Mark's proto 6.5" Woofer, 1" silk Tweet combo - Page 2

ScottG · 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markaudio

Hi ScottG
I'm glad to get your feedback. It's good to test my thinking so thanks for taking the time to comment.

Yep, on the tweets, it's going to come down to price. I looked at sub $10 USD tweet market. This is where I'm aiming to offer this baby, hence the 30-kHz extension.

The woof still has my trade-mark LF lift for BSC compensation, all be it mild compared to some of earlier work.

I'll take a further look at what's on offer - thanks for pointing GR

Mark.

For tweeters look to HiVi and Dayton in the low price category, most extend to nearly 30 kHz..

What *is* missing is a low-profile, very low cost tweeter with the response needed for a line array. Basically a very small face-plate and magnet structure, with a low fs and fair bit of treble "rise" at higher freq.s.. Dayton has the *basic* idea down, BUT the eff. is a little to high, the fs isn't nearly low enough, and there isn't the correct kind of response for a multi-driver array. (..and I think with a bit of "tweaking" you could have that with the tweeter you have presented here.. mostly down to compliance and volume - dropping the resonance to 800 Hz or less.)

markaudio · 09:38 PM

"Mark and Mark Audio.. It's possible to spend to much time, money, resources, etc.. and have nothing but bills left to show if the market acceptance isn't there. ..and sadly it happens all the time, even to highly capitalized manufacturers".

Sure Scott. Especially now as business is tough. Hence me seeking opinion and feedback. Talking of the 71 emails, two thirds of the requests centred on 2 way, ease of matching drivers, making simple crosses and extended ranges.

From the full range requests, the CHR-70 was born. For Japan feedback requests, the most recent is the CHP-70.

Mark

Trooper46 · 12th November 2009, 10:52 PM

those woofers dont seem to have your trademark plastic frame. have you given any thought to making other drivers (i.e. non full range) with the plastic frame?

PeteMcK · 12th November 2009, 11:25 PM

re:'Total Q has been designed to be high to assist in LF delivery, especially in BR boxes.'
Mark, seems a bit Hi Q for me, I think I'd prefer something with a lower Q that had a flatter response BR (although I appreciate what you're doing re. BSC). How would you tune this driver in a BR box?
Lately I've been looking around for 5" & 6" drivers to meet what are probably impossible criteria: cheapish, low Vas for small cab size, reasonable efficiency, and able to reach the low 40s without much hassle.... (I know, Mr Hoffman is going to tap me on the shoulder...) FWIW, the Wavcor 5" & 6" drivers seem to come closest.

markaudio · 12th November 2009, 11:53 PM

Hi Trooper,
Correct, it's pressed steel with a vented section around the coil.

A moulded frame to this size would increase the price. To design and make the injection mould tooling for this frame is going to cost around 5000 USD. Also I'd need to do a tri-mix polymer to maintain rigidity due to the larger size. In all, cost goes up so the final price would move this driver into a higher price bracket.

But, sure I've really like to do more in multi-way, including my poly-work frames.

I could use the Alp 10 and Alp12 frames, more than enough for a nice woof.

I did make an proto - paper coned Alpair 10 woof - will post a pic and some details later.

Cheers,

Mark.

markaudio · 13th November 2009, 12:09 AM

Hi Pete,
Many thanks for your thoughts.
It's about building a driver to suit the main markets. For example, a 23 litre tower BR box using this 6.5 woof would give around a 46Hz tuned port with plenty of push through it. Allot of potential "bang for the buck" in the LF range. Smaller boxes could use some filtering to compensate for reduced volume, done as part of the crossover.

Interesting - I built the Alpair 12 with some of what you've said in mind, although price and quality is in a different league.

Cheers,

Mark

mbcouple · 13th November 2009, 07:21 PM

How about just combining these drivers into a world-class bargain coax? It would keep with the rest of product line as being a point-source driver. Just a thought. Dont know if the woofer design would lend itself to a coax or not.

markaudio · 13th November 2009, 08:42 PM

Thanks MB,
Interesting idea. I must confess my knowledge on Coax is very limited so maybe a project for next year.

Mark

planet10 · 13th November 2009, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcouple

How about just combining these drivers into a world-class bargain coax?

There is certainly a dearth of coaxes (ignoring the big pro ones, and car speakers).

Seas. Silver Iris.

then KEF, Tannoy (which you have to recover out of an existing speaker), and the very dear PHY-HP.

joining the 2 shown would be closest to the SEAS. One might have to worry about KEF's patents.

dave

human.bin · 15th November 2009, 08:00 PM

woofer number 6 and tweeter number 3...

is it about diameter or is it the number of iterations tried by now? if so it would be very nice to see a gallery a discarded designs...

12th November 2009, 09:35 PM	#12
markaudio diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2008	"Mark and Mark Audio.. It's possible to spend to much time, money, resources, etc.. and have nothing but bills left to show if the market acceptance isn't there. ..and sadly it happens all the time, even to highly capitalized manufacturers". Sure Scott. Especially now as business is tough. Hence me seeking opinion and feedback. Talking of the 71 emails, two thirds of the requests centred on 2 way, ease of matching drivers, making simple crosses and extended ranges. From the full range requests, the CHR-70 was born. For Japan feedback requests, the most recent is the CHP-70. Mark Last edited by markaudio; 12th November 2009 at 09:38 PM.

12th November 2009, 11:25 PM	#14
PeteMcK diyAudio Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Western Sydney	re:'Total Q has been designed to be high to assist in LF delivery, especially in BR boxes.' Mark, seems a bit Hi Q for me, I think I'd prefer something with a lower Q that had a flatter response BR (although I appreciate what you're doing re. BSC). How would you tune this driver in a BR box? Lately I've been looking around for 5" & 6" drivers to meet what are probably impossible criteria: cheapish, low Vas for small cab size, reasonable efficiency, and able to reach the low 40s without much hassle.... (I know, Mr Hoffman is going to tap me on the shoulder...) FWIW, the Wavcor 5" & 6" drivers seem to come closest. __________________ Impedance varies with frequency, use impedance plots of your drivers and make crossover calculations using the actual impedance of the driver at the crossover frequency

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anyone tried "hello proto" PCB service?	neutron7	Parts	20	30th December 2006 04:01 PM
6.5" silver flute with 1 1/8" dayton silk dome tweeter	jadenlinkletter	Multi-Way	10	28th February 2006 07:20 AM
Anyone design a system with the Dynavox 28mm tweet and 6.5" woofer?	JCoffey	Multi-Way	0	21st April 2005 02:26 PM
WTB: Focal & Audiom & Volts 11", 12", 13", 15" woofer	gengis	Swap Meet	0	17th March 2005 02:29 AM
Dayton 6" reference and dayton silk dome tweeter combo project...input?	nerd of nerds	Multi-Way	4	2nd December 2004 05:36 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read

12th November 2009, 10:52 PM	#13
Trooper46 diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2008	those woofers dont seem to have your trademark plastic frame. have you given any thought to making other drivers (i.e. non full range) with the plastic frame?

12th November 2009, 11:53 PM	#15
markaudio diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2008	Hi Trooper, Correct, it's pressed steel with a vented section around the coil. A moulded frame to this size would increase the price. To design and make the injection mould tooling for this frame is going to cost around 5000 USD. Also I'd need to do a tri-mix polymer to maintain rigidity due to the larger size. In all, cost goes up so the final price would move this driver into a higher price bracket. But, sure I've really like to do more in multi-way, including my poly-work frames. I could use the Alp 10 and Alp12 frames, more than enough for a nice woof. I did make an proto - paper coned Alpair 10 woof - will post a pic and some details later. Cheers, Mark.

13th November 2009, 12:09 AM	#16
markaudio diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2008	Hi Pete, Many thanks for your thoughts. It's about building a driver to suit the main markets. For example, a 23 litre tower BR box using this 6.5 woof would give around a 46Hz tuned port with plenty of push through it. Allot of potential "bang for the buck" in the LF range. Smaller boxes could use some filtering to compensate for reduced volume, done as part of the crossover. Interesting - I built the Alpair 12 with some of what you've said in mind, although price and quality is in a different league. Cheers, Mark

13th November 2009, 07:21 PM	#17
mbcouple diyAudio Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Indy	How about just combining these drivers into a world-class bargain coax? It would keep with the rest of product line as being a point-source driver. Just a thought. Dont know if the woofer design would lend itself to a coax or not.

13th November 2009, 08:42 PM	#18
markaudio diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2008	Thanks MB, Interesting idea. I must confess my knowledge on Coax is very limited so maybe a project for next year. Mark

15th November 2009, 08:00 PM	#20
human.bin diyAudio Member Join Date: May 2008	woofer number 6 and tweeter number 3... is it about diameter or is it the number of iterations tried by now? if so it would be very nice to see a gallery a discarded designs...