I've heard the TPL150 in a Vapor speaker once. I was not impressed. It played loud, but had zero air I could discern. Very dry.
I own a UMC1 calibration mic. I just don't know what I'm doing. I can tell it is probably over for my original plans. I'm going to have to either settle for an existing design, or buy Hypex and go full active.
Kits were fun for me to build. I'm getting nowhere like this. In trying to get a better grip on BSC, and how it relates, I asked one question ... it still is unanswered.
I own a UMC1 calibration mic. I just don't know what I'm doing. I can tell it is probably over for my original plans. I'm going to have to either settle for an existing design, or buy Hypex and go full active.
Kits were fun for me to build. I'm getting nowhere like this. In trying to get a better grip on BSC, and how it relates, I asked one question ... it still is unanswered.
Hey Flaxxer,
where is that question and what is it about bsc that you would like to understand better?
where is that question and what is it about bsc that you would like to understand better?
Same here. Although TPL is a very good AMT, but it sounds clinical/lifeless/boring. Once you compare it side by side with something like Aurum Cantus G1, you can't go back listening to TPL.
I have TPL-150H/200H, Aurum Cantus AST2560 and AST25120 and G1 and some other models from Fountek. G1 is the best to my ear. AST25120 sounds also good, but G1 sounds more like real music. Don't be fooled by Aurum Cantus datasheet, nor 2560 nor 25120 are sensitive as stated in the datasheet. 2560 is barly 90dB and 25120 is about 92-93dB.
Anything (baffle size) larger that will fit the drivers. 😉
This is the easy program to get started with (and then move onto a more sophisticated program like VituixCAD):
Tolvan Data
Ex. say 14 inches wide by 35 inches tall (..355 x 889)
Input that into baffle size and hit apply.
..then your 8" driver (203)
Input that into driver size, then move the "driver" onto the "baffle" (circle that pops-up) and move that where you want on the "baffle" (..if the color is GREY then it is NOT on the baffle).
Then move the "mic" centered on the driver.
Make sure you are at 2 meters distance for the mic. (..though with this program it doesn't matter as much).
..it's at this point where you are seeing the effects of the baffle in the graph window.
Then on the compensation designer window
Set the R1 value to the minimum value between the driver's free air resonance and its inductave rise (basically the upper-bass lower midrange for the driver). For an 8 ohm driver this is often somewhere between 6 and 7 ohms.
Then click on the "Suggest F1 & F2" button and see the modified result.
From there modify F1 and F2 to see different results.
Be sure to factor-in any amount of potential room-gain and floor-gain (depending on how close the driver is to the floor). I usually figure anywhere between 1-2 db of gain below 200 Hz.
Last edited:
Yeah I already knew that lol....and I knew that those of us who were more educated on compression drivers would be excited by this comment and start to suggest the next move....so the point has been made....ur welcome Flaxxer =)`
With the Aurum Cantus G1 Ribbon Tweeter it seems that you will be able to cross over to a 10"-8"....this would be a start to nice 3 way with a
10" mid you'd want to crossover no higher than ~860hz...
with a 8' mid you'd need to cross no higher than 1074hz...
with a 12" mid you'd want to cross over no higher than 716hz...
with a 15" mid you'd want to cross no higher than 572hz...
You can kinda cheat by using a MTM section to double your mid woofer total csa.....but from what I've seen, most people don't want less area than 8"-10" for mids and a 12"-15" is most desirable.
The ka formula is 5460(KA/woofer Radius in CM)
A KA of 2 or lower is desired at XO
You'll find that many people have come to the board, same as you, and they all end up somewhere very similar. This is not a unique endeavor.....at all.
I have nothing against AMT drivers, it is one of my favorite kinds of tweeters but...See this comment for what it is
With baffle width, you don't have to be so analytical...my guess is that you wouldn't want the width to coincide with a cross band? Other wise, its more a matter of how to treat the edge, not so much how wide it is? Your wood working skills will make short work of this. With my design a very Wide baffle was my choice....The wider the baffle the higher the directivity...as someone said, somewhere, the wider the baffle the less midrange gets sent into the off axis, is one way to look at it. Chose as wide as you can tolerate is my suggestion...my baffles are 32" wide lol....If cannot have soffit mount, bring the damn wall with you lol! Not saying you need to copy me....As wide as you dare or can tolerate is all I am suggesting. If its 16", don't sweat it. I don't know what your largest woofer is going to be....but I was told to keep baffle width the same from top to bottom.
Last edited:
Uh oh ... what have all of you unleashed? Now I can begin to learn. Thank you for these tools, and info.
I think the first hard pill to swallow is that quality compression drivers are the Apex tweeter, even if the top most response is not what you are used to seeing. Once again physics is at play, you are looking at a 3-4" diaphragm for a tweeter, though you may choose a 1-2"
exit...
The same ideals are at play with midrange and bass...large drivers have the advantage due to the increase in efficiency. The larger diaphragms have to travel less, and that is a great advantage by lowering distortion...
The newer compression drivers do well to tackle the struggles in making this all happen...a larger diaphragm has break up challenges to over come above 10khz...the last years has been interesting for this category.
I went for prowess in midrange so the above is very true for my system...the 1" exit compression drivers have a much easier time on the very top. I think crossing to an 8-10" woofer via waveguide is not a challenge...if you use a horn look at it like a 4th order bandpass...cause it is...this basically means, like all vented designs, the lower bandwidth is limited by the tuning of the vent...the 1.4"-1.5" exit drivers are in the middle of hf and midrange prowess.
I would focus on picking a compression driver and horn or waveguide.. that will set limitations on XO and show you how much money you might be spending on a tweeter
exit...
The same ideals are at play with midrange and bass...large drivers have the advantage due to the increase in efficiency. The larger diaphragms have to travel less, and that is a great advantage by lowering distortion...
The newer compression drivers do well to tackle the struggles in making this all happen...a larger diaphragm has break up challenges to over come above 10khz...the last years has been interesting for this category.
I went for prowess in midrange so the above is very true for my system...the 1" exit compression drivers have a much easier time on the very top. I think crossing to an 8-10" woofer via waveguide is not a challenge...if you use a horn look at it like a 4th order bandpass...cause it is...this basically means, like all vented designs, the lower bandwidth is limited by the tuning of the vent...the 1.4"-1.5" exit drivers are in the middle of hf and midrange prowess.
I would focus on picking a compression driver and horn or waveguide.. that will set limitations on XO and show you how much money you might be spending on a tweeter
Last edited:
Well now ... left turn at Albuquerque. I love the thought of a particular 8" mid, but will have to research 10" mids.
Picking a compression driver and waveguide/horn, I am lost. I've never went this road before. I'll start working on researching.
Picking a compression driver and waveguide/horn, I am lost. I've never went this road before. I'll start working on researching.
Just be certain that you like the sound character of horn tweeters. You started off in this thread looking at a completely different kind of speaker.
Even among professionals there is a demand for non-horn load speakers: Quested, ATC, and Barefoot all use direct ratiator tweeters.
j.
Even among professionals there is a demand for non-horn load speakers: Quested, ATC, and Barefoot all use direct ratiator tweeters.
j.
I would like to quickly point out here that active/DSP based crossovers have been mentioned as some sort of panacea/shortcut to proper crossover design. They are not.
Granted, if you are fooling around in the dark, you'll get closer to something acceptable with active Vs passive. But if what you're after is a fully optimised system, with all the design considerations taken into account, passive or active are just a means to an end. What's important is the knowledge to know what bases you've covered and with that what compromises/balances you've accepted/strived for so as to know what things you can tweak to get it sounding how you want.
To me the monkey coffin design would be a good place to start. All it lacks is sensitivity but should be able to play dangerously loud already with enough power. Both the mid and tweeters, however, are much more sensitive than the overall design as it's limited by the net sensitivity of the bass section. This just shows how insensitive lots of hifi stuff really is as the monkey coffin design already uses a high sensitivity pro bass driver but the laws of physics can't be ignored.
Looking at the design paper for the monkey coffin it would seem that the mid and tweeter section could pretty much support a WWMT configuration and doubling up the bass drivers for 6dB greater sensitivity. I'm surprised this hasn't been offered as an alternative to those who would like to trade higher sensitivity for lower impedance. With the design files for the original, which might be available...hmm this is open source after all...simulating this shouldn't be too hard. I might look into this when I get home.
Granted, if you are fooling around in the dark, you'll get closer to something acceptable with active Vs passive. But if what you're after is a fully optimised system, with all the design considerations taken into account, passive or active are just a means to an end. What's important is the knowledge to know what bases you've covered and with that what compromises/balances you've accepted/strived for so as to know what things you can tweak to get it sounding how you want.
To me the monkey coffin design would be a good place to start. All it lacks is sensitivity but should be able to play dangerously loud already with enough power. Both the mid and tweeters, however, are much more sensitive than the overall design as it's limited by the net sensitivity of the bass section. This just shows how insensitive lots of hifi stuff really is as the monkey coffin design already uses a high sensitivity pro bass driver but the laws of physics can't be ignored.
Looking at the design paper for the monkey coffin it would seem that the mid and tweeter section could pretty much support a WWMT configuration and doubling up the bass drivers for 6dB greater sensitivity. I'm surprised this hasn't been offered as an alternative to those who would like to trade higher sensitivity for lower impedance. With the design files for the original, which might be available...hmm this is open source after all...simulating this shouldn't be too hard. I might look into this when I get home.
Probably has been mentioned already, but best bang for the buck would be to build a JBL M2 clone
JBL M2 Horn Lens 5025594 - Speaker Exchange
all the parts can be had.
JBL M2 Horn Lens 5025594 - Speaker Exchange
all the parts can be had.
No dome tweeter can play really loud at low distortion. At least, I haven't found one. All pro audio is horn loaded for a reason.
Yes, for Pro Audio use.
Home audio does not need 110db tweeter unless you like the sound of such things. Not everybody wants a concert in their apartment.
Having that capability isn't a bad thing, though. A compression tweeter tends to sound the same at different levels. There's no underlying signature that tells you it is being pushed hard (or vice versa). When you voice it, it stays right.
On the other hand there is more to doing one right.
On the other hand there is more to doing one right.
True but I think the phase plug / exit chamber of the compression driver have a certain sound signature that not everyone likes. A dome tweeter in a waveguide sounds different.
I like, and use, compression drivers but I also have speakers with dome tweeters. I feel like they both have there faults. It's a shame that there is not enough interest in the market for home audio optimized compression drivers and horn combinations. Imagine if some of the engineers had a brief to design the most linear and low distortion compression driver/horn combination and sacrifice the SPL. I think then you could truly compare which is better and I have no doubt that compression drivers would win. But I don't think its there quite yet. The transducer should be the horn/waveguide + compression driver optimised as one system for home use. That will be the best "tweeter" of the future, I think.
Different, perhaps.. but a dome which doesn't expand, but instead moves forward and back is already acting like a mismatched throat... more likely some are done well and others not?frangus said:
A shallow waveguide (which is a horn too) on a good dome tweeter like in the OSMC could be a good compromise. You win 4-6dB in an important frequency area, the sound is in-between bare dome tweeters and biradial, CD or other horns. Although quite a part of the 'different sound' is due to the radiation pattern and accompanying reflections/diffractions from nearby boundaries and edges, like the speaker baffle itself.
But in the end I stay with what I wrote earlier. Either build a proven design or start learning how to measure speakers properly. Plus have a clue about design goals.
But in the end I stay with what I wrote earlier. Either build a proven design or start learning how to measure speakers properly. Plus have a clue about design goals.