In Reply to: MLTL is usually superior to generic BR posted by scooter on June 27, 2012 at 20:35:03:
"With a large volume (10 ft3) cabinet a bottom-floor port is very wasteful of potential cabinet volume."Please explain what you mean?
"A large diameter lower front panel MLTL port is often a better alternative in terms of size and critical tweeter height requirements (~39")."
Yeah, I have also read that this should work well. In my cabs, the drivers are exactly ear height.
But, here is a quote from GM, in a previous post that I was tying to recall:
"In a tower (aka MLTL) speaker, the location of the driver relative to the top (closed end) of the cab affects its 1/4 WL loading, i.e. the closer to the top the driver is, the greater the pipe loading, so if the driver is at the top and vent at the bottom, then max loading on the vent is a function of the distance between the two. This also means that the most stuffing is required to damp the unwanted pipe harmonics. Since I prefer acoustic solutions to acoustic problems, I position the driver down the pipe somewhat to minimize stuffing density (increasing overall pipe length to get the HF up to ~seated ear height) while others prefer to position it at the top and adjust vent height, though this way creates secondary reflections that reduces pipe loading and may require even more stuffing density than if near/at the bottom and a longer vent for a given tuning, basically defeating the main purpose of using a MLTL if the vent is placed near the driver as Altec did.
This layout can be used to provide a bit of acoustic gain to offset baffle step loss though since as the vent moves closer to the driver it raises Fb, tilting up the speaker's low end response, ergo the Stonehenge V will require little/no BSC with the trade-off of potentially sounding 'boomy' if near/at a wall boundary while a MLTL will be the reverse with a rolled off bass if no BSC is used and tonally balanced without BSC if near/at a wall."
Edits: 06/27/12 06/27/12
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: MLTL is usually superior to generic BR - gortnipper 21:41:02 06/27/12 (16)
- You are not building a MLTL - scooter 22:36:05 06/27/12 (15)
- RE: You are not building a MLTL - gortnipper 15:41:02 06/28/12 (9)
- RE: You are not building a MLTL - GM 16:15:08 06/28/12 (8)
- RE: You are not building a MLTL - gortnipper 20:05:31 06/28/12 (5)
- A more typical tall, high driver MLTL - scooter 21:05:19 06/30/12 (2)
- RE: A more typical tall, high driver MLTL - RC Daniel 01:50:33 07/01/12 (1)
- RC ... what T/S parameters for GPA 604 III are you using? - scooter 13:02:18 07/16/12 (0)
- RE: You are not building a MLTL - GM 20:21:59 06/28/12 (1)
- Sweet, thanks. - gortnipper 20:31:00 06/28/12 (0)
- RE: You are not building a MLTL - Inmate51 17:43:11 06/28/12 (1)
- RE: You are not building a MLTL - GM 18:18:09 06/28/12 (0)
- RE: You are not building a MLTL - RC Daniel 13:36:04 06/28/12 (3)
- RE: You are not building a MLTL - GM 15:02:36 06/28/12 (2)
- Thanks for the correction and clarification. - RC Daniel 19:45:09 06/28/12 (1)
- RE: Thanks for the correction and clarification. - GM 20:36:47 06/28/12 (0)
- RE: You are not building a MLTL - RC Daniel 04:33:47 06/28/12 (0)