The differences between the T25B and T34B kind of intrigue me. Listening to both always makes me favor the T34B (and even the T34A) over the T25B.
Whats odd is the T34B sounds like it has the most top end extension. The distortion spectrum profile is also better balanced on the T34B. The shallow dome is probably what helps it overall. The audax TW025A28 sounds very similar to me but doesn't have quite the reach up or down. It does have that catenary (egg tip shaped) dome and holographic sound, but not quite as open as the T34B. The VC former on the Bliesma tweeters is Ti as opposed to Alu on most other domes and the lack of electrical damping also helps the resolution.
That elipticor mid worries me with its weird VC shape. I'd expect it to me more prone to VC rubbing over time from heat cycling and warping, but I could be wrong.
The woofer in that design is a work of art and sounds impeccable. Its one of my favorite larger woofers. Again, awesome job on the cabinet and design.
Whats odd is the T34B sounds like it has the most top end extension. The distortion spectrum profile is also better balanced on the T34B. The shallow dome is probably what helps it overall. The audax TW025A28 sounds very similar to me but doesn't have quite the reach up or down. It does have that catenary (egg tip shaped) dome and holographic sound, but not quite as open as the T34B. The VC former on the Bliesma tweeters is Ti as opposed to Alu on most other domes and the lack of electrical damping also helps the resolution.
That elipticor mid worries me with its weird VC shape. I'd expect it to me more prone to VC rubbing over time from heat cycling and warping, but I could be wrong.
The woofer in that design is a work of art and sounds impeccable. Its one of my favorite larger woofers. Again, awesome job on the cabinet and design.
profiguy, thanks for sharing your experience.
Today was dedicated to measurements for the crossover. Moving and positioning of such a nice loudspeaker was not easy, but all went well and no harm was done to loudspeaker.
More images and details are available here:
Ellips-A 3way loudspeaker
I attached some measurements. FR mic 1m, 2,83V, SPL calibrated, no gatting, smoothing 1/24. Distortion 30cm, 2,83V.
Basically no surprises and results match my expectations. I attached preliminary active version crossover modelling.
Though there was one issue with midrange driver. During distortion measurement we noticed quite loud buzzing sound, and my suspicious confirmed what was the issue. The decor ring is attached by 6 neo magnets and it is simply not enough. The ring sits metal to metal on a driver, there is not foam or anything. I had to add the tape below the ring to prevent the buzzing. That is king of dissappointing, considering this solution is just cosmetics, add the cost, as is source of issues. I would prefer standard frame with visible holes.
Today was dedicated to measurements for the crossover. Moving and positioning of such a nice loudspeaker was not easy, but all went well and no harm was done to loudspeaker.
More images and details are available here:
Ellips-A 3way loudspeaker
I attached some measurements. FR mic 1m, 2,83V, SPL calibrated, no gatting, smoothing 1/24. Distortion 30cm, 2,83V.
Basically no surprises and results match my expectations. I attached preliminary active version crossover modelling.
Though there was one issue with midrange driver. During distortion measurement we noticed quite loud buzzing sound, and my suspicious confirmed what was the issue. The decor ring is attached by 6 neo magnets and it is simply not enough. The ring sits metal to metal on a driver, there is not foam or anything. I had to add the tape below the ring to prevent the buzzing. That is king of dissappointing, considering this solution is just cosmetics, add the cost, as is source of issues. I would prefer standard frame with visible holes.
Attachments
The raw response of the mid looks nice, but I agree about the issues with cosmetics taking priority to function. I'll be curious how well that VC geometry holds up to time and stress. I'd like to see that driver hold up well.
Great website Pida.
Any thoughts of having a passive MT section in the future?
I'm also looking at using the same drivers, but the Ellipticor drivers are very expensive. Purifi have the new PTT6.5M04 midrange out soon (apparently a 5" is also in the works) - it should be half the price, has great efficiency and the Qms will likely be higher than the Ellipticor.
I presume that the high Qms on the ellipticor really helps transient response? I have not heard this driver before.
My other option is using two revelator or illuminator midranges in series to get sensitivity close to the Ellipticor... not sure there is any advantage to this alternative (or how running in series would affect Qms?). I might be better off with the Ellipticor or waiting for the Purifi.
Any thoughts of having a passive MT section in the future?
I'm also looking at using the same drivers, but the Ellipticor drivers are very expensive. Purifi have the new PTT6.5M04 midrange out soon (apparently a 5" is also in the works) - it should be half the price, has great efficiency and the Qms will likely be higher than the Ellipticor.
I presume that the high Qms on the ellipticor really helps transient response? I have not heard this driver before.
My other option is using two revelator or illuminator midranges in series to get sensitivity close to the Ellipticor... not sure there is any advantage to this alternative (or how running in series would affect Qms?). I might be better off with the Ellipticor or waiting for the Purifi.
Last edited:
I took impedance measurements as well to model passive crossover. I have 2 additional front baffles, just for the case I will decide to make passive version for myself in future.
Purifi midrange and Satori TX seem to be better value. I am very curious myself to listen to TX in Shamal project, and it will be good comparison.
To increase sensitivity you need parallel connection of the drivers.
I think Purifi mid is your best choice. Measured performance is exceptional, the price is reasonable (compared to 18WE), and all reviews mention good listening experiences.
I generally see high Qms as good thing. I cannot make conclusions from one experience, but I used 18W8545-10 as woofer, with Qms 1.5 if I recall well, and I did not like the sound, somewhat empty, lazy, the opposite of effortless.
Purifi midrange and Satori TX seem to be better value. I am very curious myself to listen to TX in Shamal project, and it will be good comparison.
To increase sensitivity you need parallel connection of the drivers.
I think Purifi mid is your best choice. Measured performance is exceptional, the price is reasonable (compared to 18WE), and all reviews mention good listening experiences.
I generally see high Qms as good thing. I cannot make conclusions from one experience, but I used 18W8545-10 as woofer, with Qms 1.5 if I recall well, and I did not like the sound, somewhat empty, lazy, the opposite of effortless.
Attachments
I belive high Qms is important based on my listening experiences. Overdampened drivers sound lifeless and clinical. All of my favorite mids/midbass have higher Qms.
Thanks for the feedback - very valuable. If the new Purifi mid has a Qms anything like their woofers then it will be very clean, dynamic and efficient.
Ideally scanspeak need to be more competitive on pricing of ellipticor.
You loose a smidge of sensitivity on the 5” SATORI MW13TX-4 / TeXtreme - but paralleling them would work well. Parallel MW13TX-4 vs single 18WE or purifi… any advantages other than sensitivity and area? I only have 18 ‘first watts’ to play with per channel on mid and tweeter.
Ideally scanspeak need to be more competitive on pricing of ellipticor.
You loose a smidge of sensitivity on the 5” SATORI MW13TX-4 / TeXtreme - but paralleling them would work well. Parallel MW13TX-4 vs single 18WE or purifi… any advantages other than sensitivity and area? I only have 18 ‘first watts’ to play with per channel on mid and tweeter.
Last edited:
Parallel midranges...I see one advantage, increased sensitivity, either to keep up with woofer(s), or for high SPL demands. On the other hand, MTM creates other issues like vertical lobbing, so I generally try to avoid this solution.
Parallel mid MTM or even MMT (if you have rising driver FR and can get away with shelving lower driver of the two towards the top like a 2.5 way has) can do well for matching lower sensitivity drivers if the combined impedance works out for you. The extra cone surface area can help midbass dynamics/output capability/THD and possibly allow for a lower midbass HP... very tricky to pull off but have done it a few times. Many times you need an LCR anyways to pull out some mid band hump with just one mid, so it can be done with 2 in the correct configuration.
Measurements look fantastic, as well passive sim! I love elliptic acoustic curves.
Middle ot the road version would be a nice option, perhaps a kit with cnc'd and painted front plate for diyers?
Middle ot the road version would be a nice option, perhaps a kit with cnc'd and painted front plate for diyers?
I play with active version optimization. I managed to improve MT phase tracking below crossover.
I also attached six pack with 1/12 smoothing to smooth off axis traces.
Pre-cut and CNCed front baffles, that might be possible, but I cannot imagine anybody would be interested in 18WE version. Maybe MW16TX, or Purifi.... Anyway, I would not dare ship painted baffles, they are large and heavy.
Or I could provide STL of the baffle, it generally might be easier to source CNC service locally for anybody who would be interested in similar design.
I also attached six pack with 1/12 smoothing to smooth off axis traces.
Pre-cut and CNCed front baffles, that might be possible, but I cannot imagine anybody would be interested in 18WE version. Maybe MW16TX, or Purifi.... Anyway, I would not dare ship painted baffles, they are large and heavy.
Or I could provide STL of the baffle, it generally might be easier to source CNC service locally for anybody who would be interested in similar design.
Attachments
Last edited:
Your projects are always an inspiration, but this one is at a whole new level. Very impressive progress.
J.
J.
Damn, that T34B with WG just makes an amazing looking polar plot. Its such a great tweeter just on its own, but the WG takes it to a completely new level. That driver puts many planars to shame.
^Couldn't agree more!
But I am wondering what it's like to have the beryllium dome exposed to the rest of the world with no safety grill. How much does it take to dent the dome? Is it possible to get the dent out without issues? How much does it take to break the dome? What about the toxicity of the beryllium?
I guess it's okayish if you live alone or with well-behaved people that will keep their fingers where they belong. Not so much with kids, pets or uncontrollable visitors...
But I am wondering what it's like to have the beryllium dome exposed to the rest of the world with no safety grill. How much does it take to dent the dome? Is it possible to get the dent out without issues? How much does it take to break the dome? What about the toxicity of the beryllium?
I guess it's okayish if you live alone or with well-behaved people that will keep their fingers where they belong. Not so much with kids, pets or uncontrollable visitors...
Thanks for kind words.
For commercial design the grill integrated to wg would be mandatory.
Here, after discussion with future owner, it will be ok to have just magnetic cloth grills covering all drivers, so some kind of protection will be there.
For commercial design the grill integrated to wg would be mandatory.
Here, after discussion with future owner, it will be ok to have just magnetic cloth grills covering all drivers, so some kind of protection will be there.
Last edited:
Yep - amazing polar from T34B with WG, exactly why I'm interested.
I'd be up for a kit purchase - probably purifi midrange, but this all depends on your evaluation and what sounds good and you may prefer the 18WE. Pida drop me a line if you chose to make an offering.
Stretchneck, please follow this thread, further plans will depend on how much I will like the outcome of this project.
I can offer:
1. WG model, STL and STEP, for 3D printer, + drawing with dimensions
2. Finished WGs, raw aluminium, no finishing. This would make sense if demand is >10pcs, I would ask around the CNC shops for prices
3. Ellips-A 18WE project documentation for passive version (after successful active version evaluation). My passive pair will be finished next year the soonest, so I would use active graphs as targets for passive if you cannot wait and decide to give it a go.
I can offer:
1. WG model, STL and STEP, for 3D printer, + drawing with dimensions
2. Finished WGs, raw aluminium, no finishing. This would make sense if demand is >10pcs, I would ask around the CNC shops for prices
3. Ellips-A 18WE project documentation for passive version (after successful active version evaluation). My passive pair will be finished next year the soonest, so I would use active graphs as targets for passive if you cannot wait and decide to give it a go.
