The problem is that with a low order network, you get an electrical slope of 6dB/octave. In combination with a 8 inch driver at an high crossover point (for a 8incher) you get a lot of 'beaming' (The big 8inch driver doesn't radiate at high frequencies as good as the tweeter) Usable crossover frequency is in this case not dependent on cone breakup but on the dispersion pattern of the driver in the higher frequencies. So I would suggest to use lower cross-over point with steeper slopes (higher order cross-over) if you want a 8inch in 2way configuration.
I agree with 5thELEMENT, there are dozens of commercially succesful designs of 8 in 2way configuration one of the most famous and highly regarded was the SPENDOR BCl admitedly a 3 way with x/over from the 8in bass driver to the celestion HF 1300 AT ABPOUT 3K WHICH TOOK THE RESPONSE UP TO ABOUT 13/14K where a 3/4 in super tweeter ITT/STC/ COLES 4001 g took the response up to 40k or so.... none of the reviewers that I can recall complained about beaming on the contrary it was highly praised asone of the most accurate speakers of it's time only second to the quad els which attracted plenty of complaints for it's "beaming" of hf's! so 5th ELEMENT is correct in saying ignore it and you probaly won't notice it unless you concentrate on it too much in which case it can become a fixation.... cheers and best regards
Tomcat
TomcatI downloaded "crossover simulator" so that i could design them more easily. I ended up finding that jaycar did not sell the right indutors so i ended up working out a crossover point to match the inductors that they sell. My crossover ended up being a 1st order butterworth crossed at 1930Hz, but now after reading some of these posts i think i should redesign as a 2nd or 3rd order cross, i would prefer to go 2nd but if you guys think 3rd would have alot over it then thats where i will have to go, 4th is doable as well.
advice has been awsome so far, more would be fantastic, thanks guys
advice has been awsome so far, more would be fantastic, thanks guys
Direct comparison
Has anyone had any experience directly comparing seas dirvers to peerless ones, from what i can see so far the Peerless specs seem to be more appealing with far higher xmax's and lower price. but i cant help think that the seas higher price could be due to higher quality. that is why some comparisons would be really good.
thank very much
Has anyone had any experience directly comparing seas dirvers to peerless ones, from what i can see so far the Peerless specs seem to be more appealing with far higher xmax's and lower price. but i cant help think that the seas higher price could be due to higher quality. that is why some comparisons would be really good.
thank very much
The 8" CSX (850136) has a smaller Xmax of 4mm than the 8" HDS (850490) Xmax 5.5mm for some reason.
WES PDF shows a suggested 3rd order crossover for the HDS.
http://www.wescomponents.com/peerless/850490.pdf
Hope this helps.
WES PDF shows a suggested 3rd order crossover for the HDS.
http://www.wescomponents.com/peerless/850490.pdf
Hope this helps.
I'm using the CSX 6.5" driver and I think it has plenty bass potential for a 2-way system. My -3dB point is 42Hz in a 24 litres enclosure. I’ve heard the HDS 6.5” driver too and it sounds in mid a bit better (perhaps because it was fitted in a concrete enclosure ), I personally think the CSX has a better bass potential. The enclosures where 24 litres for both drivers btw. An 8" driver could be used in a 2-way system but you automatically have to spend more on the tweeter because you have to cross it lower to get good results or you need a steep filter. Mainly the “beaming” of the high mid by the woofer would be a unwanted effect if you don’t cross low enough. I think you better go for a 6.5” driver if you want a good sounding 2-way system, or do you only care about the bas? A 3-way system is too complex to get good results without measuring and some know-how making cross-overs.
A low Fs for a tweeter doesn’t mean it is very good for low crossing, like said before for the XT-25, in that case it sounds much better if you cross it above 2.5kHz then when you cross it at 2kHz or lower!
I’ve heard several aluminium drivers out of the std. range of Seas. They sound very good also! The smaller ones have very clear mid and the bigger ones produce fine bass. I have the L21RN4XP for a sub. It goes very low (-3dB @ 30Hz) and sounds very good for music. I’m very satisfied with it. But the medium sized are very good to use in 2-way systems but I personally prefer Peerless for that.
), I personally think the CSX has a better bass potential. The enclosures where 24 litres for both drivers btw. An 8" driver could be used in a 2-way system but you automatically have to spend more on the tweeter because you have to cross it lower to get good results or you need a steep filter. Mainly the “beaming” of the high mid by the woofer would be a unwanted effect if you don’t cross low enough. I think you better go for a 6.5” driver if you want a good sounding 2-way system, or do you only care about the bas? A 3-way system is too complex to get good results without measuring and some know-how making cross-overs.A low Fs for a tweeter doesn’t mean it is very good for low crossing, like said before for the XT-25, in that case it sounds much better if you cross it above 2.5kHz then when you cross it at 2kHz or lower!
I’ve heard several aluminium drivers out of the std. range of Seas. They sound very good also! The smaller ones have very clear mid and the bigger ones produce fine bass. I have the L21RN4XP for a sub. It goes very low (-3dB @ 30Hz) and sounds very good for music. I’m very satisfied with it. But the medium sized are very good to use in 2-way systems but I personally prefer Peerless for that.
I used the [/url]]Peerless CSX 6.5” driver (http://www.d-s-t.com/peerless/data/850122.htm) and the vifa XT25TG30-04 (http://www.d-s-t.com/vifa/data/xt25tg30-04a.htm) in a two-way system. 24 litres as said before. Is is a quite big monitor speaker in my case.
Here you can see the result, it is not finished yet (as you can see).
http://home.planet.nl/~dettm012/avatars/dichtbij.jpg
Is has a 6dB/oct lowpass filter and a 12dB highpass filter and some corrections in the filter.
This is a waterfall response of the entire system peformance (I slill have to test some tweaks, like bringing the mid a bit up and some ajustments in the corrections but it sounds realy good already I can insure you.
http://www.hsi-luidsprekers.nl/images/Eul DIY/eul na modi.gif
Here is the inside, you can refer how big it got by refering to the tile below it wich is one feet by one feet. (30cmx30cm).
http://home.planet.nl/~dettm012/avatars/P12.jpg
If you're still interested I can give you more details if you want.
Here you can see the result, it is not finished yet (as you can see
).http://home.planet.nl/~dettm012/avatars/dichtbij.jpg
Is has a 6dB/oct lowpass filter and a 12dB highpass filter and some corrections in the filter.
This is a waterfall response of the entire system peformance (I slill have to test some tweaks, like bringing the mid a bit up and some ajustments in the corrections but it sounds realy good already I can insure you.
http://www.hsi-luidsprekers.nl/images/Eul DIY/eul na modi.gif
Here is the inside, you can refer how big it got by refering to the tile below it wich is one feet by one feet. (30cmx30cm).
http://home.planet.nl/~dettm012/avatars/P12.jpg
If you're still interested I can give you more details if you want.
michael said:
I don't hate them! I like them! I'm not really sure why MosFetish has such a dislike for the Peerless 8" drivers. For instance, a CSX 8" driver who's QB3 alignment is .8 ft^3 (22L), has an F3 of 47Hz and a sensitivity of 90dB in half space. That's a great blend of size, extension and efficiency. Not to mention that you can get over 100dB above 45Hz with one driver. The real challenge for the CSX 8" two way is crossing it over to the tweeter. Without MLS or gated sine measuring equipment, I wouldn't try it.
The CSX 6.5" T/S parameters are such that it can be made to show lots of bass extension when simulated. However, you've also got to look at excursion/powerhandling the CSX8 has it way beat. That said, put the CSX 6.5" in a box with an F3 of ~50Hz and it's quite surprising how little information you'll be missing. It won't do organs or 6 string bass justice, but for most music it works very well.
I've used Seas standard line woofers as well as CSX/HDS woofers. Of the two the CSX woofers are a better buy most of the time due to better power handling and higher excursion capabilities. The Seas drivers tend to be a bit more refined in their sound. That said Seas has some new higher excursion aluminum and poly cone drivers out over the last year. I have not used those...but they are worth a definate look.
Scott
Well, the efficiency is a bit low undeniably (86dB), but that is a compromise. Is seems that long stoke drivers can’t have a high efficiency and high efficiency drivers can’t have a long stroke. This is a long stroke driver. It has a low efficiency but the advantage is that it can go very low and produce more bass while going to high volume as a short stoke driver. I play them on a NAD C320BEE (2x 50W @ 8ohm) and I can get the police at the door in 30min at this time .
You could build a 2.5-way system with these drivers, the tweeter is sensitive enough and the combination of these drivers is very good! You only have to re-measure the system again and build a custom filter. I think you can copy my filter for a large part if you don’t do very strange things with the shape of the baffle and put the drivers the same distance away from each other, put them out of centre like I did would be even better en keep the port in the front. Then you only have to check it with a couple of simple measurements and eventually tweak something. You also have to fit the second driver in the filter. The second driver compensates the baffle step and therefore the sensitivity of the whole system will increase 3dB. The art is to put the second driver at the right point so it compensates only the baffle step and don’t causes a hill in the frequency response curve and doesn’t leave a dip in the curve, it has to “fit”. You then can leave the L-pad on the tweeter away. Then the systems sensitivity will be 93dB. A 2.5-way system is also better looking in a floor stander I think.
You only need a amplifier that can take 4ohm loads, because the woofers are parallel :/. You also need someone who can measure your system for you and help you make the filter, that can cost some money but only then you will get good results. If you can’t afford that you better build an existing 2.5-way system, there are lots of them on the internet, they already have good filters (I assume..).
Well, what can you see in this waterfall curve?
You can see the frequency curve all in the back, but you can also see how long the frequency takes to pass away. You can see that the low passes away slowly, this is because of the group delay of a bas reflex system. You can see that the mid die’s very quickly, that means no irritating resonances of wood panels of the enclosure or something like that.
The one I showed was one after a modification using measure equipment. Before then I had a filter based on pure simulation and updated one time after a measuring of the total system (but I only had the curve on paper so couldn’t simulate with it), I will show that one now and look at the differences.
http://www.hsi-luidsprekers.nl/images/Eul DIY/eul voor modi.gif
You can see there are much more ignoring delays in the mid. This was solved by making the low pass 6th order and chance the impedance correction of the woofer, the impedance correction of the tweeter was removed and the tweeter got more damped. That caused the difference I was looking for. The curve almost looks the same but there are really differences in sound, it is more open and e bit less sharp in the mid, it sounds clear and tight. That is for a part the result of reducing the delays you can see in the waterfall before the modification.
You can also check the port of producing resonances or reflexes out of the cabinet. You do that by measuring the system with the port closed (put an old sock in it ) and then measure it opened. It is obvious there is more bas then when the port is closed but if there occur strange delays in the mid the port causes this. You have to try reduce it by damping the cabinet more or less or different.
Port closed: http://www.hsi-luidsprekers.nl/images/Eul DIY/eulzprt6khz.gif
Port open: http://www.hsi-luidsprekers.nl/images/Eul DIY/eulmprt6khz.gif
That are some basics of reading these waterfalls
. You could build a 2.5-way system with these drivers, the tweeter is sensitive enough and the combination of these drivers is very good! You only have to re-measure the system again and build a custom filter. I think you can copy my filter for a large part if you don’t do very strange things with the shape of the baffle and put the drivers the same distance away from each other, put them out of centre like I did would be even better en keep the port in the front. Then you only have to check it with a couple of simple measurements and eventually tweak something. You also have to fit the second driver in the filter. The second driver compensates the baffle step and therefore the sensitivity of the whole system will increase 3dB. The art is to put the second driver at the right point so it compensates only the baffle step and don’t causes a hill in the frequency response curve and doesn’t leave a dip in the curve, it has to “fit”. You then can leave the L-pad on the tweeter away. Then the systems sensitivity will be 93dB. A 2.5-way system is also better looking in a floor stander I think.
You only need a amplifier that can take 4ohm loads, because the woofers are parallel :/. You also need someone who can measure your system for you and help you make the filter, that can cost some money but only then you will get good results. If you can’t afford that you better build an existing 2.5-way system, there are lots of them on the internet, they already have good filters (I assume..).
Well, what can you see in this waterfall curve?
You can see the frequency curve all in the back, but you can also see how long the frequency takes to pass away. You can see that the low passes away slowly, this is because of the group delay of a bas reflex system. You can see that the mid die’s very quickly, that means no irritating resonances of wood panels of the enclosure or something like that.
The one I showed was one after a modification using measure equipment. Before then I had a filter based on pure simulation and updated one time after a measuring of the total system (but I only had the curve on paper so couldn’t simulate with it), I will show that one now and look at the differences.
http://www.hsi-luidsprekers.nl/images/Eul DIY/eul voor modi.gif
You can see there are much more ignoring delays in the mid. This was solved by making the low pass 6th order and chance the impedance correction of the woofer, the impedance correction of the tweeter was removed and the tweeter got more damped. That caused the difference I was looking for. The curve almost looks the same but there are really differences in sound, it is more open and e bit less sharp in the mid, it sounds clear and tight. That is for a part the result of reducing the delays you can see in the waterfall before the modification.
You can also check the port of producing resonances or reflexes out of the cabinet. You do that by measuring the system with the port closed (put an old sock in it
) and then measure it opened. It is obvious there is more bas then when the port is closed but if there occur strange delays in the mid the port causes this. You have to try reduce it by damping the cabinet more or less or different.Port closed: http://www.hsi-luidsprekers.nl/images/Eul DIY/eulzprt6khz.gif
Port open: http://www.hsi-luidsprekers.nl/images/Eul DIY/eulmprt6khz.gif
That are some basics of reading these waterfalls
I forgot to tell that you need a good amplifier for this one also because even in this system the impedance can get relatively low either.
The “stroke” is the movement the cone is capable to produce. In this case it is 5.5mm for the 6.5” CSX in each direction, so 11mm p-p. For example, the lighter brother of this driver, the CSC 6.5”, can produce a stoke (also called “Xmax” btw) of maximum 3.5mm linear each direction or 7mm p-p, but it has a sensitivity of 88dB instead of 86.5 for the CSX. So it is a matter of chose, you want displacement for bas production or a higher efficiency of the whole system
The “stroke” is the movement the cone is capable to produce. In this case it is 5.5mm for the 6.5” CSX in each direction, so 11mm p-p. For example, the lighter brother of this driver, the CSC 6.5”, can produce a stoke (also called “Xmax” btw) of maximum 3.5mm linear each direction or 7mm p-p, but it has a sensitivity of 88dB instead of 86.5 for the CSX. So it is a matter of chose, you want displacement for bas production or a higher efficiency of the whole system
Well i started this thread with the HDS 8" set in my sights, i just wanted peoples advice on crossing it over, well my views have just changed.
I initially thought that by being the top of the range peerless it would be the best, nuh uh. I just finally got around to adding in the 6.5" and 8" CSX drivers and OMG they model so nicely and there are rave reviews about them.
What i want to do is make 2way towers, and i really wanted to use 8" drivers but now i have found that the 6.5 CSX models better, though it is rather low efficiency at 87.2 compared to the 92 of the 8" CSX, these figures come from the peerless broshure available from wescomponents btw.
I ask this, is it a problem using the drivers in a large cabinet tuned low, i got different specs of all these drivers everywhere i looked, peerless said that the 6.5" CSX has an fs of 36 whilst the peerless broshure gives an fs of 50!!
so what do i use when modelling, this is similar with most of the drivers.....
All help is greatly appreciated
I initially thought that by being the top of the range peerless it would be the best, nuh uh. I just finally got around to adding in the 6.5" and 8" CSX drivers and OMG they model so nicely and there are rave reviews about them.
What i want to do is make 2way towers, and i really wanted to use 8" drivers but now i have found that the 6.5 CSX models better, though it is rather low efficiency at 87.2 compared to the 92 of the 8" CSX, these figures come from the peerless broshure available from wescomponents btw.
I ask this, is it a problem using the drivers in a large cabinet tuned low, i got different specs of all these drivers everywhere i looked, peerless said that the 6.5" CSX has an fs of 36 whilst the peerless broshure gives an fs of 50!!
so what do i use when modelling, this is similar with most of the drivers.....
All help is greatly appreciated
Just to add a fly to the ointment (don't you just hate that? ) the published T/S parameters for the Peerless drivers can't necessarily be trusted. It appears they have changed some of the drivers in recent years without changing the published specs. The consensus seems to be that the current CSX and HDS models work about the same in real life. The HDS specs are probably closer to what you will get with either series but they should all be measured before use.
Bottom line, don't choose the CSX over the HDS just because the published specs model better. Put another way, the CSX and HDS models are basically the same drivers except one has a cast basket and the other is stamped.
) the published T/S parameters for the Peerless drivers can't necessarily be trusted. It appears they have changed some of the drivers in recent years without changing the published specs. The consensus seems to be that the current CSX and HDS models work about the same in real life. The HDS specs are probably closer to what you will get with either series but they should all be measured before use. Bottom line, don't choose the CSX over the HDS just because the published specs model better. Put another way, the CSX and HDS models are basically the same drivers except one has a cast basket and the other is stamped.
Re: Direct comparison
Yep, although not exactly the models that you describe.
I've build(this year) two sets of monitors. One with peerless HDS134 and vifa XT300 and one set with Seas G17REX/P and KT27F (=27TFF if I recall correct)
Both sound very balanced and refined and although the peerless/vifa got very good reviews it is IMHO not as good as the Seas combo.
The soundstage of the vifa is a bit wider but the sound of the seas tweeter is astonishing.
Didn't talk about bass comparison, it would be unfair as the volume of the peerless monitor is 5L and of the seas almost 15L. I must say that it is incredible what the peerless can still produce in 5L
offtopic, Eul we seem to meet all around the world
michael said:
Yep, although not exactly the models that you describe.
I've build(this year) two sets of monitors. One with peerless HDS134 and vifa XT300 and one set with Seas G17REX/P and KT27F (=27TFF if I recall correct)
Both sound very balanced and refined and although the peerless/vifa got very good reviews it is IMHO not as good as the Seas combo.
The soundstage of the vifa is a bit wider but the sound of the seas tweeter is astonishing.
Didn't talk about bass comparison, it would be unfair as the volume of the peerless monitor is 5L and of the seas almost 15L. I must say that it is incredible what the peerless can still produce in 5L
offtopic, Eul we seem to meet all around the world
What do you guys think of the power handling of the drivers, when i modelled the 8" CSX in a 60L enclosure tuned to 32Hz the response and max SPL look great but the power handing of it is down to 16w at 44Hz. my friend said thi was nooo good and i should put it i a much smalr box but that drastically reduces the low end extension. is thislow power hanling dangerou even though it gains alot of efficiency?
help
help
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.