North Creek D28 + Peerless Hds-164 Nomex

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Hello,

I'ld like to rebuild a lovely pair of transmissionlines (first ones I built) with the peerless hds-164 nomex (which has the right specs for the cabinets) + North Creek D28 I purchased.... Do you think these can be paired using a first order crossover?

Muchos gracias,

Simon :)
 
Klimon said:
Hello,

... hds-164 nomex (which has the right specs for the cabinets) + North Creek D28 I purchased.... Do you think these can be paired using a first order crossover?

Muchos gracias,

Simon :)
Yes, I don't see any reason you couldn't, however take care on Fx, even this tweeter doesn't love high levels with such a resulting feable slope. Shouldn't need a Zobel.

;)
 
Fantastic! That should make things doable for me (my ears are my best testing equipment). Would you give an educated guess about crossover frequency? On the previous two-ways I tinkered with I had best results laying the - 3db point of the tweets a couple of khz above that of the woofers. E.g. in this case I'ld probably start with 1,5k for the woofers and 3,5k for the tweeters. Your opinion is much appreciated.

Cheers,

Simon
 
Re: Re: Re: North Creek D28 + Peerless Hds-164 Nomex

crazyhub said:

I guess because of the un-possibility to get correct mismatched phases with
first-order x-over regarding the shape of the woofer in its upper-range, isn't it?

:bawling:

Hi,

Simply put you do not know the resulting acoustic order of
your crossover slopes and hence phase matching. There are also
issues of BSC (baffle step compensation) and tweeter distortion.

www.zaphaudio.com is as good as any regarding croosovers.

:)/sreten.
 
Hi,

There seems to be a number of HDS164 driver models .....

http://www.northcreekmusic.com/Drivers/NorthD28-06S.PDF

Suggests 2nd order electrical on the tweeter at around 2Khz.
Efficiency will be low so due to L-pad values you likely will not
need the additional parallel LCR for the D28's impedance peak.

This suggests to me your target is the classic 4th order L/R with
some assymetry to manipulate the phase due to driver offsets.

:)/sreten.
 
The SS 6-1/2" Midwoofer 18W/8545K00 is also a great speaker driver.

The Peerless has T/S specs that would be suited for the existing enclosere, anyway I don't have to check the SS price to know I can't afford it:eek:

...Suggests 2nd order electrical on the tweeter at around 2Khz.

In the application notes there's something about a certain ratio between L and C (forming the second order low-pass) which they recommend; on investigating George Short from northcreek informed me that on their commercial speakers with D28 they use that ratio e.g. Kitti Cat 11µF and 0,315mH (more info on that crossover is on their website) ; Eska 7µ and 0,5m. Adding: The correct choice of C and L depend on the net tweeter + L-pad resistance. For a higher net impedance, C gets smaller and L gets bigger. For a lower net impedance, C gets larger and L gets smaller. Apparently that ratio sounds best for the D28; Kitty Cat has Fx 1,65 and acoustical 3rd order highpass mated with electrical 2nd order for the midwoofer which results in 3rd order lowpass also. Ideally I'ld like to use that ratio for the tweeters X-overs but I'ld probably need to use simulation software for determining the precise value given the specific L-pad needed for matching the hds164. See here: http://www.northcreekmusic.com/Kitty/Kitty_Kat_Info.htms given I'll investigate further later on, meanwhile any input is welcome.

Cheers,

Simon
 
Klimon said:
...
In the application notes there's something about a certain ratio between L and C (forming the second order low-pass) which they recommend; on investigating George Short from northcreek informed me that on their commercial speakers with D28 they use that ratio e.g. Kitti Cat 11µF and 0,315mH (more info on that crossover is on their website) ; Eska 7µ and 0,5m. Adding: The correct choice of C and L depend on the net tweeter + L-pad resistance. For a higher net impedance, C gets smaller and L gets bigger. For a lower net impedance, C gets larger and L gets smaller. Apparently that ratio sounds best for the D28; Kitty Cat has Fx 1,65 and acoustical 3rd order highpass mated with electrical 2nd order for the midwoofer which results in 3rd order lowpass also. Ideally I'ld like to use that ratio for the tweeters X-overs but I'ld probably need to use simulation software for determining the precise value given the specific L-pad needed for matching the hds164. See here: http://www.northcreekmusic.com/Kitty/Kitty_Kat_Info.htms given I'll investigate further later on, meanwhile any input is welcome.

How much is your BSC?
 
2-Way Xover 6dB-12dB PEERLESS-NORTH~86dB/2K2

Klimon said:
Looks very viable, thanks!!!

What are the values for the BSC circuit? Could you make a simulation for only 3-4db BSC - it could be enough for near-wall placement and make the speakers easier to drive for my tube-amps?

Much appreciated :)

Cheers,

Simon

Hi Simon,

WO - 6"1/2 PEERLESS-HDS164 Nomex (BSC=4dB)
TW - NORTH D28-06S (fs=800Hz)/Tweeter with inverted polarity

Woofer:
L1=1.8mH (DCR-0.35)
(type Jantzen Cross-Coil with wood core ~30,00€)
(RC damper)
R1=5.6 (n.i.)
C1=10uF

Tweeter:
C2=10uF
L2=0.27mH (DCR-0.23/air core)
(L-Pad)
R2=2.7 series (n.i.)
R3=8.2 || (n.i.) :c_flag:

For an 87dB~BSC=3dB use a L1=1.5mH, L2=0.24mH and R3=12 ||.
 
2-Way Xover 6dB-12dB PEERLESS-NORTH~87dB/2K0

I'm afraid is better to go with the 2K0Hz version (with BSC=3dB) because of the peak at 4KHz for the woofer, @-17dB in this xover case. More tests (adjusting) only possible after listening experience, to know if it affects anything at bandpass frequency. We can't go very low in the xover to protect for the tweeeter fs. Very tricky. The other is to have a different xover. Small is beautiful.

WO - 6"1/2 PEERLESS-HDS164 Nomex (BSC=3dB)
TW - NORTH D28-06S (fs=800Hz)/Tweeter with inverted polarity

Woofer:
L1=1.8mH (DCR-0.35/type Jantzen Cross-Coil with wood core ~30,00€)
(RC damper)
R1=4R7 (n.i.)
C1=12uF

Tweeter:
C2=10uF
L2=0.30mH (DCR-0.26/air core)
(L-Pad)
R2=2R7 series (n.i.)
R3=15R || (n.i.) :c_flag: :c_flag: :c_flag:
 
Hi inductor,

I definitely agree with the less is more stance (I come from less).
Let's presume the tweeter stays at 2khz with the XO you describe. If the Peerless' breakup will prove unpleasant I presume a notch or a steeper crossover are the standard solutions.

Something that remains a question for me is the phase behaviour of the XO you modelled. Do you have an insight on the acoustical roll-offs of the drivers in the given arrangement and how those combine with regards to phase response?

Much appreciated :)

Cheers,

Simon
 
Klimon said:
Hi inductor,

I definitely agree with the less is more stance (I come from less).
Let's presume the tweeter stays at 2khz with the XO you describe. If the Peerless' breakup will prove unpleasant I presume a notch or a steeper crossover are the standard solutions.
Yes.
Klimon said:
Something that remains a question for me is the phase behaviour of the XO you modelled. Do you have an insight on the acoustical roll-offs of the drivers in the given arrangement and how those combine with regards to phase response?
(?)
180º phase at bandpass/xover.
 

Attachments

  • 2-way xover 6db-12db peerless-north phase.gif
    2-way xover 6db-12db peerless-north phase.gif
    6.4 KB · Views: 225
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.