Voxel - a mini-sub+

[snortzie]

Taking into account the volume the new amp and its plastic cover takes up, the enclosure is about .45 cu ft.
The port is the 2" precision model cut down to 9.25". My interiors length is 11.25" so I followed that port width from wall rule and no elbow needed. According to the calculators I'm tuned somewhere around 37 Hz.
I'm a renegade with my enclosure volume I know.
We just compared this build against my Energy ESW-M8, swapping the plug back and forth. Energy is a 8" with two passive radiators. My be a tad quicker and the amp definitely doesn't get as hot, but that is its only advantages. Tang Band definitely sounds cleaner and DEEPER. Plays 35Hz with some authority and does not roll off rapidly until 30 Hz.

[MLS]

I am building one of these to go with a pair of PS 95 Mini Towers. What would you use for dampening in this build. Polyfill, Sonic barrier ?

Thanks Scott

[noviygera]

I'm pretty much set on making a portable bluetooth speaker with a pair of fullrangers and THIS sub built into it, with TPS3116D2 2.1ch board.
However, considering one variation:
Has anyone tried using PRs in place of the port? What are the considerations here? looks like a 2" port would take up some interior space. A pair of PRs -- not.

[tomzarbo]

One word... "Triumph"

Do a search for it here on tech talk. It's one of the best small sub designs ever.

TomZ

[Millstonemike]

... looks like a 2" port would take up some interior space. A pair of PRs -- not.

Two ports can "fit right in"

Also, look up Paul Carmody's Isetta 2.1 boombox design or Pe's silimilar Equivalent Kit, both based on the Voxel.

[ceiol]

One word... "Triumph"

Do a search for it here on tech talk. It's one of the best small sub designs ever.

TomZ

yup

here it is

http://projectgallery.parts-express.com/speaker-projects/baby-rico-satellite-subwoofer-mini-system/

design by wolf

[Millstonemike]

yup

here it is

http://projectgallery.parts-express.com/speaker-projects/baby-rico-satellite-subwoofer-mini-system/

design by wolf

Might be hard to translate that design into a 2.1 boombox - physically. The twin PRs will need a lot of surface real estate. And with the full rangers bracketing the woofer, with their own internal enclosure, it may be hard to place the PRs. And the intended use also comes into play. If it's going to "see the world", the PRs are another source of concern for transport damage along with the woofer. If it's going to be an indoor unit, not so much.

[noviygera]

Fantastic, thanks guys. One issue, that 830880 5.25" PR from Peerless is not available anymore. Do I have other replacement options?

[Chris Roemer]

In 0.45cf, a pair of DSA135 PRs (w/8g added, each) tunes to 40Hz, w/an F3 in the high 30s (not as low as a port, but no chuffing).
Cheaper (but taking up more real estate?) would be a single SDDS215 w/50g added. Tunes to 35Hz w/better extension - down to nearly 30Hz.
You could even drop the box volume down to 0.35cf and still maintain a 35Hz F3 (same added mass).
Same F3 in 0.30cf if you add 65g mass to PR.

[Wolf]

Fantastic, thanks guys. One issue, that 830880 5.25" PR from Peerless is not available anymore. Do I have other replacement options?

Yes it is, just not through PE.
Wolf

[noviygera]

got the hint, thanks. Ordered. BTW, will post my simple design in a new thread. For some reason, none if the DIY solutions solve the few but important basic needs of a common application of "all around" house friendly Bluetooth speaker.

[noviygera]

Paul Carmody, what was the software used to create the sketch of the Isetta diagram that includes the measurements?

[LOUT]

got the hint, thanks. Ordered. BTW, will post my simple design in a new thread. For some reason, none if the DIY solutions solve the few but important basic needs of a common application of "all around" house friendly Bluetooth speaker.

You probably already mentioned earlier, but which important basic needs do you want to see added into more DIY bluetooth speakers to make them more all around house friendly?

At first I thought you might be talking about PR vs ports, but PE sells many passives that are tuned and appearance-matched to work around some of the more common fullrange/bluetooth drivers, so I'm guessing you were referring to other things (or maybe the PR's aren't commonly used despite their availability?).
I've been thinking about building a bluetooth speaker and would like to know some different opinions of things to aim for and things to avoid...preferably before getting too far into a build. On my own I'm sure I'll miss something dumb until about halfway through when I suddently realize; "oh...oh no". :P

[Wolf]

You could always look up my OSFA build for inspiration, but even I'm not certain what noviygera is talking about.

Later,
Wolf

[noviygera]

Here's what I'm talking about. Just finished creating the new post:

http://techtalk.parts-express.com/forum/tech-talk-forum/1457607-omni-bt-speaker-design