There are lots of small fullrange drivers to choose from:
http://www.spectrumaudio.de/breit/tabelle.html
Also small midrangers from Accuton, Scanspeak, Audiotechnology and probably many cheaper ones.
And some vintage gear, like this:
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=jbl+le5&category0=
http://www.spectrumaudio.de/breit/tabelle.html
Also small midrangers from Accuton, Scanspeak, Audiotechnology and probably many cheaper ones.
And some vintage gear, like this:
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=jbl+le5&category0=
"Originally posted by LineSource
Technical Features Nautilus™
1x 300mm (12 in) aluminium cone bass
1x 100mm (4 in) aluminium/polymer sandwich cone lower midrange
1x 50mm (2 in) aluminium dome upper midrange
1x 25mm (1 in) aluminium dome high-frequency
Crossover frequencies 220Hz, 880Hz, 3.5kHz "
The orig. nautilus , The one that look like a nautilus sort of, Uses active 4th order xo.
The B&W's that use 1st order for the tweeters are the new ones, The 800 diamond series. Which uses diamond tweeter and 1st order filter. See this LINK
BTW , The 800 series B&W speakers looks very difficult to clone, Arent they ? HEheh.
Technical Features Nautilus™
1x 300mm (12 in) aluminium cone bass
1x 100mm (4 in) aluminium/polymer sandwich cone lower midrange
1x 50mm (2 in) aluminium dome upper midrange
1x 25mm (1 in) aluminium dome high-frequency
Crossover frequencies 220Hz, 880Hz, 3.5kHz "
The orig. nautilus , The one that look like a nautilus sort of, Uses active 4th order xo.
The B&W's that use 1st order for the tweeters are the new ones, The 800 diamond series. Which uses diamond tweeter and 1st order filter. See this LINK
BTW , The 800 series B&W speakers looks very difficult to clone, Arent they ? HEheh.
Difficult to tell what order they used but it seems that they used some sort of subtractive delay crossover according to this:
http://www.bwspeakers.com/downloadFile\technicalFeature\Nautilus800_white_paper.pdf
Regards
Charles
A little late follow up...
Reading people's replies again, I think some of them misunderstood my intention.
Think WHy I initially suggested using the order of acoustic slope when discussing a xover order. It is to avoid confusion. See the example of the original poster. He admitted that he meant acoustic slope when he said "1st order filter." But before he admitted so, some people simply ASSumed it is a 1st order electrical filter when they replied.
I don't think it's the OP's fault.
Read my posts again. I never said we need to use ONLY the acoustic order when giving information about a xover design. Of course, we also need to let others know its electrical order. But to avoid confusion, we should make it clear. And when we talk about a xover design (not xover itself) integrated with speaker drivers in a particular speaker project, calling the xover by its resulting acoustic slope makes much more sense. We may need to say its electrical order only when we show its schematic. In other cases, what will be the reason and need for discussing its electrical order?
Of course, in old days when DIYers don't have affordable CAD and measurement tools, it was difficult to say filters' acoustic orders with confidence. So, everything was basically guess work and hands-on tweaking. But with today's CAD, it's easy to see what kind of acoustic filter our design is based on.
Take a look at many serious, well-recognized DIYers' web pages or forum pages for their projects. When they discuss their crossover design, they call it by its acoustic property (e.g., LR2, LR4, asymmetric LR4, Duelund 3-way, and so on), not by its electrical order. Why? Because a xover's electrical topology is simply a means to achieve intended acoustic rolloffs. Nothing more than that.
It seems that some people still want to in live in old days. But when I, by looking at their web pages or forum posts, consider how they design and build their speakers, I understand why they do...
Reading people's replies again, I think some of them misunderstood my intention.
Think WHy I initially suggested using the order of acoustic slope when discussing a xover order. It is to avoid confusion. See the example of the original poster. He admitted that he meant acoustic slope when he said "1st order filter." But before he admitted so, some people simply ASSumed it is a 1st order electrical filter when they replied.
I don't think it's the OP's fault.
Read my posts again. I never said we need to use ONLY the acoustic order when giving information about a xover design. Of course, we also need to let others know its electrical order. But to avoid confusion, we should make it clear. And when we talk about a xover design (not xover itself) integrated with speaker drivers in a particular speaker project, calling the xover by its resulting acoustic slope makes much more sense. We may need to say its electrical order only when we show its schematic. In other cases, what will be the reason and need for discussing its electrical order?
Of course, in old days when DIYers don't have affordable CAD and measurement tools, it was difficult to say filters' acoustic orders with confidence. So, everything was basically guess work and hands-on tweaking. But with today's CAD, it's easy to see what kind of acoustic filter our design is based on.
Take a look at many serious, well-recognized DIYers' web pages or forum pages for their projects. When they discuss their crossover design, they call it by its acoustic property (e.g., LR2, LR4, asymmetric LR4, Duelund 3-way, and so on), not by its electrical order. Why? Because a xover's electrical topology is simply a means to achieve intended acoustic rolloffs. Nothing more than that.
It seems that some people still want to in live in old days. But when I, by looking at their web pages or forum posts, consider how they design and build their speakers, I understand why they do...
Jay_WJ said:
Indeed, we mostly agree
Using the word "you" can sometimes be perceptive and obviously lead to misunderstandings...I was thinking more in general terms
Hundreds of times I have thought that my speakers had reached perfection, just to learn that perfection dont last long and is an illusion
My latest theory is that we after some time get bored and need some change in sound, at least to me it is so, maybe
And sure, I too would use measurements/sims/measurements, if I had the skills fore THAT, but I dont and have to rely on my senses
I look at it a bit like "martial arts" blindfolded, the ultimate
It sharpens your senses and gives good experience in how the sound changes when doing it differently...but it sure takes a long time to learn and you have to be VERY stubbern...on the other hand, now I think its great fun and its kind of cheap not having to build new speakers all the time...just a bit of fiddling, and a new sound fills the room
On the other hand, now I feel confident that I can make almost anything play...but I may very well be kidding myself
I look at it a bit like "martial arts" blindfolded, the ultimate
It sharpens your senses and gives good experience in how the sound changes when doing it differently...but it sure takes a long time to learn and you have to be VERY stubbern...on the other hand, now I think its great fun and its kind of cheap not having to build new speakers all the time...just a bit of fiddling, and a new sound fills the room
On the other hand, now I feel confident that I can make almost anything play...but I may very well be kidding myself
I for one have been down the wrong path when using measurements and software and ended up with a worse sounding speaker after playing ducks and drakes with the frequency response, phase, impedance and numbers.
That's why I use software only as a good start or to sort out a problem, but do not measure any more. It's all done by ear and gradually tweaked after living with them for an extended period. The visit by a good ear helps immensely as you can get isolated and move off track.
That's why I keep 1 speaker pair as a datum or reference as you will and it's the little D27 + P13 combo in the wiki.
That's why I use software only as a good start or to sort out a problem, but do not measure any more. It's all done by ear and gradually tweaked after living with them for an extended period. The visit by a good ear helps immensely as you can get isolated and move off track.
That's why I keep 1 speaker pair as a datum or reference as you will and it's the little D27 + P13 combo in the wiki.
Andy Graddon said:
You probably know why.
Any serious DIY designer should be interested in what their "settings" on the active filter result in. They should not just rely on their guess work and be satisfied. Their approach to active filters shouldn't be different from that to passive ones, which I'm pretty sure.
It's not about digital vs passive, though there is a reason why some people can only talk about active filter settings, not its real result. And they can always change the setting if they don't like the sound.
But if anyone wants to give well-grounded information about a xover of any "finished" speaker design, whether it uses passive or active approach, he should know its acoustic slopes (and resulting behavior such as its vertical lobe, etc), not just its "settings."
rabbitz said:
That's exactly what I'm doing, too!
But what we're doing is possible only when we have sufficient background knowledge and can predict what will happen acoustically by the changes we make in the crossover---sims are usuful at this time, too.
What you want to say doesn't contradict my point.
Pretend that, I make a 2 way or 3 way speaker using expensive drivers with very smooth response in and outside the passband .
Pretend that I make the box , so the drivers will be physically time aligned from the listening position .
I then design a 1st order Xo, one caps with resistors for the tweets, one coil for the woofs and a coil and a cap for the mids, Just imagine that the level of the drivers will be match and flat by the time they are installed in the box and after the Xo were tweaked.
One of the goal of this design , Is to make the speaker produce a time and phase coherent sound wave in the listening position, That could produce square wave and countinous step response.
The Problem is , As we all know, that the electrical response would differ from the actual acoustic response , therfore making a 1st order filter look like a second order, in the actual acoustic response.
Now, considering that the actual response is 12db per octave and not 6db per octave as was designed. Can the speaker still produce a phase and time coherent wave form? Or putting it in another way, will the actual response affect the time behavior of the speaker, even if the electrical design of the filter is 1st order.
Pretend that I make the box , so the drivers will be physically time aligned from the listening position .
I then design a 1st order Xo, one caps with resistors for the tweets, one coil for the woofs and a coil and a cap for the mids, Just imagine that the level of the drivers will be match and flat by the time they are installed in the box and after the Xo were tweaked.
One of the goal of this design , Is to make the speaker produce a time and phase coherent sound wave in the listening position, That could produce square wave and countinous step response.
The Problem is , As we all know, that the electrical response would differ from the actual acoustic response , therfore making a 1st order filter look like a second order, in the actual acoustic response.
Now, considering that the actual response is 12db per octave and not 6db per octave as was designed. Can the speaker still produce a phase and time coherent wave form? Or putting it in another way, will the actual response affect the time behavior of the speaker, even if the electrical design of the filter is 1st order.
Good question.
I believe the answer is no. As soon as the filter is placed with a driver, it's all out the window.
There's a good article by John Kreskovsky, May 8, 2001, "First Order Series Crossovers.. What's all the fuss." He goes into how good it can be electrically but it all falls apart in the real world for the phase, constant voltage (OK for series), slopes, amplitude. But does that mean it's worse with a BW2 acoustic coming from a BW1 electrical as BW2, LR2 acoustic slopes can sound very good indeed?
This can be demonstrated on some 1st order filters where the tweeter polarity has to be reversed to maintain the frequency response due to phase shifts where as the norm is considered to be wired normal polarity. If there were only phase shifts as per the 1st order filter, then the tweeter would not require to be run in reversed polarity.
I believe the answer is no. As soon as the filter is placed with a driver, it's all out the window.
There's a good article by John Kreskovsky, May 8, 2001, "First Order Series Crossovers.. What's all the fuss." He goes into how good it can be electrically but it all falls apart in the real world for the phase, constant voltage (OK for series), slopes, amplitude. But does that mean it's worse with a BW2 acoustic coming from a BW1 electrical as BW2, LR2 acoustic slopes can sound very good indeed?
This can be demonstrated on some 1st order filters where the tweeter polarity has to be reversed to maintain the frequency response due to phase shifts where as the norm is considered to be wired normal polarity. If there were only phase shifts as per the 1st order filter, then the tweeter would not require to be run in reversed polarity.
"This can be demonstrated on some 1st order filters where the tweeter polarity has to be reversed to maintain the frequency response due to phase shifts where as the norm is considered to be wired normal polarity. If there were only phase shifts as per the 1st order filter, then the tweeter would not require to be run in reversed polarity."
I think some Dynaudio and sonus faber speakers uses 1st order electrical with reversed polarity , But those speakers are'nt physically time aligned, Which I think , necessitates the reversal of the polarity of the tweeter , enable to achieve a decent freq. response at the tweeter level .
rabbitz,
If , As I understand you said , that actual response would affect the behavior of the speaker in the time domain of it's sound propagation , Then How do thiel audio, meadow lark, VAF, vandersteen and some companies I dont remember, could produce speakers that are time and phase coherent, That could produce recognizable square waves and un-cut step response. One thing in common about theses speakers though , is that they're all time aligned with low order XO.
If real 1st order xo is very difficult to implement in a speaker system, Then How do these companies do it? What's their secrets? How come many owners swear by they're sound quality as being the best or at least best in imaging and so are happy with they're 1st order speakers. And then Here in DIY land , many people seems to hate making and/or listening to DIY 1st order speakers , How come.
Personally though, I want to build a 1st order 3way wmtmw, 10"w, 5"m, 1"t, Out of curiousity. I plan to use drivers form seas and vifa, the flattest response paper cone I can find at affordable price, But this would have to wait after I finish doing some more important things to do first.
I think some Dynaudio and sonus faber speakers uses 1st order electrical with reversed polarity , But those speakers are'nt physically time aligned, Which I think , necessitates the reversal of the polarity of the tweeter , enable to achieve a decent freq. response at the tweeter level .
rabbitz,
If , As I understand you said , that actual response would affect the behavior of the speaker in the time domain of it's sound propagation , Then How do thiel audio, meadow lark, VAF, vandersteen and some companies I dont remember, could produce speakers that are time and phase coherent, That could produce recognizable square waves and un-cut step response. One thing in common about theses speakers though , is that they're all time aligned with low order XO.
If real 1st order xo is very difficult to implement in a speaker system, Then How do these companies do it? What's their secrets? How come many owners swear by they're sound quality as being the best or at least best in imaging and so are happy with they're 1st order speakers. And then Here in DIY land , many people seems to hate making and/or listening to DIY 1st order speakers , How come.
Personally though, I want to build a 1st order 3way wmtmw, 10"w, 5"m, 1"t, Out of curiousity. I plan to use drivers form seas and vifa, the flattest response paper cone I can find at affordable price, But this would have to wait after I finish doing some more important things to do first.
marchel said:
Nobody will prevent you from trying
I think the midrange is the key, and it may have to be very widerange
A major problem will be its natural low end rolloff
Either it could rolloff by it self without series cap, but very tricky to get coherent with the woofer
And a widerange middriver may not be very durable in the bass department
Another way could be higher low end xo point, but that would lay strain on the 10" woofer...and so on
In reality not so easy
marchel
Have a look at post #72 and weep.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1392597#post1392597
Most try and utilise the driver's roll off characteristics in the xo but what Thiel has done is to alter the driver characterstics with the electronic wizardry. When you consider most drivers roll off around 2nd order roughly, this is very hard indeed and I takes my hat off to them.
You then have to ask with all those components to produce a 1st order acoustic slope, is it worth it? Obviously they and others must think so. I've never heard a true 1st order acoustic so have no idea how it sounds.
Interesting you mentioned Dynaudio and if memory serves me, some of their speakers crossed over to the tweeters at 1500Hz with a 1st order xo (dunno acoustic or electrical). I can remember having AR speakers in the 70's (AR14) where the tweeter was crossed over at 1300Hz but I don't know at what order. Wouldn't matter as there was only 250Hz to Fs.... yes was a tweeter with an Fs of 1050Hz. So giving tweeters hell is not new for sure. I can't remember it being distressed.
Have a look at post #72 and weep.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1392597#post1392597
Most try and utilise the driver's roll off characteristics in the xo but what Thiel has done is to alter the driver characterstics with the electronic wizardry. When you consider most drivers roll off around 2nd order roughly, this is very hard indeed and I takes my hat off to them.
You then have to ask with all those components to produce a 1st order acoustic slope, is it worth it? Obviously they and others must think so. I've never heard a true 1st order acoustic so have no idea how it sounds.
Interesting you mentioned Dynaudio and if memory serves me, some of their speakers crossed over to the tweeters at 1500Hz with a 1st order xo (dunno acoustic or electrical). I can remember having AR speakers in the 70's (AR14) where the tweeter was crossed over at 1300Hz but I don't know at what order. Wouldn't matter as there was only 250Hz to Fs.... yes was a tweeter with an Fs of 1050Hz.
So giving tweeters hell is not new for sure. I can't remember it being distressed.- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.