Hi!
It's been some years since I've built something new and looking to make something new for 2 channel.
I have a box full of dayton RS drivers that I haven't put to use including a pair of of RS28A tweeters and 4 RS225 8" woofers.
I've been looking at getting either RS100 or RS52 to make into a new 3 way speaker.
My current speaker set-up has been my diy towers made out of older Scanspeak 9500 tweeters with PL18 mids (sealed) and Scanspeak 8565 10" woofers (sealed 60L). I've had this set for probably 10 years now, but would like to try something with smaller midrange and something that would match the drivers that I already have from the RS family.
RS52 looks like a nice driver, other than a big faceplate, but not too bad.
Dayton Reference Series Midrange RS52AN-8
I know that Tony Gee also used the RS52 along with RS28 in his 3 way monitor design - http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/download/Humble Homemade Hifi_Black Box_copy.pdf
My question is has anyone compared it back to back with the RS100P driver?
Dayton Audio RS100P-8 4" Reference Paper Midwoofer 8 Ohm
My main reason for this design is as following
1. better clarity, depth, air for the midrange vs current speaker
2. great dynamics
3. would like to experiment with open back TM section if possible (with RS100)
4. to put existing RS drivers that I have to some good use.
The SS9500+Pl18 isn't bad, but I am curious how much better a smaller driver would sound all other things being equal. I've read mixed things also about the "need" for RS28 vs. a smaller tweeter if you go with a dome RS52 but I already have a pair of RS28s so I might as well put them to best use?
It's been some years since I've built something new and looking to make something new for 2 channel.
I have a box full of dayton RS drivers that I haven't put to use including a pair of of RS28A tweeters and 4 RS225 8" woofers.
I've been looking at getting either RS100 or RS52 to make into a new 3 way speaker.
My current speaker set-up has been my diy towers made out of older Scanspeak 9500 tweeters with PL18 mids (sealed) and Scanspeak 8565 10" woofers (sealed 60L). I've had this set for probably 10 years now, but would like to try something with smaller midrange and something that would match the drivers that I already have from the RS family.
RS52 looks like a nice driver, other than a big faceplate, but not too bad.
Dayton Reference Series Midrange RS52AN-8
I know that Tony Gee also used the RS52 along with RS28 in his 3 way monitor design - http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/download/Humble Homemade Hifi_Black Box_copy.pdf
My question is has anyone compared it back to back with the RS100P driver?
Dayton Audio RS100P-8 4" Reference Paper Midwoofer 8 Ohm
My main reason for this design is as following
1. better clarity, depth, air for the midrange vs current speaker
2. great dynamics
3. would like to experiment with open back TM section if possible (with RS100)
4. to put existing RS drivers that I have to some good use.
The SS9500+Pl18 isn't bad, but I am curious how much better a smaller driver would sound all other things being equal. I've read mixed things also about the "need" for RS28 vs. a smaller tweeter if you go with a dome RS52 but I already have a pair of RS28s so I might as well put them to best use?
Last edited:
Good info guys! So looks like RS52 is a better choice then, I do want it to have good dynamics and not feel like speaker is running out of breath at higher volume.
t - rs28a and m - rs52 (600-800 to 2500-3500) . Since the rs28 is self contained, it would make the upper "cabinet" very easy and small to do.
w - 2x rs225 (open to sealed or ported)
Looks like Tony landed at 750/2500 crossover points between RS28 RS52 and a single RS270 in his black box monitor design, any input on that?
http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/download/Humble Homemade Hifi_Black Box_copy.pdf
t - rs28a and m - rs52 (600-800 to 2500-3500) . Since the rs28 is self contained, it would make the upper "cabinet" very easy and small to do.
w - 2x rs225 (open to sealed or ported)
Looks like Tony landed at 750/2500 crossover points between RS28 RS52 and a single RS270 in his black box monitor design, any input on that?
http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/download/Humble Homemade Hifi_Black Box_copy.pdf
Last edited:
This is not a particularly balanced design which would use something more like a 5" midrange rather than a 2" upper midrange driver which is a better for a 4 way using 3/4" tweeter or a ribbon that needs to be crossed high. In your position I would tempted to keep the 2 woofers and the tweeter but purchase a "proper" midrange.
This is something of an odd design and so I would suggest a degree of caution when examining the design decisions. If the lower crossover point is "right" for 1 woofer then with the increased SPL of 2 suggests you might need to raise it a bit to 800 Hz. This might be stretching the distance a bit to the lower of the two woofers. 3.5 way perhaps? But really a 2" midrange really is not the right size for this type of tower speaker.
Huh? The RS225s are capable of being used in two way designs with a suitably capable tweeter and an well designed crossover. Adding in a 2" dome is a good option.
The RS52 will need a 4th order acoustic at 800hz imo to work properly, especially because a pair of RS225s will give the system serious output capabilities and like has been said the RS100 would not be capable of keeping up. Using the RS28 is absolutely okay and some people prefer the sound of 1" domes over 3/4" domes. Do keep and eye on driver separation here though because the RS52 has a large flange. One of the reasons for going with the three way is to improve the power response, but to do this you will need to cross over quite low. Maybe a 2-2.5kHz xover. The RS52 will act more as a filler, but this is really all the RS225 and RS28 need and is a type of design that has been done many times with great success.
There is always this design.
Speaker Design Works
It only uses one RS225 per side, uses a 5" vifa midrange driver and the fabric version of the RS28, but the metal version is pretty much a drop in replacement.
Hi Andy,
Can you elaborate on why it would not balance well with the dome midrange in question? Is it specifically because I am looking to use a pair of 225s instead of one driver?
I think there was also a good/truested TM design between RS28 and RS225 as well and worked well.
I do also have a pair of RS125s and RS150s as well, but I figured a dedicated "midrange" that the RS52 is would yield a better improvement over the existing midbass driver that I've been using.
Can you elaborate on why it would not balance well with the dome midrange in question? Is it specifically because I am looking to use a pair of 225s instead of one driver?
I think there was also a good/truested TM design between RS28 and RS225 as well and worked well.
I do also have a pair of RS125s and RS150s as well, but I figured a dedicated "midrange" that the RS52 is would yield a better improvement over the existing midbass driver that I've been using.
5th Element,
The Vifa NE149W-07 is too expensive for this particular project compared to the rest of the drivers so I would like to keep it all RS series .
Do you believe RS52 would be able to keep up with the pair of 225s woofers if keeping them as one "W" section, and do you see any issues with the 800hz crossover point?
Thanks!
The Vifa NE149W-07 is too expensive for this particular project compared to the rest of the drivers so I would like to keep it all RS series .
Do you believe RS52 would be able to keep up with the pair of 225s woofers if keeping them as one "W" section, and do you see any issues with the 800hz crossover point?
Thanks!
I did a 3-way a few years back with 2 - RS225 on the bottom crossed to a pair of RS125 in an MTM arrangement on top with a Vifa NE19 tweeter. I got the crossover (400hz and 3000hz) to a point where it sounded pretty good in a large room but was never 100% happy with it in my small media room.
I have also used the RS225 and RS28f in a floorstanding 2-way crossed @ 1200hz. In my room, this is the better sounding speaker and takes up less space as well!
No experience with the RS52 mid, but I have read that it is somewhat difficult to utilize properly.
I have also used the RS225 and RS28f in a floorstanding 2-way crossed @ 1200hz. In my room, this is the better sounding speaker and takes up less space as well!
No experience with the RS52 mid, but I have read that it is somewhat difficult to utilize properly.
Thanks brokencrank for your input, appreciate it! That's a low crossover point for the RS28, was it 3rd or 4th order electrical?
RS52 doesn't look too bad on paper, but was looking forward to trying RS100 but not an option now since it can't play loud and stay clean. The RS125s I do have a pair, were you not happy with the MTM section in terms of it's integration with NE19 and RS225s or with the RS125s themselves?
RS52 doesn't look too bad on paper, but was looking forward to trying RS100 but not an option now since it can't play loud and stay clean. The RS125s I do have a pair, were you not happy with the MTM section in terms of it's integration with NE19 and RS225s or with the RS125s themselves?
I will have to look through my notes but I think it was 2nd order with notch (it looked like the proverbial "brick wall" in my pcd simulations) on the RS225 and 3rd order on the RS28.
On the 3-way, I think it may have been a break up mode from the RS125s. I didn't play them much and they may not have even had time to break in?
It is not balanced because it is an upper midrange driver rather than a midrange driver. You have the equivalent of a 12" woofer crossing to a 2" "midrange" crossing to a 1" tweeter. The woofer is doing too much and the midrange too little for a balanced design. This doesn't mean it cannot be made to work better than a 2 way (or more likely at 2.5 way) but that a conventional 4"-5" midrange or even a 3" dome is likely to perform better again. As one can see when browsing the better commercial 3 way tower speakers.
If you go with the 2" crossed at 800 Hz then the distance from the centre of the 2" midrange to the centre of the lower 8" woofer is going to be a lot larger than one would like. I haven't checked but you may need to look at running only the upper woofer this high.
The CTC of the midrange to lower W makes sense. What are your thoughts on going with MTMTW instead to keep the CTC equal, and possibly using two RS100 per tower?
Similar to this build - http://www.divine-audio.com/khanspire/
Saw someone build these on another forum , he also used RS52 mid and a pair of RS225s per side. Not sure on crossover details yet but looks like possibly a TMW.
http://techtalk.parts-express.com/showthread.php?246670-Trilliums-finally-quot-done-quot
Similar to this build - http://www.divine-audio.com/khanspire/
Saw someone build these on another forum , he also used RS52 mid and a pair of RS225s per side. Not sure on crossover details yet but looks like possibly a TMW.
http://techtalk.parts-express.com/showthread.php?246670-Trilliums-finally-quot-done-quot
Last edited:
Zaph has simulations of the RS52 with a 2nd order acoustic target at 850Hz of excursion and power levels and it should be more than capable where non linear distortion is concerned from pushing the thing too hard. Given that the RS225s will increase the loudspeakers SPL potential, even dropping the xover to 800Hz wouldn't be an issue providing you go with 4th order acoustic slopes.
If you go for an 800Hz xover this will have a wavelength of 42cm and will require that you mount the RS225s as close to one another as you can to keep the vertical driver integration optimal. You can probably push the dome down as low as 700Hz but with the SPL capabilities that you'll have from the pair of RS225s I would not want to go any lower.
The RS125s are excellent drivers, I've built a small floor stander with them and the Vifa DQ25 crossed at ~2400Hz an they sound very nice. Going MTM is better off avoided unless absolutely necessary and as there are 4ohm versions of the RS125 I'd much rather go with that in a WWMT than a WWMTM with the 8 ohm version. Both the metal and paper versions will work well, the metal cone has the edge in terms of response smoothness, but the paper cone has slightly higher sensitivity.
The RS125-4 will give you far more flexibility with regards to the crossover on the low end than the RS52 would, the only thing you'd have to be concerned with would be thermal overload at very high SPLs. With an appropriate high pass in place exceeding xmax, or getting anywhere near xmax is not going to happen. The only thing you'd have to watch out for is exceeding the drivers thermal capabilities, the high pass will reduce the average power that the driver sees considerably, this is why tiny tweeters can play music at 110dBs and I don't think you'd ever be in danger of frying the RS125s with a 600Hz 4th order highpass, although you may have to keep tabs on things if you decide to cross lower.
To that end the RS100P-4 would probably work too, it has a voltage sensitivity of 88.5dB and with bandpass gain that should be enough. Then all you'll have is a balancing act between average power and exceeding xmax when concerning how low to cross.
Even with two I think it may struggle with output but I have not checked. A pair of the RS125 4" midwoofers would be better in terms of output. Something like this is likely to be better again at the same price level (which may be irrelevant if you want to use what you already have).
Last edited:
This is absolute rubbish. In no way do you have the equivalent of a 12" woofer crossing over to a 2" midrange, what you've got are two 8" drivers. From a purely theoretical point of view you'd view this as an 8" WMT with an additional 8" driver added to increase overall sensitivity or SPL capabilities.
The important characteristics governing design considerations based on driver size are largely determined by the off axis response, how high up the driver goes before breakup issues creep in and how clean the driver remains with respect to distortion. Nothing about this means that two 8" drivers should be considered anything remotely close to one 12" driver. Off axis-wise the 8" diameter is what matters and the RS225s can just about be used up high enough to mate with a suitable tweeter if needed. A 12" driver requires significantly lower xover points to work within its optimal range.
There is no such thing as a woofer doing too much, or a midrange doing too little. In fact getting the woofer to do more, all things being equal, will reduce the average power and thus the power compression on the midrange without greatly affecting the same of the woofer as most of the energy within music is centred lower down than higher up.
The decision should be entirely based on specifications and design requirements. If you were using a 12" bass driver and needed to cross over around 500Hz, then sure, but the design is using 8" bass drivers and can play up much higher without issue. The only thing left to consider is how low can the mid go, is it low enough to mate with the bass drivers without affecting the off axis performance of the bass section and without pushing the midrange into gross distortion. Then if the same can be achieved concerning the tweeter to midrange crossover. With a 104mm diameter tweeter and 130mm diameter mid dome you're looking at a C2C of around 12cm, requiring a crossover of around 2500Hz to work well. The RS52 has a 3rd order distortion peak at 4.3kHz and should be avoided, crossing at 2500Hz would give plenty of design flexibility allowing 2nd order acoustic slopes to be used if wanted.
With close driver spacing you're looking at around 41cm with the wavelength of 800Hz being slightly longer than this. If you were intending on listening to the loudspeakers near-field then going for a WWMT 3.5 way would be an option.
That is incorrect. The RS100 will easily give 106dB at 800Hz (the same crossover frequency you'd use for the RS52), at about 1mm excursion (a quarter of its Xmax). In fact it will give over 106dB at 400Hz without exceeding its Xmas either.
Piston Excursion calculator
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.