Hi all, I am new here, but I have been reading a lot of stuff over the past 3 weeks trying to learn as much as possible for my project and I have seen there are lots of very knowledgeable people here so here goes my question.
I already have the speakers for the 3 way I am doing, they are not the perfect match, but they should be good enough since I am not an audiophile that is looking for perfection but simply something that sounds nice and can shake the room if need be without distortion.
The speakers:
Woofer: Peavey Black Widow 15028 ( 15" )
Peavey.com :: Low Frequency Drivers
Midrange: Dayton PK165-8 ( 6" )
Parts-Express.com
ayton PK165-8 6" Professional Kevlar/Paper Cone Midrange | 6" woofer 6 inch woofer midbass driver pro sound sound reinforcement PA
Tweeter: Dayton PT2C-8 Planar Tweeter
Parts-Express.comayton PT2C-8 Planar Tweeter | tweeters pt2c-8 planar tweeter ribbon tweeter dayton audio dayton loudspeaker dayton DayAudiTweetWoofMid050109
I also have a subwoofer that can take care of the really low frequencies.
So, they might not be the perfect combination but at least the frequency ranges intersect pretty good for crossovers in the 400Hz and 4000 Hz to keep the most important vocal range in 1 single speaker (as I have read that it is important)
Now, the question is, what do you guys think would be the best crossovers to use that will not cost me more than the speakers
I have 2 choices so far:
2 of these: Parts-Express.comayton XO3W-500/4K 3-Way Crossover 500/4,000 Hz | crossover speaker crossover crossover network lc network 3 way crossover daytoncrossovers-10408 2w3wcrossovers090109
Or this: Parts-Express.com:Behringer CX3400 Super-X Pro Crossover 3-Way/4-Way | Crossovers crossover 3-way crossover 2-way crossover active crossover
Is there any benefits from one over the other because one is passive and the other active I think?
Any other important things I have to look into?
By the way, I haven't done the cabinets yet so I am open to suggestions regarding the type, being vented or closed.
I kinda like the closed ones because of a more punch in the low frequencies but I dont know that much so I could be wrong and also with those Peaveys, I am almost sure I will have a good punch one way or another.
Thank you very much in advance for any help.
Leo
I already have the speakers for the 3 way I am doing, they are not the perfect match, but they should be good enough since I am not an audiophile that is looking for perfection but simply something that sounds nice and can shake the room if need be without distortion.
The speakers:
Woofer: Peavey Black Widow 15028 ( 15" )
Peavey.com :: Low Frequency Drivers
Midrange: Dayton PK165-8 ( 6" )
Parts-Express.com
ayton PK165-8 6" Professional Kevlar/Paper Cone Midrange | 6" woofer 6 inch woofer midbass driver pro sound sound reinforcement PATweeter: Dayton PT2C-8 Planar Tweeter
Parts-Express.com
ayton PT2C-8 Planar Tweeter | tweeters pt2c-8 planar tweeter ribbon tweeter dayton audio dayton loudspeaker dayton DayAudiTweetWoofMid050109I also have a subwoofer that can take care of the really low frequencies.
So, they might not be the perfect combination but at least the frequency ranges intersect pretty good for crossovers in the 400Hz and 4000 Hz to keep the most important vocal range in 1 single speaker (as I have read that it is important)
Now, the question is, what do you guys think would be the best crossovers to use that will not cost me more than the speakers
I have 2 choices so far:
2 of these: Parts-Express.com
ayton XO3W-500/4K 3-Way Crossover 500/4,000 Hz | crossover speaker crossover crossover network lc network 3 way crossover daytoncrossovers-10408 2w3wcrossovers090109Or this: Parts-Express.com:Behringer CX3400 Super-X Pro Crossover 3-Way/4-Way | Crossovers crossover 3-way crossover 2-way crossover active crossover
Is there any benefits from one over the other because one is passive and the other active I think?
Any other important things I have to look into?
By the way, I haven't done the cabinets yet so I am open to suggestions regarding the type, being vented or closed.
I kinda like the closed ones because of a more punch in the low frequencies but I dont know that much so I could be wrong and also with those Peaveys, I am almost sure I will have a good punch one way or another.
Thank you very much in advance for any help.
Leo
Have to agree with PeteMcK on that one (as I think pretty much everyone here will do). Having been down the path of off the shelf units myself, if you haven't seen it, have a read of this post I made on another thread about my experiences. If you don't have the option of designing the crossover yourself (since you have already bought the speakers) then the active route will probably give you more flexibility for modifying the sound to your liking (but will no doubt be a LOT more expensive than the off the shelf unit that you linked to), but even with active, to get it "right" you will need similar tools to what you would for designing a passive crossover.
You could consider getting the off the shelf unit as a stopgap so you can listen to something now, until you have the knowledge and equipment to design a proper crossover yourself. I'm suggesting that since you have already purchased the drivers, otherwise I'd suggest reconsidering and do what most suggest, and build a proven design Not that I can talk
Tony.
You could consider getting the off the shelf unit as a stopgap so you can listen to something now, until you have the knowledge and equipment to design a proper crossover yourself. I'm suggesting that since you have already purchased the drivers, otherwise I'd suggest reconsidering and do what most suggest, and build a proven design
Not that I can talk Tony.
Ok cool, thanks Pete. By more amplifiers you mean more power or Bi-amping ?
I have a typical home theater receiver ( I know that is not the best solution power and quality wise ) but could maybe think into the bi-amping scenario if it was not too expensive.
If it gets to be too expensive, then I will have to solve it in another way for the time being unfortunately until I get the money to do better.
Leo
I have a typical home theater receiver ( I know that is not the best solution power and quality wise ) but could maybe think into the bi-amping scenario if it was not too expensive.
If it gets to be too expensive, then I will have to solve it in another way for the time being unfortunately until I get the money to do better.
Leo
Thanks Tony. Then the active crossover will have to do for now until I have the knowledge to do it myself.
As I ask in my last post (that should show before this one but I dont see it yet I wanted to know what are the options for the bi-amping, money wise. Is there something I could buy/build that will not break the bank?
Thanks.
Leo
As I ask in my last post (that should show before this one but I dont see it yet
I wanted to know what are the options for the bi-amping, money wise. Is there something I could buy/build that will not break the bank?Thanks.
Leo
Another possibility is this xover from Peavey ECS 3X (500 Hz/2500 Hz)
Peavey.com :: Crossovers
that has EQ and attenuations built-in, that can help with a primary set-up, before getting more complex adjustments or a definitive xover.
Peavey.com :: Crossovers
that has EQ and attenuations built-in, that can help with a primary set-up, before getting more complex adjustments or a definitive xover.
Hi,
Hmmm.
Maybe next time spend more time researching before buying...
Here is why:
SPL ~ 99dB/W/m & Fs ~ 50Hz. This will go loud, but not low.
SPL ~ 93dB/W/m. Your midrange will be 6dB quieter than your Bass/Midrange. In other words, it is useless in a passive system, as you would have to attenuate the woofer by 6dB.
SPL ~ 94dB/W/m. This will match the midrange okay.
You can say that again. Either your Woofer is completely inappropriate for the Midrange and Treble, or the Midrange and Treble are totally inappropriate for the woofer.
As the others have said, probably nothing off the shelf.
You could get away (it won't sound great, but it will work okayish) using a passive first order crossover at maybe 4KHz between Midrange and Tweeter. A 2nd order active crossover at around 200Hz would probably be a good idea for LF and MF.
But you need an active crossover and likely some equalisation to get a sensible match to Midrange and Treble out of that woofer. If you do that anyway, you might as well invest into a 3-Way Digital Crossover that allows you you to drive the system 3-Way active with EQ.
An Example that is also well supported for modifications to improve sound quality much is the Behringer DCX2496. Using such a crossover means you need three seperate stereo Amplifiers to drive the system, you would still need two if you use a passive crossover between midrange and treble and only active to the woofer.
However, any active system, even buying very cheap Amplifiers (eg. cheap Alesis or Behringer Studio Amplifiers) gets expensive quickly. On the plus side it would offer good flexibility and an almost guarantee that you can get good end results (if you make sure you can measure the results).
You will also need some measurement setup to actually be able to get good results. I would say that if you can take measurements outdoors you can probably just use a so-called RTA (Real Time Analyser) which is quit easy to use and interpret. Indoors you need to grips with a system that uses something like MLSSA which are harder to use and interpret, as it behaves differently and tends to show more artefacts related to the measurement process.
You may wish to look up a project by Dick Olsher called "BassZilla" for some inspiration.
The Midrange you may wish to try on on open baffle, or with an open-backed box.
For the woofer you probably will have to use a vented box to get any sensible LF Extension. Try for a system that is called EBS6 (Extended Bass Shelf 6dB). Susch a system requires a large box but allows very low tuning. At the tuning frequency such a system is normally 6dB down compared to the midband.
As the so-called "room gain" (this is a living rooms version of cabin gain in car audio) will usually give around 6db boost at 30Hz compared to 100Hz (note, this is an average of many rooms, individual rooms vary) such a system usually produces a clean and punchy but low reaching bass, sounding more like a sealed box (clean, punchy), but with the extra LF output/extension the vented system provides.
As you have enough efficiency from the woofer you add some extra qualisation and likely get rid of any need for a subwoofer.
Ciao T
Hmmm.
Maybe next time spend more time researching before buying...
Here is why:
SPL ~ 99dB/W/m & Fs ~ 50Hz. This will go loud, but not low.
SPL ~ 93dB/W/m. Your midrange will be 6dB quieter than your Bass/Midrange. In other words, it is useless in a passive system, as you would have to attenuate the woofer by 6dB.
SPL ~ 94dB/W/m. This will match the midrange okay.
You can say that again. Either your Woofer is completely inappropriate for the Midrange and Treble, or the Midrange and Treble are totally inappropriate for the woofer.
Now, the question is, what do you guys think would be the best crossovers to use that will not cost me more than the speakers
As the others have said, probably nothing off the shelf.
You could get away (it won't sound great, but it will work okayish) using a passive first order crossover at maybe 4KHz between Midrange and Tweeter. A 2nd order active crossover at around 200Hz would probably be a good idea for LF and MF.
But you need an active crossover and likely some equalisation to get a sensible match to Midrange and Treble out of that woofer. If you do that anyway, you might as well invest into a 3-Way Digital Crossover that allows you you to drive the system 3-Way active with EQ.
An Example that is also well supported for modifications to improve sound quality much is the Behringer DCX2496. Using such a crossover means you need three seperate stereo Amplifiers to drive the system, you would still need two if you use a passive crossover between midrange and treble and only active to the woofer.
However, any active system, even buying very cheap Amplifiers (eg. cheap Alesis or Behringer Studio Amplifiers) gets expensive quickly. On the plus side it would offer good flexibility and an almost guarantee that you can get good end results (if you make sure you can measure the results).
You will also need some measurement setup to actually be able to get good results. I would say that if you can take measurements outdoors you can probably just use a so-called RTA (Real Time Analyser) which is quit easy to use and interpret. Indoors you need to grips with a system that uses something like MLSSA which are harder to use and interpret, as it behaves differently and tends to show more artefacts related to the measurement process.
You may wish to look up a project by Dick Olsher called "BassZilla" for some inspiration.
The Midrange you may wish to try on on open baffle, or with an open-backed box.
For the woofer you probably will have to use a vented box to get any sensible LF Extension. Try for a system that is called EBS6 (Extended Bass Shelf 6dB). Susch a system requires a large box but allows very low tuning. At the tuning frequency such a system is normally 6dB down compared to the midband.
As the so-called "room gain" (this is a living rooms version of cabin gain in car audio) will usually give around 6db boost at 30Hz compared to 100Hz (note, this is an average of many rooms, individual rooms vary) such a system usually produces a clean and punchy but low reaching bass, sounding more like a sealed box (clean, punchy), but with the extra LF output/extension the vented system provides.
As you have enough efficiency from the woofer you add some extra qualisation and likely get rid of any need for a subwoofer.
Ciao T
Driver selection - I got a chance to look at the driver specs, sorry but it ain't good news: The Peavy woofer is a PA/guitar mid bass speaker & won't do that well a the low end by themselves without a huge ported cabinet, at least 120 litres. If you can EQ the low end then it is good in a closed 37L box. But if your sub can handle from 80Hz down, then 60L boxes tuned to around 65Hz looks OK.
The mid has break up peaks from 2KHz, & while the tweeter shouldn't really be crossed over below 4KHz, you may be able to get away with a 3rd order xover at 2KHz.
The mid has break up peaks from 2KHz, & while the tweeter shouldn't really be crossed over below 4KHz, you may be able to get away with a 3rd order xover at 2KHz.
OK, thanks everyone for the comments and words of wisdom.
Yes the Peavey speakers are a little out of place in here but I had them for some time and just wanted to use them and not let them go to waste.
The sub I have should be able to pick up the frequencies under 80 Hz so I would need the Peavey to go from around that area and up to maybe 400? That hopefully should make the size requirement of the cabinet smaller.
Also I am ok by attenuating the woofer by 6dB since I couldnt find a midrange or tweeter that had that level of dB without spending more money that I wanted to.
Also the tweeter is already on the way but the midrange I can still stop the buy if there is something better under $50 that you guys can recommend.
I dont know if its better to have just the woofer stand out from the rest with more dB or the tweeter alone with less dB?
ThorstenL, the frequency for the crossover on the woofer/midrange you are saying that should be around 2Khz, but could it be at around 4Khz since the 2 drivers allow for it and since I read everywhere so much about trying not to have any crossovers in before 4Khz if possible? Is there a reason to do the 2Khz cross?
PeteMcK, regarding the midrange having the break up peaks in the 2Khz area, will it be so bad that I will have to cross it lower like you said?
If there is another midrange driver I could use to get rid of the problem of the dB and break up problems please do not hesitate to suggest.
Thank you very much for your input again guys.
Leo
Yes the Peavey speakers are a little out of place in here but I had them for some time and just wanted to use them and not let them go to waste.
The sub I have should be able to pick up the frequencies under 80 Hz so I would need the Peavey to go from around that area and up to maybe 400? That hopefully should make the size requirement of the cabinet smaller.
Also I am ok by attenuating the woofer by 6dB since I couldnt find a midrange or tweeter that had that level of dB without spending more money that I wanted to.
Also the tweeter is already on the way but the midrange I can still stop the buy if there is something better under $50 that you guys can recommend.
I dont know if its better to have just the woofer stand out from the rest with more dB or the tweeter alone with less dB?
ThorstenL, the frequency for the crossover on the woofer/midrange you are saying that should be around 2Khz, but could it be at around 4Khz since the 2 drivers allow for it and since I read everywhere so much about trying not to have any crossovers in before 4Khz if possible? Is there a reason to do the 2Khz cross?
PeteMcK, regarding the midrange having the break up peaks in the 2Khz area, will it be so bad that I will have to cross it lower like you said?
If there is another midrange driver I could use to get rid of the problem of the dB and break up problems please do not hesitate to suggest.
Thank you very much for your input again guys.
Leo
Thanks Tony. Then the active crossover will have to do for now until I have the knowledge to do it myself.
As I ask in my last post (that should show before this one but I dont see it yet
Thanks.
Leo
As Pete already mentioned, I think maybe you haven't understood the difference between active and passive crossovers. Passive you can use with a single amplifier. Active needs a separate amplifier for each driver.
I think as other have suggested an active crossover on woofers to the mid/tweeter and passive between mid/tweeter might be a good compromise to work around the efficiency mismatch. I hadn't looked at any of the driver specs when I posted!
On the BI-AMPing without breaking the bank, that depends on how strong the bank is
I've not yet done it myself (and I'm taking a rather risky approach of designing my own active crossover, somewhat in uncharted waters) but if you want to build from an amp side of things a chipamp would be hard to beat for bang for the buck. Buying a second hand amp may also be a very cost effective route. I know nothing about the active crossover you linked to, but I'd think that (although probably much less flexible) you could probably do it cheaper with something like Rod Elliot's 12db /octave LR 2 way crossover. Though if you are not already proficient at making electronic projects, this may be a bit much for a first foray Tony.
Hi,
It is practically not doable without killing sound quality unless you go active. At any extent, no off-the shelf crossover would work for this, so you would have to design one.
Well, not under 50 Bucks, but you could try the Audax PR170M0 (or it's current day OEM version) at Madisound.com. This actually CAN run pretty much full range at the top and goes up to 8KHz.
You could even use a cheap CTC/Motorola Lemon Squeezer Pizeo tweeter (at least they are loud) as Supertweeter (at least initially, untill you can afford a pair of Fostex FT17H or Beyma CP21F).
Non of the above. Ideally nothing "Stands out". So if you want a 3-Way passive crossover you would need to put your Peavey Guitar Woofer into a so-called "maximum flat" Reflex box (so it has a flat response to it's upper limit) which means the system will not play very low (but you have a sub for that, so it may be okay).
You then need a midrange that matches or exceeds the 99dB/W/m of the Peavey woofer and a tweeter that equally matches this.
Then you could design a suitable passive crossover (off the shelf buy will still not work - lets be clear it NEVER EVER WORKS) to combine these three drivers into a speaker that manages the same 99dB/W from probably around 80Hz to above 20KHz (depends on the tweeter chosen).
I thought I said first order passive at 4KHz possible? The other guy suggested sticking to 2KHz as this avoids the breakup region of the Midrange. I would probably not worry too much about that myself.
If you go fully active with three Amp's and a digital crossover you have of course the freedom to try all sorts of crossovers, including very steep slopes (which should allow running the Ribbon Tweeters to below 2KHz), time-alignment in software and all that jazz...
Ciao T
It is practically not doable without killing sound quality unless you go active. At any extent, no off-the shelf crossover would work for this, so you would have to design one.
Well, not under 50 Bucks, but you could try the Audax PR170M0 (or it's current day OEM version) at Madisound.com. This actually CAN run pretty much full range at the top and goes up to 8KHz.
You could even use a cheap CTC/Motorola Lemon Squeezer Pizeo tweeter (at least they are loud) as Supertweeter (at least initially, untill you can afford a pair of Fostex FT17H or Beyma CP21F).
Non of the above. Ideally nothing "Stands out". So if you want a 3-Way passive crossover you would need to put your Peavey Guitar Woofer into a so-called "maximum flat" Reflex box (so it has a flat response to it's upper limit) which means the system will not play very low (but you have a sub for that, so it may be okay).
You then need a midrange that matches or exceeds the 99dB/W/m of the Peavey woofer and a tweeter that equally matches this.
Then you could design a suitable passive crossover (off the shelf buy will still not work - lets be clear it NEVER EVER WORKS) to combine these three drivers into a speaker that manages the same 99dB/W from probably around 80Hz to above 20KHz (depends on the tweeter chosen).
I thought I said first order passive at 4KHz possible? The other guy suggested sticking to 2KHz as this avoids the breakup region of the Midrange. I would probably not worry too much about that myself.
If you go fully active with three Amp's and a digital crossover you have of course the freedom to try all sorts of crossovers, including very steep slopes (which should allow running the Ribbon Tweeters to below 2KHz), time-alignment in software and all that jazz...
Ciao T
Hi,
Sure, if you are using the speakers in an open field.
However, if you are using the speaker in a normal, acoustically small room the compensation of the baffle step will produce 6dB bass boost that is (normally) unwanted. This is because while the on axis response is now flat, the power response has been boosted by 6dB in frequency range where the compensation was applied.
I know many of the guys here endlessly go on about Baffle Step compensations. If they ever did a traditional 1/3rd octave FFT of the full in room response they may no longer do so.
Ciao T
Sure, if you are using the speakers in an open field.
However, if you are using the speaker in a normal, acoustically small room the compensation of the baffle step will produce 6dB bass boost that is (normally) unwanted. This is because while the on axis response is now flat, the power response has been boosted by 6dB in frequency range where the compensation was applied.
I know many of the guys here endlessly go on about Baffle Step compensations. If they ever did a traditional 1/3rd octave FFT of the full in room response they may no longer do so.
Ciao T
I'll echo what others have said. This combination is an impossible combination. You can't use a passive crossover with these drivers at all. Trust me.
This is going to be pretty expensive to do because the cost of the crossovers and amps will not be cheap. However, given your knowledge I would recommend tri-amping the system instead of trying to design a bi-amped system with a passive crossover for the mid and tweeter. The easiest crossover is Behringer's DCX2496. At least you have a fighting chance with that, but that is going to cost you about $300, then there are the amps.
There is a lot more to this that others have touched upon. Unfortunately, at some point you will scrap this design for a better system. Since you are constrained to active crossovers, I would recommend investing in good amps and the DCX2496 because you will be able to reuse those components for a much, much better system for a long time to come. The drivers are not going to be something you will want to keep.
This is going to be pretty expensive to do because the cost of the crossovers and amps will not be cheap. However, given your knowledge I would recommend tri-amping the system instead of trying to design a bi-amped system with a passive crossover for the mid and tweeter. The easiest crossover is Behringer's DCX2496. At least you have a fighting chance with that, but that is going to cost you about $300, then there are the amps.
There is a lot more to this that others have touched upon. Unfortunately, at some point you will scrap this design for a better system. Since you are constrained to active crossovers, I would recommend investing in good amps and the DCX2496 because you will be able to reuse those components for a much, much better system for a long time to come. The drivers are not going to be something you will want to keep.
Last edited:
Here is another alternative that will be far cheaper...
Substitute THIS woofer for your Peaveys.
I know the Peaveys look very cool and handle big power, but they are completely useless in this situation. You could/should try to sell them and that will pay for the Dayton woofers.
The DC380 woofers match your SPL requirements and they have another advantage, they have a very low Fs of 20 Hz. You should be able to get down to about 30 Hz flat in a vented box of about 6 cubic feet (that's the internal volume after you subtract all bracing, vents, woofer, and midrange enclosure). Tune the box to 28 Hz by using two 4" inside diameter vents 9.67" long (each) and use modest amount of damping material (Acustastuff or go to Walmart and get some Dacron fill for pillows) about 1" thick stapled to all walls. Keep the fill material away from the ends of the vents. You may want to add some additional stuffing on the cabinet back wall where the back of the woofer points to.
For the midrange and tweeter, make a separate internal cabinet to isolate the woofer chamber from the midrange. The midrange cabinet should be about 1/4 to 1/3 cubic foot volume, sealed tight (no air leaks anywhere), and stuffed full of Acustastuff filling.
All drivers should be flushed mounted, but the tweeter and midrange are the most important. Layout should be with the woofer on the bottom, then the midrange, then the tweeter. The tweeter and midrange should be mounted as close as you can physically mount them. I would mount all of them in a vertical line. If you can round over the edges of the cabinets with a 2" radius it will help with diffraction loss a lot.
Cabinet should be cross braced very well. I would use 3/4", or better yet, 1" birch plywood instead of MDF. MDF is nasty to cut and shape due to the caustic dust. Baltic birch is the best birch you can buy and is available at Lowe's and Home Depot, however, try to find the best grade that has a lot of layers (more than 5).
You will also be able to use a passive crossover, but bare in mind that 3-way crossovers are going to be expensive. You can probably save some cost with a 1st order all-pass network. The loss in
I tried doing a quick design for you in BassBox Pro, but the midrange is not part of the library and when I tried to create one using the published T/S parameters what I got did not match the published frequency response. Something is badly wrong, but I don't know what.
Maybe someone else here can throw something together using the Dayton woofer I suggested. Again, the Dayton woofer is inexpensive, but is a decent performer and matches your midrange and tweeter SPL levels perfectly (and it plays deep bass). You will be much, much happier with this combination.
If I sort out the problem with my program I'll post a quick design for you.
Substitute THIS woofer for your Peaveys.
I know the Peaveys look very cool and handle big power, but they are completely useless in this situation. You could/should try to sell them and that will pay for the Dayton woofers.
The DC380 woofers match your SPL requirements and they have another advantage, they have a very low Fs of 20 Hz. You should be able to get down to about 30 Hz flat in a vented box of about 6 cubic feet (that's the internal volume after you subtract all bracing, vents, woofer, and midrange enclosure). Tune the box to 28 Hz by using two 4" inside diameter vents 9.67" long (each) and use modest amount of damping material (Acustastuff or go to Walmart and get some Dacron fill for pillows) about 1" thick stapled to all walls. Keep the fill material away from the ends of the vents. You may want to add some additional stuffing on the cabinet back wall where the back of the woofer points to.
For the midrange and tweeter, make a separate internal cabinet to isolate the woofer chamber from the midrange. The midrange cabinet should be about 1/4 to 1/3 cubic foot volume, sealed tight (no air leaks anywhere), and stuffed full of Acustastuff filling.
All drivers should be flushed mounted, but the tweeter and midrange are the most important. Layout should be with the woofer on the bottom, then the midrange, then the tweeter. The tweeter and midrange should be mounted as close as you can physically mount them. I would mount all of them in a vertical line. If you can round over the edges of the cabinets with a 2" radius it will help with diffraction loss a lot.
Cabinet should be cross braced very well. I would use 3/4", or better yet, 1" birch plywood instead of MDF. MDF is nasty to cut and shape due to the caustic dust. Baltic birch is the best birch you can buy and is available at Lowe's and Home Depot, however, try to find the best grade that has a lot of layers (more than 5).
You will also be able to use a passive crossover, but bare in mind that 3-way crossovers are going to be expensive. You can probably save some cost with a 1st order all-pass network. The loss in
I tried doing a quick design for you in BassBox Pro, but the midrange is not part of the library and when I tried to create one using the published T/S parameters what I got did not match the published frequency response. Something is badly wrong, but I don't know what.
Maybe someone else here can throw something together using the Dayton woofer I suggested. Again, the Dayton woofer is inexpensive, but is a decent performer and matches your midrange and tweeter SPL levels perfectly (and it plays deep bass). You will be much, much happier with this combination.
If I sort out the problem with my program I'll post a quick design for you.
Last edited:
Okay. My design program (BassBox Pro and X-Over Pro) are totally dysfunctional, but I cobbled this together as a cheap, but hopefully effective crossover.
For what ever reason, the modeling of the midrange appears to be wrong, but I think you can ignore the lower peak on the mid. The tweeter library appears to also have an issue with its published T/S parameters, at least they don't match reality, but again, I gave it a shot.
I choose 1st order because:
1. It is the least expensive and if you find at a later date you are unhappy with the system, your investment is as low as I can make it.
2. I do not have the measured Theile-Small parameters, acoustic data, distortion, and on/off-axis plots for any of these drivers. Ideally, you need to measure these yourself, then import that data into the design so that you can optimize the whole design. That isn't going to happen, so we are just going to fly by the seat of our pants. To get that data is costly and time consuming and I would just not bother.
3. It produced the flattest response.
The downside is that the tweeter is subjected to more power than it should really get. This can be a problem if you really like to crank the volume, but if you use it at sane levels you should be okay. To combat that you can always change the tweeter's filter order to a higher order, such as 2nd and reverse the polarity of the driver. There is a balance between the crossover point for the mid to tweeter. I would like to move that higher, but the mid has a lot of breakup beyond that frequency that makes it a bad choice.
I would encourage others to try modeling a 2nd order all-pass version of the system. This will improve power handling response and clean up some of the cone breakup issues that may be present. However, this comes at the expense of money.
Personally, I would be careful about the amount of money you throw at this project. There are better drivers for a good 3-way, but I suspect that your budget will not support that path.
The above system should make a pretty good sounding set of speakers. The next logical step is a more comprehensive crossover design. If you have some funds to do that, then I would encourage you to spend it. I estimate that a pair of 3-way 2nd order crossovers will cost you about $250 (±$50). The proposed 1st order design is probably half that amount.
Additionally, I did not add any impedance compensation for the woofer or mid. The cost of that is probably not worth the benefit. However, it would be worth considering if you want a better crossover such as a 2nd order all-pass.
The bottom line is that crossovers (good ones) are very expensive, but they do make the difference between a poor loudspeaker and a good or even a great one.
For what ever reason, the modeling of the midrange appears to be wrong, but I think you can ignore the lower peak on the mid. The tweeter library appears to also have an issue with its published T/S parameters, at least they don't match reality, but again, I gave it a shot.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I choose 1st order because:
1. It is the least expensive and if you find at a later date you are unhappy with the system, your investment is as low as I can make it.
2. I do not have the measured Theile-Small parameters, acoustic data, distortion, and on/off-axis plots for any of these drivers. Ideally, you need to measure these yourself, then import that data into the design so that you can optimize the whole design. That isn't going to happen, so we are just going to fly by the seat of our pants. To get that data is costly and time consuming and I would just not bother.
3. It produced the flattest response.
The downside is that the tweeter is subjected to more power than it should really get. This can be a problem if you really like to crank the volume, but if you use it at sane levels you should be okay. To combat that you can always change the tweeter's filter order to a higher order, such as 2nd and reverse the polarity of the driver. There is a balance between the crossover point for the mid to tweeter. I would like to move that higher, but the mid has a lot of breakup beyond that frequency that makes it a bad choice.
I would encourage others to try modeling a 2nd order all-pass version of the system. This will improve power handling response and clean up some of the cone breakup issues that may be present. However, this comes at the expense of money.
Personally, I would be careful about the amount of money you throw at this project. There are better drivers for a good 3-way, but I suspect that your budget will not support that path.
The above system should make a pretty good sounding set of speakers. The next logical step is a more comprehensive crossover design. If you have some funds to do that, then I would encourage you to spend it. I estimate that a pair of 3-way 2nd order crossovers will cost you about $250 (±$50). The proposed 1st order design is probably half that amount.
Additionally, I did not add any impedance compensation for the woofer or mid. The cost of that is probably not worth the benefit. However, it would be worth considering if you want a better crossover such as a 2nd order all-pass.
The bottom line is that crossovers (good ones) are very expensive, but they do make the difference between a poor loudspeaker and a good or even a great one.
Last edited:
Ok, this is a little depressing, but thanks to all your help I will do the best out of it.
I am going for the new midranges ThorstenL suggested, the Audax PR170M0, and I will get the Fostex FT17H tweeters and save the ones I bought for maybe another set of boxes later (maybe the rear boxes in a surround system).
So now I will have a better match on the dB section and it will make things easier right?
Now I have to decide the cheapest route for the crossover or crossover/amps that will work without getting me broke.
The chipamps look cool but do they sell any already made? or you always have to assemble them by yourself? The problem is that I could get into learning the way to assemble them but I dont know if I have the time( unless the assembling part requires mostly simple soldering and screwing/assembling like most other things?)
So then with the new drivers all matching better the dB region of things, as ThorstenL suggested, I wll be able to design a passive crossover to make them work at least decently right?
Well if that is possible, then I will need some help or pointers in the design since I havent done anything like that before.
You guys have been so helpful, I really appreciate it a lot.
If anybody has any car or computer related questions I could help you but in speaker related knowledge I need a lot of help
Leo
I am going for the new midranges ThorstenL suggested, the Audax PR170M0, and I will get the Fostex FT17H tweeters and save the ones I bought for maybe another set of boxes later (maybe the rear boxes in a surround system).
So now I will have a better match on the dB section and it will make things easier right?
Now I have to decide the cheapest route for the crossover or crossover/amps that will work without getting me broke.
The chipamps look cool but do they sell any already made? or you always have to assemble them by yourself? The problem is that I could get into learning the way to assemble them but I dont know if I have the time( unless the assembling part requires mostly simple soldering and screwing/assembling like most other things?)
So then with the new drivers all matching better the dB region of things, as ThorstenL suggested, I wll be able to design a passive crossover to make them work at least decently right?
Well if that is possible, then I will need some help or pointers in the design since I havent done anything like that before.
You guys have been so helpful, I really appreciate it a lot.
If anybody has any car or computer related questions I could help you
but in speaker related knowledge I need a lot of help Leo
Hi,
These have the added advantage that a lot of people here have worked with them and a number of crossovers are documented. Have a search especially for the Audax here at diyaudio.
You will still have to somehow work in the Peavey Woofer though, but this should less difficult now.
With a sufficiently large midrange chamber you can probably get away using a straight 2nd crossover at 400Hz, such as the ones sold. I'd probably still would want to look at designing one from scratch though.
As remarked before, I would suggest you look at an EBS6 System for the Peavey Drivers (winisd will calculate these for you more or less well)
Ciao T
These have the added advantage that a lot of people here have worked with them and a number of crossovers are documented. Have a search especially for the Audax here at diyaudio.
You will still have to somehow work in the Peavey Woofer though, but this should less difficult now.
With a sufficiently large midrange chamber you can probably get away using a straight 2nd crossover at 400Hz, such as the ones sold. I'd probably still would want to look at designing one from scratch though.
As remarked before, I would suggest you look at an EBS6 System for the Peavey Drivers (winisd will calculate these for you more or less well)
Ciao T
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.