• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Low Down Sound Club: V2

Status
Not open for further replies.
#906
Good point.

You guys aren't getting "Nearfuls".

These are cab designs that Don has been doing for a long time. Nothing new to him here.

Just ask him, he'll tell ya. ;)

R Baer said:
Thanks for pointing this out, Ken. There seems to be a misconception on TB these days that any 12/6, 15/6 cabinet is a fEarful design or some variant of the fEarful. I've even received a couple emails from upset TBers that apparently think I'm "ripping off" Greenboy's design. The mid loaded format goes way back. A fEarful design, is simply that...a cab built directly from the fEarful plans. FWIW, we were working with Eminence on some of the very first 3012 prototypes, 6 months before they became available to the public and the driver we use is a custom version not available to the public. I have great respect for the DIY builders here on TB, but to be clear, every mid loaded cab out there is not some version of a fEarful cab. If I have to credit anyone for my decision to try the mid loaded design, then that falls to BFM, who has been touting the merits of a mid driver on TB for years.
Click to expand...
 
#907
Foz said:
Recognizing that bass cabs are typically excursion limited not thermal limited [most bass cabs fart out long before they burn out] GreenBoy designed and tuned a large port into the fEarful line in order to match the extraordinary excursion capabilities of the 301xLF series of woofers. Ignoring this design feature and building instead a cab with lesser port area diminishes the utilization of this feature of these woofers.

This is a bad design choice, because it diminishes the key performance enhancement of the fEarful design concept [raising up the excursion limit to the range of the thermal limit - you can drive the cab to the thermal performance edge without farting out].

Reducing the port area on a fEarful is a bad idea IMO with no appreciable benefit. You won't realize that unless/until you drive the cab very hard. But that doesn't make it a reasonable design choice - why cripple the excursion limit? Makes zero sense to me.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that you can't have the same port area with front or rear tube ports? This is over my head, but I always though port are was port area.
 
#908
KJung said:
Are you saying that you can't have the same port area with front or rear tube ports? This is over my head, but I always though port are was port area.
Click to expand...

You can have the same port area, but it takes up more box area.

...and based on what a few folks who have Don's original non-fEarful-esque 15/6 cabinets have said, the actual port area in those cabs IS less than what it is in the fEarful design.

I don't believe it is a huge difference though.
 
#910
I'm saying that less is less... and less than enough to match the excursion of the 301xLF woofer is a mistake. This element of the fEarful design rules is simple - and brilliant - and sets these bass cabs apart from damn everything else out there.

Also - GB would laugh at anyone who suggested he invented 3-way cabs. What GB did was rub his grubby mitts together and design a line of em optimized in several ways for use as bass instrument cabs [weight, dispersion, excursion optimization, tuning, cost, et cetera] using some well selected drivers. Most of the fiddlin' around that gets done with these designs strikes me as irrational and I expect results in a lesser cab. GB calculated and then tested and tuned the dimensions and parameters. Wild-assed guesswork is unlikely to bring improvement.
 
#912
KJung said:
I still don't get what this has to do with tube ports versus shelf ports. Again, I'm clueless about this stuff, so no big deal.
Click to expand...

It has to do with the way Don's "standard design" 15/6 is vs. the fEarful. The fEarful has about twice the port area.

If you had Don put four 4" ports in there it'd probably be closer. But it'd also need to be much bigger.

The main issue is for a cabinet frontage standpoint, a 4" square port is 16 square inches and a 4" round port is 12.5 square inches.

Also, my recollection is that with tube ports, because they don't share common walls of the cabinet like a shelf port, they must be longer to get equivalent tuning. I could be mistaken here but I think that's right.

For example, to use four 4" tube ports (to get around 51 square inches) the tubes would need to be almost 15" long with a 44hz tuning.

With a shelf port, you can get closer to a 10" long port.

Would love it if someone could check my math there cos I'm not positive :)
 
#913
Foz said:
Also - GB would laugh at anyone who suggested he invented 3-way cabs. What GB did was rub his grubby mitts together and design a line of em optimized in several ways for use as bass instrument cabs [weight, dispersion, excursion optimization, tuning, cost, et cetera] using some well selected drivers. Most of the fiddlin' around that gets done with these designs strikes me as irrational and I expect results in a lesser cab. GB calculated and then tested and tuned the dimensions and parameters. Wild-assed guesswork is unlikely to bring improvement.
Click to expand...

+1 As I recall, weren't his initial thoughts more along the lines of how to tweak/improve the Carvin LS1503?

Tom.
 
#915
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back