Originally posted this on another thread here, after a suggestion to move it to Multiway, I am reposting...
I am thinking of experimenting a Fountek FR135EX in a "non-fullrange" use. To be precise, in a LS 3/5A clone cabinet I have from an abandoned LS 3/5A clone project of mine.
Simple simulation on WinISD with published data from Madisound, seems the driver is suited for that 5.0L+ cabinet with a F3 of 90Hz. Also the driver dimensions snugly seem to fit my LS 3/5A Cabinet.
My plan is to use this driver as a mid-bass with a SEAS Prestige 27TDFC (H1189) tweeter crossed somewhere between 3K to 5K(First order butter-worth perhaps) along with use impedance leveling and tweeter L-Pad as needed ...
Planning to get the FRD and ZMA for this driver is next step. So, wanted to ask the heavy-weights around here whether it'd be a blunder?
All I have is Dayton DATS and Jeff's "Passive Crossover Designer 7 (2007)" EXCEL with me. No esoteric tools. Not even the capability to measure the Frequency response.
I am thinking of experimenting a Fountek FR135EX in a "non-fullrange" use. To be precise, in a LS 3/5A clone cabinet I have from an abandoned LS 3/5A clone project of mine.
Simple simulation on WinISD with published data from Madisound, seems the driver is suited for that 5.0L+ cabinet with a F3 of 90Hz. Also the driver dimensions snugly seem to fit my LS 3/5A Cabinet.
My plan is to use this driver as a mid-bass with a SEAS Prestige 27TDFC (H1189) tweeter crossed somewhere between 3K to 5K(First order butter-worth perhaps) along with use impedance leveling and tweeter L-Pad as needed ...
Planning to get the FRD and ZMA for this driver is next step. So, wanted to ask the heavy-weights around here whether it'd be a blunder?
All I have is Dayton DATS and Jeff's "Passive Crossover Designer 7 (2007)" EXCEL with me. No esoteric tools. Not even the capability to measure the Frequency response.
I'm a fan of the general idea - start with a FR driver and cross to others where it falls down, maximising the range covered by a single driver. Personally I've gone 3-way, but if you feel you can live with the power handling and low end response of the FR135 then by all means.
As more of a lightweight......................
It looks ok to me. If you are going to have the speakers against a back wall, it will be ok. If not, then BSC would need to be factored in as well.
Small speakers often have bass humps designed in (Q of the box .8 to 1)(Classic example LS3/5a). A flat frequency response might subjectively sound a bit bass light. Also if you are going to cross over at 3k it is a bit of a waste of a full range. A higher xover would be necessary if you want to go for a 1st order anyway.
See what the heavyweights say.
It looks ok to me. If you are going to have the speakers against a back wall, it will be ok. If not, then BSC would need to be factored in as well.
Small speakers often have bass humps designed in (Q of the box .8 to 1)(Classic example LS3/5a). A flat frequency response might subjectively sound a bit bass light. Also if you are going to cross over at 3k it is a bit of a waste of a full range. A higher xover would be necessary if you want to go for a 1st order anyway.
See what the heavyweights say.
Thanks midrange! Yes baffles step correction I understand... I will have to factor it in.
BTW I do not care about power handling capabilities. I do not have any monster amps, neither I run my amps to clipping...
And Xover, 5K is where I am thinking crossing over anyway.
But I am a bit overwhelmed by some of the parameters in JeffD's Excel. And also I am yet to see a LS 3/5A box with a full-ranger for midbass. That's why I am less confident.
With 5.9ltrs box WINISD gives a system Q of 0.71. So no mid-bass hump there like in the case of LS3/5A. But that also means, I hope I can better integrate a sub woofer. I hope...
BTW I do not care about power handling capabilities. I do not have any monster amps, neither I run my amps to clipping...
And Xover, 5K is where I am thinking crossing over anyway.
But I am a bit overwhelmed by some of the parameters in JeffD's Excel. And also I am yet to see a LS 3/5A box with a full-ranger for midbass. That's why I am less confident.
With 5.9ltrs box WINISD gives a system Q of 0.71. So no mid-bass hump there like in the case of LS3/5A. But that also means, I hope I can better integrate a sub woofer. I hope...
Also I have to hunt for FR135EX's zma and frd files. I do not have capability to measure and create the FRD myself. As for zma yes, as I have the Dayton Speaker measurement tool(DATS)
FRD Consortium
Use spl tools to trace the FR and IMP from a picture. Works very well!
Download Jeff's "Response Modeler" which you can use to import a traced
frd and zma, have it calculate the phase, add baffle diffraction and bass
response.
Read Dave Dal Farra's "Simple loudspeaker design".
software
Don't cross the Fountek too high. Seas works better there.
Thanks Lojzek, so may be doing a second order Xover for seas at around 3Khz should be the way to go? I guess for Fountek I can stick to a simple first order with impedance normalization right?
3 kHz sounds better than 5 kHz. It would not hurt to go lower.
Impedance compensation is not a prerequisite for a succesful
design. Once you have zma's, frd's, with addition of baffle diffraction
of your cabinet, you will see how simple it can be or not.
Sometimes it's beneficial to have an RC, sometimes not.
The acoustic slope curves have got to be free of major response
flaws, so the acoustic addition at XO frequency and in the range
nearby is right.
Impedance compensation is not a prerequisite for a succesful
design. Once you have zma's, frd's, with addition of baffle diffraction
of your cabinet, you will see how simple it can be or not.
Sometimes it's beneficial to have an RC, sometimes not.
The acoustic slope curves have got to be free of major response
flaws, so the acoustic addition at XO frequency and in the range
nearby is right.
Small speaker designs are quite a rarity, but the late Louis Coraggio had some good ones:
Lou's Speaker Site
The Tang Band W4 and W5 designs look adaptable. Both work well enough in small boxes. You probably wouldn't use a wildly different crossover for a Fountek either.
Of course, Troels Gravesen probably has the best DIY site on the web:
DIY-Loudspeakers
You generally do second order bass and second or third order tweeter with this sort of thing.
Lou's Speaker Site
The Tang Band W4 and W5 designs look adaptable. Both work well enough in small boxes. You probably wouldn't use a wildly different crossover for a Fountek either.
Of course, Troels Gravesen probably has the best DIY site on the web:
DIY-Loudspeakers
You generally do second order bass and second or third order tweeter with this sort of thing.
It might be a bit cat like, but personally I would be curious to hear what the Ls3/5a box with the Fountek on it's own working full range sounded like.
Generally I have seen all LS 3/5A size projects are done with Mid-bass drivers that rolls-off pretty fast above 3Khz or so.. At least none of them were full-range. So my main question is... Are there issues with using full-range drivers as mid-bass? Any full-range characteristics that are unfavorable to such application? Is it because of the traditionally "shouty" mid-range of full-range drivers?
Here on this thread itself, I can see two different opinions, some suggesting to cross higher-up. Probably to better use the full-range's capability and also to avoid the cross-over phase issues in the crucial mid-region.
While some suggest that I should cross-over typical LS3/5A fashion around 2Khz or so..
Originally after looking at the response graphs, I was thinking first-order crossovers with bass having a corner frequency of 2Khz and tweeter having a corner frequency of 4Khz. Now I am confused whether to cross the mid much higher and similarly cross the tweeter even higher. An advantage with that is using very small inductor values and capacitor values, if using first-order 🙂 Which means more choices on "Air-core" inductors.
Here on this thread itself, I can see two different opinions, some suggesting to cross higher-up. Probably to better use the full-range's capability and also to avoid the cross-over phase issues in the crucial mid-region.
While some suggest that I should cross-over typical LS3/5A fashion around 2Khz or so..
Originally after looking at the response graphs, I was thinking first-order crossovers with bass having a corner frequency of 2Khz and tweeter having a corner frequency of 4Khz. Now I am confused whether to cross the mid much higher and similarly cross the tweeter even higher. An advantage with that is using very small inductor values and capacitor values, if using first-order 🙂 Which means more choices on "Air-core" inductors.
Last edited:
Thanks System-7. But the problem is I have to use my LS3/5A cabinet. And I prefer to use it unmodified. That means most of the TB drivers can't be used.
Tang Band W5-1611SAF comes close when it comes to the Cabinet volume I have. But the driver is too big to fit the baffle. This Fountek at least on paper looks good with the LS 3/5A box and baffle I have.
With your original question, using your selected drivers and boxes, there I are to my mind 2 ways of going about it.
1) Get as much information, computer analysis, modelling, etc etc and build the design. Members on this site will happily offer their views and knowledge.
2) Build one possible design, with the anticipation of tweaking it. You can then try both high and low xover points and different slopes and see which you prefer. Changing one speaker at a time for comparison purposes is an idea. This way you end up with what sounds best (to you), or measures best if you have the equipment.
I prefer method 2.
1) Get as much information, computer analysis, modelling, etc etc and build the design. Members on this site will happily offer their views and knowledge.
2) Build one possible design, with the anticipation of tweaking it. You can then try both high and low xover points and different slopes and see which you prefer. Changing one speaker at a time for comparison purposes is an idea. This way you end up with what sounds best (to you), or measures best if you have the equipment.
I prefer method 2.
You're free to do whatever makes you happy. If you like the
beaming of your full ranger at higher frequencies, that's fine.
The fact humans are able to detect lower sound pressure in the
crucial middle frequencies range does not mean there should not
be XO filter.
Thanks a lot "Lojzek " and "midrange". Both of you make perfect sense.. If this Fountek driver is not a bad choice byitself, I will go ahead and try both.. if it is below 3Khz I will do 2nd order for both mid and hi.
And for 5Khz crossover, I will do a simple first order. I will try to build both and see how they sound... I have the SEAS 27TDFC with me already. Also have the boxes. I will but Fountek from Madisound next... And keep here posted.
And for 5Khz crossover, I will do a simple first order. I will try to build both and see how they sound... I have the SEAS 27TDFC with me already. Also have the boxes. I will but Fountek from Madisound next... And keep here posted.
Hi RonJ
Couldn't help noticing your post and using a Fountek driver. 😀
Just to share, I am currently making a FAST with a Fountek FR89EX (4 Ohm) coupled to a Fountek FW168 (8 Ohm)in a 1100mm tall 110mm wide 300mm deep bass reflex cabinet. The 89 is in a sealed enclosure.
Crossover is circa 250Hz 1st order.
No baffle step but 2 notch filters at 3kHz and 12kHz.
A 2dB attenuation network on the 89.
The sound is amazingly good once you get rid of the FR89's bass duties.
Feel free to have a listen since we're practically "neighbours". 😀
EDIT: I'm making new cabinets for them while they are currently in prototyping plywood enclosures.
Couldn't help noticing your post and using a Fountek driver. 😀
Just to share, I am currently making a FAST with a Fountek FR89EX (4 Ohm) coupled to a Fountek FW168 (8 Ohm)in a 1100mm tall 110mm wide 300mm deep bass reflex cabinet. The 89 is in a sealed enclosure.
Crossover is circa 250Hz 1st order.
No baffle step but 2 notch filters at 3kHz and 12kHz.
A 2dB attenuation network on the 89.
The sound is amazingly good once you get rid of the FR89's bass duties.
Feel free to have a listen since we're practically "neighbours". 😀
EDIT: I'm making new cabinets for them while they are currently in prototyping plywood enclosures.
"Sanj" He he he.. You will kick me out, for not collecting your "Oscilloscope" yet 😀
I am using Moldova made, LS3/5A Clone Cabinet for the drivers 🙂
I am using Moldova made, LS3/5A Clone Cabinet for the drivers 🙂
Last edited:
Actually I have a pair of Dayton Audio DC130AS-8. But just worried, wouldn't they be too cheap(in quality) for SEAS 27TDFC. Also WinISD tells me Dayton Audio DC130AS-8 will give me a Q of 0.9 on that cabinet. And DC130AS-8 has to be crossed pretty low may be 2Khz or lower as beyond 2Khz even the published response of DC130AS-8 sucks. That means 3order Xover tweeter and 2nd over mid-bass. Too many components in the crossover..
That's what made me think fullrange.. i was looking around for a suitable fullranger and found the Fountek pretty okay...
That's what made me think fullrange.. i was looking around for a suitable fullranger and found the Fountek pretty okay...
No worries about the oscilloscope since someone else took it. I waited until the cows came home for you to pick it up. 😛
It it was me, I'd use both the Dayton and the Fountek and cross them over pretty low; sub 300Hz. However, you may need to rehouse either of the drivers. But that's my option.
And no, you don't get to feel my foot on your derriere if you drop by my place next. 😀
I'll probably post some pix on Xtremeplace once my cabinets are done.
It it was me, I'd use both the Dayton and the Fountek and cross them over pretty low; sub 300Hz. However, you may need to rehouse either of the drivers. But that's my option.
And no, you don't get to feel my foot on your derriere if you drop by my place next. 😀
I'll probably post some pix on Xtremeplace once my cabinets are done.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.