TB new line of Coax FR drivers

Oops! It was late and my eyes were crossing!
Just shows that because you can do a thing, it is not always a good thing to do so!

These sims allow us so many combinations, but there's nothing better than hands on experience!

I re-did the W6 and also did the W8. Comments welcomed.
I'm confused... I tried your XO and I don't get the same results. It's either this (with woofer inverted):
perceval post 36 - inverted polarity.png

Or this (with normal polarity):
perceval post 36 - normal polarity.png

I don't think the phase extraction was succesful in Xsim. If I choose "as measured" for the phase I get your results.

/Anton
 
Here are the frd and zma files I used, lets see if they are different from yours...

Edit... oops again! I had the phase "as measured"... switched to derived and yes, not as pretty anymore.
Sorry! I've had so many things on my mind lately, I have been drawing blanks more often than I would like!
 

Attachments

  • W62313.zip
    24 KB · Views: 89
Last edited:
Well, the two peaks from the woofer, at 2.75kHz and 4.65kHz are really bothering me.

We'll have to see real world measurements... I have found that TB likes to "doctor" their FR curves often... so, if those two peaks are really there, and even worse than they appear, then it shall be difficult to do anything about them.
 
I've had a couple drivers from them where it shows a small 3-5dB dip on their graph, and in real life is closer to 10dBs or more.

Not talking about room nodes affecting the low end, more like dips that appears minuscule between 6kHz to 15kHz, that are chasms in real life.

Anyway, life goes on...
 
I experimented a little with 2nd order (electrical) XOs around 2.5 kHz with normal and inverted polarity on the woofer.

With inverted polarity on woofer:
2nd order 2.5kHz, inv pol.png

With normal polarity on woofer:
2nd order 2.5kHz, normal pol.png

I prefer the one with inverted polarity on woofer (only first order electrical XO), better phase + less components + smaller inductor on woofer.

The one with normal polarity suppresses woofer breakup better and also protects tweeter better.

Both leave room for a baffle step around 400 Hz.

The resistors take some heat in both designs (more power than tweeter), but I guess that's fine.

/Anton
 
That impedance curve's phase can't be right. At the LF peak, the phase should be about zero, just below that it should be positive, above that it should be negative. Something very wrong with your drivers' impedance curves' phase.

I experimented a little with 2nd order (electrical) XOs around 2.5 kHz with normal and inverted polarity on the woofer.

With inverted polarity on woofer:
View attachment 689557

With normal polarity on woofer:
View attachment 689559

I prefer the one with inverted polarity on woofer (only first order electrical XO), better phase + less components + smaller inductor on woofer.

The one with normal polarity suppresses woofer breakup better and also protects tweeter better.

Both leave room for a baffle step around 400 Hz.

The resistors take some heat in both designs (more power than tweeter), but I guess that's fine.

/Anton
 
That impedance curve's phase can't be right. At the LF peak, the phase should be about zero, just below that it should be positive, above that it should be negative. Something very wrong with your drivers' impedance curves' phase.
Hi Bill!

The impedance curve is from datasheet as I haven't recieved the drivers yet. I have never payed attention to the impedance phase, does it matter?

/Anton
 
Dear All, I’m new here pls apologize.
Those drivers got my attention too and since are availble in Italy at 166€ 6.5 and 233€ 8, I’m interested to build a 2-3 ways with active crossover (minidsp).
Before start I’d like to know if any of you (more expert than me) managed to get the off axis reaponse and step response. I’d like to compare with latest Seas C18EN002/A - 6.5"
(More expensive and less full range).
Looking forward for your support
My Best
Lorenzo