Don't think you are waisting someones time. This speaker building hobby is all about learning, trying, failing and hopefully at the end - succeeding 
Personally I would go for the CA22RNY due to its "behaved" top end and more suitable off-axis response. The CA22RNX would give you more bottom, but it has a challenging break-up just above the area where you want to cross over with the tweeter. Further, I would use a ~25l cabinet which gives you a Qtc of about 0,52. This alignment will give you an earlier roll-off, but it is likely to integrate better to the room compared to the max flat 0,7 alignement.
I agree with 5th Element that the DXT tweeter is one to keep an (big) eye on, but I believe there are others that would do a decent job for this project. In my opinion the 8" Seas woofers have a little too directive top in order to easily and perfectly integrate with the DXT (of the Seas drivers, the RNY would likely best integrate). That said, there is a skilled Polish speaker constructor named Krzystof that have made a popular diy speaker (polish forum) named Hurricane using the DXT/RNY (BR-loaded though). I could find the forum thread if you are interrested.
But, like you I would be easier off looking for tweeters that is a little more directive at the low end, such as the Monacor with WG. There are alternatives though by means of mounting tweeters to commersial available waveguides, such as:
Zaph|Audio
http://www.aeronet.com.au/waveguide.htm
7100-waveguide
Another tweeter combo I believe you should concider is the Audax TW034 (modified one - Large domes)with Jantzen's waveguide Kb Audax TW034X0 + Waveguide - Pris: 1.195,00,-.
Lastly, there's a German company that do custom WGs for Vifa XT... Messungen
Enjoy reading and good look with your project
Personally I would go for the CA22RNY due to its "behaved" top end and more suitable off-axis response. The CA22RNX would give you more bottom, but it has a challenging break-up just above the area where you want to cross over with the tweeter. Further, I would use a ~25l cabinet which gives you a Qtc of about 0,52. This alignment will give you an earlier roll-off, but it is likely to integrate better to the room compared to the max flat 0,7 alignement.
I agree with 5th Element that the DXT tweeter is one to keep an (big) eye on, but I believe there are others that would do a decent job for this project. In my opinion the 8" Seas woofers have a little too directive top in order to easily and perfectly integrate with the DXT (of the Seas drivers, the RNY would likely best integrate). That said, there is a skilled Polish speaker constructor named Krzystof that have made a popular diy speaker (polish forum) named Hurricane using the DXT/RNY (BR-loaded though). I could find the forum thread if you are interrested.
But, like you I would be easier off looking for tweeters that is a little more directive at the low end, such as the Monacor with WG. There are alternatives though by means of mounting tweeters to commersial available waveguides, such as:
Zaph|Audio
http://www.aeronet.com.au/waveguide.htm
7100-waveguide
Another tweeter combo I believe you should concider is the Audax TW034 (modified one - Large domes)with Jantzen's waveguide Kb Audax TW034X0 + Waveguide - Pris: 1.195,00,-.
Lastly, there's a German company that do custom WGs for Vifa XT... Messungen
Enjoy reading and good look with your project
Tackar så mycket.
Indeed the RNY looks easier to deal with. But people and calculators are saying it isn't suited to a sealed box. This is beyond me....any ideas why, or is it still going to be fine in sealed speakers? I ideally want soemthing that travels a LOT, like the NS10 woofers, for proper bounce sound, but it seems both the RNY and RNX are long throw drivers, so hard to say which would be better in this regard........(for me that is....lol).
Just had a look at the waveguide thing. I have used multitudes of studio speakers with waveguides and without, and to be honest I kind of prefer without. I don't mind with either, but do actually like being able to put my head off axis on purpose to hear something 'from an angle'. Tells me useful stuff when mixing. Something I always liked about NS10's too. Different angle from the side. Not so with Genelecs e.g.
Indeed the RNY looks easier to deal with. But people and calculators are saying it isn't suited to a sealed box. This is beyond me....any ideas why, or is it still going to be fine in sealed speakers? I ideally want soemthing that travels a LOT, like the NS10 woofers, for proper bounce sound, but it seems both the RNY and RNX are long throw drivers, so hard to say which would be better in this regard........(for me that is....lol).
Just had a look at the waveguide thing. I have used multitudes of studio speakers with waveguides and without, and to be honest I kind of prefer without. I don't mind with either, but do actually like being able to put my head off axis on purpose to hear something 'from an angle'. Tells me useful stuff when mixing. Something I always liked about NS10's too. Different angle from the side. Not so with Genelecs e.g.
Without actually seeing any measured data the RNX would be my pick between the RNX and the RNY.
Of course the RNY is slightly more sensitive so if that's of a primary concern then perhaps go with it instead.
Why the RNX? First of all look at the impedance plot, the RNY exhibits a pretty strong resonance at around 700Hz and this also corresponds to a large dish in the frequency response around the same frequency. The RNX also has a resonance, but it is far less pronounced and as a result its corresponding dip is also far less pronounced.
Typically these kind of things can show up as peaks in the harmonic distortion plot too, not always mind you, but without measuring you will never know.
Another reason is that the RNX's voice coil inductance is lower then the RNYs. This isn't amazing, but it could hint at a slightly better motor for the RNX.
Neither of the drivers apparently use shorting rings in the motors either.
With regards to integrating the DXT with either of these drivers. The wave-guide on the DXT is, as things go, extremely small, and as a result, any control over the directivity that it may provide will only happen above around 3-3.5kHz. If you wanted to match the directivity of this tweeter to a mid/bass you'd need a 3-4" one. This isn't to say that the DXT cannot be used successfully in such a design though, all you have to do is cross over lower enough so that DXT mates to the mid/bass before the mid/bass starts showing any signs of it's response falling off.
Now SEAS off axis measurements are particularly hard to read because in moving the loudspeakers axis around they are also moving the driver further away from the mic, this makes it look like the drivers response is tailing off faster then it actually is. Typically you'd want to cross over at least as low as 1500Hz, which the DXT is capable of.
I don't know how wide you plan on making these loudspeakers, but if the front baffle is around 33cm wide then the typical diffraction bump could help to counteract the dip in the frequency response of either of the drivers. This would be quite a wide cabinet mind you.
Of course the RNY is slightly more sensitive so if that's of a primary concern then perhaps go with it instead.
Why the RNX? First of all look at the impedance plot, the RNY exhibits a pretty strong resonance at around 700Hz and this also corresponds to a large dish in the frequency response around the same frequency. The RNX also has a resonance, but it is far less pronounced and as a result its corresponding dip is also far less pronounced.
Typically these kind of things can show up as peaks in the harmonic distortion plot too, not always mind you, but without measuring you will never know.
Another reason is that the RNX's voice coil inductance is lower then the RNYs. This isn't amazing, but it could hint at a slightly better motor for the RNX.
Neither of the drivers apparently use shorting rings in the motors either.
With regards to integrating the DXT with either of these drivers. The wave-guide on the DXT is, as things go, extremely small, and as a result, any control over the directivity that it may provide will only happen above around 3-3.5kHz. If you wanted to match the directivity of this tweeter to a mid/bass you'd need a 3-4" one. This isn't to say that the DXT cannot be used successfully in such a design though, all you have to do is cross over lower enough so that DXT mates to the mid/bass before the mid/bass starts showing any signs of it's response falling off.
Now SEAS off axis measurements are particularly hard to read because in moving the loudspeakers axis around they are also moving the driver further away from the mic, this makes it look like the drivers response is tailing off faster then it actually is. Typically you'd want to cross over at least as low as 1500Hz, which the DXT is capable of.
I don't know how wide you plan on making these loudspeakers, but if the front baffle is around 33cm wide then the typical diffraction bump could help to counteract the dip in the frequency response of either of the drivers. This would be quite a wide cabinet mind you.
Nice try, but that one was perfect Swedish
Had to read through your needs again to see if I had missed something, which off course I had... just to sum up;
1. These speakers are primarily for near field studio monitoring
2. They are going to be supported by a sub.
3. You are using miniDSP for crossover and voicing... not sure about how the sub is going to be implemented, but take for granted that this one also will be controlled by the same DSP?
If you have an acoustically optimized studio, then full frequency dispersion control is of less importance. Near field listening also helps supressing tonal unbalance caused by an uneven far-field power response. But my preference would still be to have a speaker that is designed with controlled (even) dispersion, meaning a linear power response throughout upper midrange and treble band.
It is important to have good integration of the tweeter and midrange - and in this context dispersion really matters. How you intend to achieve this is not so important.
I would also like to make a proposal for a little different setup that may could be a better choice for a high quality monitoring system.
1. Give a bang of midranges' capacity at sub frequencies. A matched sub could easily handle up to 100-150Hz (keep it well below the Shroeder frequency).
2. If you can use a smaller driver for midrange I would suggest the Seas U18RNX/P. It is mid priced but a truly remarkable driver. It has a top notch motor system, an even frequency response and is on par or better than any high-end Scan Speak or Seas drivers when it comes to the time domain. Just have a look at zaphaudio.com and compare with whoever you want http://zaphaudio.com/temp/Seas-U18RNXP-CSD.gif. It's minor flaw is a rise in harmonic distortion between 500 and 800Hz, but second order hamonic is still supressed 35dB. This driver would also be a very good match to the Seas DXT when crossed over at 3-3,5 kHz.
3. Seas DXT tweeter does everything as perfect as the U18. The distortion numbers and time domain behaviour is also better than most high-end drivers from Seas and Scan Speak when looking isolated on the frequencies between 2kHz - 20kHz. Its off axis response is unique for an off the shelf dome tweeter Zaph|Audio). Heck of a driver that needs some FR linarization in the DSP
If mounting the U18 in a sealed cabinet, the low end response will off course be limited. For this setup choose an alignment of 0.7, ending up with a medium damped cabinet of about 12 litre when using Zaph's measured T/S parameters. F3 would be around 73Hz. A high pass filter could be selected to match the capacity of the subwoofer.
Just a suggestion...
Had to read through your needs again to see if I had missed something, which off course I had... just to sum up;
1. These speakers are primarily for near field studio monitoring
2. They are going to be supported by a sub.
3. You are using miniDSP for crossover and voicing... not sure about how the sub is going to be implemented, but take for granted that this one also will be controlled by the same DSP?
If you have an acoustically optimized studio, then full frequency dispersion control is of less importance. Near field listening also helps supressing tonal unbalance caused by an uneven far-field power response. But my preference would still be to have a speaker that is designed with controlled (even) dispersion, meaning a linear power response throughout upper midrange and treble band.
It is important to have good integration of the tweeter and midrange - and in this context dispersion really matters. How you intend to achieve this is not so important.
I would also like to make a proposal for a little different setup that may could be a better choice for a high quality monitoring system.
1. Give a bang of midranges' capacity at sub frequencies. A matched sub could easily handle up to 100-150Hz (keep it well below the Shroeder frequency).
2. If you can use a smaller driver for midrange I would suggest the Seas U18RNX/P. It is mid priced but a truly remarkable driver. It has a top notch motor system, an even frequency response and is on par or better than any high-end Scan Speak or Seas drivers when it comes to the time domain. Just have a look at zaphaudio.com and compare with whoever you want http://zaphaudio.com/temp/Seas-U18RNXP-CSD.gif. It's minor flaw is a rise in harmonic distortion between 500 and 800Hz, but second order hamonic is still supressed 35dB. This driver would also be a very good match to the Seas DXT when crossed over at 3-3,5 kHz.
3. Seas DXT tweeter does everything as perfect as the U18. The distortion numbers and time domain behaviour is also better than most high-end drivers from Seas and Scan Speak when looking isolated on the frequencies between 2kHz - 20kHz. Its off axis response is unique for an off the shelf dome tweeter Zaph|Audio). Heck of a driver that needs some FR linarization in the DSP
If mounting the U18 in a sealed cabinet, the low end response will off course be limited. For this setup choose an alignment of 0.7, ending up with a medium damped cabinet of about 12 litre when using Zaph's measured T/S parameters. F3 would be around 73Hz. A high pass filter could be selected to match the capacity of the subwoofer.
Just a suggestion...
I did not notice you post before posting mine and after reading your statement about Seas' measurements I googled the DXT tweeter - and found this one: Seas Idunn 2-Way Speaker Kit - Pair - Parts Only: Madisound Speaker Store
Although I am confident that an asymetrical crossover at 3kHz can do the job, it appears that the Idunn's symetrical 2'nd order 2,2KHz crossover sums up pretty well.
Thanks for all the info!!! Oh, and swedish should be perfect, as I spent 14 years growing up there....
The front baffle is 25cm wide, depth 20cm and 42cm high, 18mm mdf. Tweeter offset. Basically I am wanting to use the boxes from some discarded Studiospares SN10's. Might soften/round off the front edges though and respray them.
Definitely don't want the sub to do more than an afterthought's worth of filling in underneath, so certainly not up to 100hz. The main meat/punch needs to be in the speakers, hence the desire for 8". Can't stand satellite feel.
So more argument for the RNX....lol....confusing. Power is not an issue by the way. Not looking to build supersensitive. Although I'm tempted to try putting a T-amp on the tweeter, see if it likes it. T-amps seem pretty anorexic in a way, but the detail is good and if the Adcom puts up the beef for the driver it could be good.....if not good enough I'll have to re-evaluate.......there are a couple more amps around including a UcD180 which lives with another set though. Or build another Hypex.....but I suspect AdcomGFA545 (modded) on the drivers and T-amp on the tweeters might be a goodie....
The front baffle is 25cm wide, depth 20cm and 42cm high, 18mm mdf. Tweeter offset. Basically I am wanting to use the boxes from some discarded Studiospares SN10's. Might soften/round off the front edges though and respray them.
Definitely don't want the sub to do more than an afterthought's worth of filling in underneath, so certainly not up to 100hz. The main meat/punch needs to be in the speakers, hence the desire for 8". Can't stand satellite feel.
So more argument for the RNX....lol....confusing. Power is not an issue by the way. Not looking to build supersensitive. Although I'm tempted to try putting a T-amp on the tweeter, see if it likes it. T-amps seem pretty anorexic in a way, but the detail is good and if the Adcom puts up the beef for the driver it could be good.....if not good enough I'll have to re-evaluate.......there are a couple more amps around including a UcD180 which lives with another set though. Or build another Hypex.....but I suspect AdcomGFA545 (modded) on the drivers and T-amp on the tweeters might be a goodie....
What's the exact internal volume of your cabinets then?
To get rid of the sat feeling a perfect intgration with the sub is vital, which should be possible with the dsp. But off course, your'e the boss here
With reference to the RNX/RNY debate I would go for the driver that is easier to tame around cross over frequency and then accept living with something what looks like a minor flaw in the 700Hz region (RNX is not perfect either). My preferense is not due to the higher efficiency.
Found some measurement of both drivers but unfortunately the pictures are very small:
MS 4 TL | Lautsprecherbau
Power 220 | Lautsprecherbau
To get rid of the sat feeling a perfect intgration with the sub is vital, which should be possible with the dsp. But off course, your'e the boss here
With reference to the RNX/RNY debate
I would go for the driver that is easier to tame around cross over frequency and then accept living with something what looks like a minor flaw in the 700Hz region (RNX is not perfect either). My preferense is not due to the higher efficiency.Found some measurement of both drivers but unfortunately the pictures are very small:
MS 4 TL | Lautsprecherbau
Power 220 | Lautsprecherbau
Well, the outer measurements are 42x25x20cm and they're 18mm mdf. I get that to an internal volume of 13.476864 l.
Quite amazed to see a difference of so many liters compared to the outer measure actually. Rather smaller inside.....
I still do not at all understand how either the RNX or RNY is inherently more suitable for closed box use than its brother. I can see the frequency differences and such, but nothing that tells me why one might work better in a closed box. What factors/parameters determine whether a driver is going to be happy in a sealed box?
Quite amazed to see a difference of so many liters compared to the outer measure actually. Rather smaller inside.....
I still do not at all understand how either the RNX or RNY is inherently more suitable for closed box use than its brother. I can see the frequency differences and such, but nothing that tells me why one might work better in a closed box. What factors/parameters determine whether a driver is going to be happy in a sealed box?
Yepp, that is what I also realized and then in addition you will have to subtract the volume occupied by the drivers and any bracings to find net internal volume. Something that started as a 22l box now turns out to be less than half the volumeWell, the outer measurements are 42x25x20cm and they're 18mm mdf. I get that to an internal volume of 13.476864 l.
Quite amazed to see a difference of so many liters compared to the outer measure actually. Rather smaller inside.....
. You can stuff the box with damping material to "fool the driver to see a larger volume".I don't want to be rude to you but I encourage you to read some loudspeaker theory - e.g. links in this post should cover it. There ain't black and white answers to your question. A woofer should be selected to fit the constructor's design conciderations and compromises.
But in general, for an all-passive speaker (passive crossover and the same amp channel for one speaker ) - factors such as fs, Qts and Qes (fs/Qes = EBP) some to look for. The box tuning (Qtc) should then ideally be selected to fit your room (and taste). But unfortunately these parameters does not say much about the drivers real low end qualities.
Unfortunately I know very little of the difference in those two driver's motors system. It would be nice to see some large signal measurements done on them (how they respond to power, thermal effects and stroke).
In addition when the box is determined prior to driver selection, the numbers of "optimal" drivers available is reduced.
Due to your implementation of the DSP in design, the low end sound pressure level will be limited by the woofer's capacity and applied power (not the T/S parameters mentioned above). The RNY and RNX drivers have the same maximum low end capacity, but the RNY needs some more power to deliver its full potential.
But off course, selecting a driver with i.e. high fs, low Qts, needing dozens of watt to play 40Hz would be lame as long as there are alternatives.
Regarding high vs. low Le - I have yet to find an article or paper that is conclusive on this subject. So if there are any that can point me to one, I would appreciate that. That said, there is not doubt that as soon as you apply a band pass filter to the midwoofer, the system's impulse response will be heavily altered - which is exactly why we apply the filter.
It might be small, but you can see what I was talking about with the peak in the harmonic distortion vs the resonance/impedance bobble/FR dip. IMO both drivers are probably better suited to bass rather then mid/bass.
You might be better off looking at a different 8" driver. A pair of Peerless 830884s would be great if you could get a hold of them and the none phase plugged 830869 would probably be a safe bet too.
You mention that you want these to be super detailed though. Typically people find that metal cone drivers, specifically due to their lack of resonances (within their pass band), sound the cleanest/most detailed.
The L22RNX/P might be better suited, but then there's the Peerless 835026 too, which on paper looks very nice. These would both definitely need crossing over at 1500Hz as a minimum though.
You might be better off looking at a different 8" driver. A pair of Peerless 830884s would be great if you could get a hold of them and the none phase plugged 830869 would probably be a safe bet too.
You mention that you want these to be super detailed though. Typically people find that metal cone drivers, specifically due to their lack of resonances (within their pass band), sound the cleanest/most detailed.
The L22RNX/P might be better suited, but then there's the Peerless 835026 too, which on paper looks very nice. These would both definitely need crossing over at 1500Hz as a minimum though.
My jabbing continous...Hmmmm, had looked at the CA18RLY already as well. Just fancied a bit more of a 'wallop' to the punch. Still not ruling the Ca18RLY out if it likely would give me better mids than the CA22RNX....
Those other options are not going to be in the budget, which is not massive unfortunately.....but also feel to keep the cost in a reasonable area for a first attempt. If it comes out like I hope I might get brave and go for the 'mother' later.....or just use and enjoy it.
I would just like to add that the U18RNX/P driver is a much better driver than the CA18RLY on almost every parameters:
- Better motor with copper ring below the pole piece reduces non linear and modulation distortion.
- More capacity at the bottom octaves (2mm larger datasheet xmax, but behaves linear in a larger range than this compared to the CA18RLY). xmech is even larger than the 8"-ers, which is good to have on nachspiels
- Stiffer diaphragm with higher internal damping
- Frequency response, when normalized, is next to flat.
- Exeptional good performance in the time domain.
- Better controlled dispersion.
Down side:
- A fraction less extended in the bottom with no eq applied (can't see that matters for you)
- A little less sensitive
- Costs a few dollar more... but worth it!
It is even better suited for the reduced cabinet size compared to the 8"-ers
I'll stop the commercials here
Last edited:
Thanks guys, I'll check those out too.....
I am starting to suffer a bit of sidetracking though.....there is this image forming in my mind of instead making a sealed box with a 'full range' 3-4" and then an 8". And cross over quite low. Have the 8" do just bass and the little full range the rest. Like an Alpair 6P. Papery top/mids do appeal in theory. Dry, punch sound. Or would the little bugger konk out if you laid into him a little? Am I tripping or do you guys reckon say a 6P and an 8" in a 13l internal volume sealed box would work? Suddenly seems more appealing somehow.....
Sort of inspired by Pelonis 4288, although that has a dualconcentric Tannoy up top and a bigger box. But everything from the top down to somewhere lower coming from the same place would be great.I could build a bigger box if it made it work better although the Studiospares boxes are a handy size.......
This is going to sound stupid, but I have been doing arranging and editing in my studio lately with a tiny single 5.25 Auratone copy I built (basically a Visaton FR12-8 in a sealed box) and sometimes switched the sub from the bigger speakers on running along with it.....sort of ludicrous, but the little papercone for 'everything' and just sub underpinning has definite appeal, although in those there was obviously a gap, but with an Alpair 6P and something like one of the Seas 8" drivers and the minidsp to make it happy it could be awesome, punchy and papery with all the mid and top from the same place. As long as the 6P can handle a bit of juice, so the whole thing doesn't go soft if crossed low-ish .....
Any thoughts on this wayward idea very appreciated.....
I am starting to suffer a bit of sidetracking though.....there is this image forming in my mind of instead making a sealed box with a 'full range' 3-4" and then an 8". And cross over quite low. Have the 8" do just bass and the little full range the rest. Like an Alpair 6P. Papery top/mids do appeal in theory. Dry, punch sound. Or would the little bugger konk out if you laid into him a little? Am I tripping or do you guys reckon say a 6P and an 8" in a 13l internal volume sealed box would work? Suddenly seems more appealing somehow.....
Sort of inspired by Pelonis 4288, although that has a dualconcentric Tannoy up top and a bigger box. But everything from the top down to somewhere lower coming from the same place would be great.I could build a bigger box if it made it work better although the Studiospares boxes are a handy size.......
This is going to sound stupid, but I have been doing arranging and editing in my studio lately with a tiny single 5.25 Auratone copy I built (basically a Visaton FR12-8 in a sealed box) and sometimes switched the sub from the bigger speakers on running along with it.....sort of ludicrous, but the little papercone for 'everything' and just sub underpinning has definite appeal, although in those there was obviously a gap, but with an Alpair 6P and something like one of the Seas 8" drivers and the minidsp to make it happy it could be awesome, punchy and papery with all the mid and top from the same place. As long as the 6P can handle a bit of juice, so the whole thing doesn't go soft if crossed low-ish .....
Any thoughts on this wayward idea very appreciated.....
If it were me, i'd build these. It looks like your box maybe the right size too.
The Proac studio 100s are very popular in recording studios, because when you mix on them it translates very well to other monitors.
Before I built my current speakers I has some studio 100s and i've got to say they were really nice. The sound was crisp,but smooth and almost creamy (people will think i'm mad now) and they had this inner detail that was missing from other speakers i've owned (i've owned quite a lot of speakers over the years). I'm sure it's got something to do with that long fibre paper cone.
My room is quite small and i'm sat against the back wall when listening to music. I did have a problem with bass boom, but I blocked up the port with some Monacor MDM3 and they were great.
Those Scanspeak 18W/8542 drivers aren't cheap though...
The Proac studio 100s are very popular in recording studios, because when you mix on them it translates very well to other monitors.
Before I built my current speakers I has some studio 100s and i've got to say they were really nice. The sound was crisp,but smooth and almost creamy (people will think i'm mad now) and they had this inner detail that was missing from other speakers i've owned (i've owned quite a lot of speakers over the years). I'm sure it's got something to do with that long fibre paper cone.
My room is quite small and i'm sat against the back wall when listening to music. I did have a problem with bass boom, but I blocked up the port with some Monacor MDM3 and they were great.
Those Scanspeak 18W/8542 drivers aren't cheap though...
I think anyone going the full range route is tripping when it comes to accuracy, especially in a monitoring position. They are fine for eventual listening if that's what you prefer, but when monitoring you're not after a loudspeaker with any kind of character to its sound, you want something as neutral as possible.
You mention your use of genelecs which don't vary much when you go off axis, this is also a characteristic that you should be looking to replicate.
If you're after an accurate, detailed and neutral sounding loudspeaker then something involving the metal cone drivers I linked before, with the DXT tweeter, crossed low, would give very good results. If you can measure and then use the minidsp to facilitate correct driver integration then you're all set. The only area I'd bring into question is the use of the 8", but as this is cabinet bound I figured there was no using something smaller. Still an 8" crossed low isn't a bad option at all.
You mention your use of genelecs which don't vary much when you go off axis, this is also a characteristic that you should be looking to replicate.
If you're after an accurate, detailed and neutral sounding loudspeaker then something involving the metal cone drivers I linked before, with the DXT tweeter, crossed low, would give very good results. If you can measure and then use the minidsp to facilitate correct driver integration then you're all set. The only area I'd bring into question is the use of the 8", but as this is cabinet bound I figured there was no using something smaller. Still an 8" crossed low isn't a bad option at all.
Depends on how you define accuracy. Compared to a typical 2-way monitor with dome tweeter, a driver like the Tang Band 1337SD crossed at 400hz high pass sounds more "accurate" to me in the critical midrange and up to 8-10khz.
Having the sound eminating from a point source is also preferable for near-field listening.
Power response is not ideal (but better than most 2-ways)and beaming is an issue but perhaps less so in a near-field, on-axis listening position.
I agree that for monitoring the speaker should not have any "character". Paper is not the best option in this case.
Having the sound eminating from a point source is also preferable for near-field listening.
Power response is not ideal (but better than most 2-ways)and beaming is an issue but perhaps less so in a near-field, on-axis listening position.
I agree that for monitoring the speaker should not have any "character". Paper is not the best option in this case.
Last edited:
I also looking to build two way using 8" driver, i found this to be a good project and already ordered the drivers
here is the link
Excel 22 DXT | Lautsprecherbau
also I belive also the drivers wont break the bank due the tweeter is not expensive and both drivers seem to be very well proven.
here is the link
Excel 22 DXT | Lautsprecherbau
also I belive also the drivers wont break the bank due the tweeter is not expensive and both drivers seem to be very well proven.
This is true but it all depends on the design, it isn't difficult at all to have well integrated drivers at relatively close listening distances. I think the main problem with the two way 8" approach is that the driver spacing will be pretty high and any change in listening height, due to the close listening, will have quite a considerable impact on the way the drivers integrate, giving large variations in the vertical off axis response.
Maybe the whole 8" + tweeter idea isn't the best idea for this after all, but then if the listening height is always pretty much the same, this might not be as much of an issue.
More very interesting thoughts from all...thank you !!!
As to the Studio 100's yes, they are very good indeed, but as I already have a set of pulp coned speakers I am looking for a different angle from this set.
I do realise the 6P might not exactly be a neutral thing, but I look at this in separated parameters of a) frequency response and b) colour/texture c) detail d) shape of sound/imaging and d) speed/impulse response.
On frequency response, staying as flat as poss is good here, although my other set is flat enough for me to let this one prioritise speed/impulse here, so if total flatness suffers slightly , as long as speed is superb I'm good. As far as texture everything has one anyway and so do metal tweeters, only I prefer a more papery rendition and am really intruiged by the paper full range plus bass thing. I do see the beaming would possibly turn annoying (although in the little Visaton I quite enjoy it, perversely). Buckets of detail, especially in the mids/high mid and a slightly forward presentation is desirable, with transients on a plate.
having said that about metal tweeters and really not fancying a vibe like e.g. Genelecs at all, there is a chance I suppose that if I got those metal DXT's and used them with the original white paper driver sufficiently low crossed it could remain papery and dry due to the white one and add the detail of the metal without becoming a glassy whole. Could be kind of similar the NS10's I guessas their tweeters are sharp too.
Have to do more research I think....not sure which way to go now. Several seem appealing for different reasons....
As to the Studio 100's yes, they are very good indeed, but as I already have a set of pulp coned speakers I am looking for a different angle from this set.
I do realise the 6P might not exactly be a neutral thing, but I look at this in separated parameters of a) frequency response and b) colour/texture c) detail d) shape of sound/imaging and d) speed/impulse response.
On frequency response, staying as flat as poss is good here, although my other set is flat enough for me to let this one prioritise speed/impulse here, so if total flatness suffers slightly , as long as speed is superb I'm good. As far as texture everything has one anyway and so do metal tweeters, only I prefer a more papery rendition and am really intruiged by the paper full range plus bass thing. I do see the beaming would possibly turn annoying (although in the little Visaton I quite enjoy it, perversely). Buckets of detail, especially in the mids/high mid and a slightly forward presentation is desirable, with transients on a plate.
having said that about metal tweeters and really not fancying a vibe like e.g. Genelecs at all, there is a chance I suppose that if I got those metal DXT's and used them with the original white paper driver sufficiently low crossed it could remain papery and dry due to the white one and add the detail of the metal without becoming a glassy whole. Could be kind of similar the NS10's I guessas their tweeters are sharp too.
Have to do more research I think....not sure which way to go now. Several seem appealing for different reasons....
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.