Peerless XXLS in a 3-way? - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10th July 2006, 10:14 PM   #1
Jussi is offline Jussi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Finland
Default Peerless XXLS in a 3-way?

Hi!

Has anyone tried new Peerless XXLS woofers in a 3-way? More like a woofer than subwoofer application, perhaps up to 300Hz or so?

At least distributors recommend them and consider them to be truely "extended" XLS serie, also in FR and therefore usable in a multiway systems woofer. But has anyone actually tried them? Pretty expensive mistake to make if they don't work.

I've been considering this "middle-Q" model from their 10" XXLS line. 4 ohm coil, two on each side in small closed cabinet, cross 200-300Hz.

Other possibilities are also under consideration. Scan Speak 25W/8565 and L26 Seas at least. Less displacement (and potential for deep bass) along with larger cabinet requirements (which can be assisted with Linkwitz transform or similar) but would they work better with midbass-upperbass-lowmid area than XXLS?

Personally I'd prefer excellent integration and precise reproduction over SPL. SPL isn't really worth it if more important things don't work...

Thanks !

Jussi
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2006, 06:06 AM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kuhmoinen, Finland
Don't know about XXLS, but you're doing exactly what I'm planning here.

So far the most promising woofer to me is the Visaton Visaton TIW250XS . I was thinking of the smaller model, but I ran a few simulations and it seems that this woofer can cope with Linkwitz transform down to 30Hz well. I need to fit the crossover frequency of about 300-500Hz so a response to about 1k is preferable here..

I thought of the Seas L26 too but I came to the conclusion that I don't want to look at that ugly woofer all day long. Some big Scan-Speak model was also promising (could be the same one you thought of) but those things are really expensive..

You going all active?

  Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2006, 08:39 AM   #3
Jussi is offline Jussi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Finland
All active yes. I already have components for MTM using W18E Seas and Dynaudio Esotar. Fitted the tweeter in a waveguide, seems to work.

What mids and tweeters do you have in mind?

So you're selecting drivers prefering their looks? Do you have measured objective data to prove Visaton technically good and better than other candidates? If it mathers..

Well, L26 seems to have good performance and I know those old servant 10" Scans are solid performers but since cross is going to be rather low, 200-300Hz, perhaps I could use heavier woofers and obtain some serious deep bass extension as well. I don't like to play with subwoofers if it isn't absolutely necessary. But only if it can be done without compromisses in midbass-upperbass-lowmid area and integration between bass and mid.

Mids are going to be in acoustic resistance cabinets and according to simulations WMTMW config with 200-250Hz cross should be enough to damp some of those 250Hz and 500Hz floor reflections off and still obtain some advantage of the AR cabinet. Higher cross just has too large range and its overlap area doesn't leave any point to use AR on the mids.

Jussi
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2006, 08:56 AM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sydney
Jussi,

I experimented with my WWMTMWW and found MTMWW image better and sounds better in my set up. When WW is placed near the floor there is also some dB increase that is always to our advantage, ie. saving amplifer power and reduce speaker vibration. If you use 2 x 10' MTMWW may be fine.

I will be checking this thread from time to time as I am redesigning my WWMTMWW. I found the dipole bass to be excellent but would like to have the SPL of a closed box to match the MTM. I have not made up my mind yet. I will be interested in your discussions and results.

Regards,
Bill
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2006, 09:09 AM   #5
Jussi is offline Jussi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Finland
Bill,

Basically the idea of WMTMW is based on simulations and idea of cancelling couple first floor reflections off the game around 250Hz and 500Hz. Naturally WWMTM also has some directivity in vertical plane but it isn't symmetrical to both directions. Both propably assist the MTM with the 500Hz bounce but if I simulated correctly WWMTM has some additional boost below the axis which isn't a good thing since it should be directive at 250Hz.

Of cource there are other aspects. WWMTM would be easier to build, could use heavier cabinet structures and have more stable physical appearance. Less dominant in a room as well I guess. Personally I'd like the Wilson Audio Alex look in config like this... Call me pervert.

I'd like to try the dipolebass solution. WWMTM for example could use two large woofers, 12" or even 15", and perhaps obtain decent impact and SPL capacity but my room and possible positioning doesn't really allow it. It's pretty crusial to place the speakers pretty closely to front wall and it's just deadly for dipole solutions. I did some scetching of 60 degrees turned dipole but it's still 75cm from frontwall and therefore in the way of daily life.

Jussi
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2006, 09:23 AM   #6
Jussi is offline Jussi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Finland
Dynaudios top model Evidence Master has pretty intresting concept. WWMTTMWW. I simulated such construction and it seems to be even better in vertical directivity than smaller WMTMW. "WW" model is already about 6dB+ down at 200Hz while "W" version is only 3-4dB down. Both with 2nd order Linkwitz-Riley cross at 200Hz.

But in such construction XXLS woofers are too expensive for me and they propably require too much cabinet space. 8" Nomex cone woofers from Peerless HDS line seem to fit in such app. 15+ litres each in closed environment but they still lack some deep bass potential compared to twin XXLS configuration. Darn.

8" Nomex quad in vented environment can hammer similar performance than twin XXLS in closed cabinets above 20Hz. 24-25 litres 25Hz cabinets for each driver. Better efficiency, more conearea and better impedance for amp as well. Note that 24-25 litres 25Hz doesn't give that good extension with flat response but since my room is pretty small and walls are concrete I estimate some improvement from that sector.

Naturally it rises a question what's the point for such lunacy in small room. Well, personally I'd like to have good sonical performance and as lunatic as WWMTMWW sounds like most of the idea is to minimize room problems to have good performance at sweetspot, high SPL and dynamics capacity is just a bonus.

Jussi
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2006, 09:36 AM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
elviukai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: EU- Electronic Union country
hi dont use peerles 8' nomex driver for low bas. they can produce anything but the low bass.I was shocked when heard them. and when measure it makes me smile. scan spek 21w8555, scan speak 25w8565, dynaudio, focal, vifa bass drivers and others I tried was far better. strong side of nomex 6-8" is 150-800hz. peerles xxl is out of rule-it is very seriuos deep playing driver from peerless company. I heard only one time at subwoofer aplication and find ir very fine driver- its mooves a lot of air. and at the same it is suitable to reproduce music good. t330 esotar should be good mach in terms of dynamic and power.
__________________
natural sound reproduction from traditional dynamic drivers?!! come on.. no no, it can be.. it must be!..
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2006, 10:00 AM   #8
Jussi is offline Jussi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Finland
Elviukai,

What kind of application was it with HDS drivers? At least response isn't that extended but in active system this can be compensated.

Shape not that many people haven't tried XXLS in a 3-way system, not that much info how they play upperbass-lowmid region.

Looks like it's a battle between configurations. There isn't that much deep bass capable 8" woofers for the WWMTMWW config thought.

Jussi
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2006, 12:27 PM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally posted by Jussi
There isn't that much deep bass capable 8" woofers for the WWMTMWW config thought.
How about Seas L22RN4X/P:
http://www.seas.no/seas_line/woofers/H1208.pdf

It works nicely in small vented enclosures and should provide more bass than any of the 8" HDS.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th July 2006, 12:39 PM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
elviukai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: EU- Electronic Union country
it was MTM passive. both drivers separate enclosures 30ltr. . in room conditions they started roll of at 40-50hz . also they had problems that spsl at 100-200hz was smaller too. going active you can improove this. I redesign spekers to 2.5 way to fix this. but I felt thay do not have dynamic and low FR solidity. they pretty good to let them go upt yo 600hz with no problems. but they do not handle and reproduce LF. I worked with smaller 6" nomex also and fell very much the same.
there is chalennge to pick up wright sub/woofer to hold up to 300-400hz. you cant take any aliuminium big mooving mass sub. if you take more gentle driver capable to handle up to 500hz you will loose LF mooving air solidity. pretty good felows 4x 258565-01 in total 340liter closed boxes are almost on the same league on mooving air as infinity kappa perfect 12.1 carr sub in 60ltr closed. not speaking about quality here, only physic.
__________________
natural sound reproduction from traditional dynamic drivers?!! come on.. no no, it can be.. it must be!..
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
peerless xxls sealed -vs- peerless xls with passive radiator Naudio Subwoofers 8 23rd March 2008 10:00 PM
Peerless XLS or XXLS with PR in car ? Chriz75 Car Audio 1 4th September 2005 08:44 AM
Peerless XXLS joe carrow Subwoofers 14 18th March 2005 04:14 AM
Anyone tried Peerless XXLS yet ? LageB Subwoofers 3 10th March 2005 06:20 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:33 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2