With such a limited range for your midrange, I'm going to suggest getting rid of the mid and tweeter and replacing it with one of these:
Bohlender Graebener Neo8S Planar Transducer
..and of course eq'ing it properly (with a similarly steep high-pass filter).
The rear chamber should span the depth of the box, be well isolated (box within box within box), and have only a modest amount of absorptive material near the speaker's back panel.
-that should generate the higher detail you are looking for.
Bohlender Graebener Neo8S Planar Transducer
..and of course eq'ing it properly (with a similarly steep high-pass filter).
The rear chamber should span the depth of the box, be well isolated (box within box within box), and have only a modest amount of absorptive material near the speaker's back panel.
-that should generate the higher detail you are looking for.
Last edited:
This is a very interesting and unorthodox solution! Thank you for your idea, I would have never considered it otherwise!
Yes, I suppose it is a pretty limited range. I wanted to get a very wide dispersion from my midrange driver. Is this philosophy perhaps limiting me?
On a similar bent, i personally would look at converting it to a WAW (formerly known as FAST) by replacing the mid & tweeter with a full range. My 1st choices would ne Mark Audio Alpair 7.3, the EnABLed A7.3eN or the very rare A7 MOAP.
dave
This is a very interesting idea, however I do like to keep a bit of driver surface area and good treble dispersion characteristics.
Could it really be a superior solution overall to a high quality mid and tweeter? It just seems so logical to me to have individual specialized drivers covering the passband where they are best.
Last edited:
Going to a midTweeter/WAW approach has 2 significant advantages over a cone + dome. It eliminates the part of the XO in the range where the ear is most critical, and it overcomes the always existant compromise of not having 2 drivers within a ¼ wavelength centre-to-centre.
All speakers have a large set of compromises, the WAW approach has its upsides and downsides. We have done 2 examples that use A7s as midTweeters and both have superb performance.
Only you can decide the set of compromises best for you.
All speakers have a large set of compromises, the WAW approach has its upsides and downsides. We have done 2 examples that use A7s as midTweeters and both have superb performance.
Only you can decide the set of compromises best for you.
bmwparts, as mentioned in post #8, before you embark on any expensive purchase of drivers or whatever, and, as you are using a DSP any alterations to your crossover design will be relatively easy to implement, try the open baffle as suggested. It will cost you nothing but a little time and effort, and you may be surprised how little is needed for the improvement you want.
C.M
This site rather wisely gives single driver enthusiasts and multi-driver enthusiasts their own subforums. The objectives of the two approaches are rather different and bafflement often follows when someone talks the language of one camp to someone from the other.
Hi bmwparts.
I have used the M26WR as well as the D27. The only difference is I used the P13WH poly version instead of the M13WG.
The first thing I would do is measure the parameters on the M13WG. Vifa used surrounds that would harden with age and the Fs value as well as the Rms would increase dramatically with time. The sound would turn dull since the increased mechanical damping (Rms) would suck the life out of the sound. If you can't measure assume the M13WG should go especially if more than 10-12 years old. It probably is no longer the same driver you started with.
I always found the D27 kind of harsh. For me a big improvement was the Scan Speak 9500. Today, I would probably use the XT25 or the SB29RDC. I do prefer tweeters without ferrofluid.
And then there is the venerable M26WR. What you said at the beginning is true. There is nothing wrong with that driver. Mine measure today almost exactly as they did 20 years ago. No surround deterioration. The only criticism could be a slightly low mechanical Q (Qm) in the area between 2.5 and 3.0 similar to the Seas prestige line. Today's drivers have higher Qms by staying away from aluminum in the voice coil former. This gives a slightly snappier bass. If you want to upgrade, the Scan Discovery 26W/8534 is an exact physical replacement using the same basket. It has an aluminum cone but with similar mass and sensitivity as the M26WR. It should be an improvement and since it is a 3 way, just beep the crossover below 400 to avoid the usual metal breakup. But among your drivers, that is the last one of the 3 I would upgrade.
I have used the M26WR as well as the D27. The only difference is I used the P13WH poly version instead of the M13WG.
The first thing I would do is measure the parameters on the M13WG. Vifa used surrounds that would harden with age and the Fs value as well as the Rms would increase dramatically with time. The sound would turn dull since the increased mechanical damping (Rms) would suck the life out of the sound. If you can't measure assume the M13WG should go especially if more than 10-12 years old. It probably is no longer the same driver you started with.
I always found the D27 kind of harsh. For me a big improvement was the Scan Speak 9500. Today, I would probably use the XT25 or the SB29RDC. I do prefer tweeters without ferrofluid.
And then there is the venerable M26WR. What you said at the beginning is true. There is nothing wrong with that driver. Mine measure today almost exactly as they did 20 years ago. No surround deterioration. The only criticism could be a slightly low mechanical Q (Qm) in the area between 2.5 and 3.0 similar to the Seas prestige line. Today's drivers have higher Qms by staying away from aluminum in the voice coil former. This gives a slightly snappier bass. If you want to upgrade, the Scan Discovery 26W/8534 is an exact physical replacement using the same basket. It has an aluminum cone but with similar mass and sensitivity as the M26WR. It should be an improvement and since it is a 3 way, just beep the crossover below 400 to avoid the usual metal breakup. But among your drivers, that is the last one of the 3 I would upgrade.
Yes, but that won't provide nearly as much detail. (..and that it what the OP was looking for.)
With your dsp solution, not really - assuming you really like your midbass Vifa (..which you mentioned).
-you could also do a Neo 10 and a Neo 3 combo. (..or even that Neo 8 and Neo 3 combo.) These two solutions will provide wider vertical pressure off-axis as freq.s go higher (relative to a single Neo 8).
Last edited:
Yes, but that won't provide nearly as much detail. (..and that it what the OP was looking for.)
Is that from a guess or from having listened?
dave
I have fullrange drivers and Neo 8's - the 8's are considerably more detailed when used properly.
(..not surprising really, they are much lower mass, lower excursion drivers uniformly driven without any substantive resonances when compared to even very low mass fullrange dynamic drivers.)
Juhazi has posted on this thread (and has them) - perhaps he has a similar (or different) view on the matter.
I've heard several of the Mark Audio's (though in varying designs from other people).
I've got fullranges from Altec, Fountek, and Fostex.. and of course my mid's from Audax (the 6" ZO's).
-the Neo 8's surpass all with respect to detail. (..though they do have *greater limitations.)
*I should note that I probably wouldn't have made this recommendation without the OP's use of dsp. They can be very difficult to work with on an "analog" basis.
Last edited:
I don’t know that any of them are anodized. Most are a very special aluminum alloy. The paper cones have what i call a vintage top end, so might be found lacking HF detail (ignoring the A7p). The MOAPs are the metal cones bombarded by electrons to change the top few molecules, i liken this to converting the surface to a ceramic.
Also the later the generation the better. 1st generation had much in common with the Jordan JX92 including the problems.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.