zobel and baffle step questions - Page 2 - 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 3rd April 2003, 10:00 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
nobody special's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: USA
Tieftoener,
I appreciate the advice on the P17's, but I think I will stick with them for now. I will build something better in the future. No offense, and I appreciate your experience, but I might as well tweak the design I have for now. There's always another project, right? (I only have 3 more going right now, haha).
Steve
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2003, 04:56 AM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: 3rd rock from the Sun
Default Good woofer/mid bass drivers

It is always a good idea to listen carefully to the woofer/midbass like the P17 installed in a cabinet with nothing else connected but the amp. It will sound dull compared to a regular wideband speaker. But listen to it for several hours , you will get used to it AND you will begin to see how it really sounds. Now change to some other driver and you will see the difference immediately. What you probably need to look at is how smooth the mids sound. Any raspiness or noisy vocal will tell you that the drive unit is not good enough. The HF extension is no indication of its performance in the mid band. The P17WH sounds very respectable compared to many other drivers in a test like this.
The P13WH is known very well for its flat midband response. In a test like this it has even less hf extension than the P17 ! So don't take that as any indication of the sound. Always listen to a driver without a crossover to see what you've got. Unfortunately tweeters will need some sort of LF cut off to protect it from dangerous lf excursion.
In my experience a harsh sounding speaker always leaves telltale marks even with a crossover installed. So be careful.
__________________
Fantastic
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2003, 06:26 AM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
Tieftoener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Coastal AL
Fantastic:

No offense, but you obviously haven't experimented much with drivers. The P13WH WAS a great driver like 10 years ago. Cone technologies have changed... some things have gotten worse as a result of experimentation, and some things have gotten a lot better. Try comparing your P13 to the PL14... have you? I doubt it. Even Linkwitz himself states that the PL14 has LOWER distortion in ALL his tests. And he is (was?) one of the huge promoters for the P13. Personally, I never felt it stood up to the clout that others have given it over the past few years... in a lot of ways, I actually think that the P17 sounds a bit better in the mids - and in other ways, not so much.

The dispersion characteristics, total lack of detail and punch (not bass punch, but its dynamic capabilities) are just plain lacking compared to many other midrange drivers. How about the Morel MDM-55... now there's a beautiful midragne. Granted its a dome, but I'm just trying to relay that the midrange performance of the P13 is not what its cracked up to be. The Peerless 7" CSX, Vifa M18, Focal 4211, Scan Speak 8545 are all lightyears ahead of the P17 and P13. Depends on your budget, but the P13 is out in my book. The P17 has so much midrange distortion is crazy. Its a great driver for the price and very versatile for beginners, but there are just so many that outdo it nowadays.

Nobody special:

Don't sweat it man - tweak away!! Why rework one project when you could just have 5 different ones? Seriously, glad to see your acceptance. Good luck, and please keep us posted...
__________________
Tieftoener -- You're ears can sense a movement in air that causes your eardrum to move less than 1/10th of the diameter of a Hydrogen atom! Don't abuse the one of the most amazing organs your Creator gave you!
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2003, 06:29 AM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
Tieftoener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Coastal AL
Fantastic:

Just remembered one more midrange that I prefer over the P13... the M13. Its a lot closer to the quality of the PL14. It doesn't have the throw of the P13, but when used in an MTM or the like, its not too big a deal if used with a sub.
__________________
Tieftoener -- You're ears can sense a movement in air that causes your eardrum to move less than 1/10th of the diameter of a Hydrogen atom! Don't abuse the one of the most amazing organs your Creator gave you!
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2003, 07:42 AM   #15
navin is offline navin  India
diyAudio Member
 
navin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Mumbai (Bombay), India
Send a message via MSN to navin Send a message via Yahoo to navin
from what i remember the P13s have a high loss surround while some (if not all) of the drivers it is being compared to have low loss surrounds. does this have to do with the difference in the sound of the P13 v/s the M13, 8545, PL14, M18, CSX, etc...

again i can be totally wrong but i think the P13 was from an era when a flat frequency response was the touted as a USP. Today other factors are being introduced (Acceleration factor (Bl/Mms) , Cms, etc..) and being sold as USPs.

Also I feel with some of the more exotic cone materials (carbon, kevlar, metals (Mg, Al, etc), glass etc..) driver manufacturers are using low loss surrounds to damp the drivers. I remember one manfacturer who actaully hinted at this (verbally in person off teh record) about 10 years ago. I am not saying that this (a low loss surround) is bad but just that it is the development of drivers today. The SS revelator series, CSX series, SEAS Excel series etc represents close to teh sate of the art in drivers today and all these drivers are quite good (given their design parameters).

For example Ted Jordan's wonderful 50mm driver of the 70s had some ringing problems. I would love to be correctd on this but I am inclined to believe that the 21st century versions (or even the 90s versions) used low loss surrounds to reduce the problems of ringing.

Am I barking up the wrong tree? Any driver manufacturers who can shed some light on this out there?
__________________
...still looking for the holy grail.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2003, 07:44 AM   #16
navin is offline navin  India
diyAudio Member
 
navin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Mumbai (Bombay), India
Send a message via MSN to navin Send a message via Yahoo to navin
just realised that i was way off topic on my past post sorry guys.
__________________
...still looking for the holy grail.
  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
Does open baffle suffer from baffle step? 454Casull Multi-Way 15 19th May 2012 04:12 PM
Questions Computing Baffle Step Compensation circuit chasingame Multi-Way 10 6th August 2009 08:51 AM
stuffing Mileva: first timer step by step questions schro20 Full Range 7 2nd June 2008 06:49 PM
baffle Step rgrayton Full Range 33 5th December 2004 12:16 AM
baffle step help. AudioGeek Multi-Way 3 10th February 2004 12:02 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:05 PM.


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