Power ratings on tweeters normally specify with crossover point at X Khz and 12db per octave or higher. My guess would be it is only rated at 100W with 1200Hz 12db electrical crossover. The datasheet does not have these details which is a little unusual.
Tony.
Tony.
I doubt I would ever put a quarter of that power into it as its more efficient than the woofer anyway so it would need to be attenuated.
I'll make some distortion measurements later.
I'll make some distortion measurements later.
Tweeter power dissipation is assumed to be program power handling,
so only a percentage of this can tweeter withstand. How do you
suppose the thinner enamelled wires of the tweeter could ever
survive more heat dissipation than the woofer?
so only a percentage of this can tweeter withstand. How do you
suppose the thinner enamelled wires of the tweeter could ever
survive more heat dissipation than the woofer?
Dome tweeters are delicate devices and their structure can not
take enourmous power without getting damaged. Many have thought
the same and unfortunately suffered a device failure. What manufacturer
says about power capabilities is not particularly useful. You gotta have
experience to understand this.
No specification can outsmart the common sense.
take enourmous power without getting damaged. Many have thought
the same and unfortunately suffered a device failure. What manufacturer
says about power capabilities is not particularly useful. You gotta have
experience to understand this.
No specification can outsmart the common sense.
Hi,
Simply put it will run out of excursion x/o at 500Hz.
Distortion before overload will be mediocre. About
1.5KHz LR4 acoustic is the sensible limit of the tweeter.
Acoustically it rolls off about 1KHz, so 500Hz is not realistic.
Power handling is nothing like 100W rms, thats 100W rms
pink noise via some sort of standard high pass filter.
See Zaph|Audio - ZDT3.5 for full SPL modelling
of a 2" dome x/o 2nd order LR acoustic at 400Hz.
rgds, sreten.
Simply put it will run out of excursion x/o at 500Hz.
Distortion before overload will be mediocre. About
1.5KHz LR4 acoustic is the sensible limit of the tweeter.
Acoustically it rolls off about 1KHz, so 500Hz is not realistic.
Power handling is nothing like 100W rms, thats 100W rms
pink noise via some sort of standard high pass filter.
See Zaph|Audio - ZDT3.5 for full SPL modelling
of a 2" dome x/o 2nd order LR acoustic at 400Hz.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
What do you guys think of the crossover I've been working on with Boxsim, the file is on my server: http://commanderlake.net/crossover.bpj
I'm aiming for a flat voltage frequency response as can be seen on the "frequency response electrical" tab in Boxsim.
I'm aiming for a flat voltage frequency response as can be seen on the "frequency response electrical" tab in Boxsim.
The principle of your filter is wrong. Your goal ought to be a flat
FR, not a flat acoustic power response. Reduce the spl of midrange
and tweeter to be smooth with bass and you will be well off.
FR, not a flat acoustic power response. Reduce the spl of midrange
and tweeter to be smooth with bass and you will be well off.
But wont the in room response with the speakers close to a corner have a response like the acoustic power curve?
If I make the FR curve flat the voltage response shows the low end is boosted surely that cant be right?
If I make the FR curve flat the voltage response shows the low end is boosted surely that cant be right?
I was talking about a speaker designed to be in open space.
For room and boundary augmentation, please consult
a simulator, then proceed from there or better measure
your speaker right there where you want it to be.
For room and boundary augmentation, please consult
a simulator, then proceed from there or better measure
your speaker right there where you want it to be.
How about I just go with a flat acoustic power response then EQ them with the AV receiver if needed I'd rather not design the crossover with a particular frequency response if its likely to be wrong when all the parts are purchased and assembled.
You are free to do whatever you think is right for you.
You asked for opinion, I gave you one. Case closed.
You asked for opinion, I gave you one. Case closed.
I wanted to see if anyone had any objections, if anyone thinks theres a problem with my idea i would like to know.
Last edited:
The reason it can handle 100w is because the (red) ferro fluid in the gap where the coil is transfers the heat to the rather big motor assembly, that allows it to dissipate more heat than a larger coil alone.
Theres the first 2 with my very own box design, much more ridged than a standard box, easy to assemble and no need to wait for the glue to dry.
They look strong. That takes care of the bass and panel resonance. The woofer could cause the box to ring if you mount it solidly, you could try a gasket and rubber washers under the bolt heads.
You can test the baffle size and shape by bunching a woolen pillow case over the top near the front, and listening for a difference.
You can test the baffle size and shape by bunching a woolen pillow case over the top near the front, and listening for a difference.
Beyond a basic level of required stiffness speaker panels primarily require damping not further stiffness to reduce the level of radiated cabinet sound. For example, doubling the thickness of the panels will indeed reduce the level of sound radiated away from the resonant frequencies but at the resonant frequencies the force due to stiffness is cancelled by the inertia leaving only the forces due to damping to determine the level of the peak. A stiffer cabinet will have raised the frequencies of the resonances but a higher frequency resonant motion requires a smaller deflection to be as equally loud as a lower frequency panel resonance (e.g. woofers vs tweeters deflections). To make matters worse, depending on the frequency range, raising the frequency of the panel resonance will make them easier to perceive below the output from the driver.
Somewhat counter-intuitively the net effect of making cabinets with thicker walls may well be to make the cabinet radiation more intrusive.
Isolating drivers in this manner will indeed reduce the forces going into the cabinet and radiating sound from the cabinet but it will reduce the size of the mass reacting to the motion of the cone. It will also provide a mechanism for the motion of the driver to continue after the signal has stopped dictating a resonant frequency well below the passband of the driver. For woofers you are likely to find the sums do not favour rubber grommets but this is less likely to be the case for the smaller drivers.
I agree.
On the other hand damping material reduces pressure on the panels coupled via the enclosed air with rising frequency.
The soft coupling needn't be compliant enough to decouple the bass and would probably benefit from damping itself. My guess is it's worth a try.
On the other hand damping material reduces pressure on the panels coupled via the enclosed air with rising frequency.
The soft coupling needn't be compliant enough to decouple the bass and would probably benefit from damping itself. My guess is it's worth a try.
Thats 18mm MDF btw as I figured the usual 25mm would be overkill, I'll test resonances and responses when I get the terminals.
I got all the crossover components (all Jantzen) but stuffing it all into the enclosures is going to be a challenge.
Is there an easy way to bodge it all together, maybe zip tie the bits to something, what do you guys think?
Is there an easy way to bodge it all together, maybe zip tie the bits to something, what do you guys think?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.