Bill Fitzpatrick said:
I would prefer something a bit more current, no offense to Planet 10 or the other classic enthusiasts.
Efficiency I'm not worried about at all, with a fully active system and over 100 watts available to each driver, I don't see power as being a difficulty, at least, not in the upper module.
eton vs vifa
I applaud the use of the eton 7"-It is one of my favorites
No way, however, are they suitable for a high crossover point.
There is a super peak on mine at about 3800 hz. Since this is a resonant peak, I don't feature listening to it! Ive found it easily tamed by a series notch, and an experimental listen with my scan 9500 sounded promising. I was using about 2700 Hz, and I don't see why a higher point would be desireable. BTW I like the presentation better than any with my eton 5-880, which is nominally flatter.
since this is a king-size project, all the way, I recommend you equip yourself with enough componenets for both a 2nd-order and a 4th order crossover. All extra parts can probably be sold here.
Also recommended is a meter which will measure Ind. and Cap., like the wavetek 27XL, so you can upwind and downwind inducrors, and parallel various caps, insearch of an X-over that sounds to your liking.
Doug
I applaud the use of the eton 7"-It is one of my favorites
No way, however, are they suitable for a high crossover point.
There is a super peak on mine at about 3800 hz. Since this is a resonant peak, I don't feature listening to it! Ive found it easily tamed by a series notch, and an experimental listen with my scan 9500 sounded promising. I was using about 2700 Hz, and I don't see why a higher point would be desireable. BTW I like the presentation better than any with my eton 5-880, which is nominally flatter.
since this is a king-size project, all the way, I recommend you equip yourself with enough componenets for both a 2nd-order and a 4th order crossover. All extra parts can probably be sold here.
Also recommended is a meter which will measure Ind. and Cap., like the wavetek 27XL, so you can upwind and downwind inducrors, and parallel various caps, insearch of an X-over that sounds to your liking.
Doug
Seth Smith said:
Well, OK but have you yet considered the need for some baffle step compensation? With only 3db compensation, your target of 110db, the desired to avoid thermal compression, a 92db driver and a 100watt amp you will be pushing the envelope on several fronts. And I still maintain that an 8" woofer isn't going to cut it - not at concert hall levels. IMHO.
Bill Fitzpatrick said:
Hard to say yet on the BSC, I don't know how this triangular baffle is going to step yet, although I'm sure it will be most interesting.
I have my concerns on the 8" woofer keeping up as well. Actually, take that back, I am almost certain it will not fit the original requirements, not run full range. As with all good DIY projects, this one is going to require additional compromises. But really, how much 110Db's can you really take?
Back to mids for the moment though, the Eton continues to hold my attention, the testimonials have helped considerably. Am browsing through Visaton's selection at the moment. Any other brands out there that might be less popular and overlooked?Crossover point will likely be in the neighborhood of 3 - 3.2K to the tweeter. I had completely forgotten about the Hiquphon in my original planning stages and just realized that it would make a perfect compliment here considering the relatively high XO point. Anybody care to offer a comparison of the OW-1 to the 9500?
Compensating for a baffle step shouldn't be necessary for the woofer, simply because it's very close to the floor. The sound will be radiating into half-space anyway and therefore already have a 6dB boost at low frequencies.
How about Alcone as an option? I read that you're put off that the midrange speakers with aluminium cones have large peaks at the top of their frequency ranges. However, I don't think that it's such a big problem, as I'm also designing an active crossover (for an Accuton 7" speaker), and various programs have been very useful in helping me design a notch filter. Basic 2nd order notch filters even have the property of cancelling out ringing if designed properly.
CM
How about Alcone as an option? I read that you're put off that the midrange speakers with aluminium cones have large peaks at the top of their frequency ranges. However, I don't think that it's such a big problem, as I'm also designing an active crossover (for an Accuton 7" speaker), and various programs have been very useful in helping me design a notch filter. Basic 2nd order notch filters even have the property of cancelling out ringing if designed properly.
CM
Seth Smith said:
i was able to achieve these levels using 2 x SS 8546 Xoed as low as 65Hz. given that your xo point is an octave higher i think 1 x 6/7" driver should suffice. 1 x 5" might be pushing it though.
at the low end you will need ot move a lot of air to get 100db at say 50 hz or 40hz. no 8" woofer i know of can do this. u might want to consider 2 x 8" thinking of which have you seen Thorsten's David and Goliath project?
my guess is 2 x 8" (Sd = 220cm2, X max lin one way 6mm) should be adequate to make 110db at 50Hz in a room that is say 200 sq. ft. with a 9ft ceiling. If your room is larger you can consider 3 x 8" or 2 x 10"
I have a tri active system comprising a scan 97 tweet, W15cy001 excel mid/bass used as a mid and Peerless XLS 10 used as the bass. The excels are crossed at 150 and 2000hz both 4th order slopes. The excursion of the driver is low even when played loud. I have 80watts on the mids and tweets and 200 on the bass. My XLS are sealed and EQ'd to have an f3 of 35hz.
I dont think I can get 110 out of this before clipping or atleast I can get 110 but its not as nice played at this kind of level. I should really borrow a SPL meter from Uni and test them after all I am on the acoustics couse!. The limits are on the midrange driver or and the 80 watt amplifier. When play loud the phaseplugs get quite warm anyway so I dont think the driver could take much more before dying a firey death.
I would also like to know what size room you are wanting to fill? My room is 3.5*4 meters and thats quite small, if I dont develop 110 dB in there with those drivers you gonna have a hard time with the drivers you suggest, ESP if the room is bigger, which it probably is.
In your case a mid/tweet could reach this goal. Im unsure of what mid to use at this time, maybe altering your specifications of 110 dB should be reconsidered, I dont have to warn you of the damage 110dB will do to your ears if you want to listen to an entire CD.
I also agree that an 8" wont cut it on the bass. The XLS could be a viable alternative, remember this is a 10" and if you use the angled hourglass shape you only have to increase the overall size by about 1" either way, thats 2.54cm. Which IMHO is not that much if it means maintaining target specification. There are many other bass drivers too but the XLS works in small cabinets.
If you use a passive radiator with the XLS then mount the PR on the back of the cabinet directly behind the main driver on the front. This will have the benafit of somewhat canceling out the movement of the front driver. You wont get very far with a sealed box XLS eq'd and 100 watts simply not enough power.
Why is 9 litres also a fixed amount for the top part? Simply fill the bottom of the box with stones or something to use up the volume not needed.
Looking at focal drivers the 7K6411 looks like it might work its got a 2mm xmax and a high sensativity of 95 dB and I think could be used as low as 150 with a steep xover. Also the 6W4411 for mid applications. As this is active the difference in sensativity between all the drivers is less of an issue.
XLS and PR on bass, 7K on mids, and the SS on top. I would like to build this myself! and see how it turns out but i cant lol. Got too many speaker projects to do and nowhere to put them!
With a design like this, if you want to reach your ultimate goal, I think you are going to have to bend some of the rules you originally set. The SS95 can go low so why not use that ability and cross at about 2k? this means you can use the 7k and get good sensativity. The XLS10 means you can get good, loud bass.
I have measured my XLS and know that you can use them a good bit above 150hz but I dont know of the quality of the sound up higher. I would think 250hz a max you could use with the XLS if required to maintain 110dB a compromise has to be made somewhere.
With regards to design difficulty this is not going to be easy or hard. The XLS should be fine to work with, just use a 4th order electrical slope and what you get out should be pretty much 4th order as the XLS extends quite well. The SS95 is not hard to work with but wont require a 4th order to get 4th order acoustic. No it will need 2nd order I have used the 95 with 2k 4th order it needed a 2nd order electrical slope (this was active too). Its the focal unit that bothers me somewhat if you dont have software, to get an accurate highpass on it would be somewhat tricky if you cant measure how it performs in your box, also baffle step will be an issue too. Also its not the smoothest driver up top and as had been said before will need an LRC to tame the resonance. However I find it intriguing as to how you would eliminate the res in the cone without making a suckout in the freq response of the driver? Am I missing something here? Do you infact create a suckout and live with it?
Other then that I wish you all the best with this project it looks like fun, I'd like to see how it develops.
Matt
I dont think I can get 110 out of this before clipping or atleast I can get 110 but its not as nice played at this kind of level. I should really borrow a SPL meter from Uni and test them after all I am on the acoustics couse!. The limits are on the midrange driver or and the 80 watt amplifier. When play loud the phaseplugs get quite warm anyway so I dont think the driver could take much more before dying a firey death.
I would also like to know what size room you are wanting to fill? My room is 3.5*4 meters and thats quite small, if I dont develop 110 dB in there with those drivers you gonna have a hard time with the drivers you suggest, ESP if the room is bigger, which it probably is.
In your case a mid/tweet could reach this goal. Im unsure of what mid to use at this time, maybe altering your specifications of 110 dB should be reconsidered, I dont have to warn you of the damage 110dB will do to your ears if you want to listen to an entire CD.
I also agree that an 8" wont cut it on the bass. The XLS could be a viable alternative, remember this is a 10" and if you use the angled hourglass shape you only have to increase the overall size by about 1" either way, thats 2.54cm. Which IMHO is not that much if it means maintaining target specification. There are many other bass drivers too but the XLS works in small cabinets.
If you use a passive radiator with the XLS then mount the PR on the back of the cabinet directly behind the main driver on the front. This will have the benafit of somewhat canceling out the movement of the front driver. You wont get very far with a sealed box XLS eq'd and 100 watts simply not enough power.
Why is 9 litres also a fixed amount for the top part? Simply fill the bottom of the box with stones or something to use up the volume not needed.
Looking at focal drivers the 7K6411 looks like it might work its got a 2mm xmax and a high sensativity of 95 dB and I think could be used as low as 150 with a steep xover. Also the 6W4411 for mid applications. As this is active the difference in sensativity between all the drivers is less of an issue.
XLS and PR on bass, 7K on mids, and the SS on top. I would like to build this myself! and see how it turns out but i cant lol. Got too many speaker projects to do and nowhere to put them!
With a design like this, if you want to reach your ultimate goal, I think you are going to have to bend some of the rules you originally set. The SS95 can go low so why not use that ability and cross at about 2k? this means you can use the 7k and get good sensativity. The XLS10 means you can get good, loud bass.
I have measured my XLS and know that you can use them a good bit above 150hz but I dont know of the quality of the sound up higher. I would think 250hz a max you could use with the XLS if required to maintain 110dB a compromise has to be made somewhere.
With regards to design difficulty this is not going to be easy or hard. The XLS should be fine to work with, just use a 4th order electrical slope and what you get out should be pretty much 4th order as the XLS extends quite well. The SS95 is not hard to work with but wont require a 4th order to get 4th order acoustic. No it will need 2nd order I have used the 95 with 2k 4th order it needed a 2nd order electrical slope (this was active too). Its the focal unit that bothers me somewhat if you dont have software, to get an accurate highpass on it would be somewhat tricky if you cant measure how it performs in your box, also baffle step will be an issue too. Also its not the smoothest driver up top and as had been said before will need an LRC to tame the resonance. However I find it intriguing as to how you would eliminate the res in the cone without making a suckout in the freq response of the driver? Am I missing something here? Do you infact create a suckout and live with it?
Other then that I wish you all the best with this project it looks like fun, I'd like to see how it develops.
Matt
5th element said:
1 more option is to use 1 x 10" and 1 x 8" this way you can maintain the taper on the cabinet. it still gives u 550cm2 of Sd.
If you are adventurous u can split the cabinet into 2. 2 cu. ft for the 10 and 1.5 cu. ft. for the 8" or a bit less. PR the 10" and let the 8" be sealed.
just ideas out of a mad hatters head.
BTW 3.5mx4m is quite large.
OK I overstated its 3*4 didnt remember dimensions properly not that it makes much difference.
I C where navin is going and that sounds like a good idea if complete SPL is required. Do you not think that one XLS and PR would be able to give you 110dB? I think it could peerless say in their design papers 105dB at 20hz, you dont get 20hz really in music so I would imagine you could get 110dB at 40-50hz.
Again power is the limiting factor hear. 32 watts are needed with the Focal mid to get an SPL of 110dB. 100 watts are needed to get the scan driver to 110 dB. 200 watts are need appox to get the XLS to 110dB. Im not entirely sure how active comes into this as the amplifiers only have to work with limited bandwidth, but 100watts is 100watts regardless of frequency.
I C where navin is going and that sounds like a good idea if complete SPL is required. Do you not think that one XLS and PR would be able to give you 110dB? I think it could peerless say in their design papers 105dB at 20hz, you dont get 20hz really in music so I would imagine you could get 110dB at 40-50hz.
Again power is the limiting factor hear. 32 watts are needed with the Focal mid to get an SPL of 110dB. 100 watts are needed to get the scan driver to 110 dB. 200 watts are need appox to get the XLS to 110dB. Im not entirely sure how active comes into this as the amplifiers only have to work with limited bandwidth, but 100watts is 100watts regardless of frequency.
Most interesting discourse, allow me to answer some of the questions.
The room is 4 x 5 x 2.8 meters with hard floors. I can use a small frame 10" woofer by moving it's center point 2" down on the lower section, so it looks like you all may be on to something. I have an issue though with dedicated subwoofers pulling this duty though. As the XO will be at 200Hz, I need useable flat extension on the woofer to at least 400, preferably 800 cycles. So I ask, what fits that bill as a light coned 10 with a small frame(i.e. 10-10.5"). Bill has already suggested the Dayton Series II and the Scan 25W-8565 comes to mind as well, although both their performance in the 37L enclosure was less than beautiful according to Winisd.
The top chamber is fixed at 9L or less, I don't see how decreasing this volume would be benificial to the sealed mid operating at 200Hz and up? The bottom is fixed at 37L or less, I can go no larger without increasing the already very large cabinet to a size the would completely overpower the room. I'm trying to build a sculpture, but not the Collosus of Rhodes here.
The crossover I would like to have as high as possible because I am a firm believer that the higher you go, the better the sound. I believe that 2K is just to active and sensitive a range to stick a crossover in without detriment to the prescense of the speaker. I know it can be done, but in this particular project, I am doing something different, crossover included.
The room is 4 x 5 x 2.8 meters with hard floors. I can use a small frame 10" woofer by moving it's center point 2" down on the lower section, so it looks like you all may be on to something. I have an issue though with dedicated subwoofers pulling this duty though. As the XO will be at 200Hz, I need useable flat extension on the woofer to at least 400, preferably 800 cycles. So I ask, what fits that bill as a light coned 10 with a small frame(i.e. 10-10.5"). Bill has already suggested the Dayton Series II and the Scan 25W-8565 comes to mind as well, although both their performance in the 37L enclosure was less than beautiful according to Winisd.
The top chamber is fixed at 9L or less, I don't see how decreasing this volume would be benificial to the sealed mid operating at 200Hz and up? The bottom is fixed at 37L or less, I can go no larger without increasing the already very large cabinet to a size the would completely overpower the room. I'm trying to build a sculpture, but not the Collosus of Rhodes here.
The crossover I would like to have as high as possible because I am a firm believer that the higher you go, the better the sound. I believe that 2K is just to active and sensitive a range to stick a crossover in without detriment to the prescense of the speaker. I know it can be done, but in this particular project, I am doing something different, crossover included.
You can still use a Eton woofer if you like. Why did you think of the 8-800 and then decide on something completely different?
The 8-800 is more of a midrange type woofer. Instead of a 137 sd and a 5.5 mm X-max like the 7-372. It has a 235 mm sd and a X-max of 3 mm. It was not a good choice for your application. I think it has less distortion on low end, but more on the high end, but they both are midrange/midbass woofers regardless of size or sd.
Eton 8-472 might be good, but like your other woofers, 37 liters is too small. Visaton AL 200 is a 8" woofer with good bass and it will work in a 37 liter enclosure. You could go with a 10" Visaton maybe. Your chooses are pretty wide for your requirements; 8" or 10", 37 liters and flat up to 800 Hz.
The 8-800 is more of a midrange type woofer. Instead of a 137 sd and a 5.5 mm X-max like the 7-372. It has a 235 mm sd and a X-max of 3 mm. It was not a good choice for your application. I think it has less distortion on low end, but more on the high end, but they both are midrange/midbass woofers regardless of size or sd.
Eton 8-472 might be good, but like your other woofers, 37 liters is too small. Visaton AL 200 is a 8" woofer with good bass and it will work in a 37 liter enclosure. You could go with a 10" Visaton maybe. Your chooses are pretty wide for your requirements; 8" or 10", 37 liters and flat up to 800 Hz.
Jimmy154 said:
After careful consideration and discussion, the woofer simply cannot create the SPL I am looking to get. The box tuning of 37Hz for an optimally flat curve in 37L severely restricted its output and mechanical power handling abilities. I made a false assumption that it would be suitable based on the Avalon design.
Exactly, answered your own question there didn't ya
.The Visaton AL200 models quite poorly actually for the application, it is not designed as a true woofer unit and the Eton you mention does in fact need a very large enclosure, a luxury I cannot afford it. I am looking at the Visatons at the moment and the GF200 used in the original design I am cloning is a very solid performer, outperforming the Scan 21W quite easily for less money. Its relatively small price tag of 111.00 makes it even more attractive.
Please do suggest some specific models from the wide selection if you can as I feel like I am chasing my tail with the woofer search.
Bill Fitzpatrick said:
Well, I didn't mention that the original size has been cut down a bit to proportions that better suit my room. I will try to upload a schematic as soon as I can find a drawing program and a place to host the picture. What do you guys use?
In the mean while, the base is only 14" wide tapering to 4 inches at the top, this section is 30" tall. The depth is 14 at the base, 10 at the top, only the front panel will have slope, the back will be verticle. Atop this section will sit a 4 x 3 x 10" cube forming the "waist" of the hourglass. Finally, the upper enclosure will expand from 4" at the base to 10" wide at the top, height will be 15", depth here will again be 10", no slant on any baffles.
Construction will be all .75" material with bracing, My quick figures showed approx 37L useable in the base, approx 9L useable in the upper.
Hmmm, I've just done a Sim on the Seas aluminium 10", and regardless of box sizes and sensitivity, to get anywhere near 110dB at low frequencies the cone has to move something like 8 to 12mm or more. And I'm not sure if that's peak or RMS. Creatively tuning a port might reduce the cone excursion somewhat over a small range of frequencies, but then you need a bigger box. Any woofer with the same cone area will have a similar problem.
Besides, I think that the large distance between the midrange and woofer is a design flaw. Lobing at 200Hz may turn out not to be a problem at all, but room modes will mean that it will be a pain to balance the volume levels between midrange and woofer, and there may be an easily audible crossover region with loose focus.
CM
Besides, I think that the large distance between the midrange and woofer is a design flaw. Lobing at 200Hz may turn out not to be a problem at all, but room modes will mean that it will be a pain to balance the volume levels between midrange and woofer, and there may be an easily audible crossover region with loose focus.
CM
CeramicMan said:
Unfortunately this is correct, no way around it, that criterion has been abandoned.
If there is no lobing problem, as there should not be, then the distance will be insignificant as the volume compensation would be the same regardless of the woofer's location with relation to the mid. Close or far, the correction level and associated problems, or lack there of, will be constant if there is indeed no lobing effect as the LDC predicts as any problems would be inherent to the room. Someone please correct if my assumption is off.
I made a model of the speaker today to get a feel for just how big it was going to be. Its a monster, there are no two ways about that...
It easily dwarfs my Phase Techs and is going to force to me finally go ahead with that new component rack I've been meaning to build.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
It easily dwarfs my Phase Techs and is going to force to me finally go ahead with that new component rack I've been meaning to build.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.