My experience of using the Peerless HDS 810921 tweeter - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28th December 2007, 09:24 PM   #1
Jay_WJ is offline Jay_WJ  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indiana
Lightbulb My experience of using the Peerless HDS 810921 tweeter

I'm now satisfied with the tonal balance of my Usher 8945P & Peerless 810921 2-way. I regard this revision as the final crossover for this design. The design page has been updated:

http://www.geocities.com/woove99/Spk...Usher_2way.htm

The difficulty in voicing this design was due to the HDS tweeter's rising response in treble. We can notice this in various measurements of the tweeter:

Joe R's - http://www.customanalogue.com/elsino...dio/HDS_FR.gif
Zaph's - http://www.zaphaudio.com/tweetermishmash/810921-FR.gif
Mark K's - http://www.markk.claub.net/Testing/S...tweeter_FR.GIF
augerpro's - http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpos...8&postcount=47

If you look at off-axis measurements in some of the above graphs, the response peak above 10 kHz is flattened when listening off axis. But note that if we used other tweeters that did not have this property, their off-axis responses in the range would be much more reduced. In my experience of voicing the design, the 810921's upper treble is audible no matter what the listening axis is, unless the axis is extremely off-axis (e.g., more than 20 degrees).

I found that, without addressing this issue, the tweeter sounds thin and harsh especially with orchestral music with lots of violin. So, to enjoy this tweeter's excellent clarity in lower treble (and some of upper mids), which is in fact the defining characteristic of any tweeters, its upper treble and some upper end of its mid treble must be suppressed using a contour circuit or a notch filter.

In my previous version, I mildly suppressed it using a narrow, shallow notch filter, but it turned out not enough. So in my final crossover, I widen and deepen it a little, and it then gave me good tonal balance in treble.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 10:57 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
I agree this tweeter sounds like it has more HF energy than others, even more than the response would indicate. In a couple bookshelves I built the SS 9800 response actually dropped much less than 810921 off axis, which you would think would contribute to a somewhat similar overall power response to the 810921, with it's rising response on axis, but very steep drop off axis above 10k. But still the SS 9800 is the "quieter" tweeter by far.

I'm really not sure what all the factors are contributing to this difference. Just using external EQ dropping the response in the 10k-20k is helpful, but not the magic bullet. I found dropping the response in the crossover region (1750 hz in this case) was most helpful, but with the woofer contributing here too it's not clear to me which was affecting the sound more. I haven't had the chance to move the XO point much yet, Jay what did you find when adjusting the XO point? Have you tried an external EQ for quick changes? I found that very helpful.

After messing with the EQ a lot I'd have to say this tweeter just has the characteristic of sounding somewhat "bright" or high energy. The SS 9800 is the more "refined" sounding and probably the definitive "audiophile" tweeter, but in fast A/B testing the 810921 is hands down more open, more natural, and just more lifelike to my ears. The SS 9800 is super easy to get good sound from, just keep teh response flat, adjust the level to taste and it will sound great. The 810921 requires a lot more effort to tune to the individual's taste, but in the end more rewarding if you put that effort in.

Here is the revised XO for that Peerless HDS bookshelf speaker that I've developed but haven't yet built:

Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.

More experimenting to do...
__________________
~Brandon
DriverVault Soma Sonus Old Driver Tests
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2007, 12:17 AM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: alsace
Hi Jay,

First of all, I have to say I enjoy your site, particularly the fact you are proposing SW files of your projects! Thanks a lot for our diy community!

I'm planing to use these drivers for a friend of mine; playing with your SW file I ended up with a second order (+RLC) filter on the woofer (sort of challenging your comment about getting a good phase tracking, lol). This is the chart graph of your last best sounding filter:
Click the image to open in full size.
and this is mine:
Click the image to open in full size.
Please, can you comment about how you guess it could sound regarding your experience with your Usher 2-way?
EDIT: obviously comments from other members are welcome.

Thank you very much.
__________________
crazyhub
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2007, 06:36 PM   #4
Jay_WJ is offline Jay_WJ  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally posted by augerpro
I agree this tweeter sounds like it has more HF energy than others, even more than the response would indicate. In a couple bookshelves I built the SS 9800 response actually dropped much less than 810921 off axis, which you would think would contribute to a somewhat similar overall power response to the 810921, with it's rising response on axis, but very steep drop off axis above 10k. But still the SS 9800 is the "quieter" tweeter by far.

I'm really not sure what all the factors are contributing to this difference. Just using external EQ dropping the response in the 10k-20k is helpful, but not the magic bullet. I found dropping the response in the crossover region (1750 hz in this case) was most helpful, but with the woofer contributing here too it's not clear to me which was affecting the sound more. I haven't had the chance to move the XO point much yet, Jay what did you find when adjusting the XO point? Have you tried an external EQ for quick changes? I found that very helpful.

After messing with the EQ a lot I'd have to say this tweeter just has the characteristic of sounding somewhat "bright" or high energy. The SS 9800 is the more "refined" sounding and probably the definitive "audiophile" tweeter, but in fast A/B testing the 810921 is hands down more open, more natural, and just more lifelike to my ears. The SS 9800 is super easy to get good sound from, just keep teh response flat, adjust the level to taste and it will sound great. The 810921 requires a lot more effort to tune to the individual's taste, but in the end more rewarding if you put that effort in.

Here is the revised XO for that Peerless HDS bookshelf speaker that I've developed but haven't yet built:

More experimenting to do...
Glad to hear about your experience, Brandon. I agree that the 810921 is not easy to get right sound from. I don't know what's going on, either. I think it has its own tonal characteristic---somewhat "light" and "thin." These are the best words I can come up with. In fact, through my several xover modification attempts, it kept this tonality. With my final xover, it's not harsh at all but very sweet and crisp. Sounds pleasing to my ear.

Using the EQ should be a very good way to find out what frequency range most affects a spaker's certain tonal balance. You're right in that a tweeter's low end gives its most defining sonic characteristic. In the xover voicing of my Usher 2-way (and also my RS180 2-way), I found that if I reduce the contribution of the tweeter around 1.5 kHz (1.2 k to 2 kHz) too much, violins in orchestral music don't sound right. I tried to achieve similar voicing between my two designs, but I concluded that the different tonal characteristics of the Peerless and the Seas 27TDFC couldn't be made equal by xover tweaking.

As for your new xover, I'd move the notch a little down to 1.2 k - 1.4 kHz. I think we need to suppress SPL from 8 kHz to 15 kHz. Above this range, our ear is not very sensitive.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2007, 06:58 PM   #5
Jay_WJ is offline Jay_WJ  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally posted by crazyhub
Hi Jay,

First of all, I have to say I enjoy your site, particularly the fact you are proposing SW files of your projects! Thanks a lot for our diy community!

I'm planing to use these drivers for a friend of mine; playing with your SW file I ended up with a second order (+RLC) filter on the woofer (sort of challenging your comment about getting a good phase tracking, lol). This is the chart graph of your last best sounding filter:
Click the image to open in full size.
and this is mine:
Click the image to open in full size.
Please, can you comment about how you guess it could sound regarding your experience with your Usher 2-way?
EDIT: obviously comments from other members are welcome.

Thank you very much.
Your version will definitely sound different from mine. But in what ways? It's difficult to say without actual listnening. As you can see from my discussion with augerpro, the Peerless tweeter sounds more sensitive than its spec indicates. What you need to do is to actually build and voice the speakers by ear. If you don't want to bother, I recommend to build my version and tweak it according to my suggestion. My version was strongly influenced by my experience of building and voicing the Usher design. So I believe it's a safer bet.

According to my voicing experience, I predict that your version will sound "thin" and "dry" due to the wide dip in the 500 Hz to 2.5 kHz range compared to mine. That's all I can say at this point.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2007, 09:45 PM   #6
Jay_WJ is offline Jay_WJ  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally posted by Jay_WJ
As for your new xover, I'd move the notch a little down to 1.2 k - 1.4 kHz. I think we need to suppress SPL from 8 kHz to 15 kHz. Above this range, our ear is not very sensitive.
Brandon, I meant 12 k - 14 kHz.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2007, 09:59 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Ah, I was wondering what you were talking about! The dip should have been centered at 15k, I think it drifted when I input standardized values. But I have to build up the cap and unwind the inductor anyway so I'll shift it back.

The dip from 1k-3k worked best when paired with the Nomex woofer. Both seemed to be voiced by Peerless to work with each other and thus have sort of a light or free sound. When I paired it with the RS150 the results were similar to yours, the dip was really unneeded and more a personal taste thing. Of course the RS150 was crossed 100 Hz lower and much steeper after the initial roll off, so it wasn't contributing near as much energy in that area as the Nomex.

Definitely an interesting tweeter.
__________________
~Brandon
DriverVault Soma Sonus Old Driver Tests
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2007, 10:59 PM   #8
Jay_WJ is offline Jay_WJ  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally posted by augerpro
Ah, I was wondering what you were talking about! The dip should have been centered at 15k, I think it drifted when I input standardized values. But I have to build up the cap and unwind the inductor anyway so I'll shift it back.

Why not fix the inductance to a standard value (e.g., 0.05 mH) and vary the cap for those who want to build your design without an LC meter?
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd January 2008, 04:17 PM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: alsace
Quote:
According to my voicing experience, I predict that your version will sound "thin" and "dry" due to the wide dip in the 500 Hz to 2.5 kHz range compared to mine. That's all I can say at this point.
Thank you Jay for your comment. The voicing stage result seems very special with this tweeter; I'm particularly astonished about the fact one have to reduce the amount of energy in it's middle range...Distortions aren't obviously very high...
Regards.
__________________
crazyhub
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2008, 01:39 PM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
wigginjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Columbia, SC
Jay:

Any news on the MTM version of this speaker? Has it been built by anyone? What do you expect the differences will be between the TM and the MTM other than improved bass response?
__________________
The Four Chairs
DIY Home Theater
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peerless 810921 HDS tweeter mods? Updates? sendler Multi-Way 2 25th October 2008 12:26 AM
WTB/WTT for Peerless HDS Tweeters (810921) azngotskills Swap Meet 0 2nd August 2008 03:44 AM
WTB: Peerless HDS 810921 tweeter luvdunhill Swap Meet 1 26th November 2007 04:36 PM
Peerless 810921 datasheet DcibeL Multi-Way 3 4th May 2007 06:39 PM
peerless 810921 Tweeter oldbar Multi-Way 1 12th November 2006 09:21 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:21 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2