 2v sensitivity for both drivers in the same simulated cab.
m.a.u.l. t3 vs ipal 2v sens hr.jpg
 
Here is the HR excursion sim for the 19's in the initial M.A.U.L. sim and also the more detailed AK offset driver sim for them.
M.A.U.L. T3 250V EXCURSION HR.jpg
MAUL T3 EXCURSION.jpg
As you can see yes it is a bit different from the HR sim, but overall seems to be workable. The drivers don't seem to fight each other nearly as bad as the Ipal's did and the peak excursion levels are basically unchanged. There is no loss in sensitivity either and no notch in the response. Considering all of this and that at full simulated power the excursion is 10mm under xmax and xmech is around 46mm full out the 19 based design seemed worth building. I'd consider the 21-Ipal version fatally flawed.That's how I ended up on the 19's instead even though the Ipal's looked much better on paper initially. To be honest I'm not quite sure why there is such a big difference in the excursion behavior yet. I tried many other drivers in the AK sim and they mostly perform as unevenly as the Ipal's.  If you have a horn, even a short one, with asymmetrically loaded drivers... That = deeper investigation needed.
 
That is how I ended up making an offset driver, asymmetrically loaded, force canceled, 6th order BP/Horn using 4 RF T3S1-19's.
Now that I knew what I was FINALLY going to do I turbo'd through a redesign of the cab around the RF 19's. Issue #1...The drivers are freaking 15" deep. Issue #2 they weigh 70lbs. Issue #3 They cannot be back mounted due to the frame and #4 the frame and surround protrude a good 2.75" above the baffle and the surrounds need a generous clearance to clear the 90mm peak to peak capability not to mention extra space beyond that so as not to restrict the sound and air flow. This meant I had to make major changes to the cab once again. The 21-Ipals were back mounted. The 19's needed front mounted and a hatch that will fit a 21" frame diameter and overall depth of almost 18" means a big hatch. This meant the hatches for the drivers had to be moved to the outside panels of the cab and that the drivers functionally had to fire out towards the sides of the cabinet with the hatches on the same panel. This is not ideal at all as this large hatch would not have much room for bracing and presented a large area directly in front of a pair of these drivers. This is the #1 compromised area on the design IMHO. Also the driver flange and surround height coupled with the excursion capability meant that the horn section had to be wider for clearances. This ate into the volume of the vented section. In order to fit the 12" vent pipe and also to functionally reduce the horn area and add it back to the vented section where it is needed more the drivers are offset as much as possible to one side. This required increasing the cab height once again to 30" in order to fit the vent. An extra panel is added to each horn path to close off extra unneeded volume and add it back into the vented volume. The rear hatch for adjusting the port length was also scrapped at this point simply due to the extra complexity and issues with finding area's to effectively brace the hatch. A few weeks later the final design was done. The RF 19 drivers barely fit into this cab with the vent. There is about 0.5" separating the backs of the motors of 2 drivers and about that much between the same motors and the vent and bracing. It's an ugly design to be sure. The quad 21-Ipal cabinet design was far more elegant and a better overall design in my opinion. Unfortunately its performance would've been flawed.
 
So that's it. That's how I ended up designing what turned out to be the final M.A.U.L. that was built. Next I'll go into more detail of the final build.

  • Infrasonic, lukeamdman, SME and 3 others like this

#51 Ricci

Ricci

    Super Bass Overlord

  • Moderators
  • 1,067 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 24 July 2016 - 05:59 PM

Alright time for the wrap up.

 

Here are the final HR inputs to simulate the system. Let me state right off that as usual the sensitivity measured is about 3dB higher than the HR sim. Been seeing this for years on virtually everything I've measured. That's another subject for another day. Note that this data is fudged a little to match the measured data. I'll explain where and why shortly.

 

M.A.U.L. HR specs.png

 

The data that is fudged a little is as follows

 

Le = Doubled to 0.9 from 0.45. Helps match the mid-band FR shape and roll off above 100Hz a bit better.

Ap = Vent area 730cm actual / Simmed at 612cm in order to match the measured vent resonance and tuning

Lpt = Length of port tube is 103.4cm actual, 122cm effective length for tuning(Loads against back wall on purpose) / Sim requires 101cm to match measured vent resonance and tuning.

 

System internal size is just under 880L or 31cuft

External volume at 47x47x30 is  1086L or 38.35cu ft

 

That all said here is how the normalized response shapes compare and the measured versus simulated impedance.

M.A.U.L. MEASURED VS HR SIM COMPARISON.jpg

M.A.U.L. IMPEDANCE COMPARISON.jpg

 

Overall it is quite close in shape with the low corner and response notches and peaks all in approximately the correct places.

We see a sharp notch at 138Hz. This is the vent length resonance. The peaks at 146Hz and 200Hz and the notch at 183Hz are all related to the Horn dimensions, driver loading into it and driver placement. The one artifact that we do see on both the measured impedance and response that do not show up in the sims is a blip or notch at 112Hz. What could this be? internal dimension related cabinet resonance? Vent resonance? Panel vibration?

 

Remember the problems with the drivers being asymmetrically loaded into the horn path and how this caused issues with the performance that resulted in scrapping a number of designs? Let's have another look at that. In the following graph there are 4 traces. The black is the measured response of the real cab. Blue is the response in the HR simulation. We've already looked at these. The other 2 traces are each pair of drivers simulated by their respective loading into the system. The red trace on the graph is the set of driver loaded all of the way back into the beginning of the horn path. This is what we want and started out looking at when designing the cab. The green trace is the second set of drivers that load further along the horn path much closer to the mouth. Well looky there! There's a big ole notch right where we see the response blip in the real measurement (black trace). The response issue at 112Hz is related to a cancellation due to the placement of the second set of drivers in the horn path. Unfortunately HR cannot fully simulate things like this without breaking it into multiple simulations. I've also attached the sims used for the two sets of drivers below. In case anyone want to see for themselves in HR.

M.A.U.L. ASYMMETRIC DRIVER SIM COMPARISON.jpg

M.A.U.L. Throat drivers HR specs.png

M.A.U.L. Mouth drivers HR specs.png

 

Now that that is all out of the way here are a bunch of screens from the Solidworks assembly model so everyone can finally see what I've been running on about.

 

M.A.U.L. COMPLETE ISO.jpg

M.A.U.L. FRONT.jpg

M.A.U.L. HATCH REMOVED.jpg

M.A.U.L. TOP REMOVED.jpg

M.A.U.L. FRONT REMOVED TOP VIEW ISO.jpg

M.A.U.L. FRONT REMOVED BOTTOM VIEW ISO.jpg

M.A.U.L. SKELETON.jpg


  • Infrasonic, lukeamdman, chrapladm and 1 other like this

#52 radulescu_paul_mircea

radulescu_paul_mircea

    Power Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts

Posted 24 July 2016 - 09:07 PM

Super cool! I feel like we are following a part of History being written here :) keep it up
  • MemX likes this

#53 dgage

dgage

    Super Power Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 24 July 2016 - 09:08 PM

I feel like I just read a Doctorate Dissertation on horn-loaded sub design. Thanks for sharing your thought processes, experimentation, and different options. Very cool to read. Thanks.

David Gage
Deep Sea Sound
"You don't listen to our subs, you EXPERIENCE them!"


#54 Ricci

Ricci

    Super Bass Overlord

  • Moderators
  • 1,067 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 24 July 2016 - 11:13 PM

Sorry it's a book. Next post will be tomorrow probably and that'll wrap it up with some pics and models.



#55 dgage

dgage

    Super Power Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 25 July 2016 - 12:23 AM

I thought it was long and informative, an overall enjoyable read. Thanks for taking the time to write it up. I enjoyed the learning journey you took us on and let us know you didn't just design final result from the beginning. So yes it's long but I'm personally glad for once to NOT get the Cliff Notes version. Thanks Josh!

David Gage
Deep Sea Sound
"You don't listen to our subs, you EXPERIENCE them!"


#56 Ricci

Ricci

    Super Bass Overlord

  • Moderators
  • 1,067 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 25 July 2016 - 08:52 PM

And here's a ton of pics...

 

M.A.U.L. 1.jpg

M.A.U.L. 2.jpg

M.A.U.L. 3.jpg

M.A.U.L. 4.jpg

M.A.U.L. 5.jpg

MAUL 0100 FINISHED.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0798.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0799.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0800.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0800.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0801.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0892.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0803.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0805.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0806.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0807.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0809.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0813.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0817.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0816.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0823.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0822.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0824.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0818.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0820.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0821.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0835.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0826.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0827.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0828.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0830.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0832.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0839.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0838.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0840.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0841.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0842.jpg

M.A.U.L. 0843.jpg

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • M.A.U.L. 0808.jpg

  • Infrasonic, lukeamdman, MemX and 1 other like this

#57 Infrasonic

Infrasonic

    Bass Overlord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 779 posts

Posted 25 July 2016 - 09:14 PM

Ah ha! Was hoping you'd post more pictures but didn't expect you to post the innards much at all. Thought it was a secret. ;)

 

Well... I gotta say, it IS dense as fuck but not nearly as complicated of layout as I imagined. Definitely a complicated build with all sorts of bracing and such but... almost looks like something I could attempt where-as EVERY horn I've ever seen I'm like, "eh..eff that. I couldn't build that." This...maybe. But of course you had to put not one, not two, not three but FOUR g-damn'd RF T3's in there. Pretty much guaranteeing that nobody will ever have one of these. :P

 

I mean... all the tight-wad DIY'ers most of us are.

 

Ugh. :P

 

Awesome stuff, Josh. :)



#58 Ricci

Ricci

    Super Bass Overlord

  • Moderators
  • 1,067 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 25 July 2016 - 10:35 PM

Yep. There's really not much to these types of cabs. It's basically a modified 6th order. Lot of people way over thinking it. Actually these types of cabs look nice with the vented section tuned higher to like 25 or 30Hz. No reason at all you'd have to use so many drivers or such expensive ones. In fact I'm already almost done designing a smaller one using two pro drivers tuned to that range. Looks like it should beat out a TH the same size.
  • NWCgrad likes this

#59 radulescu_paul_mircea

radulescu_paul_mircea

    Power Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts

Posted 25 July 2016 - 10:58 PM

"Here are the final HR inputs to simulate the system. Let me state right off that as usual the sensitivity measured is about 3dB higher than the HR sim. Been seeing this for years on virtually everything I've measured. That's another subject for another day."

I thought a lot about this lately. The thing is we measure our speakers with RMS voltage but in fact the SPL is given by the diaphragm acceleration,which in turn is given by the instantaneous power so we should measure in fact with peak voltage instead IMHO. There we could get these numbers on sensitivity but then remains the problem of Max output and when I measure the excursion at the proper voltage, I get bigger numbers than xmax would suggest, so in reality the explanation stands only until you push things to the limit.

#60 NWCgrad

NWCgrad

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 54 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 25 July 2016 - 11:09 PM

Damn you were not kidding, that was a ton of great pictures.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users