A thread for Tysen and variations on WAW / FAST

Chris made the suggestion that instead of propping the front up to get the right angle of fire on the FF85, we build a trapezoid similar to Scott Dunn's bipolar WR125.

This ended up working really well and turned out, IMO, fantastic from an aesthetic POV.

Note that instead of having an additional piece inside the box to support a woofer rebate, we surface mounted the woofer and later added an additional layer of 12mm to facilitate the rebate. Turns out this was a good thing, with the energy generated by the SDX7 the stethescope turned up more cabinet ringing than we like with just the 12mm walls. The extra layer also allows a larger bevel on the front.

dave

same caveat on these plans

Hi Dave, I just came across this thread and really like the Tysen idea, I have small guest room that has a nice very solid low bench with a LCD tv and the idea would have the Tyson for HT/music.

Have you actually built any Tysen's yet? If so are there any photo's? And what do you think of the overall performance? Would it be better to just add a active sub?

By the way, I'm in the middle of building the mFonken and will post pic's when I'm done. Cheers
 
Hello planet10, is there a passive (not line level), x-over for the Tysen? If not, would an online x-over calculator be okay (of course taking into account the flattened impedance of the FF85k)? I realize the cap/inductor size will be large, but biamping is not possible. Thanks.
 
I have considered a passive XO, but have avoided it because the SDX7 is not sensitive enuff to keep from padding down the FF85. I do have drivers for an alternative woofer(s) with the intention of doing a passive XO.

dave

What's wrong padding down the FF85? Parallel a resistor to flatten its impedance some more, a zobel if you will without a cap. then add a small series one. Forming a wide band Lpad between the high pass and driver.
 
Against my philosophy. And our experiences with series Rs on FRs was not encouraging.

There isn't much flattening to be done on the FF85 impedance...

dave

What is your philosophy?
Don't you agree that electrically changing Q's can sometimes allow the speaker to sound better, as pads also help amps, filters, and a speakers complex impedance play well together?
 
I have considered a passive XO, but have avoided it because the SDX7 is not sensitive enuff to keep from padding down the FF85. I do have drivers for an alternative woofer(s) with the intention of doing a passive XO.

dave

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the response.

What alternative woofers are you considering? Perhaps, a 10" would have enough sensitivity.

Also, are talking about 1st order filters (and hopefully no additional notches?)?
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
What alternative woofers are you considering? Perhaps, a 10" would have enough sensitivity.

Also, are talking about 1st order filters (and hopefully no additional notches?)?

I have 4 Silver Flute W13. The preferred XO will be as simple as i can make it, with the enclosure again playing a role in baffle step issues. Woofers will be side mounted and we hope to push the XO lower than on Tysen to get even more of the FF85 goodness. That will probably require a 2nd or maybe even 3rd order XO on the FF85.

dave
 
Hi,

has anyone the Tysen FAST speaker building plans with passive crossover available? I am especially interested in the variant with Alpair drivers. If anyone has plans available, I would apprieciate if he/she could share them with us!

The XO frequency implemented in the FF85K/SDX7 version of this design shown earlier was IIRC, around 300Hz ( 333?), specifically chosen to take advantage of the excellent performance of the Fostex. (think of it as a very wide band 3/4" metal dome tweeter with an unusually large surround, and very low Fs ;) )

Between the very large value of caps required for even a simple 1st order slope* ( eg circa 130mF) and the power required that would subsequently be wasted if attenuation was required due to a big difference in sensitivity between drivers, the total cost of implementing a passive XO could quickly skyrocket.

(* don't even think about the cost of a 4th order LW for this type of application )


Of course if you already have a high powered amp the sound of which you're happy with, that's great; but in our case we'd generally be using lower powered tube amps on the wide-band ( a magical combination with the FF85K :) ), and a passive XO would choke the life out of the system.

It was also assumed that since most DIYer's contemplating this type of project likely have more than a couple of amp stages kicking around, a simple dedicated frequency PLLXO could be put together for little money, and yield the advantages of bi-amping; not the least of which are improved dynamic capabilities and flexibility of level adjustment.

In the case of the Planet10 system pictured at the beginning of this thread, I'd suggest you read posts 1 - 4 for an explanation of how / why we chose this route.

One of the huge advantages of the PLLXO / bi-amp method, particularly if both amps have volume controls, is the flexibility it allows for trying different drivers for either bass or mid/high range - the only time you'd need to change passive components would be if either of the amps were changed with something with a different input impedance, or if the XO point itself were moved.

but back to your original question?

I'm not sure if Dave or anyone else has actually crunched the numbers on a passive high level XO - of course you'd need to know exactly which drivers were intended.
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
No one has done a passive XO for Tysen as implemented (that i know), Passives have been left for another implementaion with more appropriate woofers. Now that FF85 has been discontinued, we'll likely wait for Alpair6.2 and Alpair6p (the protos are superb) for small speakers. Currently working on a statement version of Tysen with 4 SDX7 & Alpair7 per side. With a lower XO yet, it almost by requirement will need to be active.
 
Hi Dave,

I'm very interested in your Tysen 4 SDX7 & Alpair7 project. What kind of active xo are you heading toward? In my experience few active xo's do as little damage to the treble than a good foil cap. I hate grainy treble. Obviously FAST rules that kind of solution right out! Is a PLLXO likely to crack the problem?
 
Last edited:
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
maybe a bit OT, but any rumours of a more efficient driver with a more friendly impedance from Alpair, something that can really replace Fostex ?

Mark is really focusing on getting efficiency up, but will not compromise the well controlled behaviour of his cones and the extended response (at both ends). That Mark has managed to find himself working with some exFostex luminaries (ie Matsubara-san spider on the A7/A12 and all the upcoming Gen2 drivers) we can expect more of their vast knowledge flowing into the MA product. Also working with paper will give efficiency a lift (i've been living with an early set of the A6p protos, and these (roughly comparable to FF85/FE83 in terms of niche) are of similar efficiency with more extended bottom.

As well, real world efficiency as measured in the field with a pair of ears seems to be higher than the ears would indicate (that may be pcho-acoustic due to the generally higher downward synamic range)

dave
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
Hi Dave,

I'm very interested in your Tysen 4 SDX7 & Alpair7 project. What kind of active xo are you heading toward? In my experience few active xo's do as little damage to the treble than a good foil cap. I hate grainy treble. Obviously FAST rules that kind of solution right out! Is a PLLXO likely to crack the problem?

I will be getting the basic configuration down using a DCX2496 (with O'Netics transformers all round -- hopefully making it listenable to humans as well as the measure mic). If i can get away with PLLXO i will, otherwise, buffered, stacked PLLXO, or PLLXO on top and more tradiitonal active on the bottom. The greater extension of the A7 gives more latitude.

To start i flipped my FonkenWoofs upside down (PP SDX7), a flipped over set of R1 dMar-Ken7, and will have a 1st draft PLLXO to get a feel for them. 1st set of A7eN is just being finished up (and i sent a set to Bud),

If this one works out, i'm thinking of A12 + 2 or 4 SDX10. That in theory would plumb the depths of LF & dynamics without resorting to horns.

dave