I believe that the purpose is to eliminate it. I would like to think this driver in an infinite baffle. So, adequate volume and good absorbing material like the one you described is one way to achieve it – I believe that pinkmouse just examines another approach to accomplish the same needed result (?).
I have used the HD210Z0 (the old one) with this mid as well, in a folded TQWT, it was nice. A musical speaker, not so dynamical though. And something in the lower mids of HD cones always bothered me, like if they promoted some kind of ‘detail’ but took away fluidity. I would, if I may, suggest you to just leave your bigger paper cone to go up alone and find the 100Z0 ;-)) It works! A good 12 inch cone for instance, is as smooth as the HM210 is in the 100-500 Hz. And, either way, small fluctuations there (+-2dB which is attainable even with 15inch drivers), don’t matter so much – it’s there exactly that in a in-room reality you get the worse response. The overall slope matters most and an even energy distribution in this range.
Regards,
Thalis
I have used the HD210Z0 (the old one) with this mid as well, in a folded TQWT, it was nice. A musical speaker, not so dynamical though. And something in the lower mids of HD cones always bothered me, like if they promoted some kind of ‘detail’ but took away fluidity. I would, if I may, suggest you to just leave your bigger paper cone to go up alone and find the 100Z0 ;-)) It works! A good 12 inch cone for instance, is as smooth as the HM210 is in the 100-500 Hz. And, either way, small fluctuations there (+-2dB which is attainable even with 15inch drivers), don’t matter so much – it’s there exactly that in a in-room reality you get the worse response. The overall slope matters most and an even energy distribution in this range.
Regards,
Thalis
Attachments
Well, after much analysis of cashflow, drivers, etc, I think I'm going to adapt my project here. Much as I love the idea of the Volts on the bottom, I just can't afford them at the moment, so I will be going for the B139s on the bottom, with the Audax in the middle, and the Morel MDT30s on the top. I'll probably use an active crossover between the Kefs and the Audax, to get over the differing sensitivities, with a passive low order on the top. I'll have a look at a terminated TL for the Audax and see how that models out.
thalis said:Keep searching pinkmouse ;-))
The IPL has a Mms of about 90gr and BL at most 10, and also would like some h u g e volume to go deep, unfortunately. I don’t think you would like that ;-)
I had a look again at those eminence drivers, specifically the 12 inch. These small fluctuations in its response wouldn’t bother, I believe – it is still a really good response (and the first small peak is in the right point to be filled underneath from room response, the second will be eaten from crossover slopes). It’s still light, has a good motor, lower fs from the 10 inch, bigger Vas and slightly bigger Q, still well dumped, has a (I presume) normal price, which end up with a good candidate for the project, in the about same litters that ScottG suggested for the 10 inch.
What would you say? ScottG ?
(Sorry.. like Shin - I've been busy lately..)
Again, a fantastic driver for the price.. It also models better in the upper bass/lower mid than the 10 inch. The "price" though is that for a similar extension, volume will be close to 4 cubic feet (..about 115 liters). This doesn't mean though that it has to be utilized this way - it could just as easily be in a design that isn't as extended and therefor allows a smaller volume. It could also be upgraded to the Magnum for those that want to spend more and achieve lower distortion.
Of course going active (particularly PC active) really provides a lot of potential with different drivers (and different eff.s) - I'd still hower choose a driver that is more "pro" oriented in this range for the nature and quality of sound that it will provide over something standard in the typical DIY hifi (like seas, vifa, peerless, etc.)
I've been thinking about passive crossovers again.. what about a B&O "filler" approach?
http://www.geocities.com/kreskovs/GenFiller.html
I also think we could use the 12 inch after all – it can be used in various bass alignments to couple with most needs.
Regarding the crossover, all these theoretical studies are just...theoretical ;-)
Loudspeakers are so far from perfect devices that you can’t end up with theoretically perfect acoustical slopes or component values. Trying to do so, you will either end up with bad frequency response, or with many more crossover circuit parts to (perhaps) accomplish some nice ‘transient perfect’ curves.
In practice, if you work things up with a crossover simulator, you will most likely end up with the need to ‘use’ some crossover parts not for the slope in the crossover exact point, but for optimizing driver curves nearby or even far apart. And you can very easily end up with both a nice curve and a good phase response.
Just for an example, I roughly worked up a crossover model for these drivers: the 12 inch eminence in 80L enclosure, the 100Z0 and an old raven R1 (4 ohms tap). Bass and Mid drivers are in the same vertical plane, the raven 8mm behind, and listening axis at the tweeter’s height.
For the eminence I didn’t model a specific baffle and its according step or the exact a room gain etc., I just presumed that this work has been done and that we have an overall smooth woofer response in the about same sensitivity with the HM100Z0 unrestricted, so the crossover is really elementary, and the models used for the drivers are not very very precise - real impedances were used though. Nevertheless, it could be a basis if these drivers were to be used, it shouldn’t need big changes to produce the shown curves, and it shows some things:
In the mid department, the HP filter slope is not perfect (nor is the phase in the exact crossover point absolutely the same for both the Woofer and the Mid). It would need (first of all) a conj. RLC to correct its impedance peak to not interact with the crossover circuitry, if we wanted it to be ‘perfect’.
But we would rather prefer it to not be perfect, to have a gentle slope in the crossover point and a steeper lower than 300 Hz. This way, we got more output in the 300-500 Hz where the mid with its baffle (a narrow baffle modeled, 16cm wide, closed box of ca 8 litters, somewhat quickly calculated so not absolutely precise) is somewhat ‘anemic’, we also protected it from the real lower frequencies, and we got a very sooth phase rolling. The main part (not the only) which is responsible for this kind of slope is the coil, and it’s rather high value. If the coil was smaller, it would function nearer the crossover point and none of these would have happened.
The LP mid filter was worked in a similar way – not for the best ‘normal’ slope, but optimized for the best overall compromises. Which are not compromises exactly, since we got a speaker’s frequency slope which has almost half the mid’s unevenness, a very smooth phase response (270 degrees overall from 100Hz to 20Khz and about only 50 degree from 1 to 20KHz – better from many 2-way speakers), adequate slopes to prevent the drivers from excessive excursions., a magnificent –near straight line- input impedance of 5 Ohm +- 1 Ohm from 100Hz to 20KHzwithout using any imp compensation circuitry, a imp phase curve almost in 0 degrees from 300Hz to 20KHz, and a good off axis response to positive listening angles (above the tweeter). Of course, merits for this impedance behavior should be given to the tweeter used, but things wouldn’t be significantly different even with a normal good quality dome and the appropriate part value changes.
The bottom line: No theory is needed, no strain to produce the un-producible (sq.wave;-), and no theoretical values - just a simulator, some good starting directive lines, a will to examine various important variables in the same time and not promote only one, little experience (or try and error), and a little work.
Picture: In the first part, the HM100Z0 in box response in green, the band-pass filter response in yellow, the filter+driver response in blue, and their phases.
In the middle part, the filter’s responses for the three loudspeakers and the according phase responses.
In the bottom part, the complete speaker response, the three filters+drivers responses and their phase responses (the speakers freq. phase response in red)
In the next post’s picture, the speaker’s Impedance and its phase response are shown, and the crossover parts used for this example.
Regarding the crossover, all these theoretical studies are just...theoretical ;-)
Loudspeakers are so far from perfect devices that you can’t end up with theoretically perfect acoustical slopes or component values. Trying to do so, you will either end up with bad frequency response, or with many more crossover circuit parts to (perhaps) accomplish some nice ‘transient perfect’ curves.
In practice, if you work things up with a crossover simulator, you will most likely end up with the need to ‘use’ some crossover parts not for the slope in the crossover exact point, but for optimizing driver curves nearby or even far apart. And you can very easily end up with both a nice curve and a good phase response.
Just for an example, I roughly worked up a crossover model for these drivers: the 12 inch eminence in 80L enclosure, the 100Z0 and an old raven R1 (4 ohms tap). Bass and Mid drivers are in the same vertical plane, the raven 8mm behind, and listening axis at the tweeter’s height.
For the eminence I didn’t model a specific baffle and its according step or the exact a room gain etc., I just presumed that this work has been done and that we have an overall smooth woofer response in the about same sensitivity with the HM100Z0 unrestricted, so the crossover is really elementary, and the models used for the drivers are not very very precise - real impedances were used though. Nevertheless, it could be a basis if these drivers were to be used, it shouldn’t need big changes to produce the shown curves, and it shows some things:
In the mid department, the HP filter slope is not perfect (nor is the phase in the exact crossover point absolutely the same for both the Woofer and the Mid). It would need (first of all) a conj. RLC to correct its impedance peak to not interact with the crossover circuitry, if we wanted it to be ‘perfect’.
But we would rather prefer it to not be perfect, to have a gentle slope in the crossover point and a steeper lower than 300 Hz. This way, we got more output in the 300-500 Hz where the mid with its baffle (a narrow baffle modeled, 16cm wide, closed box of ca 8 litters, somewhat quickly calculated so not absolutely precise) is somewhat ‘anemic’, we also protected it from the real lower frequencies, and we got a very sooth phase rolling. The main part (not the only) which is responsible for this kind of slope is the coil, and it’s rather high value. If the coil was smaller, it would function nearer the crossover point and none of these would have happened.
The LP mid filter was worked in a similar way – not for the best ‘normal’ slope, but optimized for the best overall compromises. Which are not compromises exactly, since we got a speaker’s frequency slope which has almost half the mid’s unevenness, a very smooth phase response (270 degrees overall from 100Hz to 20Khz and about only 50 degree from 1 to 20KHz – better from many 2-way speakers), adequate slopes to prevent the drivers from excessive excursions., a magnificent –near straight line- input impedance of 5 Ohm +- 1 Ohm from 100Hz to 20KHzwithout using any imp compensation circuitry, a imp phase curve almost in 0 degrees from 300Hz to 20KHz, and a good off axis response to positive listening angles (above the tweeter). Of course, merits for this impedance behavior should be given to the tweeter used, but things wouldn’t be significantly different even with a normal good quality dome and the appropriate part value changes.
The bottom line: No theory is needed, no strain to produce the un-producible (sq.wave;-), and no theoretical values - just a simulator, some good starting directive lines, a will to examine various important variables in the same time and not promote only one, little experience (or try and error), and a little work.
Picture: In the first part, the HM100Z0 in box response in green, the band-pass filter response in yellow, the filter+driver response in blue, and their phases.
In the middle part, the filter’s responses for the three loudspeakers and the according phase responses.
In the bottom part, the complete speaker response, the three filters+drivers responses and their phase responses (the speakers freq. phase response in red)
In the next post’s picture, the speaker’s Impedance and its phase response are shown, and the crossover parts used for this example.
Attachments
Cool more good info-
I'm looking at the MDT33 (I'm not necesarily trying to go super cheap per se)- It should be a pretty good passive mate with the hm at only .5dB lower. At 5k or so will the MDT33 work well 1st order? The rest of my system will be active, so the tweeter will share the same HPF as the HM's. . .
I'm going to take your advice thalis and just use a good paper cone driver below the HM for now. I still have seperate subs though so don't need full bass extension from that driver.
So in lieu of not wanting/needing full low bass extension from the mid bass driver what would you all do? I tend to like the upper bass of paper cones, and I would like something that has a good punch- The Volt drivers are interesting, but I would have to order them from solen and pay duty. . . I'm looking at a range of pro drivers- eminance, JBL, Beyma etc-
Going on the extremis tangent I read people on this site saying that in the bass/midrange sound of this driver
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=264-832
the tang band 6.5 paper cone sub driver
is as good or better then the extremis. I have no experience with these, but 4 per side would not be that costly at around $300 and that should provide near "pro" driver sensativity. . . They aren't exactly super high build quality, but my experience is that build and sound quality do not always go hand in hand. . . A 20L sealed box with 4 of those should give a F6 @ 50hz wich is inline with what I am looking for- any thoughts on that? Thanks again-
RC
I'm looking at the MDT33 (I'm not necesarily trying to go super cheap per se)- It should be a pretty good passive mate with the hm at only .5dB lower. At 5k or so will the MDT33 work well 1st order? The rest of my system will be active, so the tweeter will share the same HPF as the HM's. . .
I'm going to take your advice thalis and just use a good paper cone driver below the HM for now. I still have seperate subs though so don't need full bass extension from that driver.
So in lieu of not wanting/needing full low bass extension from the mid bass driver what would you all do? I tend to like the upper bass of paper cones, and I would like something that has a good punch- The Volt drivers are interesting, but I would have to order them from solen and pay duty. . . I'm looking at a range of pro drivers- eminance, JBL, Beyma etc-
Going on the extremis tangent I read people on this site saying that in the bass/midrange sound of this driver
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=264-832
the tang band 6.5 paper cone sub driver
is as good or better then the extremis. I have no experience with these, but 4 per side would not be that costly at around $300 and that should provide near "pro" driver sensativity. . . They aren't exactly super high build quality, but my experience is that build and sound quality do not always go hand in hand. . . A 20L sealed box with 4 of those should give a F6 @ 50hz wich is inline with what I am looking for- any thoughts on that? Thanks again-
RC
You can go either way, I believe There are many models in these brands you referred to that should accomplish the job, and the 12 inch Eminence is a very good candidate, especially since you don’t need to produce very deep bass. The Tangbands in the other hand will give you a small and elegant baffle and will also do the job in a different but really interesting way, as a small array. They seam to be nice, and though TB not often gives accurate specs, in this driver they have succeeded ;-) You will end up with some 94dB/2,83V with 4 drivers, I believe you will be able to touch the 50Hz barrier and even lower in 20-25 litter (I would consider a BR enclosure for them, their specs are good for such an enclosure) and you will get a small, elegant, very powerful, with a good ‘body’, quick firing and very clean speaker.
I have these Morels as well; they are a good match for aerogels, clean and precise, only bear in mind that some MDT33 that I have bought 6-7 years before, don’t have their claimed sensitivity, but rather 1-2 dB less. I don’t know if they are produced the same nowadays or if they have changed a little. It would be possible to cross them at 5K with a first order filter but I would perhaps go for a second (or even 1 and a half – with a resistor bleeding the cap) electrical order, not only to be able to play louder but also to have a better off-axis response, which in these frequencies will suffer a bit with the first order.
Either way, go for it!
In the crossover thing and with in-box measurements, I would be able perhaps to help if needed and if you don’t have experience with filter simulators and such, or just need a second opinion
There are many models in these brands you referred to that should accomplish the job, and the 12 inch Eminence is a very good candidate, especially since you don’t need to produce very deep bass. The Tangbands in the other hand will give you a small and elegant baffle and will also do the job in a different but really interesting way, as a small array. They seam to be nice, and though TB not often gives accurate specs, in this driver they have succeeded ;-) You will end up with some 94dB/2,83V with 4 drivers, I believe you will be able to touch the 50Hz barrier and even lower in 20-25 litter (I would consider a BR enclosure for them, their specs are good for such an enclosure) and you will get a small, elegant, very powerful, with a good ‘body’, quick firing and very clean speaker. I have these Morels as well; they are a good match for aerogels, clean and precise, only bear in mind that some MDT33 that I have bought 6-7 years before, don’t have their claimed sensitivity, but rather 1-2 dB less. I don’t know if they are produced the same nowadays or if they have changed a little. It would be possible to cross them at 5K with a first order filter but I would perhaps go for a second (or even 1 and a half – with a resistor bleeding the cap) electrical order, not only to be able to play louder but also to have a better off-axis response, which in these frequencies will suffer a bit with the first order.
Either way, go for it!
In the crossover thing and with in-box measurements, I would be able perhaps to help if needed and if you don’t have experience with filter simulators and such, or just need a second opinion
Hey Thalis-
Much appriciated. I found a local source for some o f the 250hz hm's are they bad compared to the 175hz ones? I went ahead and got them because the cost was much lower than shipping overseas etc- if they are considerably lesser I will find some other fun use for the 250hz ones.
I think I will go with the TB's- I want this pair of speaks to look beter then the last (I'm emarassed to even post a pic) and I feel the small array would have a very nice look as well as sound. Also I have a bryston 4b st that I am planning to use for that range and they make a great match power wise etc. . . .
I would very much like you help with the passive XO- I am not tied into anything and I trust your experience. I have no way to do an accurate 2.83v measurement, but I can easily measure their sensativaties realative to each other.
One question about the BR vs sealed- is theire anything to suggest that the TB's would not sound good sealed?
In my current setup I like the sealed mid/bass because it gives me the ability to turn off the subs without loosing all the bass at a certain pole freq.
Also I don't know if there is a name for it, but what I've been doing XO wise is to use a low Q parametric on the sub to match the F6 of the sealed midbass, and then a 6pole eliptic filter (96dB/oct) to eliminate anything above 100hz from going to the sub drivers. . . The litmus test for me is to play a sine bass synth decending chromatically, with an XO that is too steep there is a sudden change in girth when it switches from midbass to sub driver, where I prefer/want a smooth transition. Otherwise I'm going to try to fix that in the mix (when the bass might sound right as is). I don't know if that makes any sense, but that is mainly why I like the sealed rolloff in that range. Thanks again-
Ryan
Much appriciated. I found a local source for some o f the 250hz hm's are they bad compared to the 175hz ones? I went ahead and got them because the cost was much lower than shipping overseas etc- if they are considerably lesser I will find some other fun use for the 250hz ones.
I think I will go with the TB's- I want this pair of speaks to look beter then the last (I'm emarassed to even post a pic) and I feel the small array would have a very nice look as well as sound. Also I have a bryston 4b st that I am planning to use for that range and they make a great match power wise etc. . . .
I would very much like you help with the passive XO- I am not tied into anything and I trust your experience. I have no way to do an accurate 2.83v measurement, but I can easily measure their sensativaties realative to each other.
One question about the BR vs sealed- is theire anything to suggest that the TB's would not sound good sealed?
In my current setup I like the sealed mid/bass because it gives me the ability to turn off the subs without loosing all the bass at a certain pole freq.
Also I don't know if there is a name for it, but what I've been doing XO wise is to use a low Q parametric on the sub to match the F6 of the sealed midbass, and then a 6pole eliptic filter (96dB/oct) to eliminate anything above 100hz from going to the sub drivers. . . The litmus test for me is to play a sine bass synth decending chromatically, with an XO that is too steep there is a sudden change in girth when it switches from midbass to sub driver, where I prefer/want a smooth transition. Otherwise I'm going to try to fix that in the mix (when the bass might sound right as is). I don't know if that makes any sense, but that is mainly why I like the sealed rolloff in that range. Thanks again-
Ryan
I believe these 250Hz Z0 are perfectly ok;-)
Relative frequency curves (and impedance curves) are all that is needed – absolute sensitivity is not needed. Furthermore, it would be preferable to obtain a RTS in room response and not a gated MLS, to have the real baffle step and room added gain in the lows, with the measurement performed away from side walls.
Since you are going to crossover actively with a dsp and since these drivers have together great power input and excursion capabilities, it should be fine, if you also (for playing without the sub) had the chance to boost a little the sub150Hz frequencies for the Tangbands when playing them alone, since in a closed box these drivers won’t give good output in the 50 to 100Hz octave (a BR will give 5-6dB more), and then you would still have the graduate roll-off to not almost entirely loose the real lows.
Then you should consider the BR only for this case: If some later time you change your setup or change speakers then you would be able with a passive 3 way crossover to have this speaker in another room-place without needing the processor and the second amp to play it. In the other hand, in such a case you would also be able to just drill a hole and adjust a port if you end up now with an adequate volume sealed enclosure
Regards,
Thalis
Relative frequency curves (and impedance curves) are all that is needed – absolute sensitivity is not needed. Furthermore, it would be preferable to obtain a RTS in room response and not a gated MLS, to have the real baffle step and room added gain in the lows, with the measurement performed away from side walls.
Since you are going to crossover actively with a dsp and since these drivers have together great power input and excursion capabilities, it should be fine, if you also (for playing without the sub) had the chance to boost a little the sub150Hz frequencies for the Tangbands when playing them alone, since in a closed box these drivers won’t give good output in the 50 to 100Hz octave (a BR will give 5-6dB more), and then you would still have the graduate roll-off to not almost entirely loose the real lows.
Then you should consider the BR only for this case: If some later time you change your setup or change speakers then you would be able with a passive 3 way crossover to have this speaker in another room-place without needing the processor and the second amp to play it. In the other hand, in such a case you would also be able to just drill a hole and adjust a port if you end up now with an adequate volume sealed enclosure
Regards,
Thalis
Alright-
Got the flanges cut on the 33's and tossed em and the HM100's in an OB, I just put a 5.3mF cap on the tweet so I could get a basic first listen-
WOW- these sound very very good- I'm, actually measureing +/- 3dB now with no fancy XO at all. . . incredible detail-
I really cant say enough good things about the HM100's though, very detailed. I heard some neo8pdr's tractrix mounted with some VERY nice SET amps the other day and I was wondering if I should go that route- but for my taste I think the HM's will easily match/better that setup when I get them setup properly. . .actually they have almost the same amount of imaging now- and I only have a lowly hafler p1000 driving them, and a jeri-rigged XO
I think plan A at this point is to cast a baffle out of concrete for the 33's and the 100's.
I've got all 8 of these tang band W6's here and I might have time to get them bassically functioning (running 808 kick drums for burn in) so I will let you all know what that sounds like.-
again- THANKS THANKS THANKS- these drivers are awesome!! I found my pair on ebay for $60, I can't believe that guy sold em.
Got the flanges cut on the 33's and tossed em and the HM100's in an OB, I just put a 5.3mF cap on the tweet so I could get a basic first listen-
WOW- these sound very very good- I'm, actually measureing +/- 3dB now with no fancy XO at all. . . incredible detail-
I really cant say enough good things about the HM100's though, very detailed. I heard some neo8pdr's tractrix mounted with some VERY nice SET amps the other day and I was wondering if I should go that route- but for my taste I think the HM's will easily match/better that setup when I get them setup properly. . .actually they have almost the same amount of imaging now- and I only have a lowly hafler p1000 driving them, and a jeri-rigged XO
I think plan A at this point is to cast a baffle out of concrete for the 33's and the 100's.
I've got all 8 of these tang band W6's here and I might have time to get them bassically functioning (running 808 kick drums for burn in) so I will let you all know what that sounds like.-
again- THANKS THANKS THANKS- these drivers are awesome!! I found my pair on ebay for $60, I can't believe that guy sold em.
When Audax stopped producing drivers for diy I was in black mood for about a month, basically because I knew I would not be able to find any other driver to do the HM100Z0 job. It is one of the very few drivers with no real alternative, except perhaps the ATC mid which is very expensive. You have to go to 7inch drivers to get some qualities of it, which then end to different System designs.
Ryan, let us know every move off yours ;-))
Ryan, let us know every move off yours ;-))
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.