Gentlemen - I have bought a set of FE83e (the old one, Solen's last two) and will test between the two - the crossover parts will function as before with very minimal tweaking - both mids being 6.xohms nominal, the high-pass capacitor will still action at ~300Hz. The woofer remains unchanged.
At worst, I'll have enough bits for a set of some of the more interesting B3N projects. Teeny weeny TLs, etc.
I see everyone's point - I didn't mean to start a war!!
At worst, I'll have enough bits for a set of some of the more interesting B3N projects. Teeny weeny TLs, etc.
I see everyone's point - I didn't mean to start a war!!
Hi,
Its not a war, relative driver distortion measurements do not lie,
what ever way you choose to interpret them. 300Hz sounds
a little low to integrate the B3N with a BSC'd DC160, though
it might work with an assymetric arrangement, have to model.
If if you don't BSC it the Fostex will work better, at the expense
of correct bass balance, I've simply got used to the idea that BSC
does not appeal to many amateurs, but its the right way to do it.
rgds, sreten.
Its not a war, relative driver distortion measurements do not lie,
what ever way you choose to interpret them. 300Hz sounds
a little low to integrate the B3N with a BSC'd DC160, though
it might work with an assymetric arrangement, have to model.
If if you don't BSC it the Fostex will work better, at the expense
of correct bass balance, I've simply got used to the idea that BSC
does not appeal to many amateurs, but its the right way to do it.
rgds, sreten.
As an EE who is getting into audio, it's certainly interesting to see where the electronics and physical/acoustical worlds meet one another!
Regarding BSC - it mentions width, not height. But presuming the waves propagate in a hemisphere around the driver, it is equally valid to say that BSC is necessary to compensate the modes reflected by the flat plane extending from the driver -> speaker front -> floor?
Regarding BSC - it mentions width, not height. But presuming the waves propagate in a hemisphere around the driver, it is equally valid to say that BSC is necessary to compensate the modes reflected by the flat plane extending from the driver -> speaker front -> floor?
Hi,
I'm also an EE, and I've seen the worst of EEs saying its done like this.
The transition frequency for BSC is determined by the shortest baffle
dimension, but as you say its not the only dimension that matters,
the middle of a tall baffle will be different to the extreme top.
Fortunately there are simulators that show the baffle step and any
ripple it induces (which it can depending on driver placement).
The four links contain a wealth of information on how to include
the acoustics via measurement or simuation, and on why you
should forget all about standard resistive filter functions and
go with the actual driver acoustic functions possible.
e.g. this is 4th order acoustic assymetric Linkwitz / Riley :
Impossible to tell just by looking at, electrically its 2nd order.
(ignore the optional boxed impedance compensation bits.)
rgds, sreten.
http://sites.google.com/site/undefinition/diy
Zaph|Audio
FRD Consortium tools guide
RJB Audio Projects
I'm also an EE, and I've seen the worst of EEs saying its done like this.
The transition frequency for BSC is determined by the shortest baffle
dimension, but as you say its not the only dimension that matters,
the middle of a tall baffle will be different to the extreme top.
Fortunately there are simulators that show the baffle step and any
ripple it induces (which it can depending on driver placement).
The four links contain a wealth of information on how to include
the acoustics via measurement or simuation, and on why you
should forget all about standard resistive filter functions and
go with the actual driver acoustic functions possible.
e.g. this is 4th order acoustic assymetric Linkwitz / Riley :
Impossible to tell just by looking at, electrically its 2nd order.
(ignore the optional boxed impedance compensation bits.)
rgds, sreten.
http://sites.google.com/site/undefinition/diy
Zaph|Audio
FRD Consortium tools guide
RJB Audio Projects
Regarding the Sensitivity Issue
Rather than replace the HiVis with another 3-inch driver, how about simply using more of them? It might require a significant redesign, but here's one example:
Cinderella
You'd at least be able to keep the HiVis, bump up the mid response, and perhaps get a cleaner overall sound.
Rather than replace the HiVis with another 3-inch driver, how about simply using more of them? It might require a significant redesign, but here's one example:
Cinderella
You'd at least be able to keep the HiVis, bump up the mid response, and perhaps get a cleaner overall sound.
Thank you for your input, sreten. I shall try both approaches. But, I have already bought the Fostex driver, and will run it as a two-way. At least I have what's needed for a smaller, B3N-based build also. Perhaps, when my valve amp arrives with the rest of our stuff, it will pay to have something more efficient in the shape of the DC-160 + Fostex versus the same plus B3N.
L
L
I like the look of them, I've been tempted to use multiple B3Ns in a TL design
I think someone made a set, with just one B3N... worth a shot!
http://sites.google.com/site/stevesstuffproject/sra-3tl-diy-bookshelf-loudspeaker
Lol, I've read that article before, unfortunately I dont think any theory went into that project at all!
Shame coz the ideas there
I love the sound of them in my tl, just got to fiddle around with different designs/lengths
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.