Member
Joined 2003
Kestrel,
The actual crossovers for dipoles are not necessarily more complicated...but you do need to account for the baffles with additional EQ. Overall a little more challenging but, I think, worth it. If you're curious, study S Linkwitz site...HUGE knowledge base there.
High def AND smooth roll-off are tough to get in the same mid. The 8531 comes close...in fact that's what I used in my last system. The 8531 has far smoother roll-off than the W22 I'm using now, but I don't think it has quite the definition...and it still has a (much, much milder) break-up. If you really need smooth roll-off, the drivers you've picked should be fine. Like they say, it's all trade-offs!
Are you are the same person asking about series crossovers on a couple of other forums? That would explain the need for smooth roll-off. I use series xo's for an occasional specific goal, but I don't get hung up on them...especially if it gets in the way of driver selection. Because of the greater component interaction, without software and measurements, I'd rather take a shot in Vegas. They are very, verrrryy, frustrating by ear!
Paul
4-way dipoles
The actual crossovers for dipoles are not necessarily more complicated...but you do need to account for the baffles with additional EQ. Overall a little more challenging but, I think, worth it. If you're curious, study S Linkwitz site...HUGE knowledge base there.
High def AND smooth roll-off are tough to get in the same mid. The 8531 comes close...in fact that's what I used in my last system. The 8531 has far smoother roll-off than the W22 I'm using now, but I don't think it has quite the definition...and it still has a (much, much milder) break-up. If you really need smooth roll-off, the drivers you've picked should be fine. Like they say, it's all trade-offs!
Are you are the same person asking about series crossovers on a couple of other forums? That would explain the need for smooth roll-off. I use series xo's for an occasional specific goal, but I don't get hung up on them...especially if it gets in the way of driver selection. Because of the greater component interaction, without software and measurements, I'd rather take a shot in Vegas. They are very, verrrryy, frustrating by ear!
Paul
4-way dipoles
Paul,
Yes that's me that's posting all the series questions on the PE & MAD boards. Are you saying that you think that paralel Crossovers are easier to design without testing equipment than series. Or that they are both nearly impossible to get right without testing equipment and software? I want to do a decent job on the crossover but I just can't justify in my mind spending 100s of dollars on testing equipment and software at this time. I am on the lookout for used equipment and if I can get it at a good price then I'll probably bite. I started out by e-mailing some DIYs who have built 3 ways using these drivers asking for thier advice/help but haven't found anyone willing yet to help. I either get no answers or am told to give up & buy a kit. I built my 1st 2 sets of speakers using someone elses design. If I could find a 3 way similar to this I would probably build that instead. However the closest I could find was Murphy's MBOW1 3 way, a sattelite sitting on a sub which to me is not very elegant, and this dipole,
http://xgecko.dns4me.com/tall_baffle_finished_speaker.htm
which I really like but requires triamping. Which I can't afford to do at this time. I also love your design and would like to build something similar to it, maybe in a year or two after I learn a little more & get the measurement equipment and software I need. Until then I'll either try a series or try to adapt a paralell crossover from an existing published design like the MBOW1 or the Aerial. But I am going to build these speakers.
Thanks for all your advice
Yes that's me that's posting all the series questions on the PE & MAD boards. Are you saying that you think that paralel Crossovers are easier to design without testing equipment than series. Or that they are both nearly impossible to get right without testing equipment and software? I want to do a decent job on the crossover but I just can't justify in my mind spending 100s of dollars on testing equipment and software at this time. I am on the lookout for used equipment and if I can get it at a good price then I'll probably bite. I started out by e-mailing some DIYs who have built 3 ways using these drivers asking for thier advice/help but haven't found anyone willing yet to help. I either get no answers or am told to give up & buy a kit. I built my 1st 2 sets of speakers using someone elses design. If I could find a 3 way similar to this I would probably build that instead. However the closest I could find was Murphy's MBOW1 3 way, a sattelite sitting on a sub which to me is not very elegant, and this dipole,
http://xgecko.dns4me.com/tall_baffle_finished_speaker.htm
which I really like but requires triamping. Which I can't afford to do at this time. I also love your design and would like to build something similar to it, maybe in a year or two after I learn a little more & get the measurement equipment and software I need. Until then I'll either try a series or try to adapt a paralell crossover from an existing published design like the MBOW1 or the Aerial. But I am going to build these speakers.
Thanks for all your advice
Member
Joined 2003
Kestrel,
Yes, especially if you must do it without software, I think you'll have better success designing a parallel network than series. The reason is that nearly all components in a series xo interact...for example changing an inductor on the tweeter will also impact the mid driver response. By ear, you can end up chasing your tail with a series 3-way xo...and that's the voice of past experience
. Although there is still acoustic interaction, the actual parallel networks impact only one driver at a time...so fewer variables in play.
Though parts count can increase unnecessarily, the flater impedance offered by zobels will help make either style xo more predictable.
There is a well respected P13 MTM on the net somewhere...I think it's called an "Ariel" or something like that. That xo might solve half your battle.
Gotta leave town for a few days...good luck & enjoy the hobby!
Paul
Yes, especially if you must do it without software, I think you'll have better success designing a parallel network than series. The reason is that nearly all components in a series xo interact...for example changing an inductor on the tweeter will also impact the mid driver response. By ear, you can end up chasing your tail with a series 3-way xo...and that's the voice of past experience
. Although there is still acoustic interaction, the actual parallel networks impact only one driver at a time...so fewer variables in play.Though parts count can increase unnecessarily, the flater impedance offered by zobels will help make either style xo more predictable.
There is a well respected P13 MTM on the net somewhere...I think it's called an "Ariel" or something like that. That xo might solve half your battle.
Gotta leave town for a few days...good luck & enjoy the hobby!
Paul
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.