Cheap DIY 112 Cab Design Review

Jul 28, 2024
48
55
696
Hey all speaker and cab gurus, can you take a look at this please and offer as much feedback as you like. I have thick skin, so it won’t hurt as long as it’s productive.

This is my first go at a bass guitar cab. I have experience designing and building cabs in car audio spl competitions 20 years ago, but that’s a totally different tuning animal. I have the construction tools and knowledge at hand.

Backstory on why I’m designing these cabs. I played bass for many years, then took a 10 year break. I’ve recently returned and packing heavy cabs and amps isn’t nearly as easy nor as fun as it used to be. My former and current gigging rig is a Traynor YBA200 with the matching 2x10, 1x15 all in one cab that weighs 85 pounds…. I play 4 string short scale basses tuned down a half step, so super low coverage isn’t needed from these cabs.

I’m looking to build something light, loud, and easy on the pocket for weekly rehearsals if nothing else. Would ultimately like to build 2 of these cabs, and power them with one of the 200ish watt Class D lunchbox heads like the BAM200, Gnome, Elf, etc

By making the cabs 8 ohm each it keeps power into one at roughly 100 watts, great for practice and small gigs. Adding the second 8 ohm cab brings the load down to 4ohm and the power up to 200 watts, hopefully enough to cover bar gigs and such.

In all honestly, if they sound good, and are loud enough to be heard on stage will probably gig with them and run a DI to front of house for bigger shows. Only bring out the big amp if and when needed.

I chose the MCM 55-2952 after chatting with @basscooker. Why? Because it has high sensitivity, good low end response, and it’s cheap. Did I mention it’s cheap? Like $50 for a pair of them shipped cheap.
I know you get what you pay for, but I also believe that with big name brands you are paying a lot for the marketing that’s made them a big name brand and not all that money goes to the product.

I’ve designed and modeled in a 1.8cuft ported box. Box will be made of 1/2” birch ply and measure 14” wide, 20” high, and 11.1” deep. Box is tuned to 50hz with a F3 of 65.8hz. For ports I went with 4 x 1.5” black ABS pipe at 6.69” long each. I went with multiple ports to keep the port velocities down.

Please see graphs below of modeled box and let me know what you think. Modeling was done with 100 watt input.

Also see speaker data sheet below.

Want to also thank @basscooker again for his help and talking to me over the last few days to get this rolling! It’s greatly appreciated.

IMG_1418.jpeg
IMG_1419.jpeg
IMG_1420.jpeg
IMG_1421.jpeg
IMG_1417.jpeg
 
Note....

WOW WINisd showed me different behavior for this driver, and I must say I'll be re-visiting this MCM.

This is (again) reinforcing @agedhorse 's comments many many times that WINisd has...... "things" to adjust.

I'm excited for you @magic_man

Can't wait to see, and possibly hear a sound clip of, this (these) cabs.

The cabs I put together with these drivers need boosting up top, but with each of the amps I have available, can "get there" without a mid driver or tweeter.

For those looking to try a little DIY, these drivers are a great way to get you learning without having to bust into your piggy-bank for funds.
 
Last edited:
Looks ok to me, IF it meets your needs. I don't know if the voicing will be to your tastes either, you will have to try it.

Always double-check any of the "low cost" speaker design software, anomalies are abundant IME.
I don’t know much about voicing yet and how that corresponds to curves, but with that hump at 100hz it seems it will be low mid focused? With rolloff on the low end?
 
The little hump is a byproduct of the enclosure size combined with Fb with this driver. It is what it is.

Double the box size, adjust the porting and see what happens to the response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: REV
The little hump is a byproduct of the enclosure size combined with Fb with this driver. It is what it is.

Double the box size, adjust the porting and see what happens to the response.
So here are graphs showing some changes.
Red- Original design
Blue - Same tuning, but double box volume.
Green - Double box volume and 40hz FB

IMG_1424.jpeg
IMG_1425.jpeg
IMG_1426.jpeg
 
Box tuning needs to be higher than 40Hz for the green plot.

The blue curve is about the point of diminishing returns. Try 5Hz lower tuning on your original design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: magic_man
Thought i'd chime in here, I would measure the ts parameters on that woofer. Mcm woofers often have higher qts than the published parameters. My guess is that the qts may be around .7 and sensitivity may be around 92-94db. That being said, its a nice sounding woofer without any nasty cone breakup at a great price! If you're looking to add a high frequency speaker, I've had good luck adding in a Faital pro 3fe22 crossed over around 1000 hz if my memory is correct. The combination was balanced at least for hifi usage, I did not get to try a bass on it though. :( I am not intending to dissuade using this woofer, but these were my impressions of it. The bass response seemed decent in a 2cuft box. Addendum, I found some measured specs on another forum. The measured qts would work for open back cabs, probably need a 4x12 for any reasonable sensitivity though which defeats the purpose of a smaller lighter cab.
Quote from avs forum.
"I measured a Qes of 1.35 vs 0.385, Qms is 5.65 vs 2.80, Fs is 48.7 Hz vs 38 Hz, and the calculated efficiency is closer to 92 dB, not 97 dB.
As far as the things that are within specifications - Re is OK, Vas is OK, and Le is OK, but all the other specs are nowhere close."

Next forum had worse specs, due to sloppy assembly of the driver.

MCM 55-2952 Real T/S Parameters measured via Klippel
Electrical Parameters #1

Re 8.26 Ohm electrical voice coil resistance at DC
Le 0.623 mH frequency independent part of voice coil inductance
L2 0.860 mH para-inductance of voice coil
R2 9.38 Ohm electrical resistance due to eddy current losses
Cmes 981.24 µF electrical capacitance representing moving mass
Lces 15.24 mH electrical inductance representing driver compliance
Res 18.62 Ohm resistance due to mechanical losses
fs 41.2 Hz driver resonance frequency

Mechanical Parameters
(using laser)
Mms 58.935 g mechanical mass of driver diaphragm assembly including air load and voice coil
Mmd (Sd) 51.689 g mechanical mass of voice coil and diaphragm without air load
Rms 3.225 kg/s mechanical resistance of total-driver losses
Cms 0.254 mm/N mechanical compliance of driver suspension
Kms 3.94 N/mm mechanical stiffness of driver suspension
Bl 7.75 N/A force factor (Bl product)
Lambda s 0.059 suspension creep factor

Loss factors
Qtp 1.453 total Q-factor considering all losses
Qms 4.726 mechanical Q-factor of driver in free air considering Rms only
Qes 2.097 electrical Q-factor of driver in free air considering Re only
Qts 1.452 total Q-factor considering Re and Rms only

Vas 107.6013 l equivalent air volume of suspension
n0 0.344 % reference efficiency (2 pi-radiation using Re)
Lm 87.56 dB characteristic sound pressure level (SPL at 1m for 1W @ Re)
Lnom Zn missing dB nominal sensitivity (SPL at 1m for 1W @ Zn)

rmse Z 2.30 % root-mean-square fitting error of driver impedance Z(f)
rmse Hx 1.75 % root-mean-square fitting error of transfer function Hx (f)

Series resistor 0.00 Ohm resistance of series resistor
Sd 547.39 cm² diaphragm area



Electrical Parameters #2
Re 8.14 Ohm electrical voice coil resistance at DC
Le 0.592 mH frequency independent part of voice coil inductance
L2 0.966 mH para-inductance of voice coil
R2 10.07 Ohm electrical resistance due to eddy current losses
Cmes 701.90 µF electrical capacitance representing moving mass
Lces 19.51 mH electrical inductance representing driver compliance
Res 24.45 Ohm resistance due to mechanical losses
fs 43.0 Hz driver resonance frequency

Mechanical Parameters
(using laser)
Mms 58.453 g mechanical mass of driver diaphragm assembly including air load and voice coil
Mmd (Sd) 51.207 g mechanical mass of voice coil and diaphragm without air load
Rms 3.407 kg/s mechanical resistance of total-driver losses
Cms 0.234 mm/N mechanical compliance of driver suspension
Kms 4.27 N/mm mechanical stiffness of driver suspension
Bl 9.13 N/A force factor (Bl product)
Lambda s 0.045 suspension creep factor

Loss factors
Qtp 1.159 total Q-factor considering all losses
Qms 4.637 mechanical Q-factor of driver in free air considering Rms only
Qes 1.543 electrical Q-factor of driver in free air considering Re only
Qts 1.158 total Q-factor considering Re and Rms only

Vas 99.3444 l equivalent air volume of suspension
n0 0.492 % reference efficiency (2 pi-radiation using Re)
Lm 89.12 dB characteristic sound pressure level (SPL at 1m for 1W @ Re)
Lnom 89.05 dB nominal sensitivity (SPL at 1m for 1W @ Zn)

rmse Z 2.09 % root-mean-square fitting error of driver impedance Z(f)
rmse Hx 1.89 % root-mean-square fitting error of transfer function Hx (f)

Series resistor 0.00 Ohm resistance of series resistor
Sd 547.39 cm² diaphragm area
In addition, the voice coil assembly appears to be out of the magnetic gap. Like they used the wrong "jig" when assembling the woofer. This may account for the low BL product since the VC is barely in the magnetic gap. If the manufacturing quality was better, this woofer might perform quite well in small(er) enclosure.
 
Last edited:
They are pretty nice drivers for a cheap cost. I think you'll be fine with that enclosure size. The tuning might need to come down a bit to flatten that peak, but it may sound fine with it. Ports are cheap, try it both ways.
Would add, multiple ports are usually noisier because of all the entry points and surface area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bknop and magic_man
They are pretty nice drivers for a cheap cost. I think you'll be fine with that enclosure size. The tuning might need to come down a bit to flatten that peak, but it may sound fine with it. Ports are cheap, try it both ways.
Would add, multiple ports are usually noisier because of all the entry points and surface area.
Thank you for that info, I was going based off of the port velocity graph and manipulating port configuration to keep those numbers low.
 
Possibility, as I said, I'd experiment. You have to realize those graphs don't take into account the room/amp/bass. With something like that, build it and play with it.
I understand all that, just trying to anchor in a good starting point, build it, and then make changes from there if needed. Just don’t want to build a house on a foundation of mud if you know what I mean.

Appreciate your time and input on this project.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6thplanet