Hello,
For those interested, here is a photo of my latest three way….
They uses the Morel Supreme 110 tweeters, the PHL 1120 6” midrange drivers and the Eminence Kappa Pro 15LF-2 bass drivers.
The tweeter / mid cabinet is an off the shelf Parts Express unit. The bass box is a 110L ported box...needs some finish
These speakers sound wise are the best I have come up with so far.
Branwell
For those interested, here is a photo of my latest three way….
They uses the Morel Supreme 110 tweeters, the PHL 1120 6” midrange drivers and the Eminence Kappa Pro 15LF-2 bass drivers.
The tweeter / mid cabinet is an off the shelf Parts Express unit. The bass box is a 110L ported box...needs some finish
These speakers sound wise are the best I have come up with so far.
Branwell
Hello Taco,
The tweeter is rated at 91.5db per watt. If we accept that as a reference then……
The mid range needed a full 6 db of baffle step correction. No surprise given the location in the room and the size of the cabinet. With the baffle step correction, the midrange matches the tweeter exactly needing no boost or reduction.
The bass needed 3db of baffle step and with that, needed 1 db of overall boost to match the mid and tweeter.
Given this, if you did a passive setup with these drivers in the same basic cabinet layout, you would be looking at at around a 91db per watt system.
Branwell
The tweeter is rated at 91.5db per watt. If we accept that as a reference then……
The mid range needed a full 6 db of baffle step correction. No surprise given the location in the room and the size of the cabinet. With the baffle step correction, the midrange matches the tweeter exactly needing no boost or reduction.
The bass needed 3db of baffle step and with that, needed 1 db of overall boost to match the mid and tweeter.
Given this, if you did a passive setup with these drivers in the same basic cabinet layout, you would be looking at at around a 91db per watt system.
Branwell
just looked up that Behringer DCX2496 and damn thats mint
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Navin, David,
I have the SS 9900 revelator so can speak directly to that.
The 110 has the same sort of sound, i.e. very dynamic and is as extended, as transparent, as detailed, but doesn’t have the tendency to sound bright or sharp the way the 9900 can.
The 110 can also be crossed over lower. For example, to me, the 9900 starts to come apart crossed over under 1700hz, where the 110 doesn’t come apart until about 1300hz.
The 110 also has a smaller face plate so can be mounted closer to its mating driver.
To me, the 110 is the better driver beating the 9900 in all areas of performance.
I also have the Seas Millennium tweeter. Like the 110, it can be crossed over very low, in the 1400hz range, but that is about where the similarities end. The Millennium doesn’t seem as dynamic and lively and is not as extended sounding. It is however a very natural sounding tweeter that while different to the 110 and 9900, is still absolutely valid as one of the better tweeters around.
Of the three, I like the 110 best, the Millennium second and the 9900 third.
The 110 because it simply outperforms the others, the Millennium because its very natural sounding and the 9900 last because it can sound harsh at times.
Branwell
I have the SS 9900 revelator so can speak directly to that.
The 110 has the same sort of sound, i.e. very dynamic and is as extended, as transparent, as detailed, but doesn’t have the tendency to sound bright or sharp the way the 9900 can.
The 110 can also be crossed over lower. For example, to me, the 9900 starts to come apart crossed over under 1700hz, where the 110 doesn’t come apart until about 1300hz.
The 110 also has a smaller face plate so can be mounted closer to its mating driver.
To me, the 110 is the better driver beating the 9900 in all areas of performance.
I also have the Seas Millennium tweeter. Like the 110, it can be crossed over very low, in the 1400hz range, but that is about where the similarities end. The Millennium doesn’t seem as dynamic and lively and is not as extended sounding. It is however a very natural sounding tweeter that while different to the 110 and 9900, is still absolutely valid as one of the better tweeters around.
Of the three, I like the 110 best, the Millennium second and the 9900 third.
The 110 because it simply outperforms the others, the Millennium because its very natural sounding and the 9900 last because it can sound harsh at times.
Branwell
Akunec,
That project was about 5 projects ago and given I’m going from memory, this info might not be all that accurate.
The bass to mid was in the low 300hz range, somewhere around 325hz with 24 db LR slopes. The mid to tweeter ended up somewhere around 2700hz with 12db LR slopes ( tweeter to mid polarity reversed ). There was also some time alignment, but I cant remember the exact delay.
For the most part, the only non baffle step related EQ in the system was for the breakup mode of the woofer ( notch filter EQ ) and a slight rise in the midrange ( shelf filter ) at a freq I cant remember ( I want to say the rise started at 2000hz ).
Branwell
That project was about 5 projects ago and given I’m going from memory, this info might not be all that accurate.
The bass to mid was in the low 300hz range, somewhere around 325hz with 24 db LR slopes. The mid to tweeter ended up somewhere around 2700hz with 12db LR slopes ( tweeter to mid polarity reversed ). There was also some time alignment, but I cant remember the exact delay.
For the most part, the only non baffle step related EQ in the system was for the breakup mode of the woofer ( notch filter EQ ) and a slight rise in the midrange ( shelf filter ) at a freq I cant remember ( I want to say the rise started at 2000hz ).
Branwell
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.