inrank said:sounds good, but what actually is a 0.5 way?
thanks
Strictly speaking its a 1.5 way.
One driver is full range, the other (usually the lower) is rolled off in the midrange.
This gives full (6dB) baffle step compensation for free space positioning.
And the same frequency balance as a full range bipole.
/sreten.
Maybe it should read 1.5 way
When I suggested the "bipoles" it was because its designed fore two driwers - and I had the formerly suggested in mind - 2 x WR125 fore bass and lower midrange only, AND a FR125 for lower midrange and up - in this case I its ok with all driver on front
- AND WR125 is made in 16 ohm at a little higher cost though.
When I suggested the "bipoles" it was because its designed fore two driwers - and I had the formerly suggested in mind - 2 x WR125 fore bass and lower midrange only, AND a FR125 for lower midrange and up - in this case I its ok with all driver on front
- AND WR125 is made in 16 ohm at a little higher cost though.
so this...
that apeals a lot to me, from a cool idea and a design point of view.
what kind of efficiency will they be?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
that apeals a lot to me, from a cool idea and a design point of view.
what kind of efficiency will they be?
Hi,
do you want a 2 way - with 1x FR125S and 2x WR125S per side ?
or do you want a 1.5 way - with 1x FR125S and 1x WR125S per side ?
For both cases the crossover point will be set by baffle width.
Efficiency for both cases will be identical - 86dB.
Power handling for both cases will be not that different.
For the 1.5 way you need a series inductor for the WR125S.
For the 2 way I'd suggest a series first order crossover.
/sreten.
do you want a 2 way - with 1x FR125S and 2x WR125S per side ?
or do you want a 1.5 way - with 1x FR125S and 1x WR125S per side ?
For both cases the crossover point will be set by baffle width.
Efficiency for both cases will be identical - 86dB.
Power handling for both cases will be not that different.
For the 1.5 way you need a series inductor for the WR125S.
For the 2 way I'd suggest a series first order crossover.
/sreten.
"wide and thin" - I like that, maybe 400-500mm
Your "dappolito" suggestion - well, you get a higher box, FR125 should be be in level with your ears - and constuction gets complicated and not present identical load to both woofers
I would prefer woofers(WR125) together and FR125 on top
Then If you "tilt" kabinet you will get a nice phase allignment
8 or 16 ohm WR125 version - good question
Series crossover - I know nothing about that - hard to "tweek"
Your "dappolito" suggestion - well, you get a higher box, FR125 should be be in level with your ears - and constuction gets complicated and not present identical load to both woofers
I would prefer woofers(WR125) together and FR125 on top
Then If you "tilt" kabinet you will get a nice phase allignment
8 or 16 ohm WR125 version - good question
Series crossover - I know nothing about that - hard to "tweek"
i need to have another look at my room for next year at uni, see wether the 'wide and thin' design would fir, i think it will be better than 'thin and deep' as i will be able to place them closer to the wall.
i think i would prefere to have the FR in the middle of the WR's for better imaging and looks lol
wide and thin- 300mm wide, 900mm tall and 150mm deep gets 30L roughly, or same but 100mm deep makes 20L.
i think i would prefere to have the FR in the middle of the WR's for better imaging and looks lol
wide and thin- 300mm wide, 900mm tall and 150mm deep gets 30L roughly, or same but 100mm deep makes 20L.
You should not use the entire height for internal box volume - you risk a nasty resonanse - better make it a bit deeper and fill bottom with sand
8 or 16 ohm WR125 -
with 2 x 8 ohm i paralel = 4 ohm you will probably get a bit "heavy" sound - but with a sealed box it might be ok
Advantage is that inductor will be smaller
with 2 x 16 ohm sound will most likely be more precise and present an easy load to amplifier
8 or 16 ohm WR125 -
with 2 x 8 ohm i paralel = 4 ohm you will probably get a bit "heavy" sound - but with a sealed box it might be ok
Advantage is that inductor will be smaller
with 2 x 16 ohm sound will most likely be more precise and present an easy load to amplifier
like this...
will it make a major difference with the drivers being off centre?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
will it make a major difference with the drivers being off centre?
Hi,
regarding 8 ohm or 16 ohm WR125's :
2 x 8 ohms will automatically give you full baffle step compensation
if a first order crossover is used, the frequency determined by baffle
width. If you use higher order you will get a step in the response.
First order series interact better with driver inductance and the
box resonance than the equivalent first order parallel crossover.
Full 6dB BSC will not suit a wide thin speaker placed close to a wall.
Presumably the 16 ohm version is 83dB/W(2.83V).
Using 2 x 16 ohms will give you 3dB of baffle step compensation,
which is likely going to be more suitable for wide + thin near a wall.
The distance of the top driver to all 3 edges should be different.
Usually in the ratio ~ 0.6 to the top, 1 to one side, 1.6 to the other.
(from the drivers centre - though you can reduce the top ratio)
/sreten.
regarding 8 ohm or 16 ohm WR125's :
2 x 8 ohms will automatically give you full baffle step compensation
if a first order crossover is used, the frequency determined by baffle
width. If you use higher order you will get a step in the response.
First order series interact better with driver inductance and the
box resonance than the equivalent first order parallel crossover.
Full 6dB BSC will not suit a wide thin speaker placed close to a wall.
Presumably the 16 ohm version is 83dB/W(2.83V).
Using 2 x 16 ohms will give you 3dB of baffle step compensation,
which is likely going to be more suitable for wide + thin near a wall.
The distance of the top driver to all 3 edges should be different.
Usually in the ratio ~ 0.6 to the top, 1 to one side, 1.6 to the other.
(from the drivers centre - though you can reduce the top ratio)
/sreten.
the 16Ohm version is published as 86dB aswell,
here is an altered image of it with the ratio's for the top driver.
here is an altered image of it with the ratio's for the top driver.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Hi,
The ratio are usually 0.6 to the top = smallest distance.
The driver is usually centred on a point 60% of baffle width (=1:1.6).
Usually (though can be shorter) the distance of the centre of the driver
to the top is 60% of the shortest distance to the side (=0.6:1:1.6).
/sreten.
The ratio are usually 0.6 to the top = smallest distance.
The driver is usually centred on a point 60% of baffle width (=1:1.6).
Usually (though can be shorter) the distance of the centre of the driver
to the top is 60% of the shortest distance to the side (=0.6:1:1.6).
/sreten.
NICE! Just got an idea!
If you make cabinet deeper, say 200mm, and place bottom plate of bass chamber some 100mm higher, then you get a bigger chamber for sand
THEN, in time when you can afford it, you can clean out the sand and mount an Exstemis 6.8 and a plateamp with EQ
And maybe further on mount a ad-on ribbon on top
THEN you might have the ultimate highend speaker
I ought to build one myself
If you make cabinet deeper, say 200mm, and place bottom plate of bass chamber some 100mm higher, then you get a bigger chamber for sand
THEN, in time when you can afford it, you can clean out the sand and mount an Exstemis 6.8 and a plateamp with EQ
And maybe further on mount a ad-on ribbon on top
THEN you might have the ultimate highend speaker
I ought to build one myself
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Multi-Way
- ultimate budget speaker