Piek said:
Yes, I did, the ciare is in the shortlist. Basta graph from the Ciare looks very similar to the above Audio Nirvana. A bit less linear, but very cheap, yes.
Some EQ will be possible, as long as the driver is very efficient (>95db) and i mostly have to lower bumps, rather than fill dips.
Now, i'm being tempted by Supravox bicones (to go fullrange, with or without bass enforcement), after seeing a couple of projects.
Never want a 2 way + bass ?
Maybe this is not appropriate here but why do so many guys shy away from a two way instead of a single full range. So may posts indicate that most full rangers have their own problems requiring some form of filtering to control offensive treble rise or resonances. Not to mention physical mods on drivers.
One could build a very smooth sounding system ( above 100 to 200 Hz ) using a two way system. Those drivers may be easier to find ! However I do find it difficult with my limited range of drivers to match the mid range "smoothness" of a decent commercial boxed speaker. Though the boxed drivers loose out on certain characteristics of OB designs.
Maybe this is not appropriate here but why do so many guys shy away from a two way instead of a single full range. So may posts indicate that most full rangers have their own problems requiring some form of filtering to control offensive treble rise or resonances. Not to mention physical mods on drivers.
One could build a very smooth sounding system ( above 100 to 200 Hz ) using a two way system. Those drivers may be easier to find ! However I do find it difficult with my limited range of drivers to match the mid range "smoothness" of a decent commercial boxed speaker. Though the boxed drivers loose out on certain characteristics of OB designs.
People like to explore the boundaries. Don't assume because someone is taking a particular approach that they have decided their plan is best. As far as two way, isn't that what were discussing? This particular design keeps a crossover out the the vocals and other primary sounds.
A good boxed two way produces music that seems problems free. But when compared to BLH or OB it sounds stuffy and clinical (for lack of better terms). As the Queen song says "I want it all".
A good boxed two way produces music that seems problems free. But when compared to BLH or OB it sounds stuffy and clinical (for lack of better terms). As the Queen song says "I want it all".
Re: Never want a 2 way + bass ?
There is one main reason: simplicity of the project. To not have to match impedance, curves and SPL of the tweeter with the midrange.
In my case the bass is amplified and equalized separately which allows for easy and perfect SPL matching.
My goal is to have BETTER midrange than commercial boxed speakers, go figure
ashok said:
There is one main reason: simplicity of the project. To not have to match impedance, curves and SPL of the tweeter with the midrange.
In my case the bass is amplified and equalized separately which allows for easy and perfect SPL matching.
My goal is to have BETTER midrange than commercial boxed speakers, go figure
Don't get me wrong. I was talking about 2 way OB's not boxed speakers. I mentioned boxed speakers because the good ones have very smooth mid range and so far I have not seen it in OB's.
Which of course doesn't mean there aren't other OB's without very good midrange ! The OB's have their typical 'unboxed sound' that is probably impossible (?) to get from a box.
It would be ideal of course to have one driver provide the full midrange spectrum and a bit beyond ..say 100 Hz to 10 Khz. There are many ( single) wide range drivers ,but do they do it very well ? Any recommendations ? Would the Hemp FR8C fit the bill ?
My OB with an Alpha6A and APT80 sounds very good but mid range is smoother on my Mission 701's. Maybe the crossover on my OB needs to be checked too. It does measure reasonably flat as it is. The bass unit is a 12 inch Peerless 831857 driven via an active crossover. Overall sound is better than the Mission.
Which of course doesn't mean there aren't other OB's without very good midrange ! The OB's have their typical 'unboxed sound' that is probably impossible (?) to get from a box.
It would be ideal of course to have one driver provide the full midrange spectrum and a bit beyond ..say 100 Hz to 10 Khz. There are many ( single) wide range drivers ,but do they do it very well ? Any recommendations ? Would the Hemp FR8C fit the bill ?
My OB with an Alpha6A and APT80 sounds very good but mid range is smoother on my Mission 701's. Maybe the crossover on my OB needs to be checked too. It does measure reasonably flat as it is. The bass unit is a 12 inch Peerless 831857 driven via an active crossover. Overall sound is better than the Mission.
>It would be ideal of course to have one driver
>provide the full midrange spectrum and a bit
>beyond ..say 100 Hz to 10 Khz. There are many
>( single) wide range drivers ,but do they do it
>very well ?
>Any recommendations ?
http://cam-electronics.stores.yahoo.net/bos86colo.html
on a 2' x 2' baffle the S86 will do down to 100Hz and
up to 10kHz
for more highs but less efficiency:
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=300-010
>provide the full midrange spectrum and a bit
>beyond ..say 100 Hz to 10 Khz. There are many
>( single) wide range drivers ,but do they do it
>very well ?
>Any recommendations ?
http://cam-electronics.stores.yahoo.net/bos86colo.html
on a 2' x 2' baffle the S86 will do down to 100Hz and
up to 10kHz
for more highs but less efficiency:
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=300-010
shortlist
I think I have received enough input to be able to shortlist a few good drivers.
The graphs are good for all drivers, what matters is how they sound.
Shortlist:
12”:
-Audio Nirvana Super 12 Cast Frame
10”:
-Audio Nirvana Super 10 Cast Frame
-Possible Custom 10" unit from Sonido
8":
-Supravox 215 RTF Bicone (a friend of mine found the Signature too hard and is a fan of Klangfilm)
-HEMP Acoustics FR8C
-Visaton B200
-Omega ALN8omega (expensive and I don’t know how it relates sonically to the FR8c, moreover Louis didn’t send me the full specs yet).
I'm unsure about two things:
First of all, driver size. 12" would match the aesthetics of a CS1 clone, but there are basically no affordable drivers of this size, except the AN.
Second, exact baffle width and height to have the smoother response of the fullrange in the midrange and HF.
Basta! does not seem very helpful (its curves are too smooth to be real), i just got ABC dipole and will double check the same values with it.
I think I have received enough input to be able to shortlist a few good drivers.
The graphs are good for all drivers, what matters is how they sound.
Shortlist:
12”:
-Audio Nirvana Super 12 Cast Frame
10”:
-Audio Nirvana Super 10 Cast Frame
-Possible Custom 10" unit from Sonido
8":
-Supravox 215 RTF Bicone (a friend of mine found the Signature too hard and is a fan of Klangfilm)
-HEMP Acoustics FR8C
-Visaton B200
-Omega ALN8omega (expensive and I don’t know how it relates sonically to the FR8c, moreover Louis didn’t send me the full specs yet).
I'm unsure about two things:
First of all, driver size. 12" would match the aesthetics of a CS1 clone, but there are basically no affordable drivers of this size, except the AN.
Second, exact baffle width and height to have the smoother response of the fullrange in the midrange and HF.
Basta! does not seem very helpful (its curves are too smooth to be real), i just got ABC dipole and will double check the same values with it.
FYI I have chosen the Hemp FR8C, they fit the bill, sounds pretty good, although the midrange is not smooth enough for my test and I'll nee dto equalize it. I made a thread since i got the drivers and i'm building the speakers.
I did some empirical tests last week and I agree. It is better to highpass them, not for protection but because the Xmax is too low and they tend to distort at high SPL unfiltered.
This (and everything else) will be done in digital.
Then I'll decide if to keep the Hemps or replace with something better (and obviously much more expensive)
badman said:
I did some empirical tests last week and I agree. It is better to highpass them, not for protection but because the Xmax is too low and they tend to distort at high SPL unfiltered.
This (and everything else) will be done in digital.
Then I'll decide if to keep the Hemps or replace with something better (and obviously much more expensive)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.