Dynamics, brute force and resolution with tiny feet. - Page 4 - 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 29th September 2012, 11:03 PM   #31
diyAudio Member
 
vacuphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Seaside
Like tuxedocivic indicated, there is a problem which looks like a polarity issue, but it may run a little deeper. Why don't you post the xover schematics so that we can have a look at it? As a general remark, 3Khz is way too high for a combination with 6 1/4" midbass unit. One of the good things of the Morel tweeters is that you can xover really low. 1.75Khz with steep filterslopes might be better.

Another thing is that a bit more damping material might flatten the FR. These drivers can certainly do better than the +/-7.5 dB shown in your measurements.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2012, 11:44 PM   #32
just another
diyAudio Moderator
 
wintermute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney
Blog Entries: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darwin View Post
Did I miss them or were there no distortion measurements in that thread?
There weren't, zaph had them on his site, I had only done T/S measurements at that stage. I've tried to find my Holm measurements with sine sweeps of my final crossover but seem to have overwritten them not particularly happy about that! The point was that zaph's measurements of at least the MW144 didn't seem to be representative of how they are normally, so his comments about how bad they are should be taken with a grain of salt.

I've attached a measurement of the MW144's running full range in their enclosure, but I don't recall the measurement conditions (and they could have been compromised). It looks pretty horrid, and gave me a lot of grief working out a suitable crossover but I was happy with the final result.

The final (without distortion shown) measurements of the completed speaker are in this post --> My Morel MTM Project

Tony.
Attached Images
File Type: png mw144_distortion.png (85.0 KB, 281 views)
__________________
Any intelligence I may appear to have is purely artificial!
Some of my photos
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2012, 11:49 PM   #33
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rullknufs View Post
Rammstein was ridiculously fun to play on these speakers..
Nice choice in music!
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2012, 07:05 AM   #34
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Birmingham, UK
Tony,
the reason I was looking for distortion measurements were Zaphs comments on the 144 and this:
"Comments: This Hi-Vi poly cone driver has a 3" voice coil with an inset magnet similar to Morel and Dynaudio woofers. The difference is that the Hi-Vi has a superior motor and outperforms them in the harmonic distortion department. If I were going to use this style of inset magnet woofer, I would choose the Hi-Vi over Morel or Dynaudio."

regarding the Hi-Vi D6.8 and his comments on the 144. I didn't get as far as comparing listed T/S to measured T/S or FR after that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2012, 08:16 AM   #35
diyAudio Member
 
Rullknufs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden
Send a message via Skype™ to Rullknufs
Now you're all talking about the Morel MW144, but that's not the same driver as the CAW638?
__________________
My audio and DIY blog: http://phimusic.blogspot.se/
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2012, 08:20 AM   #36
diyAudio Member
 
wolf_teeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indiana
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rullknufs View Post
Now you're all talking about the Morel MW144, but that's not the same driver as the CAW638?
Correct- the CAW638 is like the MW166/MW168 with a cast frame.

The MW144 is the classic woofer where the CAW538 would be the evolved unit.

Not the same.
Wolf
__________________
Photobucket picture pages: http://photobucket.com/Wolf-Speakers_and_more
Writeups/thoughts/blogs: http://techtalk.parts-express.com/blog.php?u=4102
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2012, 08:30 AM   #37
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Birmingham, UK
Point being it seems that the motor design appears to be an inherently high distortion one.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2012, 08:32 AM   #38
diyAudio Member
 
Rullknufs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden
Send a message via Skype™ to Rullknufs
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf_teeth View Post
Correct- the CAW638 is like the MW166/MW168 with a cast frame.

The MW144 is the classic woofer where the CAW538 would be the evolved unit.

Not the same.
Wolf
Okay, so the drivers are different yet you seem to say that because the MW144 has high distorsion means that CAW638 also has high distorsion. Are there any measurements of the CAW638 available? I thought they played pretty clear at Ingvar's place, much clearer than my CSS EL70eN would do at the same SPL
__________________
My audio and DIY blog: http://phimusic.blogspot.se/
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2012, 09:29 AM   #39
just another
diyAudio Moderator
 
wintermute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney
Blog Entries: 22
sorry didn't mean to derail things. The reason I posted the link to the mw144 is because although it is smaller (5" vs 6.5" ) it uses the same motor as the MW166 which is the predecessor I believe of the CAW638.

The point was that even if zaph has said that the drivers are crap, that the measurements that he had were not necessarily representative of the drivers in general.

Since the CAW series are quite a bit different (mostly in the basket I think) then any comparisons to the previous drivers may be a bit pointless anyway My original post was just to say, yes I have used morel drivers too and really like them!

Tony.
__________________
Any intelligence I may appear to have is purely artificial!
Some of my photos
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2012, 10:06 AM   #40
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Birmingham, UK
I haven't seen measurements of this particular driver but it would be nice to find out.

It just seems that the inset magnet motor design may be inherently prone to high distortion the same way underhung motor designs are inherently low distortion but also low efficiency. Higher distortion may well be the price one has to pay for the higher power capabilities (via larger diameter voice coils) of inset magnet designs.
There is a price to pay for everything and if one would get high power handling for free surely everybody would use the inset magnet design.
  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
Brute force in a small cabinet... moray james Subwoofers 5 27th September 2012 07:28 PM
Making a low distortion cathode follower preamp by brute force bigwill Solid State 0 12th May 2007 04:53 PM
help in adjusting Vout in the power supply of the "Brute force in a line stage" by Er jarthel Tubes / Valves 9 30th May 2006 07:47 AM
Help on Brute force Ryssen Tubes / Valves 5 2nd May 2004 10:07 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:40 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Đ1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2