# DIY 1x12 calculations: a little help, please?

Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs [BG]' started by hobbes1, Apr 2, 2014.

1. ### hobbes1

Nov 3, 2006
Hi. There have been some really helpful people in the past who have steered me right and I'm hoping one or more of them might be willing to donate a few minutes of their time to running the numbers for me for a specific cab and speaker combination. I'm looking for max SPL and max Power specifically.
I have a sealed cab that is 20"wx20"hx12d", 1/2" birch plywood with an existing baffle cutout for a 12 inch speaker, prewired with 1/4" jack plate. I have stuffing and can also add some 1" bracing inside if needed. The speaker I'm looking at is the Dayton PA310-8 with the following specs. Would anyone be kind enough to simulate this and let me know how it would work and what the best porting might be. Thanks in advance!

Product Specifications

Nominal Diameter12"
Power Handling (RMS)450 Watts
Power Handling (max)900 Watts
Impedance8 ohms
Frequency Response44 to 4,000 Hz
Sensitivity97.2 dB 1W/1m
Voice Coil Diameter3"
Magnet Weight80 oz.

Thiele-Small Parameters

Resonant Frequency (Fs)44.4 Hz
DC Resistance (Re)5.7 ohms
Voice Coil Inductance (Le)1.53 mH
Mechanical Q (Qms)8.63
Electromagnetic Q (Qes)0.34
Total Q (Qts)0.32
Compliance Equivalent Volume (Vas)2.89 ft.³
Mechanical Compliance of Suspension (Cms)0.21 mm/N
BL Product (BL)16.94 Tm
Maximum Linear Excursion (Xmax)5 mm
Surface Area of Cone (Sd)530.9 cm²

Nov 3, 2006

3. ### Arjank

Oct 9, 2007
Above Amsterdam
Off the top of my head this driver is best suited for a ported enclosure of approx 2.5 - 2.8 cu ft tuned between 42 - 48hz.
Are those the outer dimensions? If so the cab is approx 60liters.
That's a bit small for that driver if you convert it to a ported enclosure, but I think it'll sound pretty good if you tune it to 45hz.
Use two 4" tubes with a lenght of 11" to get the 45hz tuning.

4. ### will33

May 22, 2006
austin,tx
I'd follow Arjanks suggestions, though you might be able to get away with a pair of 3" ports so they wouldn't have to be so long (been working for me on 12's with similar xmax - no chuffing it seems). The 4" would have to be installed on a side, or use an elbow inside the cab to make clearance for the openings.

You could try ut sealed first, but I'd expect weak lows and less power handling. The driver is really suited to ported cabs.

PA-310 is a nice driver. I'd probably be using them if I didn't already have others that are suitable.

6. ### DukeLeJeunerational romantic mystic cynical idealistSupporting MemberCommercial User

Nov 24, 2008
Princeton, Texas
Disclosures:
Owner & designer, AudioKinesis; Auth. mfg, Big E (Home Audio only)
Arjank's tuning looks fine to me too.

If you decide to go with 3" ports, here's a trick that delays the onset of chuffing a bit: Cut the inside end of the port at a 45 degree angle, with the length measured along the centerline. This increases the cross-sectional area of the opening at that end, and that's the end where chuffing starts. At the other end, the baffle itself has a slight funnel effect - or at least is an improvement over nothing around the opening - which helps to smooth the airflow into the port.

7. ### AstroSonicSupporting Member

Dec 10, 2009
rural New Mexico
After adding the driver, braces and port tubes you will end up close to 2 cf. Tuning to 48 Hz will result in a mild EBS alignment (-1db@90Hz, -1.8db@60Hz) offering relatively full bass and good extension (-3db@52 Hz, -5db@46Hz) and good driver loading to about 40Hz (minimal farting out with a 4 string). Suggest two 3-inch dia. (+1, will33) ports, 5 7/8 inches in length. Ports should preferably be flared/rounded at both ends. Models as handling 450w down to 42 Hz, below which it rapidly becomes excursion limited.

If the entire box is made of 1/2 inch stock, suggest that you double the baffle board thickness.

Keep the stuffing to a minimum with 1-inch thick padding on 3 nonparallel sides.

The on-axis response of the PA310-8 dives above about 3.3kHz. While no off-axis response is given, it probably starts losing HF energy above about 0.8 to 1.2 kHz. Those preferring a vintage tone will likely find that more than adequate. Others will do well to add a closed back mid (for your pre-made box), and a full HP/LP crossover.

8. ### Arjank

Oct 9, 2007
Above Amsterdam
Yup, two 3"ports will probably work well when flared.
Tomorrow I'll do some simulations with AJhorn, my preferred sim-tool.

9. ### hobbes1

Nov 3, 2006
thanks a ton all. much appreciated. Arjank, thanks for checking into that further for me.

10. ### Arjank

Oct 9, 2007
Above Amsterdam
Here ya go.
55 liters tuned to approx 43hz gives a perfect response(left upper image)
The red line is ported, black is closed.
Btw. it will have no problems with a low B

File size:
71.8 KB
Views:
101
11. ### AstroSonicSupporting Member

Dec 10, 2009
rural New Mexico
As you said earlier, good results are likely with tuning in the 42-48Hz range. The power sag (lower right graph) just above the max loading band (centered on Fb) with the 44Hz tuning is pretty severe: power handling is well below 200w between about 50Hz and 83Hz. This power sag is rapidly reduced as Fb is increased. Alignments are all about juggling compromises. My preferred alignment was 48Hz: it results in a different set of compromises (see post 6), and was optimized for extension, loading adequate for 4-string, and fullness. Either would likely result in a good usable cab.

The OP could have fart-out issues with low B. Check the power handling below 40Hz. Yes, I know, the fundamental only has a fraction of the power in the note, but 20w power handling at 30Hz seems hardly adequate, especially if the low bass is at all boosted. A HPF and a little trial and error experimenting would solve this.

Overall this could be a nice, very capable cab.

12. ### hobbes1

Nov 3, 2006
thanks for the further info.
i have two different amps i use: one a GB Shuttle 6.0 and I normally have the bass knob rolled back a little (think 11 o'clock) and some mids boosted a bit.
the other is a carvin dcm 1015 + Sansamp VTBassDI pedal (carvin has built in 15 band graphic eq. i keep the first two sliders all the way down (25, 40 Hz) and the 63Hz slider down about halfway).

so, in general, i'm less of a bass boost and more of a low mid boost sort of player. I do play 5 strings though but I pretty careful about dropping in huge low notes without hitting the strings softer.

also, i sometimes use an AKG WMS40 mini wireless and it only transmits 40Hz and up....hopefully, these things will help limit the likelihood of damage at the low end as well as the fact I don't usually need to play with the amps wide open.

13. ### Arjank

Oct 9, 2007
Above Amsterdam
AJhorn gives less optimistic(read: more realistic) results regarding powerhandling then WINisd does, even if I simulate it with 48hz, the power sag will not change much.

14. ### AstroSonicSupporting Member

Dec 10, 2009
rural New Mexico
We all have our favorite software. I have no experience with AJhorn, but IME the most common and significant differences between the various programs are related to the bass ports: primarily end correction, and Fb calculations for rectangular vents. I seriously doubt that there is a practical difference between the power handling calculations from AJhorn, WinISD, BassboxX Pro, WinSpeakerz, Eminence Designer, etc. The fundamental calculations are relatively easy to implement. The only way I can get your result (such a deep power handling sag) is to set Ql unrealistically high and to substantially increase Vas. I will check into my program (a custom spreadsheet, not WinISD), although it has always seemed to closely reproduce the results of others including those in professional publications.

In any case, that droop in power handling would likely be of concern to players who like a fair amount of energy in the 50-90 Hz range.

The lack of power handling below 40Hz is likely of little consequence to the OP because he favors the mids and routinely attenuates the deep bass. It would be a problem if reproduction of the fundamental for notes below E were desired.

15. ### Linnin

Jul 19, 2012
Waynesboro, Virginia
Can't you get some extremely well engineered plans for free straight from Eminence? I'm sure they have some, or just copy GK 112 or Fender Rumble 112 as they are almost identical and both use Eminence 12" Neo woofs. No need to reinvent the wheel or the woofer box.

16. ### PassinwindI Know NothingSupporting Member

What good would that do, given that he's using a Dayton ferrite driver?

17. ### Arjank

Oct 9, 2007
Above Amsterdam
AJhorn is different, it uses a completely different model to calculate, read the manual to get an idea http://www.aj-systems.de/Manual.htm
It's a pitty I only have version 5.1, version 6 is even more powerfull and accurate.

If I use Boxsim to calculate the tuning, response and powerhandling I get approx the same results as WINisd cuz it uses the same method for calculation.

18. ### Linnin

Jul 19, 2012
Waynesboro, Virginia
So, it's a box with a woofer in it???

19. ### Arjank

Oct 9, 2007
Above Amsterdam
I wouldn't be concerned about that when using this Dayton driver, it's 5mm xmax is more "true" then e.g. some Eminence drivers.

20. ### Arjank

Oct 9, 2007
Above Amsterdam
Here is the response simulated in boxsim.
Boxsim takes the bafflestep into account so the response will look different from those calculated by WINisd, it's also not in half-space but in full-space.
You also see that the powerdip is less pronounced in Boxsim then in AJhorn.
Btw. If I double the xmax value in AJhorn I get the same dip as seen in Boxsim....

File size:
75.9 KB
Views:
42
File size:
79.9 KB
Views:
46
21. ### B-stringSupporting Member

G-K does not use Eminence. G-K builds their own drivers in house. A box is a box, a bass cabinet gets DESIGNED for a specific speaker. Invention is needed.

Play guitar too? Become a founding member of TalkGuitar.com