Hey System7...it looks like you aren't reading the thread anymore about my Nomex164 build. I can be pretty abrasive and maybe the stuff I said about some of your replys made you decide you couldn't help and it wasn't worth trying any more.
First of all let me say, I was speaking out of frustration and took it out on you and I regret it, and I am sorry!
The LCR circuit I tried was a little too mellow. Then I tried different values of the same LCR, and that didn't do it either and adjustments to the L-Pad. It sounded good but not quite there!
Then I tried your Zobel recommendation. I bypassed the .1 mh and eliminated the L-Pad and just went with your values for the Zobel that you posted on like the first or second page of that other thread. I had bought the components for that after your suggestion but had not tried them yet!
I kept thinking about what you said about the Zobel being the smoothest so I figured it was worth a try.
Man what a difference. I am really happy now. I can't thank you enough!
The LCR really helped, and the truth is I probably would have been happy with it. But I am convinced the Zobel was the way to go! It is the perfect combination between brightness and detail without the listening fatigue IMO.
And man you were right about it being smooth!
It almost makes me not want to build any other speakers...almost!!! I'll definitely be building a 3-way in the future and please know your input is welcome and respected.
And I would be remiss if I didn't thank everyone else who offered suggestion and help. However, I feel I owe System7 an apology and credit for helping find the perfect balance for my listening preference!
First of all let me say, I was speaking out of frustration and took it out on you and I regret it, and I am sorry!
The LCR circuit I tried was a little too mellow. Then I tried different values of the same LCR, and that didn't do it either and adjustments to the L-Pad. It sounded good but not quite there!
Then I tried your Zobel recommendation. I bypassed the .1 mh and eliminated the L-Pad and just went with your values for the Zobel that you posted on like the first or second page of that other thread. I had bought the components for that after your suggestion but had not tried them yet!
I kept thinking about what you said about the Zobel being the smoothest so I figured it was worth a try.
Man what a difference. I am really happy now. I can't thank you enough!
The LCR really helped, and the truth is I probably would have been happy with it. But I am convinced the Zobel was the way to go! It is the perfect combination between brightness and detail without the listening fatigue IMO.
And man you were right about it being smooth!
It almost makes me not want to build any other speakers...almost!!! I'll definitely be building a 3-way in the future and please know your input is welcome and respected.And I would be remiss if I didn't thank everyone else who offered suggestion and help. However, I feel I owe System7 an apology and credit for helping find the perfect balance for my listening preference!
Hi Clausen,
+1 with Old'n'Cranky, can you describe your actual crossover with all the values please
As I've said before the best things I've done to make my speaker sounding better were to lower the tweeter level by 1 db AND to change the listening room
Speakers are sounding much better in the actual with wooden floor, carpet and and curtains !!
+1 with Old'n'Cranky, can you describe your actual crossover with all the values please
As I've said before the best things I've done to make my speaker sounding better were to lower the tweeter level by 1 db AND to change the listening room
Speakers are sounding much better in the actual with wooden floor, carpet and and curtains !!
Last edited:
I was still following the thread, Clausen, but I had taken a step back from the debate, which had mostly turned ugly and pointless IMO.
Simple enough problem, the D2608 soft dome tweeter sounded terrible in this design: PEERLESS-NOMEX-164
This is almost where I came into this forum. Years ago my SEAS H0532-08 19TAFD/G metal tweeter was sounding overly bright and horrible! I fitted a Zobel and it sounded much better.
Zobel for a 5.6R, 0.04mH tweeter is easily calculated. It's 7R and 0.82uF. Impedance Equalization (L-Pad) Circuit Designer / Calculator
Better to go under than over, and 7.5R and 0.68uF are near enough values.
I don't know quite why it works so well. There may be an element that feedback amplifiers prefer driving pure resistance at high frequencies, where they tend to run out of loop gain and stability. Maybe the tweeter is optimally damped and the filter works better.
There something messy about attenuators, and a simple input resistor and a Zobel can be adjusted very easily and has a nice high impedance too. It also SOUNDS NICE.
The bass section might not be the last word either. I've never liked the sound of second order and a notch with 6" bass. I'll probably try a pure third order BW3 on my own test cabs when I have the time. I must therefore thank YOU for making me think hard.
Simple enough problem, the D2608 soft dome tweeter sounded terrible in this design: PEERLESS-NOMEX-164
This is almost where I came into this forum. Years ago my SEAS H0532-08 19TAFD/G metal tweeter was sounding overly bright and horrible! I fitted a Zobel and it sounded much better.
Zobel for a 5.6R, 0.04mH tweeter is easily calculated. It's 7R and 0.82uF. Impedance Equalization (L-Pad) Circuit Designer / Calculator
Better to go under than over, and 7.5R and 0.68uF are near enough values.
I don't know quite why it works so well. There may be an element that feedback amplifiers prefer driving pure resistance at high frequencies, where they tend to run out of loop gain and stability. Maybe the tweeter is optimally damped and the filter works better.
There something messy about attenuators, and a simple input resistor and a Zobel can be adjusted very easily and has a nice high impedance too. It also SOUNDS NICE.
The bass section might not be the last word either. I've never liked the sound of second order and a notch with 6" bass. I'll probably try a pure third order BW3 on my own test cabs when I have the time. I must therefore thank YOU for making me think hard.
Attachments
After much stalling.
I've tried this alteration.
My findings.
Mixed bag.
Modified, In some ways the treble seems a touch smoother.
But it also looses out in clarity.
Female vocals (Annie Lennox) take a step back and get a little lost in some tracks.
Cymbals etc become almost hidden.
To borrow some audio goobledy gook;
The speakers give a darker presentation, like they have a Vail in front of them.
Maybe the series 5r6 needs to be dropped a little to say a 4r9. (I did not try this).
But I think by doing that, you'll end up with something very close to the original sound.
For my money, with decent front end, amplifier, cables etc, I'll stick with the original.
Comparing these nomex164's with a really good 3 way is not a fair test, as the three way will always win the fight in the midrange arena.
I suspect that what Clausen is getting is a reduction in tweeter output (and clarity) for the sake of being able to 'crank it up'.
I have had others over who have heard these (original) at what I call stupid volumes (conversation impossible) and at no time did anyone feel they were badly behaved.
Just for fyi, I have Troel's Jentzen D's, and these visitors have everything from old B&W's to klipsch horns.
As far as I'm concerned, the only area these could possibly be bettered would be better midrange.
But then they are a 6+1, there is no 'proper' midrange driver in them.
I respect Steve's (System7) experience, and am very grateful for his time and contributions.
For some this alteration could be the answer they seek.
I believe it's more a case of personal preferences, associated equipment, and not the least room effects.
I've tried this alteration.
My findings.
Mixed bag.
Modified, In some ways the treble seems a touch smoother.
But it also looses out in clarity.
Female vocals (Annie Lennox) take a step back and get a little lost in some tracks.
Cymbals etc become almost hidden.
To borrow some audio goobledy gook;
The speakers give a darker presentation, like they have a Vail in front of them.
Maybe the series 5r6 needs to be dropped a little to say a 4r9. (I did not try this).
But I think by doing that, you'll end up with something very close to the original sound.
For my money, with decent front end, amplifier, cables etc, I'll stick with the original.
Comparing these nomex164's with a really good 3 way is not a fair test, as the three way will always win the fight in the midrange arena.
I suspect that what Clausen is getting is a reduction in tweeter output (and clarity) for the sake of being able to 'crank it up'.
I have had others over who have heard these (original) at what I call stupid volumes (conversation impossible) and at no time did anyone feel they were badly behaved.
Just for fyi, I have Troel's Jentzen D's, and these visitors have everything from old B&W's to klipsch horns.
As far as I'm concerned, the only area these could possibly be bettered would be better midrange.
But then they are a 6+1, there is no 'proper' midrange driver in them.
I respect Steve's (System7) experience, and am very grateful for his time and contributions.
For some this alteration could be the answer they seek.
I believe it's more a case of personal preferences, associated equipment, and not the least room effects.
Hi,
Yeah right .... You've built it ? Or is it the usual case of you
thinking something is wrong because your basically wrong.
I find anyone who has no problem disagreeing (and being
wrong) with the leading lights of something very tedious.
rgds, sreten.
I have the advantage over you that I actually BUILD speakers, sreten.
It was Clausen, not me, who said he found the soft dome tweeter in the PEERLESS-NOMEX-164 slightly too harsh.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/259232-peerless-hds-tweeter-too-harsh-nomex-164-a.html
I merely suggested an easy fix with a Zobel. Hardly difficult to try, is it? Take it or leave it. It rolls off the top end. Some of my own designs wouldn't work at all without a Zobel.
I suppose where it got controversial, was my suggestion that soft domes in general sound poor. What does Troels think about that?
The way I read the build article, Troels is also lukewarm about the Nomex 164 design. I think he just did the best he could with it. The worst aspect is the mere 10dB suppression of the bass cone breakup at 4kHz, IMO. The 2nd order tweeter filter is a bit messy too. I think he'd rather have used another tweeter too, but that was for another day.
And yes, I have built 6" bass and soft dome tweeter speakers, so I'm not inexperienced with them.
It was Clausen, not me, who said he found the soft dome tweeter in the PEERLESS-NOMEX-164 slightly too harsh.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/259232-peerless-hds-tweeter-too-harsh-nomex-164-a.html
I merely suggested an easy fix with a Zobel. Hardly difficult to try, is it? Take it or leave it. It rolls off the top end. Some of my own designs wouldn't work at all without a Zobel.
I suppose where it got controversial, was my suggestion that soft domes in general sound poor. What does Troels think about that?
The way I read the build article, Troels is also lukewarm about the Nomex 164 design. I think he just did the best he could with it. The worst aspect is the mere 10dB suppression of the bass cone breakup at 4kHz, IMO. The 2nd order tweeter filter is a bit messy too. I think he'd rather have used another tweeter too, but that was for another day.
And yes, I have built 6" bass and soft dome tweeter speakers, so I'm not inexperienced with them.
Attachments
Long story, but when I was trying everything possible to cross high with the SB15NRXC30-8 I couldn't suppress the breakup whatever I did, and one of the worst tracks for highlighting the problem was this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZzX3tBeCGs
Not my kind of music BTW.
I've not used the Nomex driver but if my experience with the SB15 is anything to go by then the breakup will be audible.
All those happy with their Nomex 164, leave the room...
6 inch bass is a hard speaker to do, IMO. The crossover point is close to the breakup. Like fatmarley's SB Acoustics :: 5" SB15NRXC30-8, it has a shorting ring too, so is even harder. That makes it low inductance and extends the frequency response. One way round that is to put the inductance back in the filter, so you have a genuine third order network, as SB themselves do in the SB Acoustics :: Elok kit.
Sarah Connor is certainly letting rip there. She sure can shriek, and that is going to expose cone breakup in all its horror. There may be Epos M12i and B&W 685 owners who think their filterless bass units are the best thing ever, but most folks tire of that sound. FWIW, some designers try to get cone breakup down 40dB.
Am I being overly critical of Troels here? Not at all. IMO, it's the 2.5 design and the choice of drive units itself that is problematic. Haven't we all built decent speakers that are transformed into something excellent by a different tweeter? He's honest enough to admit he dragged his heels on doing this one.
6 inch bass is a hard speaker to do, IMO. The crossover point is close to the breakup. Like fatmarley's SB Acoustics :: 5" SB15NRXC30-8, it has a shorting ring too, so is even harder. That makes it low inductance and extends the frequency response. One way round that is to put the inductance back in the filter, so you have a genuine third order network, as SB themselves do in the SB Acoustics :: Elok kit.
Sarah Connor is certainly letting rip there. She sure can shriek, and that is going to expose cone breakup in all its horror. There may be Epos M12i and B&W 685 owners who think their filterless bass units are the best thing ever, but most folks tire of that sound. FWIW, some designers try to get cone breakup down 40dB.
Am I being overly critical of Troels here? Not at all. IMO, it's the 2.5 design and the choice of drive units itself that is problematic. Haven't we all built decent speakers that are transformed into something excellent by a different tweeter? He's honest enough to admit he dragged his heels on doing this one.
Attachments
Let me expand my thoughts.
I don't believe the nomex is a perfect design (I'm talking sound quality).
But I think he's done the best with what he had.
Can I do better ? Hell no.
I've heard similar small speakers that are 3 times the price and still loose the fight.
I think the thing everyone is missing here, is that it's a damn cheap system that really delivers more than it costs.
I started with a pair of his sp95's.
A much nicer speaker. BUT, the tweeters are almost the same cost as the entire nomex build.
And even those are (to my mind) lacking in midrange.
I like three way designs.
I wonder if I might not like 4 way designs better. I don't know, I've never heard one.
Main point to remember, Steve responded to Clausen's complaint about someone else's product.
And by all reports Clausen is now very happy with the result after applying Steve's changes.
Ok, the 'fix' isn't for everyone, but isn't that the whole idea of Do It Yourself.....
Peace and chill out
I don't believe the nomex is a perfect design (I'm talking sound quality).
But I think he's done the best with what he had.
Can I do better ? Hell no.
I've heard similar small speakers that are 3 times the price and still loose the fight.
I think the thing everyone is missing here, is that it's a damn cheap system that really delivers more than it costs.
I started with a pair of his sp95's.
A much nicer speaker. BUT, the tweeters are almost the same cost as the entire nomex build.
And even those are (to my mind) lacking in midrange.
I like three way designs.
I wonder if I might not like 4 way designs better. I don't know, I've never heard one.
Main point to remember, Steve responded to Clausen's complaint about someone else's product.
And by all reports Clausen is now very happy with the result after applying Steve's changes.
Ok, the 'fix' isn't for everyone, but isn't that the whole idea of Do It Yourself.....
Peace and chill out
I ended up changing the tweeter to the old SS 9500/9000 and it made a world of difference. I am most likely going to build a 3 way some time soon, (I hope) so I'm not sure I am going to do much more than what I've done with these speakers.
I did try the XT's in these, (without changing the xover) and instantly hated it! I may try that again and look at adjusting the xover...resistors etc. But at the end of the day I think it's the drivers also.
I was able to try the R3004 in my center channel, (my wife made me return it because the phase plug is as sharp as a nail and we have a toddler) but that thing was incredible. My center is on a short stand.
My wife was saying 2 days later how good it sounded. My Center is basically a modified Mark 21 on Troels sight.
I'd love to use those in a 3 way...and might still! I'm going to try the D3004 in the center and see if it has the same wow factor!
I did try the XT's in these, (without changing the xover) and instantly hated it! I may try that again and look at adjusting the xover...resistors etc. But at the end of the day I think it's the drivers also.
I was able to try the R3004 in my center channel, (my wife made me return it because the phase plug is as sharp as a nail and we have a toddler) but that thing was incredible. My center is on a short stand.
My wife was saying 2 days later how good it sounded. My Center is basically a modified Mark 21 on Troels sight.
I'd love to use those in a 3 way...and might still! I'm going to try the D3004 in the center and see if it has the same wow factor!
I haven't followed the thread in question but feel compelled to say that I have ALWAYS found posts by System7 to be helpful, comprehensible, polite and never patronising - he is a role model for forum posters everywhere
I also have to express my respect for Clausen, it is all too rare for anyone on a forum, it is all too rare for anyone on a forum to apologise for losing his/her rag well done sir!
I also have to express my respect for Clausen, it is all too rare for anyone on a forum, it is all too rare for anyone on a forum to apologise for losing his/her rag well done sir!
I haven't followed the thread in question but feel compelled to say that I have ALWAYS found posts by System7 to be helpful, comprehensible, polite and never patronising - he is a role model for forum posters everywhere
I also have to express my respect for Clausen, it is all too rare for anyone on a forum, it is all too rare for anyone on a forum to apologise for losing his/her rag well done sir!
Thank you very much!!!!
I realized that System7 was one of the few people offering suggestions, like them or not, to help me fix my problem. I am not qualified to argue crossover and driver merits. I do however, know what sounds good...to me....
I didn't make my post about this speaker to argue the merits of the build or the drivers. I just wanted possible tweaks to try!
System7 wasn't a "cheerleader" for a tweeter I DO NOT like and offered suggestions to try...as did others.
I got caught up in my frustrations with this speaker and a difference of opinion about domes and shot my mouth off.
If it wasn't for people like System7, people like me would not be able to disagree about something we don't fully understand!
So out of respect for everyone giving me an education, my personal preferences aside, I wanted to make sure my angry outburst didn't over shadow my respect for people who have the knowledge and experience to educate those of us who are learning.In the future I'm probably going to make some stupid decisions in speaker building, and I am going to need help FIXING IT!
LOL...what it that? Man I just don't like these tweeters...what can I say??? As Troels says..."What I hear isn't what others hear."
But building these was an awesome experience and his kits are on the top of my list for my next build!
If anybody knew what the best compromise with speakers is, we'd be home and dry, and the debate would be finished.
But I think ALL speakers are trade-offs. I seem to gravitate to best value for money. In my dreams I'd build a three way not unlike this:
SEAS-3-Way-Classic
For now, I like the SEAS CA22/RNY, or similar bass and tweeter combo. It's incredibly musical to my ears. Good bass and clean top end. You can do closed box or reflex, both are good.
Troels likes the metal 22 TAF/G, but ALWAYS with a near Zobel because metal tweeters can get bright at the top end:
DIY-Loudspeakers
The ring radiator Vifa XT25TG30-04 1" Dual Ring Radiator Tweeter seems to need a third order to work well.
It's always LR2, BW3 or LR4 in the end. Here's BW3 with the counter-intuitive 90 degree phase difference. Sounds nice IMO and has good dispersion. A cone tweeter for £6 has gotta be good value. Adjust the red resistor for tweeter level. HT-22/8
But I think ALL speakers are trade-offs. I seem to gravitate to best value for money. In my dreams I'd build a three way not unlike this:
SEAS-3-Way-Classic
For now, I like the SEAS CA22/RNY, or similar bass and tweeter combo. It's incredibly musical to my ears. Good bass and clean top end. You can do closed box or reflex, both are good.
Troels likes the metal 22 TAF/G, but ALWAYS with a near Zobel because metal tweeters can get bright at the top end:
DIY-Loudspeakers
The ring radiator Vifa XT25TG30-04 1" Dual Ring Radiator Tweeter seems to need a third order to work well.
It's always LR2, BW3 or LR4 in the end. Here's BW3 with the counter-intuitive 90 degree phase difference. Sounds nice IMO and has good dispersion. A cone tweeter for £6 has gotta be good value. Adjust the red resistor for tweeter level. HT-22/8
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.