tinitus said:
Very vague statement. Do you agree?
How low is "very low?" It all depends on individual drivers. LR4 1.5 kHz XO point is certainly low for most of tweeters. But not for a few exceptional tweeters. It has nothing to do with "big" or "small" sound, or "tweeter-like" or "mid-like" sound.
Take a look at Mark K's Dayton RS225 / RS28A design. With the help of a C-E type filter, he used a 1.2 kHz crossover point! Quite a people built this design and praised its sound. Also, his new design is coming up which uses multiple RS225s and Seas 27TBFC/G tweeter. His use of 8" metal cone drivers in a 2-way design wouldn't have been possible but for low-xo capable tweeters such as the RS28A and the Seas. If his design had sounded really "small," how could he have designed new speakers with a similar approach?
You already know Zaph used the Seas with 1.45 kHz LR4 xo. How about Jon Marsh at HT Guide? For example, look into his M8a 2-way design: http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=3430
This design also uses 1.2 kHz xo point with C-E filter. If you trace down the thread, you'll find that he also developed xo for Seas TDFC and Millenium that all use 1.2 kHz crossover. Take a look at his other 2-way MTM and MT designs. He is a big fan of low freq XO!
I also used LR4 1.55 kHz and 1.5 kHz, respectively, for my 2-way designs that used Seas 27TDFC and Peerless HDS 810921. They don't sound "small" to my ear at all.
How is such a low freq crossover possible in 2-ways? Perhaps it's surprising to you. But it's not to me and to the above speaker designers. Distortion measurements of those tweeters show why.
-Jay
I think its very interesting with all the information you are giving. And keep it up!
I got to remind you all that I have already purchased the drivers I'm going to use in this project. There are many good, better and interesting drivers I will like to try out also, but that will come later
kyselym: I agree with you about the tweeter and xo. I'm going to use 27TDFC or TFFC in this project, and the tweak will be testet out.
The CA18 is not a bad driver at all, its nearly similar to P18 in sound quality. IMO P18 has a slightly better bass and CA18 slightly better midrange. A friend of mine who has a pair of 2,5way with P18, believe its just the other way around!
This is what Zaph says about the CA18RNX:
Comments: This Seas standard line paper cone driver has one of the flattest and most extended response curves in the group. T/S parameters are optimal for medium size vented enclosures. Excellent bass performance. Slightly higher 2nd and 3rd order HD in the midrange, but low tall order harmonics. Overall a well balanced and sensitive paper driver.
I dont understand what you mean about the bassdrivers.
I have tested them in 50L, because I had that enclosure from a sub project. In my wide baffle cabinet, i will end up with something like 60-70L.
When simulating in Bassbox pro6, the choice of High fidelity vented box, gives you Vb=57L.
This is not a sub in the home theatre system, it will be used as a hifi bass for music listening.
I do like the frequency response from L26 better, but it needs bigger enclosure (77L), needs longer vents (because of lower tuning of course) and it reaches xmax easier.
In the attached file, you see CA26 in Vb57L as red, and L26 in Vb77L as black
I got to remind you all that I have already purchased the drivers I'm going to use in this project. There are many good, better and interesting drivers I will like to try out also, but that will come later
kyselym: I agree with you about the tweeter and xo. I'm going to use 27TDFC or TFFC in this project, and the tweak will be testet out.
The CA18 is not a bad driver at all, its nearly similar to P18 in sound quality. IMO P18 has a slightly better bass and CA18 slightly better midrange. A friend of mine who has a pair of 2,5way with P18, believe its just the other way around!
This is what Zaph says about the CA18RNX:
Comments: This Seas standard line paper cone driver has one of the flattest and most extended response curves in the group. T/S parameters are optimal for medium size vented enclosures. Excellent bass performance. Slightly higher 2nd and 3rd order HD in the midrange, but low tall order harmonics. Overall a well balanced and sensitive paper driver.
I dont understand what you mean about the bassdrivers.
I have tested them in 50L, because I had that enclosure from a sub project. In my wide baffle cabinet, i will end up with something like 60-70L.
When simulating in Bassbox pro6, the choice of High fidelity vented box, gives you Vb=57L.
This is not a sub in the home theatre system, it will be used as a hifi bass for music listening.
I do like the frequency response from L26 better, but it needs bigger enclosure (77L), needs longer vents (because of lower tuning of course) and it reaches xmax easier.
In the attached file, you see CA26 in Vb57L as red, and L26 in Vb77L as black
Attachments
I would worry more about IM distortion with a tweeter crossed at 1.5Khz than "just" linear distortion. Crossing that low means that you are asking a tiny device to cover over two decades worth of sound. And, as tinitus mentioned earlier, this decision means that the crossover will be centered in that part of the audio spectrum that our brains are most attuned to. If you are building a minimonitor, you may be forced to do this...but a three-way?
Taken another way, if your midrange can't take you an octave past this region of hearing smoothly, it shouldn't be termed a proper midrange.
Distortion measurements don't necessarily equate to reality...especially if they change dramatically during the ebb and flow of music at realistic levels.
IMHO, blah, blah, blah...
Taken another way, if your midrange can't take you an octave past this region of hearing smoothly, it shouldn't be termed a proper midrange.
Distortion measurements don't necessarily equate to reality...especially if they change dramatically during the ebb and flow of music at realistic levels.
IMHO, blah, blah, blah...
if it is more a music system I strongly suggest you to make 3way with that Ca26 and redirect HT LFE channel to fronts. You wrote that you had XL12 sub is it right? you can use it for HT for sub frequency effects 20-40hz only(no chance to localize) To me its very simple just sell those 2x27tffc, 2xL26 and use 6xCa18 for three MTMs (rears and center) buy mids for fronts and you are done (still thinking of mid driver pick that will fit best here) to be perfect I would do WMTMW as front
I wouldn't worry about different speakers...if you will do your crossover job well it will be barely audiable to notice differences between them.
ps. when tuning BR box...I (same as zaph) preffer undertuning a bit, it produces sound that "has best of CC and BR box" But someone may not like it... if you don't know what you like undertune and than shorten BR length to your taste.
when looking at cone displacement watch out for Xmax if it is peak-peak or just peak. I don't use bassbox so don't know how its there.
just sell those 2x27tffc, 2xL26 and use 6xCa18 for three MTMs (rears and center) buy mids for fronts and you are done (still thinking of mid driver pick that will fit best here) to be perfect I would do WMTMW as front I wouldn't worry about different speakers...if you will do your crossover job well it will be barely audiable to notice differences between them.
ps. when tuning BR box...I (same as zaph) preffer undertuning a bit, it produces sound that "has best of CC and BR box" But someone may not like it... if you don't know what you like undertune and than shorten BR length to your taste.
when looking at cone displacement watch out for Xmax if it is peak-peak or just peak. I don't use bassbox so don't know how its there.
I did find it od to read that those 10" would run out of steam so easily ... my 2xdouble 8"(ScSp) with exstra coating and in closed box barely moves when I play very loud
How does it work with subs in surround ... do they overlap the woofers in the frontspeakers ... shouldnt the rollof slopes match, but then they wouldnt be much good without subs, when used as stereo ... I must say that I am a bit confused about this
How does it work with subs in surround ... do they overlap the woofers in the frontspeakers ... shouldnt the rollof slopes match, but then they wouldnt be much good without subs, when used as stereo ... I must say that I am a bit confused about this
Jay_WJ said:
I must of missed something from your links. You did mention the midrange's nonlinear distortion, but I saw no link. The other links that I followed were harmonic distortion spectra...which is decidedly linear distortion in nature. They are interesting in comparing odd to even, but they just show linear distortion...or am I missing something? It wouldn't be the first time.
Do you have any links to the tweeter's IM spectra when crossed over this low? I don't want to sound lazy, but it's my night to do the cooking.
OK, lets try to do some constructive thinking here.....
Front speakers:
Enclosure: H100 x W50-55 x D20-25 cm. Radius 10-12cm in front.
Material: 22mm MDF
(see my drawing in earlier post as reference)
Mid enclosure: H28 x W18 X D10cm, Vb=5L
Woofer enclosure: Vb=60L
Drivers:
Tweeter: Seas 27TDFC
Mid: Seas CA18RNX
Woofer: Seas CA26RNX
Xo:
Tweet/Mid: Passive, Slope (4.ord)? 1500-2500Hz?
Mid/Bass: Active, Slope? 200-300Hz
Center speaker:
Enclosure: Max H22 x W62 x D42 VbMax: 40L
Material: 19mm MDF
Drivers:
Tweeter: Seas 27TFDC
Mid/Bass: 2xSeas CA18RNX
MTM 2 or 2.5way
Xo: As in frontspeakers as starting point
Rear speakers:
Enclosure: Small! (10-12L?)
2-way with Seas 27TDFC and Seas CA18RNX
When music listening, I use the receiver in plain stereo, without the XLS12 sub. (with sub in party mode )
As 5ch home theatre, the sub plays from 40-60Hz and down.
MTM as rearspeakers will be to big (my wife says or rather screams!)
tinitus: With my surround receiver I can do nearly everything I can set xo for sub and let the front be fullrange, or I can use xo on both. I can even set different xo's for every channel. And I can redirect the 6. and 7. power amp to biamp what ever I choose, even in stereo mode.
Attached is a baffle diffraction simulation
Front speakers:
Enclosure: H100 x W50-55 x D20-25 cm. Radius 10-12cm in front.
Material: 22mm MDF
(see my drawing in earlier post as reference)
Mid enclosure: H28 x W18 X D10cm, Vb=5L
Woofer enclosure: Vb=60L
Drivers:
Tweeter: Seas 27TDFC
Mid: Seas CA18RNX
Woofer: Seas CA26RNX
Xo:
Tweet/Mid: Passive, Slope (4.ord)? 1500-2500Hz?
Mid/Bass: Active, Slope? 200-300Hz
Center speaker:
Enclosure: Max H22 x W62 x D42 VbMax: 40L
Material: 19mm MDF
Drivers:
Tweeter: Seas 27TFDC
Mid/Bass: 2xSeas CA18RNX
MTM 2 or 2.5way
Xo: As in frontspeakers as starting point
Rear speakers:
Enclosure: Small! (10-12L?)
2-way with Seas 27TDFC and Seas CA18RNX
When music listening, I use the receiver in plain stereo, without the XLS12 sub. (with sub in party mode
)As 5ch home theatre, the sub plays from 40-60Hz and down.
MTM as rearspeakers will be to big (my wife says or rather screams!)
tinitus: With my surround receiver I can do nearly everything
I can set xo for sub and let the front be fullrange, or I can use xo on both. I can even set different xo's for every channel. And I can redirect the 6. and 7. power amp to biamp what ever I choose, even in stereo mode.Attached is a baffle diffraction simulation
Attachments
pedroskova said:
Linear distortion is deviation from a perfectly flat response. Nonlinear distortion is the "extra" sound produced by the driver that is not in the original recording, i.e. harmonic distortion. IM distortion is most clearly seen when two or more tones are played simultaneously.
pedroskova said:
As augerpro clarified above, harmonic distortion sweeps are a type of nonlinear distortion test.
If you want to see some tweeter nonlinear distortion tests that use stimuli at multiple frequencies to see IM type distortions, take a look at Mark Krawiec's site. For example, he tested the Seas standard softdomes here:
http://www.markk.claub.net/Testing/Tweeter3/seas_comparison.htm
He showed that these Seas tweeter can be used with a very low crossover frequency. He used test tones around even 1 kHz at high SPL.
Also, see http://www.markk.claub.net/Testing/SS6600_peerlessHDS/SS6600_PeerlessHDS.htm
Here he tests some of the most popular tweeters thiese days. These are awesome performers!
Norcad,
As for L26 vs CA26, I think it totally depends on your preference. They use basically the same motor, but their cone and suspension seem to be different. Their different Sd, moving mass, and VAS make them behave differently. I think your Bassbox Pro sim shows the result of their different t/s parameters very well. If you look for deep bass at the cost of power handling, L26 will be more suitable, but if you look for higher power handling at the cost of deep bass, CA27 will be more appropriate. So it's your decision. You also have other factors: cabinet volume and appearance.
Now about the issue of crossover point. Choice of a driver and a crossover point in a design should be made by some justifiable reasons. It should be noted that a low crossover frequency is NOt my personal preference. My choice of a low xo point in my designs have nothing to do with personal reasons. There ARE justifiable reasons for doing that. In the case of my RS180 / 27TDFC design, a low freq xo was required to suppress the RS180 metal cone driver's breakup nodes effectively as well as to lower the system harmonic distortions by using an early rolloff to attenuate the RS180's high-distortion upper midrange. And in the case of my Usher 8945P 2-Way, a low xo frequency was used to remedy the midwoofer's weakness: a noticeable FR dip at 1200 Hz.
I might have used a higher xo frequency if I had used different drivers in different designs. I think your quotation of Zaph is very appropriate.
Comments: This Seas standard line paper cone driver has one of the flattest and most extended response curves in the group. T/S parameters are optimal for medium size vented enclosures. Excellent bass performance. Slightly higher 2nd and 3rd order HD in the midrange, but low tall order harmonics. Overall a well balanced and sensitive paper driver.
As you know, every speaker design is a result of compromise. The reason why Zaph chose CA18RNX for his Waveguide TMM design is that he wanted to try an LR2 crossover with the help of a waveguide. And he wanted to use a 6.5" driver. To implement an LR2 crossover, the midwoofer should have a flat, extended frequency response to the upper end. The CA18 was one of the few 6.5" drivers that satisfy this requirement although its harmonic distortions in the midrange were at best average among drivers in its price range. So, this decision was sort of a compromise: flat, extended FR at the cost of distortion performance.
Now, note that his choice of 2 kHz xo point is just about the lowest possible xo with the TDFC in an LR2 design. This is sort of equivalent to using it with 1.5 to 1.6 kHz xo in an LR4 design. What is the ground for chooing 2 kHz? Here's what I think. First, even if the CA18 has an extended FR, its beaming starts rather low. In an LR2 design, beaming has a larger effect on speaker's off-axis performance. So in this case a lower xo freq helps to have better off-axis behavior. Second, if a low xo freq is used, the filter's rolloff starts from low frequency and the overlap with the tweeter also starts low. This helps to attenuate the CA18's midrange where its harmonic distortions are rather high, and the TDFC's less-distortion low end kicks in from a lower frequency.
My recommendation of using a low XO point with your particular choice of drivers has a similar reason---again, NOt my personal preference It helps to lower the system nonlinear distortions by having the TDFC's less-distortion low end take over the CA18's high-distortion midrange from a lower frequency. Of course, by doing this, you cannot make the system comparable to a system with the ScanSpeak Revelator midwoofer. But you end up making the best use out of the drivers you currently have. If Zaph were asked to use the CA18 and the TDFC in an LR4 design, I'm 99% sure that he would use a 1.5 - 1.6 kHz xo point. (Hint: take a look at his blog on the update of his Seas ER18RNX 2-Way project).
As for L26 vs CA26, I think it totally depends on your preference. They use basically the same motor, but their cone and suspension seem to be different. Their different Sd, moving mass, and VAS make them behave differently. I think your Bassbox Pro sim shows the result of their different t/s parameters very well. If you look for deep bass at the cost of power handling, L26 will be more suitable, but if you look for higher power handling at the cost of deep bass, CA27 will be more appropriate. So it's your decision. You also have other factors: cabinet volume and appearance.
Now about the issue of crossover point. Choice of a driver and a crossover point in a design should be made by some justifiable reasons. It should be noted that a low crossover frequency is NOt my personal preference. My choice of a low xo point in my designs have nothing to do with personal reasons. There ARE justifiable reasons for doing that. In the case of my RS180 / 27TDFC design, a low freq xo was required to suppress the RS180 metal cone driver's breakup nodes effectively as well as to lower the system harmonic distortions by using an early rolloff to attenuate the RS180's high-distortion upper midrange. And in the case of my Usher 8945P 2-Way, a low xo frequency was used to remedy the midwoofer's weakness: a noticeable FR dip at 1200 Hz.
I might have used a higher xo frequency if I had used different drivers in different designs. I think your quotation of Zaph is very appropriate.
Comments: This Seas standard line paper cone driver has one of the flattest and most extended response curves in the group. T/S parameters are optimal for medium size vented enclosures. Excellent bass performance. Slightly higher 2nd and 3rd order HD in the midrange, but low tall order harmonics. Overall a well balanced and sensitive paper driver.
As you know, every speaker design is a result of compromise. The reason why Zaph chose CA18RNX for his Waveguide TMM design is that he wanted to try an LR2 crossover with the help of a waveguide. And he wanted to use a 6.5" driver. To implement an LR2 crossover, the midwoofer should have a flat, extended frequency response to the upper end. The CA18 was one of the few 6.5" drivers that satisfy this requirement although its harmonic distortions in the midrange were at best average among drivers in its price range. So, this decision was sort of a compromise: flat, extended FR at the cost of distortion performance.
Now, note that his choice of 2 kHz xo point is just about the lowest possible xo with the TDFC in an LR2 design. This is sort of equivalent to using it with 1.5 to 1.6 kHz xo in an LR4 design. What is the ground for chooing 2 kHz? Here's what I think. First, even if the CA18 has an extended FR, its beaming starts rather low. In an LR2 design, beaming has a larger effect on speaker's off-axis performance. So in this case a lower xo freq helps to have better off-axis behavior. Second, if a low xo freq is used, the filter's rolloff starts from low frequency and the overlap with the tweeter also starts low. This helps to attenuate the CA18's midrange where its harmonic distortions are rather high, and the TDFC's less-distortion low end kicks in from a lower frequency.
My recommendation of using a low XO point with your particular choice of drivers has a similar reason---again, NOt my personal preference
It helps to lower the system nonlinear distortions by having the TDFC's less-distortion low end take over the CA18's high-distortion midrange from a lower frequency. Of course, by doing this, you cannot make the system comparable to a system with the ScanSpeak Revelator midwoofer. But you end up making the best use out of the drivers you currently have. If Zaph were asked to use the CA18 and the TDFC in an LR4 design, I'm 99% sure that he would use a 1.5 - 1.6 kHz xo point. (Hint: take a look at his blog on the update of his Seas ER18RNX 2-Way project).Just some thoughts and comments.
About L26 and CA26; "basically the same motor" and "cone and suspension seems to be different"
The basket, magnet, backplate, voice coil and spider IS the same.
The upper suspension has the same dimensions, but are made of different materials, who gain different stiffness.
The L26 has a aluminium cone and phase plug; mms 53gr.
The CA26 has a paper cone and dust cap; mms 36gr.
I prefer closed boxes because of its rolloff. And the high mms of L26 makes it most suitable for closed boxes, even though the qts is rather low. Thats why I purchased the L26 first.
When simulting L26 in Bassbox, it gives me:
Vb30L - qtc 0,707 - F3 52Hz.
I had two enclosures to test it in;
Vb20L - qtc 0,8 - F3 55Hz and
Vb50L - qtc 0,6 - F3 51Hz
For a music bass, Im more interesting in whats happen around 35Hz, rather than 20Hz. So lets look at 35Hz/100w:
20L encl: -9,8dB, CD 5,9mm (max CD 5,9mm @ 20-40Hz)
50L encl: -6,4dB, CD 8,7mm (max CD 11,2mm @ 20Hz)
When listening, the 20L encl, lacked the bottom octave, the 50L was better, but it reached xmax, with a terrible sound
Then I desided to go vented, and that did help on both freq resp in bottom octave, and CD. But "to do it right" it needs a bigger box, and/or rather long port(s). Both a little problem!
Big boxes are nothing for my wife......... (and I dont think its pretty either)
Long port is very difficult because of the enclosures small depth, and it makes port noises very easy.
Because of that, I bought the CA26, and of course it is a question about compromise and preferences, I just hoped I could get some help here............
EDIT:
Freq plot of L26 in 20L (blue), 30L (black) and 50L (red)
About L26 and CA26; "basically the same motor" and "cone and suspension seems to be different"
The basket, magnet, backplate, voice coil and spider IS the same.
The upper suspension has the same dimensions, but are made of different materials, who gain different stiffness.
The L26 has a aluminium cone and phase plug; mms 53gr.
The CA26 has a paper cone and dust cap; mms 36gr.
I prefer closed boxes because of its rolloff. And the high mms of L26 makes it most suitable for closed boxes, even though the qts is rather low. Thats why I purchased the L26 first.
When simulting L26 in Bassbox, it gives me:
Vb30L - qtc 0,707 - F3 52Hz.
I had two enclosures to test it in;
Vb20L - qtc 0,8 - F3 55Hz and
Vb50L - qtc 0,6 - F3 51Hz
For a music bass, Im more interesting in whats happen around 35Hz, rather than 20Hz. So lets look at 35Hz/100w:
20L encl: -9,8dB, CD 5,9mm (max CD 5,9mm @ 20-40Hz)
50L encl: -6,4dB, CD 8,7mm (max CD 11,2mm @ 20Hz)
When listening, the 20L encl, lacked the bottom octave, the 50L was better, but it reached xmax, with a terrible sound
Then I desided to go vented, and that did help on both freq resp in bottom octave, and CD. But "to do it right" it needs a bigger box, and/or rather long port(s). Both a little problem!
Big boxes are nothing for my wife......... (and I dont think its pretty either)
Long port is very difficult because of the enclosures small depth, and it makes port noises very easy.
Because of that, I bought the CA26, and of course it is a question about compromise and preferences, I just hoped I could get some help here............
EDIT:
Freq plot of L26 in 20L (blue), 30L (black) and 50L (red)
Attachments
a little help with tuning L26:
your plans for enclosure are good(W55xH75xD25 cm - for bass only) that makes about 70 liters inner volume (barcing reduces it a bit) so if you make enclosure with normal height = about 1.2m you can extend volume for bass to 70 clean internal volume (bracing counted) you will extend this volume virtualy with damping... If you can make BR diametr 6cm length will be still aceptable. You have to place BR to top of enclosure, doing so you can go for 80cm lengths... (don't suggest such length)
the best would be some picture...(I made some fast drawing in windows painting...)
if you make BR like this:
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=145&products_id=711
in 6cm diametr and undertune L26 you will get exactly what you are looking for. Doing so you lower cone displacement(because of BR) and because of undertuning you get rolloff similar to closed box.
as you wrote you heard L26 reaching xdamage I think your biggest problem is your amplifier. With good amplifier I barely see my L18 in CC 19liters moving even at loud listening.
your plans for enclosure are good(W55xH75xD25 cm - for bass only) that makes about 70 liters inner volume (barcing reduces it a bit) so if you make enclosure with normal height = about 1.2m you can extend volume for bass to 70 clean internal volume (bracing counted) you will extend this volume virtualy with damping... If you can make BR diametr 6cm length will be still aceptable. You have to place BR to top of enclosure, doing so you can go for 80cm lengths... (don't suggest such length)
the best would be some picture...(I made some fast drawing in windows painting...)
if you make BR like this:
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=145&products_id=711
in 6cm diametr and undertune L26 you will get exactly what you are looking for. Doing so you lower cone displacement(because of BR) and because of undertuning you get rolloff similar to closed box.
as you wrote you heard L26 reaching xdamage I think your biggest problem is your amplifier. With good amplifier I barely see my L18 in CC 19liters moving even at loud listening.
Attachments
Well first of all, you must remember the big radius at both sides of enclosure. That steals quite a bit of volume. The next thing is the height, 100cm is more likely than 120. This beacuse of the apperance in the room, and because of listening height vs tweeter mounting. But the depth can be adjusted a bit.
70L is not a problem I think.
The BR on top, is out of question. So it must be in the bottom, or front/back with an elbow.
I do understand that the undertuning gives a better roll off, and thats a good idea.
BUT it dont lower the cone displacement!
Suppose a 70L vented box:
Fb 30Hz (Ø75mm L=136mm) CD=6,5mm/35Hz
Fb 20Hz (Ø75mm L= 400mm) CD= 8,8mm/35Hz
PS! It was in the closed box the L26 reached Xmax, and I dont think that the amp was out of control. But I have several amps, so of course I do a check on that.
Well, I do have hopes for the L26 again, hopefully I can find a box/br mix that will give a good result.
70L is not a problem I think.
The BR on top, is out of question. So it must be in the bottom, or front/back with an elbow.
I do understand that the undertuning gives a better roll off, and thats a good idea.
BUT it dont lower the cone displacement!
Suppose a 70L vented box:
Fb 30Hz (Ø75mm L=136mm) CD=6,5mm/35Hz
Fb 20Hz (Ø75mm L= 400mm) CD= 8,8mm/35Hz
PS! It was in the closed box the L26 reached Xmax, and I dont think that the amp was out of control. But I have several amps, so of course I do a check on that.
Well, I do have hopes for the L26 again, hopefully I can find a box/br mix that will give a good result.
Attachments
it was meant in contrary with closed box. when I get home I will post some simulations. It is also good to know that L26 falls much more in reality than T/S based simulation shows. If you can give it at least 70 liters (which I consider absolute minimum) I think you will be fine. Have you tried to simualte in LSP cad? it also shows only TS simulation but it shows good volumes,CD, BR lengths and air flows... (at least to me)
ps. why top BR is out of question? looks? dayton makes pretty kits for 3" elbow BR if you decide so.
ps. why top BR is out of question? looks? dayton makes pretty kits for 3" elbow BR if you decide so.
OK lets see what kind of Vb I can hope for:
Baffle with 28cm, internal radius 10cm.
Wi= 28+10+10=48cm
Hi= 100-4,4= 95,6cm
Di= 25-4,4= 20,6cm
Vbtot= 89L (remember the radius)
Mid enclosure: 28x18x10cm Vbi= 5L
Volume taken by the mid encl will be: 30,2x22,4x12,2 = 8,3L
Bracing = 4L
Internal volume for the CA26:
89-12,3= 76,7 Lets say 75L
Bassbox suggest:
Vb 73L (75-driver)
Fb 22,5Hz
F3 29,2Hz
Vent Ø75mm L 300mm
CD 8,5mm/35Hz/100w
OK, we are outside the linear xmax, but not reaching xmech.
Later I will simulate in different software and see the difference.
Baffle with 28cm, internal radius 10cm.
Wi= 28+10+10=48cm
Hi= 100-4,4= 95,6cm
Di= 25-4,4= 20,6cm
Vbtot= 89L (remember the radius)
Mid enclosure: 28x18x10cm Vbi= 5L
Volume taken by the mid encl will be: 30,2x22,4x12,2 = 8,3L
Bracing = 4L
Internal volume for the CA26:
89-12,3= 76,7 Lets say 75L
Bassbox suggest:
Vb 73L (75-driver)
Fb 22,5Hz
F3 29,2Hz
Vent Ø75mm L 300mm
CD 8,5mm/35Hz/100w
OK, we are outside the linear xmax, but not reaching xmech.
Later I will simulate in different software and see the difference.
Attachments
Hello. I've just listen to Amphion Argon which have a xo-point at 1,2kHz between midbass (Seas 6,5" alu and aludome tweeter (Seas?) in waveguide). Excellent midrange clarity and control - even comared with my electrostats.
I'm planning to use L26 as bassdriver also, but haven't began to experiment yet. I have hopes that this driver will deliver clean bass with satifying results in a music-only stereo at normal/moderate levels.
Looking forward to see the results from your project.
Regards
Johan
I'm planning to use L26 as bassdriver also, but haven't began to experiment yet. I have hopes that this driver will deliver clean bass with satifying results in a music-only stereo at normal/moderate levels.
Looking forward to see the results from your project.
Regards
Johan
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.