Hi all,
As my little sister just had her house turned upside down by thieves who stole everything including the homemade iPod speaker I made her, I would like to make/give her a new one
.
the old one ended up quite nice and was based on a pair of rainbow slx 230 speakers and an amp32.
I would like to jump into doing a stereo 2 way from scratch and have many ideas, but avg. theoretical knowledge at best.
The basic plan is as follows:
A stereo 2-way Ipod/Iphone active speaker
Tweeter: Vifa XT25SC90/04 Zaph|Audio
Woofer: Dayton RS125S-8 Zaph|Audio
LR 12dB filter around 2-3khz
Amp: Tripath 41hz amp32 or amp4.
Dock: Homemade or stripped dock integrated into speaker.
SO... what do you think so far? The speakers are primarily choosen based on zaphs measurements (relying on the rs125s being similar to its brother rs150s).
Having never done a filter before I'm comming up short here (but hoping to get some help from you guys ).
I presume I need in the filter at least:
The LR 12 dB low pass for woofer
LR 12 dB high pass for tweeter
Impedance matching
Gain/SPL matching (L-pad?)
Damping of impedance at x-over frequency
Zobel?
Any help is highly appreciated
As my little sister just had her house turned upside down by thieves who stole everything including the homemade iPod speaker I made her, I would like to make/give her a new one
.the old one ended up quite nice and was based on a pair of rainbow slx 230 speakers and an amp32.
I would like to jump into doing a stereo 2 way from scratch and have many ideas, but avg. theoretical knowledge at best.
The basic plan is as follows:
A stereo 2-way Ipod/Iphone active speaker
Tweeter: Vifa XT25SC90/04 Zaph|Audio
Woofer: Dayton RS125S-8 Zaph|Audio
LR 12dB filter around 2-3khz
Amp: Tripath 41hz amp32 or amp4.
Dock: Homemade or stripped dock integrated into speaker.
SO... what do you think so far? The speakers are primarily choosen based on zaphs measurements (relying on the rs125s being similar to its brother rs150s).
Having never done a filter before I'm comming up short here (but hoping to get some help from you guys
).I presume I need in the filter at least:
The LR 12 dB low pass for woofer
LR 12 dB high pass for tweeter
Impedance matching
Gain/SPL matching (L-pad?)
Damping of impedance at x-over frequency
Zobel?
Any help is highly appreciated
Unless anyone argues against the RS125S driver, the box would be 2 chambers of 10,6L (excluding port and driver displacement) and a 10,6cm long 4,7cm dia. port tuning it at 58,7hz according to winisd.
BTW should you also subtract the port volume from the total volume as you do with the driver?
Zobel: R = 7,88ohm C = 11,61uF
High pass @ 2500hz: C1 = 10,3 uF L1 = 0,4mH
Low pass @ 2500hz: C2 = 5 uF L2 = 0,8mH
But this is all based on published specs (kind of a no-no, but have no way to measure the unites).
So far I am curious if the zobel resistance affects the filter values as these are based on the Re values as used here mh-audio.nl - Home
BTW should you also subtract the port volume from the total volume as you do with the driver?
Zobel: R = 7,88ohm C = 11,61uF
High pass @ 2500hz: C1 = 10,3 uF L1 = 0,4mH
Low pass @ 2500hz: C2 = 5 uF L2 = 0,8mH
But this is all based on published specs (kind of a no-no, but have no way to measure the unites).
So far I am curious if the zobel resistance affects the filter values as these are based on the Re values as used here mh-audio.nl - Home
Old active iPod speaker
She had a red and black iPod at the time.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
She had a red and black iPod at the time.
Just noticed that the RS125S has a fairly high Fs so that probably won't work. I found the RS150S in another shop so it is either that or a peerless HDS woofer 830860 - Peerless HDS-134PPB PPB diaphragm, 26 mm coil, AL - Europe Audio or 830991 - Peerless 5.25'' HDS-134 driver with glass-fibre cone - Europe Audio
I'd model them both in winISD, see what does best in a fairly small box.
The Tang Band 5" subwoofer might be of interest. Cross it over to a 4" mid and tweeters. W6-1139SH - TB speakers 5.5 inch - Europe Audio
It's effciency is pretty low, but it does extremely well in small boxes.
Down firing sub, with stereo mids and tweeters?
It's another option.
Chris
The Tang Band 5" subwoofer might be of interest. Cross it over to a 4" mid and tweeters. W6-1139SH - TB speakers 5.5 inch - Europe Audio
It's effciency is pretty low, but it does extremely well in small boxes.
Down firing sub, with stereo mids and tweeters?
It's another option.
Chris
Hi Chris,
I considered a 3-way, but regarding price and complexity I settled for a 2-way. Inherent to the ipod speaker design stereo imaging is minimal and she doesn't listen to bass heavy music, so the primary concern is SQ and reasonable size.
Appreciate your input though... you shouldn't by any chance have an oppinion on filter design for any of the drivers I mentioned earlier?
The RS125S is modeled with a F3 around 40-50hz which is way below the drivers Fs of 86 hz. I believe I read somewhere that above Fs the driver is controlled by the amp and below Fs the driver is controlled by the suspension and at Fs there is very little control.
I considered a 3-way, but regarding price and complexity I settled for a 2-way. Inherent to the ipod speaker design stereo imaging is minimal and she doesn't listen to bass heavy music, so the primary concern is SQ and reasonable size.
Appreciate your input though... you shouldn't by any chance have an oppinion on filter design for any of the drivers I mentioned earlier?
The RS125S is modeled with a F3 around 40-50hz which is way below the drivers Fs of 86 hz. I believe I read somewhere that above Fs the driver is controlled by the amp and below Fs the driver is controlled by the suspension and at Fs there is very little control.
Last edited:
Hi planet10,
I considered a fullrange as I have made some B3N zaph fullranges, but they are limited in sub 100hz bass and SPL.
The reason I didn't go with the mark audios was zaphs comment on the optimal size for a fullrange "You'll never find me running larger full range drivers because I think they generally have too many problems that degrade the sound. But the 3" wide range is another story - they are large enough to blend well with a subwoofer, but small enough to have high frequency extension and off axis response that doesn't stink. 2" drivers are too small, with poor low end extension, distortion and power handling problems. With those you end up with the typical "Blose" sound - no midbass, and a sub that's easily locatable due to a crossover that is too high. 4" or larger drivers can integrate well with a sub, but lack high frequency resolution, have terrible off axis response and have breakup nodes too low in frequency. That leaves us with 3" drivers, the magic size. ".
Also that I would like to learn to make a x-over myself and understand why the decisions are made in different filter types
I considered a fullrange as I have made some B3N zaph fullranges, but they are limited in sub 100hz bass and SPL.
The reason I didn't go with the mark audios was zaphs comment on the optimal size for a fullrange "You'll never find me running larger full range drivers because I think they generally have too many problems that degrade the sound. But the 3" wide range is another story - they are large enough to blend well with a subwoofer, but small enough to have high frequency extension and off axis response that doesn't stink. 2" drivers are too small, with poor low end extension, distortion and power handling problems. With those you end up with the typical "Blose" sound - no midbass, and a sub that's easily locatable due to a crossover that is too high. 4" or larger drivers can integrate well with a sub, but lack high frequency resolution, have terrible off axis response and have breakup nodes too low in frequency. That leaves us with 3" drivers, the magic size. ".
Also that I would like to learn to make a x-over myself and understand why the decisions are made in different filter types
Hi,
The idea I had in mind for the 2.1 system was similar to that of the B&W Zeppelin.
How about a pair of 3" drivers, with a subwoofer?
The reason I'm pushing the subwoofer - if you have one end of the frequency range, but not the other (provided, of course, you have the midrange), it sounds awful. That's why the old speakers, while limited at both ends of the frequency range, still sound good. However, I find it difficult to listen to a 3" driver alone. There simply isn't enough bass (this seems to be emphasised by the presence of the treble), so the whole experience isn't as good.
If you have the option, go for an active cross-over. This makes component price much lower.
I'd pick 4th order for the full-range drivers, and 2nd order for the sub, around 150Hz.
The reason - the steep crossover on the full-rangers mean they won't hit excursion limits (2nd order on full-rangers isn't enough. I know this from experience.) 2nd order on the sub so it can re-enforce the lower midrange a little (can be lacking in small-driver systems).
Anyway, these are just my opinions.
Chris
The idea I had in mind for the 2.1 system was similar to that of the B&W Zeppelin.
How about a pair of 3" drivers, with a subwoofer?
The reason I'm pushing the subwoofer - if you have one end of the frequency range, but not the other (provided, of course, you have the midrange), it sounds awful. That's why the old speakers, while limited at both ends of the frequency range, still sound good. However, I find it difficult to listen to a 3" driver alone. There simply isn't enough bass (this seems to be emphasised by the presence of the treble), so the whole experience isn't as good.
If you have the option, go for an active cross-over. This makes component price much lower.
I'd pick 4th order for the full-range drivers, and 2nd order for the sub, around 150Hz.
The reason - the steep crossover on the full-rangers mean they won't hit excursion limits (2nd order on full-rangers isn't enough. I know this from experience.) 2nd order on the sub so it can re-enforce the lower midrange a little (can be lacking in small-driver systems).
Anyway, these are just my opinions.
Chris
zaphs comment...
Also that I would like to learn to make a x-over myself and understand why the decisions are made in different filter types
Wanting to learn XOs is a good reason, what Zaph says is not.
I'm with Chris. If you really want an XO, they are best really low, but trying to craft one for a tweeter/midbass -- the worst place to put an XO -- is going to teach you a lot more. I just gave up on them.
dave
Hi chris,
I was actually also thinking about making another B3N system with a TB 5" sub or a peerless SLS 6,5", however as you say that would require an active x-over like the reckhorn F1 I used last for a 24dB filter. For this solution maybe I could look into PLLXO?
If I wanted passive sub I presume it would need to be DVC for 1 sub driver to pair up to stereo fullranges? Alternatively a signal mixer transformer.
Btw all of your oppinions are highly appreciated.
@ dave
The CHR70, do you run it like it is or do you add a high pass or notch filters?
/Steffen
I was actually also thinking about making another B3N system with a TB 5" sub or a peerless SLS 6,5", however as you say that would require an active x-over like the reckhorn F1 I used last for a 24dB filter. For this solution maybe I could look into PLLXO?
If I wanted passive sub I presume it would need to be DVC for 1 sub driver to pair up to stereo fullranges? Alternatively a signal mixer transformer.
Btw all of your oppinions are highly appreciated
.@ dave
The CHR70, do you run it like it is or do you add a high pass or notch filters?
/Steffen
I was thinking something like the amp9 from 41Hz Audio - 41Hz Main
(the basic model isn't a comment on your ability, it just presents better value for money, imo) You can bridge channels, so you could have a 2.1 amplifier. You would need to mix the channels down to mono for the sub.
It wouldn't require an active cross-over, but, when you want to cross over at 150Hz, the components needed are pretty large.
My thoughts for the cabinet are -
Similar dimensions to the one you showed before. A pair of 3" drivers mounted on the front, and the subwoofer firing downwards. It would mean it needs to be lifted off the ground by a couple of inches, to allow the bass to "escape" properly.
(the basic model isn't a comment on your ability, it just presents better value for money, imo) You can bridge channels, so you could have a 2.1 amplifier. You would need to mix the channels down to mono for the sub.
It wouldn't require an active cross-over, but, when you want to cross over at 150Hz, the components needed are pretty large.
My thoughts for the cabinet are -
Similar dimensions to the one you showed before. A pair of 3" drivers mounted on the front, and the subwoofer firing downwards. It would mean it needs to be lifted off the ground by a couple of inches, to allow the bass to "escape" properly.
Last edited:
I haven't tried it in a FAST yet. The small sealed CHR i have naturally roll off 2nd order and can get away without a high pass -- if they were a more permanent install i'd try a 1st order PLLXO in front of them.
My other CHR system (microTowers) hit the low 40s, so i don't really need additional woofer.
miniOnken boxes for CHR are waiting for veneer (and Mk2 drivers), beta testers seem stunned by the bass these produce and we'll be trying CHR in Frugel-Horn Mk3, and i hope a set of Maeshowe after that (you aren't fitting Maeshowe in an iPod speaker, but a little creativity could probably get the miniOnken in -- you'd need ~20 litres for the pair)
dave
Currently, they're in a pair of Chillingham speakers, designed by Scott.
I'm not keen on their bass. Sure, it's there, but when it brings on fatigue within 10 minutes (for me anyway), it's not worth having. The rest of it's nice though.
I've had a torrent of exams recently, but in my week off (next week), I'll give them a try and report back (PM?).
Chris
I'm not keen on their bass. Sure, it's there, but when it brings on fatigue within 10 minutes (for me anyway), it's not worth having. The rest of it's nice though.
I've had a torrent of exams recently, but in my week off (next week), I'll give them a try and report back (PM?).
Chris
Thx alot for all your input
@ Chris
I have actually made many amp9 and amp9b for that exact purpose as they offer really nice 4 channel SQ for the money.
I have not totally abandoned my own bullet 2 way and you 2.1 with fullranges and mini sub, but I must admit that Daves Fonken speakers look tempting.
Please don't keep your impressions of the CHR-70 in PM.
@ Dave
Could you explain alittle about the differences between the mFonken, microFonken and miniOnken and relate to which fits the CHR-70 better? (BTW is gold and silver CHR-70 the same speaker?).
@ Chris
I have actually made many amp9 and amp9b for that exact purpose as they offer really nice 4 channel SQ for the money.
I have not totally abandoned my own bullet 2 way and you 2.1 with fullranges and mini sub, but I must admit that Daves Fonken speakers look tempting.
Please don't keep your impressions of the CHR-70 in PM
.@ Dave
Could you explain alittle about the differences between the mFonken, microFonken and miniOnken and relate to which fits the CHR-70 better? (BTW is gold and silver CHR-70 the same speaker?).
The same CHR Mk2 comes in 4 colour schemes. Gold, silver, silver w black dustcap, black (last you have to get from blueplanet).
miniOnkens are a family of speakers based on similar principles. All the miniOnkens called Fonkens have Fostex drivers (Fostexonken.
So far for the CHR there is a sealed milliSize box. The deciSize is a true miniOnken.
The full story is here. Each box is carefully tuned for the driver that goes into it.
dave
So dave...
When you wrote "you aren't fitting Maeshowe in an iPod speaker, but a little creativity could probably get the miniOnken in -- you'd need ~20 litres for the pair" You meant doing that complete speaker with original driver and not with the CHR-70 you previously mentioned, correct?
The option for the CHR-70 is the mMarS70?
When you wrote "you aren't fitting Maeshowe in an iPod speaker, but a little creativity could probably get the miniOnken in -- you'd need ~20 litres for the pair" You meant doing that complete speaker with original driver and not with the CHR-70 you previously mentioned, correct?
The option for the CHR-70 is the mMarS70?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.