Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Spenser Hamilton" data-source="post: 137354" data-attributes="member: 2272">Re: No compromises front loaded double 18” cabPerhaps I modelled them wrong. The dual 21 modelled a bit more output but with a higher cutoff (due to trying to cram the two drivers in a box the same size as the dual 18).I&#039;m sure that without the box size constraint the 21SW152 could dig a few Hz deeper than the 18TBW100.I&#039;d love to be schooled and told that I entered some parameters wrong, but the expense of the larger drivers, plus the added time and expense of a more complicated baffle arrangement has me discouraged. Sent from my iPhone Edit: Found the sketchup file I had started for the Dual 21, can&#039;t find any of the HornResp or Excel files to go along with it though <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> Lots of box volume ate up by the baffle design, again due to the size constraints that I had decided on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Spenser Hamilton, post: 137354, member: 2272"] Re: No compromises front loaded double 18” cab Perhaps I modelled them wrong. The dual 21 modelled a bit more output but with a higher cutoff (due to trying to cram the two drivers in a box the same size as the dual 18). I'm sure that without the box size constraint the 21SW152 could dig a few Hz deeper than the 18TBW100. I'd love to be schooled and told that I entered some parameters wrong, but the expense of the larger drivers, plus the added time and expense of a more complicated baffle arrangement has me discouraged. Sent from my iPhone Edit: Found the sketchup file I had started for the Dual 21, can't find any of the HornResp or Excel files to go along with it though :( Lots of box volume ate up by the baffle design, again due to the size constraints that I had decided on. [/QUOTE]

Verification