That Peerless 10" SLS should be a great speaker for 30 - 100 Hz.
Why 6.5" ~ well, the biggest two reasons would be if you want a really small box, or, a narrow baffle.
If you put a pair of those Tang Band 6.5" subs on the front of a tall narrow speaker you can get pretty decent bass and it can look cool.
Personally, I'd prefer the look of a speaker with two of THESE on the front:
http://www.tymphany.com/830951
I drool at the idea of 1 pair of those per front main speaker in a 12" wide x 32" tall x 22" deep 100L ported box with a 500 watt amp driving each pair. (Of course, a larger amp would be better, but that's what I happen to have, a pair of 500 watt plate amps that were given to me because instructions on how to hook them up don't exist - they're un-branded).
But... What I would actually GET for myself, would much more likely be 1 SLS 10" per bass bin. I bet they sound GOOD. (Sorry I haven't actually HEARD them though
)
Why 6.5" ~ well, the biggest two reasons would be if you want a really small box, or, a narrow baffle.
If you put a pair of those Tang Band 6.5" subs on the front of a tall narrow speaker you can get pretty decent bass and it can look cool.
Personally, I'd prefer the look of a speaker with two of THESE on the front:
http://www.tymphany.com/830951
I drool at the idea of 1 pair of those per front main speaker in a 12" wide x 32" tall x 22" deep 100L ported box with a 500 watt amp driving each pair. (Of course, a larger amp would be better, but that's what I happen to have, a pair of 500 watt plate amps that were given to me because instructions on how to hook them up don't exist - they're un-branded).
But... What I would actually GET for myself, would much more likely be 1 SLS 10" per bass bin. I bet they sound GOOD. (Sorry I haven't actually HEARD them though
)critofur said:
If I go any larger than 8" I'll have to put the drivers on the side, that why I thought of 8" originally.
At this point the Extremis looks extremely attractive (i.t.o. value for money). Will they work for my application? I don't know. That is what I'd like to know from you guys
GerhardW said:
You can always cut the box in half (i designed it by starting with the RAW acoustics single extremis alignment).... When you said 4 woofers needed i assumed a pair per box, but another post says you'd need 8 for that, so do you have 4 monitors? How do you use 4 sats?
Did you say how big your room is?
The extremely low distortion of the XBL motor lets these little things perform like much bigger woofers (with the price to pay being efficiency)
dave
Yes, I have 4 monitors to build bass bosex for, but only 2 are mine .
Shaun can part with only 4 Extremis drivers, so I am limited to 1 driver per monitor.
I would appreciate whatever you can give me in terms of design with the Extremis.
My room is about 5 x 6m but it opens into the kitchen. One driver per box should be ok I guess.
.Shaun can part with only 4 Extremis drivers, so I am limited to 1 driver per monitor.
I would appreciate whatever you can give me in terms of design with the Extremis.
My room is about 5 x 6m but it opens into the kitchen. One driver per box should be ok I guess.
Hi,
The question is are you building subs or a 3-way speaker ?
Are you going active for the crossover or passive ?
look at this design :
http://www.deadwaxcafe.com/vzone/david/david.htm
In the above tthe BSC for the mid/treble is done by the bass
section, i.e. it is a 3 way speaker. Built as satellites + subs
all BSC would be in the satellites and they would 4 to 6dB
less sensitive in the midband.
Driver choice for the two approaches if passive is critical.
A driver suitable for one approach cannot be used in the other.
Active of course makes things simpler but only for subs and sats.
Going active and 3 way can be more difficult to arrange the c/o.
Your post does not give details of the mid/treble crossover.
It is critical in the ideal driver choice for the bass end.
/sreten.
The question is are you building subs or a 3-way speaker ?
Are you going active for the crossover or passive ?
look at this design :
http://www.deadwaxcafe.com/vzone/david/david.htm
In the above tthe BSC for the mid/treble is done by the bass
section, i.e. it is a 3 way speaker. Built as satellites + subs
all BSC would be in the satellites and they would 4 to 6dB
less sensitive in the midband.
Driver choice for the two approaches if passive is critical.
A driver suitable for one approach cannot be used in the other.
Active of course makes things simpler but only for subs and sats.
Going active and 3 way can be more difficult to arrange the c/o.
Your post does not give details of the mid/treble crossover.
It is critical in the ideal driver choice for the bass end.
/sreten.Hi sreten,
TBH I am a bit overwhelmed with all the possibilities atm.
To answer your question, I want to build a 3-way speaker in two boxes - exactly like the David-Jerico Speaker Project you referred to.
I don't know if you looked at the write-up on my mini-monitors (http://www.avforums.co.za/index.php/topic,2060.0.html) but I have a Seas based monitor for which I want to add bass extension.
I have not done the crossover for the monitors yet. However I have built another pair of monitors using the same drivers and box volume but in a more conventional (rectangular) box for which I have done a preliminary crossover. I tested my walnut monitors with these and they sounded excellent. They are tuned to 90Hz IIRC, and crossed at 3.5kHz (again IIRC, it's been a while
).
So, I want a bass boxes that are musical with good bottom end to complement my monitors. Their primary purpose would be for listening to music, but they would also function in a secondary HT role.
Active/Passive? Well, there are two main factors dictating matters here. 1st is my room, though not big, it does have pronounced room modes which would be easier to address actively (read previous post) in conjunction with my BFD. 2nd is the fact that I can get Adire Extremis 6.8's at a good price. They are quite inefficient so I don't know how well they would work passively with the Seas drivers. I guess I could make them work by lowering monitor's level, but given a choice I'd rather provide more (active) power to the 6.8's to get them on par with the monitors.
If my expectations are to great, I'll go for larger diameter (8" or 10") drivers that are more efficient in a passive system, like the RS225 or M8n. I'll deal with the room issues as best as I can some other way.
Whatever the solution, it must fit with monitors.
TBH I am a bit overwhelmed with all the possibilities atm.
To answer your question, I want to build a 3-way speaker in two boxes - exactly like the David-Jerico Speaker Project you referred to.
I don't know if you looked at the write-up on my mini-monitors (http://www.avforums.co.za/index.php/topic,2060.0.html) but I have a Seas based monitor for which I want to add bass extension.
I have not done the crossover for the monitors yet. However I have built another pair of monitors using the same drivers and box volume but in a more conventional (rectangular) box for which I have done a preliminary crossover. I tested my walnut monitors with these and they sounded excellent. They are tuned to 90Hz IIRC, and crossed at 3.5kHz (again IIRC, it's been a while
).So, I want a bass boxes that are musical with good bottom end to complement my monitors. Their primary purpose would be for listening to music, but they would also function in a secondary HT role.
Active/Passive? Well, there are two main factors dictating matters here. 1st is my room, though not big, it does have pronounced room modes which would be easier to address actively (read previous post) in conjunction with my BFD. 2nd is the fact that I can get Adire Extremis 6.8's at a good price. They are quite inefficient so I don't know how well they would work passively with the Seas drivers. I guess I could make them work by lowering monitor's level, but given a choice I'd rather provide more (active) power to the 6.8's to get them on par with the monitors.
If my expectations are to great, I'll go for larger diameter (8" or 10") drivers that are more efficient in a passive system, like the RS225 or M8n. I'll deal with the room issues as best as I can some other way.
Whatever the solution, it must fit with monitors.
Hi,
Yes there are lots of possibilities including if you are going active
having line level BSC to your mini-monitors rather than passive.
FWIW the measured specs of the Extremis are here :
http://www.zaphaudio.com/6.5test/compare.htm
Sensitivity is very low, as RJB notes here,
http://www.rjbaudio.com/Extremis/extremis.html
two Extremis per speaker would make a lot more sense.
And get you from ~ 80dB/W to ~ 86dB/W = CA11RCY.
But too expensive ? to use two per speaker ?
They are too insensitive for one per speaker as a passive 3-way.
This could work for a passive 3-way, target ~ 85-86dB/W :
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=296-175
/sreten.
Yes there are lots of possibilities including if you are going active
having line level BSC to your mini-monitors rather than passive.
FWIW the measured specs of the Extremis are here :
http://www.zaphaudio.com/6.5test/compare.htm
Sensitivity is very low, as RJB notes here,
http://www.rjbaudio.com/Extremis/extremis.html
two Extremis per speaker would make a lot more sense.
And get you from ~ 80dB/W to ~ 86dB/W = CA11RCY.
But too expensive ? to use two per speaker ?
They are too insensitive for one per speaker as a passive 3-way.
This could work for a passive 3-way, target ~ 85-86dB/W :
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=296-175
/sreten.I was afraid of that. Even if they were cheap enough, I can get only 4 and if I need 2 per box then I'd need 8 (I've got two sets of monitors). So the 6.8s are out then.
The Audax is certainly cheap enough but its Xmax seems a bit iffy at 2.6mm, doesn't it?
The RS225 or M8n seems to me to be the 2 front runners then with the RS225 probably getting the nod. The only concern I have with the Dayton is its box size requirements of around 70l but I'm sure I can manage.
The Audax is certainly cheap enough but its Xmax seems a bit iffy at 2.6mm, doesn't it?
The RS225 or M8n seems to me to be the 2 front runners then with the RS225 probably getting the nod. The only concern I have with the Dayton is its box size requirements of around 70l but I'm sure I can manage.
OK, so I went for the Extremis 6.8s - got them today.
My idea is to go for an active closed box solution with a Linkwitz transform and a EQ: P48 + P84 + P39 (maybe) + P101/P68 (http://www.sound.westhost.com/p-list.htm)
What I like about this is that I have 2 boxes (help mitigate room mode activation), loads of tweaking ability and lots of power.
I'd like to know what y'all think of this?
What is a good closed box size for the 6.8s (I will do the measurements and design - just like to get a ball park).
Tx.
Gerhard
My idea is to go for an active closed box solution with a Linkwitz transform and a EQ: P48 + P84 + P39 (maybe) + P101/P68 (http://www.sound.westhost.com/p-list.htm)
What I like about this is that I have 2 boxes (help mitigate room mode activation), loads of tweaking ability and lots of power.
I'd like to know what y'all think of this?
What is a good closed box size for the 6.8s (I will do the measurements and design - just like to get a ball park).
Tx.
Gerhard
BHTX said:
Yes, it is a HPF with a high Q. You are correct about the GD due to steep and sudden rolloff. Implementation is probably best applied to a subwoofer, where the cutoff region lies below the passband.
I have in fact used this filter configuration in my own subwoofer. It replaces what would have been a linkwitz transform + HPF.
I posted the link just for interest's sake, seeing that Gerhard is thinking about applying EQ.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.