Hi Rabbitz! This is a commercial design. This speaker was discontinued and I bought the pair from the gentleman that built them for what he had in parts, cabinets ect. As far as I know the crossover was designed by Madisound but, I am not sure what the slopes are. The cabinets are .375 cu. ft. and front vented. I am pretty sure he designed them to go with a sub which is probably what I am going to do. From the replies I have received so far from Speakerdoctor and Rick from Selah in a E mail the cabinet volume for the Scanspeak 5.5 should be a little larger than what I have, .5 cu. ft. Again I have the 15w8530-01 not the 00 which seems to be used more often. I really don't know alot about speaker building at the level that this thread is. I am just trying to get into it and I have these speakers that I think could be improved with some work on my part and it might get me going. Also if there is a better tweeter that could be used than the 2010 3/4 Scan speak I would not be opposed to try it. Bottom line is I think the bass should be alot better and I think the integration of the drivers could be improved. I do not have equipment to measure with and the series crossover appears to be a type that can be tuned by ear if you have smooth driver roll offs.
I've seen cabs from 10.5 litres (Troels) to over 24 litres (Zaph) which means they are flexible in their application. It's all about getting the required balance between power handling and extension and the suggested 14-15 litres could be a nice spot.
There have been other tweeters mentioned in this thread such as the SB Acoustics which I haven't used. I have a soft spot for the Peerless 810921 (now SS D2608-913000) as I found they work very well with 18W8531G00 which is the larger cousin, as well as the 18W8545K00 which is an older cousin. With an AR series they worked very well. The problem is they have a different and larger faceplate diameter which would mean a lot of alterations to the existing box.
You can always try the existing tweeter first with a new crossover and work from there if you want more. Best to be done one step at a time to see what makes the difference.... such as crossover, then box, then tweeter if applicable.... etc.
There have been other tweeters mentioned in this thread such as the SB Acoustics which I haven't used. I have a soft spot for the Peerless 810921 (now SS D2608-913000) as I found they work very well with 18W8531G00 which is the larger cousin, as well as the 18W8545K00 which is an older cousin. With an AR series they worked very well. The problem is they have a different and larger faceplate diameter which would mean a lot of alterations to the existing box.
You can always try the existing tweeter first with a new crossover and work from there if you want more. Best to be done one step at a time to see what makes the difference.... such as crossover, then box, then tweeter if applicable.... etc.
Thanks Rabbitz, I will go in the order you mentioned. I am going after the crossover first then if I am not pleased I will work with a larger box and lastly maybe a different tweeter. I will give the series crossover a try. I appreciate the other posts that I received also. I will get back in fashion and give a update. Thanks
I think you probably have the SS Revelator 15W/8530 K01. With that woofer in a 15L box vented (2" dia X 9" L) coupled with a SS D9500 tweeter you can get very good performance with the below schematic and response result shown using the AR SXO topology. Acoustic Reality's site doesn't seem to be up lately. Are they out of business?
Attachments
I've never used an AR series without the cap after the 8R resistor even though I've read about an implementation on Tony Gee's site.
Paper_HATT
No hassles doing it this way (speaker impedance etc) and the 8R resistor stays cool? Just interested.
Paper_HATT
No hassles doing it this way (speaker impedance etc) and the 8R resistor stays cool? Just interested.
Hi Speakerdoctor, yes it is the Revelator 15W/8530 K01 woofer. I have been playing around with the box and one thing I noticed is the driver does not have a chamfer at the back side and the woofer looks like it may have a hard time breathing. I have been trying aperiodic damping by removing the terminal plate and adding some resistive material and the results were encouraging. I am going this route because I am not crazy about vented speaker sound. I have always liked the sound of a closed box speaker better and this may be a solution.
So, to move along, this cabinet was designed with a front port that is approx. 1-1/2 inch diameter and about 4 inches long, which I have sealed. I have also removed some of the fill especially right behind the woofer to give it some air. The results are the bottom end has more dynamics and the speaker plays louder without bottoming. On the down side the bass takes on a hooty character on some notes. I am going to keep experimenting with the box. I am going to pick up some crossover parts from Parts Express to try your and Rabbitz Series Crossovers.
Also on a side note, I have the 3/4 ScanSpeak Classic D2010/8513 20 mm Dome Tweeter . I wouldn't mind trying the above tweeter but at $180 a pop I think I will use what I have.
Thanks
I handled the resistor cooling by using the vent's air movement as the cooling media.
With a sealed cab. you give up approx. 20 hz of bass extension. However, one's preference for vented vs closed is understood.
Yes, sealed does give up a lot of bass extension on Revelator drivers. A lot depends on the application and preferences and actually use my 18W8531 sealed as the low octave is handled by a vented woofer.
Actually my favourite speaker is a 810921 + XG18WH00-08 in a sealed enclosure and missing the lowest octave doesn't bother me as it's used near field. Even in a larger room far field it still gives enough of an impression of bass.
It's all about finding what we like and are looking for.... there's not one correct solution but many to give a smile.
Actually my favourite speaker is a 810921 + XG18WH00-08 in a sealed enclosure and missing the lowest octave doesn't bother me as it's used near field. Even in a larger room far field it still gives enough of an impression of bass.
It's all about finding what we like and are looking for.... there's not one correct solution but many to give a smile.
Greetings!
Getting desperate over the forever-delayed release of the Hypex DSP Digital Crossover, I ended up trying an ARSXO Xover with my loudspeaker system (2-way, sealed 6L, ovoid, Fountek JP3+ Seas W15CY), and so far, so good... obviously we're talking of templates here, nothing fancy (or simmetrical, for what matters!)
Still, I'd like to know your opinion about this (and who knows, to read some improvements, eheheheh)!
Thanks!
Getting desperate over the forever-delayed release of the Hypex DSP Digital Crossover, I ended up trying an ARSXO Xover with my loudspeaker system (2-way, sealed 6L, ovoid, Fountek JP3+ Seas W15CY), and so far, so good... obviously we're talking of templates here, nothing fancy (or simmetrical, for what matters!)
Still, I'd like to know your opinion about this (and who knows, to read some improvements, eheheheh)!
Thanks!
So you can place a notch across it and still be fine. No big deal, just not as minimalist as the AR is to start with.
Later,
Wolf
I'm all for minimalist and discourage DIY'rs from using inferior drivers that force them to cobble up notches, zobels and other contrivances that inevitably take away something from the purity of the sound.
When done, it's like comparing tube to SS and vinyl to digital, etc... the differences are there and noticeable.
I translate this as, to quote Geddes, XOs are evil.
I find all those filters tend to suck the life out of the music.
dave
An interesting observation Dave. It's also interesting that S. Linkwitz seems to go overboard with his electronic crossovers. The ying and yang of diy audio I guess. Then again going all electronic xovers is a way around all the passive conponent issues he would be faced with.
well, my first approach was to use a digital processing xover, simmilar to Behringer's... but knowing it would "never" come out, i ended up looking elsewhere, and recent attempts from my father (who was taught by mr.carlomar, by the way) using this kind of Xover made us try it out.
it sounds nice, but maybe a little bit over-sharp (possibly because of the mentioned break-up mode)... still, and because it was not a refined attempt, I was hoping you could help me out on this.
and for this discussion alone, I'm thankful to all of you!
I'll continue reading all that you write, if you allow me so...
it sounds nice, but maybe a little bit over-sharp (possibly because of the mentioned break-up mode)... still, and because it was not a refined attempt, I was hoping you could help me out on this.
and for this discussion alone, I'm thankful to all of you!
I'll continue reading all that you write, if you allow me so...
As i progress more and more into FAST, and the success of my last one (CSS EL166/FF85K with a simple series XO -- 3 parts if you include the bypass cap -- took very careful driver selection), i have been thinking that the future will have room for a simple basic passive XO and then fine tuning with DSP EQ.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.