Seas Standard line? Peerless HDS?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I would recommend taking the HDS if you choose the 6.5” peerless, it is better for sure. The basket is more solid. Not that I’m not satisfied with the CSX, in my case it is even better because this fits more in my design, but only for that reason the CSX is better for my system. In a different setup I would prefer the HDS.

Personally I use the T/S parameters of this site: http://www.d-s-t.com/main/index.htm. As far I know these parameters are up to date and are close to the reality, obviously it would be better to measure the T/S parameters your self, but that may be to complicated for a lot of people and you need some equipment for it too.

The power handling of the 8” peerless woofer will decrease by making the volume of the box bigger. How bigger the box, how lower the maximum power handling. 60 liters for this driver is a lot I think. I would put it in a box between 30 and 40 liter personally. But the -3dB point you will get will not be lower then when you would use the 6.5” peerless, maybe even a bit higher (I found out in a quick simulation). The maximum power handling will be almost the same for the two drivers, because the Xmax of the 6.5” driver is bigger than the 8” version. The only advantage of the 8” driver is the higher efficiency.

offtopic, Eul we seem to meet all around the world
Yeah, amazing :D. It’s getting time to meet personal again, perhaps a listening day if one comes up someday :).
 
You can use the T/S parameters quoted on the peerless site but I would strongly recommend measuring the loudspeker in its final enclosurerely without filter (and woofer and tweeter separate) before designing the final crossover.

The frequency curve and impedance curve didn't look like the same unit anymore when tested in its final enclosure and the initial calculated crossover had to be re-calculated.

There is also the option to use a proven design, there could be plenty around that you might like.



offtopic: Eul: Yeah, maybe I'll organise one but I wanna build a new dac first and maybe a new amp (or refurbish an old one)
 
hte reason i chose the 60L alignment is that the peerless pdf suggested it:) but yes i could easily make it smaller, but the towers are going to be a large volume so i would have to section off some volume to keep it down, perhaps i could make provision for another woofer to be used later down the track. ok i just punched in 40L, ur right u dont love much extension and the power handling goes up alot.
thanks eul

ok and as for those TS parameters i have a multimeter and have measured a few specs once before, but could not get everything, but i will try it again when i get the drivers, i dont like this though because i dont want to buy some drivers only to find out that they have different specs to those published.
 
Re CSX specs

These are CSX numbers I've saved from postings on various forums. You can compare them to those on the DST site. Bottom line, measure the driver before you use it; don't trust the manufacturer's numbers. That's good advice for any driver, not just the CSX. You can't really design a good speaker without measurement equipment. It doesn't have to cost much and you might as well do it right if you're going to do it at all.

----------------------

for the 850108

Fs 52.83 Hz
Re 6.10 Ohm
Qms 2.21
Qes 0.38
Sd 91.0 cm2
Vas 12.5 l
Xmax peak 4.50 mm
Le 0.90 mH
Le2 0.43 mH
Re2 1.62 Ohm

--------------

The REAL T/S parameters of the Peerless 850122 are: (columns are parameter/published/actual)

fs 37.7 56.8
Vas 27.7 15.5
Qm 2.29 3.55
Qe .55 .497
Qts .44 .436

-----------------------

....after extensive break-in, T/S parameters for my pair of 850146 came up as fS=26.5Hz, Qts=0.44, Qes=0.47, Qms=5.8, Vas=68 liters (Peerless say 145 liters), Mms=82 grams. Also, the woofer's sensitivity is quite low at 86.3dB, nowhere near the 88.2dB advertised by the manufacturer, probably a result of the now much heavier cone and likely a stiffer spider as well. As you can see, recent batches of 850146s display quite different parameters and others on this forum can attest to that as well. In my opinion, Peerless went ahead and modified this driver for home theatre, but told us nothing about it. I mean, the manufacturer continues to advertise the same old T/S parameters. Despite all this, the modelled SPL response of this driver still is phenomenal.
 
catapult, those specs are very very different, i think peerless need spend just a little bit more money giving real specs on their drivers.

This really bothers me as i am currently building a subwoofer using the 850146! im putting it in a 100L enclosure, luckily not all of the box is cut yet so maybe i can change my plans.

okay i just input the real parameters into winisd and found that even though that specs are drastically different the model looks almost the same, and so i will not need to change my design at all *phew*

but back to the 8" CSX 850136, has anyone measured the TS specs of the driver? or actually does anyone have any experience with the 8" CSX? how does it sound, how deep does it go?
thanks
 
Peerless 8" CSX experience?

i was going to buy my drivers from him earlier but found them cheaper at a place in melbourne called advance aduio electrical and they post drivers for $8 postage for anything you buy, it turned out cheaper this way but took about 5 -6 days to reach me.

still if anyone has experience with the peerless 850146 could they please let me know what its like. thanks
 
This is a good thread.

Re disparity between manufacturers specs and measured specs. I would suggest that in a lot of cases it may simply be down to break in times and measuring setup. Peerless drivers are measured with specific setup which I'm sure I've seen on the DST website. Also, it's unlikely they broke the drivers in before measuring, (I know Vifa drivers aren't) although it seems silly not to do this as it's a fairly simply procedure for a one off measurement.

All said and done, the driver's specs should be measured independently after break-in. That being said, what are the absolute basic measurements that need to be done and what can be calculated from these? It's obvious that the thought of measuring spec after spec is daunting to most beginners. After all, basic initial measurements are needed to build the box. The crossover design needs to be based on driver response once it's in the box. Correct?

Question: if a driver has an optimal box volume, say 60L, is it always the case that 2 such drivers will need twice that volume, ie 120L? If not, what dictates the fb for multiple drivers?

Lastly, anyone evaluated the well regarded Peerless 850122 6.5" CSX for midrange duties? Say, in the 300 to 3000hz range?

Mos
 
:Popworm:
firstly about the crossover design, yes it does ideally need to be designed based on the drivers response in its chosen box, though many of us do not have access to measurement equipment and so mch base our designs on the manufacturers plots and recomendations.

secondly about the box size in relation to the number of drivers, yes you do simply double the volume to obtain the same response. though keep in mind that the port length and diameter must be adjusted for the the tuning and air speed.

now as for the 850122 it has been documeted as avery good sounding driver, i have no direct experience with it but from examples of it being used we can see that it mst have good midrange performace as people use it in 2 way systems that are crossed as high as 3KHz and higher. And those done have beeen said to have excellent midrange performance.
The reason i do not want it for my self is i want more low an extension which a 6.5" driver simply cannot offer at high SPL.

_______________
now as i'm a poo jabber (as my gf has said for me posting so much here:xeye: )
 
Those peerless pipes look to be a very good way of using the 850122, though im not too familiar with TLs so cant say that much about its quality but i can assume itwould be better than the standard ported alignment.

Does anyone know how TLs affect power handling and excursion, the reason being i like the idea of a TL due to its abilit to go very low but i dont want to sacrifice alot of power handling as i want to use them in a HT setup as fronts.
 
HT fronts.......

If you are going to use these mainly for HT fronts, then your sub does the LFE which takes most of bass load off the fronts if you set them to small. In HT the fronts don't do as much as the centre and the sub. I don't think power handling becomes an issue.

For music it's a different story. Depends on your priorities. Mine are for music first and HT second, hence designed for music which the 850122 does extremely well.
 
I want my speakers to be good for both music and HT, the reason i chose the 8" is for its low end extension at higher SPL than the 6.5". Anoth factor was its sensitivity, the 850122 says it has 86.5 whereas the 850136 apparently has 89.5. and since my amplifier is only 70wrms i wanted higher efficiency.

does anyone know if those sensitivity figures are acurrate?

oh and back to the HT and Music thing, i want them to perform well without a sub, as well as with.

Perhaps dual 850122s? in d'appolitto conficuration (MTM), then i would have higher sens' and higher spl capabilities down low?

what do you think?
 
Or TMM in a 2 1/2 way.

Actually I run mine with only 40 watts and the ears give up before the amp and I don't use the sub with music.

I think the 86.5 sensitivity is at 230 Hz and 89+ above 1000 Hz.

I don't know about actual sensitivities, but I had some Richters that were supposed to be 88dB, but these had higher sensitivity and the WES catalogue has them at 88.6698 as measured by SSS.
 
:D IMHO wes's measurements by stones is highly sus as they are far too smooth and flat to be of the real world I have compared peerless fr measurements with stones version and there is very little correlation between the 2 only a hint of similarity.... my 2 cents worth IMO I would rather trust peerless FR other than that I would measure them myself as I usually do with my imp/ mls system with which I have found good correlation between manufacturers published/ supplied FR responses though I can't say the same for T/S params..... for some reason[ guess I must be doing something not quite right :xeye:
 
though many of us do not have access to measurement equipment and so mch base our designs on the manufacturers plots and recomendations
Then your designs will be crappy. Sorry to be so blunt but that's the raw truth. Speakers designed with generic textbook crossovers based on mfr's specs will sound really really really bad. Would you try to build a house without a hammer, saw or tape measure? Gotta have the tools if you want to achieve good results. Otherwise build a kit that someone has already done the design work on.

The tools don't have to be expensive.

Behringer ECM-8000 mic $40
Behringer Eurorack 604A mic preamp $80
LspCAD: includes box design, XO design, and JustMLS measurement software $129
Computer you already have
Cables you probably already have
 
The 8 just wont do it in a 2way -check its fr - huge dip at 500hz - it's not designed to go any higher (some 8s are the Peerless isnt one of them).
70watts is plenty for an 89db s driver - if you really think you need lower distortion then by all means go with paralleled 6.5s - keep in mind if this is powered by an HT receiver it may not like 4ohms, plus your ultimate loudness is the same as the amp has limited current.
 
Then your designs will be crappy. Sorry to be so blunt but that's the raw truth. Speakers designed with generic textbook crossovers based on mfr's specs will sound really really really bad. Would you try to build a house without a hammer, saw or tape measure? Gotta have the tools if you want to achieve good results. Otherwise build a kit that someone has already done the design work on.

i stand corrected, i was just saying that full measurement may not be practical to everyone, room accoustics play too large a part and i do not think that the speaker based on manufacturers specs will be that bad, not perfect but it could turn out well.
As for the price of those tools, is that US or AUS, because if its US those tools would more than double my project costs. The one tool i will be using will be a borrowed SPL meter, yes it will take longer and not have as detailed a fr but it will give me a very good idea of how to go about tuning my system & XO.

The 8 just wont do it in a 2way -check its fr - huge dip at 500hz - it's not designed to go any higher (some 8s are the Peerless isnt one of them).

that dip is not so deep, and it is followed by a small hump, both of which would harly be noticed and would be out weighed by all the rubbish that is done to the signal through room variations.
if you keep looking it goes cleanly up to 3.5Khz, no not as smooth as the 6.5, but unless you own an anechoic chamber you would be hard pressed to notice a difference.

70watts is plenty for an 89db s driver - if you really think you need lower distortion then by all means go with paralleled 6.5s - keep in mind if this is powered by an HT receiver it may not like 4ohms, plus your ultimate loudness is the same as the amp has limited current.

i have 89db speakers at home at the moment on that 70w receiver, yes they go loud, very loud, but more a higher efficiency would be louder, which can never hurt :D, and my amp handles a 4 ohm sub on a spare channel so i know that it can handle it, this would also allow me to deliver more power to that system, hence a rather higher SPL.

if you really think you need lower distortion

I never said anything about lower distortion... i mentioned higher sens' and higher SPL, distortion from the single 8 is fine with me.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.