Ok I've condensed the info that we have available for the latest version of the HM100Z0 and hopefully the ones were getting from Ivan:
Nominal Power Handling 40 W
SPL @ 1m/2.82v 92 dB
Fs 176 Hz
Qms 3.72
Qes 0.61
Qts 0.52
Vas 1.10 ltr
Cms 0.30 mmN-1
Mms 2.75 g
Sd 52 cm2
Re 6.27 ohm
Re2 0.24 mH
BL 5.61 NA-1
Xmax ±1.25 mm
Nominal Power Handling 40 W
SPL @ 1m/2.82v 92 dB
Fs 176 Hz
Qms 3.72
Qes 0.61
Qts 0.52
Vas 1.10 ltr
Cms 0.30 mmN-1
Mms 2.75 g
Sd 52 cm2
Re 6.27 ohm
Re2 0.24 mH
BL 5.61 NA-1
Xmax ±1.25 mm
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I have some measurements, but in (obviously) different enclosures and baffles. If you decided a specific enclosure I would be able to mount a piece with some mdf and post its measurements. If needed, I could then also assist in its crossover design. I have some tools and some experience in this specific subject. Until then I think you can trust the curves given by Audax themselves, they were pretty accurate, in general. I have attached the scanned old Audax catalogue values (I struggled to keep it under 100 kB and still of acceptable quality), the drivers have somewhat changed afterwards but not dramatically. I had also written some t/s parameters in there some years ago, which, as I remember, where the mean values of some 8 pairs of the latest drivers, with the full phase-plug.
I have worked with this drivers with somewhat different complementary units.
I always chose high sensitivity bass alignments, at first. Sometimes some 12 and more inch 98 dB and a pair of 100Z0 for every speaker, or multiplied smaller bass units, other times with ca93-94 dB bass unit and one midrange unit. I think that would be perhaps better for this unit, to not cut its sensitivity via crossover network, to leave it unrestricted to do its job
High efficiency woofers also mean (in general) bigger motors, well constructed and small gaps, low moving masses, good dynamics, broader freq.responce – these qualities would match better with the 100Z0, as I believe. Generally, there is a tradeoff with this approach, in the lower frequencies, as Physics is ruthless. But you can have a ca 40 Hz output with some 12 inch 93-94 dB driver, which is, I think, adequate. A good crossover point would be at 500 to 700 Hz, a lower one would end up with some compression in louder volumes. A good upper point would be at about 4 KHz, as I believe, and I think you should consider the possibility to give the higher frequencies to some good cheap ribbons that are nowadays manufactured, for instance the smaller fountek, which represents great value. I used to have Ravens with the 100Z0 and used to be very satisfied;-) I have compared fountek vs raven in the same ribbon lengths, and I think fountek is very near, in most circumstances almost there. I feel that you shouldn’t be afraid of a good and small ribbon, operated from 4KHz and up with some 12dB per octave. The Focal drivers stated above did also a good job. Also some Davis cone 95-96dB tweeters, but these where rather expensive.
Such a choice gives you the opportunity to built a speaker of up to 94 dB/W (don’t forget that if crossover is properly designed, then with some 12 dB slopes allover and 600 – 4000 Hz points, there is enough overlap to give 1 or even 2 dB in the midrange), and you will be able to feed it some good watts even from rather small class A SE amps.
Nevertheless, you can also work with it as you do till now – loudspeaker designing is luckily not a strict procedure, and good but different results could come from different alignments. Luckily, because you will have no absolute guidance in here, like ‘do this to have 0,001 less distortion;-)))
PS. This driver needs back space. At least 5-6 litters, and good stuffing inside. Else, it will sound compresed, and standing waves from the back pass through the rather very thin aerogel cone.
I have worked with this drivers with somewhat different complementary units.
I always chose high sensitivity bass alignments, at first. Sometimes some 12 and more inch 98 dB and a pair of 100Z0 for every speaker, or multiplied smaller bass units, other times with ca93-94 dB bass unit and one midrange unit. I think that would be perhaps better for this unit, to not cut its sensitivity via crossover network, to leave it unrestricted to do its job
High efficiency woofers also mean (in general) bigger motors, well constructed and small gaps, low moving masses, good dynamics, broader freq.responce – these qualities would match better with the 100Z0, as I believe. Generally, there is a tradeoff with this approach, in the lower frequencies, as Physics is ruthless. But you can have a ca 40 Hz output with some 12 inch 93-94 dB driver, which is, I think, adequate. A good crossover point would be at 500 to 700 Hz, a lower one would end up with some compression in louder volumes. A good upper point would be at about 4 KHz, as I believe, and I think you should consider the possibility to give the higher frequencies to some good cheap ribbons that are nowadays manufactured, for instance the smaller fountek, which represents great value. I used to have Ravens with the 100Z0 and used to be very satisfied;-) I have compared fountek vs raven in the same ribbon lengths, and I think fountek is very near, in most circumstances almost there. I feel that you shouldn’t be afraid of a good and small ribbon, operated from 4KHz and up with some 12dB per octave. The Focal drivers stated above did also a good job. Also some Davis cone 95-96dB tweeters, but these where rather expensive. Such a choice gives you the opportunity to built a speaker of up to 94 dB/W (don’t forget that if crossover is properly designed, then with some 12 dB slopes allover and 600 – 4000 Hz points, there is enough overlap to give 1 or even 2 dB in the midrange), and you will be able to feed it some good watts even from rather small class A SE amps.
Nevertheless, you can also work with it as you do till now – loudspeaker designing is luckily not a strict procedure, and good but different results could come from different alignments. Luckily, because you will have no absolute guidance in here, like ‘do this to have 0,001 less distortion;-)))
PS. This driver needs back space. At least 5-6 litters, and good stuffing inside. Else, it will sound compresed, and standing waves from the back pass through the rather very thin aerogel cone.
Attachments
The Pro12 has a flatter response, and is only a little more money
http://www.bluearan.co.uk/menu/index.php?id=EMIKAPPRO12A.
http://www.bluearan.co.uk/menu/index.php?id=EMIKAPPRO12A.
Thanks for your comments Thalis.
I couldn't agree more, that's why I went aperiodic with mine, though I'm tempted to try a Nautilus type terminated TL this time.
I suspect this back wave problem is why a lot of people who tried this driver didn't like it. It just doesn't work that well in conventional boxes.
thalis said:
I couldn't agree more, that's why I went aperiodic with mine, though I'm tempted to try a Nautilus type terminated TL this time.
I suspect this back wave problem is why a lot of people who tried this driver didn't like it. It just doesn't work that well in conventional boxes.
Seems thalis and I have a similar mindset..
There is one area where I differ though - The use of stuffing (..the reasons for using it were "sound" though). I GREATLY prefer a liberal application of this material suspended in a latex "primer" (for both the driver frame, magnet, and interior walls).
http://www.hytechsales.com/insulating_paint_additives.html
There is one area where I differ though - The use of stuffing (..the reasons for using it were "sound" though). I GREATLY prefer a liberal application of this material suspended in a latex "primer" (for both the driver frame, magnet, and interior walls).
http://www.hytechsales.com/insulating_paint_additives.html
Dear ShinOBIWAN, this frequency response is false, not too much in its shape, but should be upper all together, for sure. By only its T/S values (these that you have posted) calculated, it gives 93,8dB/W. And this waterfall is a bit rounded, but I guess it is fair, since almost all are. Count this driver as a 93dB per Watt driver
pinkmouse said:
I think then its up to modeling and resulting box size.
I did a quick model of the 10 inch and when factoring room gain and baffle step a vented box around 2.5 cubic feet with vent tuning at 27-28 Hz provided essentially a fairly flat response to <30 Hz. Perhaps the 12 inch will do better?
I just modeled the 12 inch - flater in the upper bass with slightly elevated and improved extension, but the price is aproximatly half-again the volume.
You beat me to it.
OK, so pro drivers are going to give us big boxes. Fair enough, that's what they do.
However, going off on a tangent, how about the Extremis 6.8?
OK, so pro drivers are going to give us big boxes. Fair enough, that's what they do.
However, going off on a tangent, how about the Extremis 6.8?
Pinkmouse: You mean 3 pairs of this cute little driver in every box? )
Imagine it! An array of 6 pieces of 7-inch drivers for the bass in every enclosure, with some 93-94 dB/2.83V in the room, in some 100-140 litters, you would almost get rid of upper bass/low mid floor-ceiling cancellations, go deep, have much energy, speed, now that would be promising for a high-end speaker!
Ok, ok, only one could also end up with a really good small speaker, even if you have to eat in the crossover about 4/5 of the given power in mid frequencies;-))
perhaps you all have first to decide for what kind of speaker you are interested. A second pair of speakers perhaps, a small monitor, or a one of a kind big project.
ScottG, in fact we don’t see it much different, I just used a false word – expression, and realized it just now. I wanted to suggest a highly absorbent material for inner walls, and thought that ‘good stuffing’ would describe what I wanted. In fact, I use (and used for this driver’s enclosures) good >=1cm Wool felt glued in all inner walls
)Imagine it! An array of 6 pieces of 7-inch drivers for the bass in every enclosure, with some 93-94 dB/2.83V in the room, in some 100-140 litters, you would almost get rid of upper bass/low mid floor-ceiling cancellations, go deep, have much energy, speed, now that would be promising for a high-end speaker!
Ok, ok, only one could also end up with a really good small speaker, even if you have to eat in the crossover about 4/5 of the given power in mid frequencies;-))
perhaps you all have first to decide for what kind of speaker you are interested. A second pair of speakers perhaps, a small monitor, or a one of a kind big project.
ScottG, in fact we don’t see it much different, I just used a false word – expression, and realized it just now. I wanted to suggest a highly absorbent material for inner walls, and thought that ‘good stuffing’ would describe what I wanted. In fact, I use (and used for this driver’s enclosures) good >=1cm Wool felt glued in all inner walls
Al, Scott & Thalis,
Thanks for the suggestions on the drivers.
I like the thought of a higher effieciency system. So I'm going to go with the 2 x HM100Z0 per speaker.
MTM or TMM though?
Personally I think the MTM would be more of a challenge and could lead to improved imaging and overall power response. Its not worth doing the whole 2.5 way thing with the MTM setup though as I'll be crossing around 500hz.
For the bottom end I'd really like to try out a range of speakers, I just haven't had enough experiences with pro drivers so the Eminence Kappa Pro 10 sounds great and is in keeping with the higher efficiency theme.
Moving upto the tweeter, I've been looking at ribbons but I'm having a tough time committing to one. I prefer the dispertion characteristics of domes but this does limit me for efficiency and I'll be padding the bass and midrange down to compensate for a 91/92dB dome tweeter Its definitely not a good idea using multiple domes that are crossed at 5Khz either!
I'm half wanting to turn this into a mini line array of say 5-6 HM100's per side and going with some ribbons for a line source. And a couple of Kappa Pro 10's on the bottom or maybe a single 15" JBL 2226/Precision Devices PD-1550/RCF L15-P200AK or maybe even the 18" RCF L18-P300 all of those drivers seem very 'right' to me. But thats kinda defeats the object of keeping it cheapish. Budget's are something that's are meant to broke right?
Why do I always do this??? I start out modest and then just go daft. I can see these not only destroying the Percieves 2's but probably my house!
Thanks for the suggestions on the drivers.
I like the thought of a higher effieciency system. So I'm going to go with the 2 x HM100Z0 per speaker.
MTM or TMM though?
Personally I think the MTM would be more of a challenge and could lead to improved imaging and overall power response. Its not worth doing the whole 2.5 way thing with the MTM setup though as I'll be crossing around 500hz.
For the bottom end I'd really like to try out a range of speakers, I just haven't had enough experiences with pro drivers so the Eminence Kappa Pro 10 sounds great and is in keeping with the higher efficiency theme.
Moving upto the tweeter, I've been looking at ribbons but I'm having a tough time committing to one. I prefer the dispertion characteristics of domes but this does limit me for efficiency and I'll be padding the bass and midrange down to compensate for a 91/92dB dome tweeter
Its definitely not a good idea using multiple domes that are crossed at 5Khz either!I'm half wanting to turn this into a mini line array of say 5-6 HM100's per side and going with some ribbons for a line source. And a couple of Kappa Pro 10's on the bottom or maybe a single 15" JBL 2226/Precision Devices PD-1550/RCF L15-P200AK or maybe even the 18" RCF L18-P300 all of those drivers seem very 'right' to me. But thats kinda defeats the object of keeping it cheapish. Budget's are something that's are meant to broke right?
Why do I always do this??? I start out modest and then just go daft. I can see these not only destroying the Percieves 2's but probably my house!
Al, would you care to go into more detail regarding your aperiodic loading?
What about a reverse horn with baffles spaced periodically within the length of this horn and with these baffles drill small random holes that get thinner in density the further down the throat of the horn they go, eventually terminating at the end. Stock this up with damping material. too
I believe B&W do something similar to this?
I'll knock a quick drawing up tommorow when I'm a little more sober.
What about a reverse horn with baffles spaced periodically within the length of this horn and with these baffles drill small random holes that get thinner in density the further down the throat of the horn they go, eventually terminating at the end. Stock this up with damping material. too
I believe B&W do something similar to this?
I'll knock a quick drawing up tommorow when I'm a little more sober.
ShinOBIWAN said:Al, Scott & Thalis,
Thanks for the suggestions on the drivers.
I like the thought of a higher effieciency system. So I'm going to go with the 2 x HM100Z0 per speaker.
MTM or TMM though?
Personally I think the MTM would be more of a challenge and could lead to improved imaging and overall power response. Its not worth doing the whole 2.5 way thing with the MTM setup though as I'll be crossing around 500hz.
For the bottom end I'd really like to try out a range of speakers, I just haven't had enough experiences with pro drivers so the Eminence Kappa Pro 10 sounds great and is in keeping with the higher efficiency theme.
Moving upto the tweeter, I've been looking at ribbons but I'm having a tough time committing to one. I prefer the dispertion characteristics of domes but this does limit me for efficiency and I'll be padding the bass and midrange down to compensate for a 91/92dB dome tweeter
I'm half wanting to turn this into a mini line array of say 5-6 HM100's per side and going with some ribbons for a line source. And a couple of Kappa Pro 10's on the bottom or maybe a single 15" JBL 2226/Precision Devices PD-1550/RCF L15-P200AK or maybe even the 18" RCF L18-P300 all of those drivers seem very 'right' to me. But thats kinda defeats the object of keeping it cheapish. Budget's are something that's are meant to broke right?
Why do I always do this??? I start out modest and then just go daft. I can see these not only destroying the Percieves 2's but probably my house!
I'd personally stick to the single driver mid.. Eff. is a real problem, where will you find a midbass driver (low in cost) to match with a double (2 driver) mid that could potentially be as much as 98-99 db 1watt 1 meter? (93 db paralleled with low output impeadance amp for +6 db = 99 db.) Also, how would you "pad" it properly and what would that do to the sound? Now you could use 2 Kappa Pros - that would work, but the design starts getting pricey then and L A R G E (..and at that point I'd start looking seriously at the 285 GMF Supravox - perhaps even in dipole).
Addtionally, MTM's I've found to sound "wrong" unless you cross them very low to the tweeter (around 1-1.8 kHz). So if you are considering this then your partnering tweeter needs to have both high eff. AND low fs (with decent excursion). Otherwise I'd go for TMM, but that also limits your lowpass point to a degree (- say 2.8 kHz).
Line arrays need a LOT of drivers in the midrange to create an infinite line - at that point you are looking at a near floor to ceiling design. (Dr. Griffin has line length vs. listening distance graphically displayed on his line array paper.) And again - eff. goes way up with an array.
Sorry to sound like a kill-joy here..
If you want to start killing the budget (and creating a L A R G E speaker) - let me know, ideas.. ideas.. ideas.
Hmm, this looks interesting (good 1st order material):
http://www.tymphany.com/datasheet/printview.php?id=170
(thanks to Pete on the MAD board for this "heads-up")
http://www.tymphany.com/datasheet/printview.php?id=170
(thanks to Pete on the MAD board for this "heads-up")
Hi ShinOBIWAN,
I have another jewel for you: the neo3pdr have the 98% of the sound
of the ER4 and , to my ears I have a little preference for the neo!!
HM100ZO: (the latest ogive 175Hz version ) mounted in a 11" baffle with full baffle step compensation you can expect 88dB/2,83v from
450Hz up. I suggest a 400Hz L4 ( only) for maximum spl .
I agree also with pinkmouse (Hi) about rear wave a la nautilus!
Woofer: I know you are "attracted" by low F3 and tremendous SPL but
after 20 years of experimentations , if I can, I am much more satisfied
with a little 8".
If you want you can add a sub anyway.
thanks for kind words,
regards,
Inertial
P.S.: this thread is so...fast!!
I have another jewel for you: the neo3pdr have the 98% of the sound
of the ER4 and , to my ears I have a little preference for the neo!!
HM100ZO: (the latest ogive 175Hz version ) mounted in a 11" baffle with full baffle step compensation you can expect 88dB/2,83v from
450Hz up. I suggest a 400Hz L4 ( only) for maximum spl .
I agree also with pinkmouse (Hi) about rear wave a la nautilus!
Woofer: I know you are "attracted" by low F3 and tremendous SPL but
after 20 years of experimentations , if I can, I am much more satisfied
with a little 8".
If you want you can add a sub anyway.
thanks for kind words,
regards,
Inertial
P.S.: this thread is so...fast!!
Advantage of the XLS 10" is very small cab required, but will need eq if going sealed. Low distortion and high excursion means it goes deep and clean for a 10", but don't expect huge SPL from it. I'm very fond of the 830452, but I wouldn't use it again for standalone sub duty. Looking for a 15" mamoth for that.ShinOBIWAN said:
Although I'm using another 4 in the Orions. That's where those W22's will be used BTW.
I'll get prices for the XXLS from my suppliers and email you.
ScottG: This tweeter looks promising. Seems clear and quick ;-)
The Kappa pro is a very nice speaker, but is mostly a lower midrange-upper bass unit than bass, I think. It would perhaps come up to these low freq figures that you found, but the upper bass would be rather thin for many people, as I presume ;-) Furthermore, since such an alignment would most probably significantly reduce the sensitivity in the lows compared to the 100-300 Hz, a big value for the crossover coil would be needed, which would end up with a worse step response for the design, as if the driver was mounted in a considerably smaller enclosure. So, having such big volume would give a better step response but would call for Inductance values which would cancel this advantage, and would end up with not exceptionally defined lower notes and somewhat thinner upper bass notes. Still good though, but I’m trying to think for the best
For this project, I think that a Qts at about 0,25-0,3, a Vas of more than 100 lt and a Fs of –ideally- lower than 40 Hz would be needed, for a 10-12 inch rather high sensitivity unit. I would of course consider some nice drivers from Precision Devices/Rcf/JBL as ShinOBIWAN dreamed about, together with some PHL which I very much like, but there should be still other cheaper drivers to accomplish the needed job.
Inertial: I think that there will be absolutely no need for baffle step compensation for the HM100Z0 mids in a 3-way design. In a 80cm x 25 cm speaker baffle for instance, they will go straight down to 400-500 Hz with an adequate placing, which is more than enough for crossovering. Cutting its sensitivity that drastically to end up with a 87dB mid is, I presume, a bad idea with this 3 way and the crossover points discussed.
Generally, and apart from this design and our conversation, this baffle step thing is like a fashion statement nowadays – and some times it is a convenient way to justify designs which produce more in-room low frequencies than needed ;-) The same applies with ‘anechoic response’ designs, and these tricks end up with speakers with some 5 or more dB output in the lows, which were also produced (bass-boxes) in the seventies but had at that time very reasonable prices...
The Kappa pro is a very nice speaker, but is mostly a lower midrange-upper bass unit than bass, I think. It would perhaps come up to these low freq figures that you found, but the upper bass would be rather thin for many people, as I presume ;-) Furthermore, since such an alignment would most probably significantly reduce the sensitivity in the lows compared to the 100-300 Hz, a big value for the crossover coil would be needed, which would end up with a worse step response for the design, as if the driver was mounted in a considerably smaller enclosure. So, having such big volume would give a better step response but would call for Inductance values which would cancel this advantage, and would end up with not exceptionally defined lower notes and somewhat thinner upper bass notes. Still good though, but I’m trying to think for the best
For this project, I think that a Qts at about 0,25-0,3, a Vas of more than 100 lt and a Fs of –ideally- lower than 40 Hz would be needed, for a 10-12 inch rather high sensitivity unit. I would of course consider some nice drivers from Precision Devices/Rcf/JBL as ShinOBIWAN dreamed about, together with some PHL which I very much like, but there should be still other cheaper drivers to accomplish the needed job.
Inertial: I think that there will be absolutely no need for baffle step compensation for the HM100Z0 mids in a 3-way design. In a 80cm x 25 cm speaker baffle for instance, they will go straight down to 400-500 Hz with an adequate placing, which is more than enough for crossovering. Cutting its sensitivity that drastically to end up with a 87dB mid is, I presume, a bad idea with this 3 way and the crossover points discussed.
Generally, and apart from this design and our conversation, this baffle step thing is like a fashion statement nowadays – and some times it is a convenient way to justify designs which produce more in-room low frequencies than needed ;-) The same applies with ‘anechoic response’ designs, and these tricks end up with speakers with some 5 or more dB output in the lows, which were also produced (bass-boxes) in the seventies but had at that time very reasonable prices...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.