Hy folks,this is my recent diy fast speaker build.The first version was with pluvia 7.2 hd as midtweet from 400hz -20khz in separate 4 lit volumen ,and the second version is with chn50 from 600hz-20 khz...and i preferred the second one because chn50 rendenered high freq much better.
Dayton rs180-8 woofer is tuned at 40hz in 19 lit br box ,and its great woofer for fast type speakers.
Dayton rs180-8 woofer is tuned at 40hz in 19 lit br box ,and its great woofer for fast type speakers.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
Tysen’s sidefiring drivers cross at 450 Hz which is higher than i expected possible. It is th erhighest we have crossed a WAW. 250 Hz is a more common target.
Not necessarily. For instance the paper cone A12pWeN in the MTM i posted above matches very well with the metal cone A7.3eN. Do keep in mind that much of the character of a midWoofer is highe rup in frequency than when using them in a WAW.
The A12pw match a tiny but better than the more exotic composition of the SDX7 we used in my favourite WAW (comes down to the shape in my room). Sadly another really good midBass MIA.
dave
Not necessarily. For instance the paper cone A12pWeN in the MTM i posted above matches very well with the metal cone A7.3eN. Do keep in mind that much of the character of a midWoofer is highe rup in frequency than when using them in a WAW.
The A12pw match a tiny but better than the more exotic composition of the SDX7 we used in my favourite WAW (comes down to the shape in my room). Sadly another really good midBass MIA.
dave
I had the pleasure of hearing the CHP-90 for a FR project, and they are awesome. There seems to be something about the paper cone that makes them a bit different from the CHN-50 and Alpair 5 that I also have. Size and bass response not withstanding. The bass response in a 14L sealed enclosure is not for everyone.
If I made a new 2-way, I'd look at the CHN-50P or Pluvia 7PHD as possible smaller options.
If I made a new 2-way, I'd look at the CHN-50P or Pluvia 7PHD as possible smaller options.
Well I posted it because Scott's design is a simple but elegant use of all MA drivers, and using the CHR-120 as a woofer in the absence of the now OOP 12WP. As this is DIY, we're free to "waste" all the bandwidth we like.
I understand you want to use a cheap woofer. There should be a few to choose from depending on the enclosure you want to build.jeff
Last edited:
I haven't heard the paper version so I really couldn't say. I'm probably just extrapolating out from limited data points. It may be that the paper cone has a smoother character, or maybe the motor is more refined.
It would be prudent to develop a WAW system featuring easily accessible and affordable drivers, adopting a design that resonates universally, much like the widely popular Frugel-horn of the past decade.
While the selection of a single driver for Full Range configurations is relatively straightforward, exemplified by options like the Pensil or FH, the absence of a comparable all-encompassing solution poses a distinctive challenge in the case of WAW systems.
(Nanotyrannus is a fantastic concept, but the 12PW is challenging to locate and somewhat pricey, considering alternatives, Dayton RS woofers would be a commendable choice!)
Gus
While the selection of a single driver for Full Range configurations is relatively straightforward, exemplified by options like the Pensil or FH, the absence of a comparable all-encompassing solution poses a distinctive challenge in the case of WAW systems.
(Nanotyrannus is a fantastic concept, but the 12PW is challenging to locate and somewhat pricey, considering alternatives, Dayton RS woofers would be a commendable choice!)
Gus
Last edited by a moderator:
Audiomovil, I couldn't agree more. As this will be my first build in 45 years I'm now veering away from a custom WAW due to complexity & towards the CHR-120 & a stand mount bass reflex design. My only customization will be bracing & stuffing!
In the mean time I've been experimenting with XO changes with the problem speaker mentioned above, using only SPICE & my hearing, it's a challenge!!
My speaker building experience is: Paraline using Richard Allan FR drivers in 1973, Tabor (a Malcolm Jones HiFiN&RR design) using Audax drivers in 1978 (still in use today). I was spoilt by the Tabor, from then (when I got the 'itch') I only considered commercial speakers with demonstrably better sound than the Tabor, such as: Snell, Paradigm & most recently Elac.
Thanks for the help everyone!!!
In the mean time I've been experimenting with XO changes with the problem speaker mentioned above, using only SPICE & my hearing, it's a challenge!!
My speaker building experience is: Paraline using Richard Allan FR drivers in 1973, Tabor (a Malcolm Jones HiFiN&RR design) using Audax drivers in 1978 (still in use today). I was spoilt by the Tabor, from then (when I got the 'itch') I only considered commercial speakers with demonstrably better sound than the Tabor, such as: Snell, Paradigm & most recently Elac.
Thanks for the help everyone!!!
Trevor,how about sb16pfcr25-8 in br enclosure(about 30-35 usd) and chn50p(20-25 usd) in separate closed chamber .....you cant go cheaper than that,and those drivers have great cost/performance ratio.Together with enclosure,it wont cost much than 220 usd,for a pair.
sb16pfcr25-8
chn50p
sb16pfcr25-8
chn50p
Last edited:
As mashaffer pointed out, grab a CHN-50P, add a helper woofer and maybe throw a coil in line with the woofer if too much midrange/midbass hump. Can get a simple measuring system going to help tune it.
Even something like https://studiosixdigital.com/audiotools-modules-2/ on an iPhone is a good tool.
Even something like https://studiosixdigital.com/audiotools-modules-2/ on an iPhone is a good tool.
Last edited:
To clarify I used the 70s but the principle is the same. Great drivers if you don't need high sensitivity. I see they now have some larger drivers that break into the low 90s for sensitivity. Tempting. My next project is shooting for 95dB but his drivers just sound so good.
The Alpair 12P is very tempting though kind of costly. Compared to PRV Audio 5MR450-NDY 5 my guess would be that the PVR is about 3dB more sensitive and about 2/3 the price but the MA probably sounds better (I would be crossing in the 200-300Hz range). Has anyone listened to both of these drivers?
I've enjoyed my open baffles for about a year now. Sometimes the brass comes out to allow a short circuit to knock down their dipole hump, but at the 55db or so average levels I listen at, they are pretty well behaved, after foam on the front and behind each driver damping midrange baffle reflections and rear radiation to the rear.
I found the best bass integration for me was with also open baffle.
After a long time, I decided I prefer everything but the upper treble with no toe in with these.
Out of my tweeter backups, I chose some planar sealed tweeters, and leave them in independent housings and aim them if I'm on or off axis with one or both speakers.
They are first order filtered around 20Khz, and hearing them like this, it seems the natural treble off axis rolloff of the 12P combines very well with the limited vertically oriented tweeter dispersion, without adding a crossover into the signal path.
I'm awaiting the outcries to toe them in and use a mini dsp.
Last edited by a moderator: