a 5". Or a 6" at 2/2.5k with a waveguided tweeter. You can not have it all. And the good 6" to 8" that climb high will not exhibit great low end. That is physic ! shape of the cone gives you a little freedom but does not make miracle.
Some are better at that game than others iso size like the Eminence Beta8-a ... but do not look too much off axis in that high range !
That's why we never seen reallyy a 2 ways working better than a 3 ways. And 2 + 1 systems exist if wanting a 2 ways monitors or some people sacrifice a little of the low end or high end by using FR as for illustration 10" + 3" when staying 2 ways . Or some use arrays,because you need to push some airs in the lows if you want to avoid XOs... but then you certainly need EQ with digital DSP.
You can't have it all !
Some are better at that game than others iso size like the Eminence Beta8-a ... but do not look too much off axis in that high range !
That's why we never seen reallyy a 2 ways working better than a 3 ways. And 2 + 1 systems exist if wanting a 2 ways monitors or some people sacrifice a little of the low end or high end by using FR as for illustration 10" + 3" when staying 2 ways . Or some use arrays,because you need to push some airs in the lows if you want to avoid XOs... but then you certainly need EQ with digital DSP.
You can't have it all !
Last edited:
I have crossed 8inch at 4k. But my listening window is small and above 10 feet. Sounds fantastic. Also crossover region is wide with some help from tweeter. Phase tracking freq range here becomes critical.
But general recommendation for 8 inch xover point will be less.
This was just an experiment and I might eventually go 3 way. But for now I am happy.
Some say this one in a front loaded horn is very euphoric but I assume no high midrange : https://www.toutlehautparleur.com/haut-parleur-b-c-speakers-8pe21-8-ohm-8-pouce.html
Has anyone an off axis measurement of this unit?
Has anyone an off axis measurement of this unit?
Last edited:
< an 8" crossing at 2k will definitely sound superior in the range 2K to 3.5K...
Ha ha... But seriously, the question is whether the range of 2K to 3.5K is better handled by a tweeter (with 8") or by a 6.5" mid-bass. There must surely be quite a difference in how a tweeter or a mid-bass would handle these frequencies...
Ha ha... But seriously, the question is whether the range of 2K to 3.5K is better handled by a tweeter (with 8") or by a 6.5" mid-bass. There must surely be quite a difference in how a tweeter or a mid-bass would handle these frequencies...
But seriously, the 2-3.5kHz is best handled by 3" dome mid.
Or 8" planar tweeter crossed on top to small planar supertweeter.
My currently main speakers: 2x15" dipole for bass to 150Hz. Betsy wow open baffle from 150 to 900 Hz, then 8" slim planar ob crossed at 10kHz to 2" super tweeter planar foster.
Or 8" planar tweeter crossed on top to small planar supertweeter.
My currently main speakers: 2x15" dipole for bass to 150Hz. Betsy wow open baffle from 150 to 900 Hz, then 8" slim planar ob crossed at 10kHz to 2" super tweeter planar foster.
For example:
https://www.parts-express.com/Morel-TM4055-8-2-Midrange-and-1-1-8-Tweeter-Speaker-Plate-287-038
HiVi makes similar combo...but you are not going that route anyway. Dome mids were already mentioned.
https://www.parts-express.com/Morel-TM4055-8-2-Midrange-and-1-1-8-Tweeter-Speaker-Plate-287-038
HiVi makes similar combo...but you are not going that route anyway. Dome mids were already mentioned.
8" starts beaming at 2.8kHz. Its not wise to run it till 3.5kHz and expect good of axis from it. Woofer will be narrowing at crossover point, tweeter blooming. Not a good idea.
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Beaming.htm
With 2.5 Watt of power you don't have many choices. If stereo, staging , all Hi- End tricks of imaging are important than you will have to concern yourself with beaming , baffle shapes and crossovers which you won't be able to optimize and they will eat what little power you have at your disposal.
It's a different world to one inhabited by posting here. You can't separate amp from the speaker in it.
It's a different world to one inhabited by posting here. You can't separate amp from the speaker in it.
That wasn't my question. The alternatives were an 8" crossing to a tweeter at around 2K, OR a 6.5" crossing over to a tweeter around 3K-3.5K.
The question was "which alternative would potentially sound better in the 2K to 3.5K region?
We are trying elswhere to explain him it is not as easy and both are not good choice. The least worse of both is imho the 8" at 2k, I woulld lowish at 1.5 k hz with a WG above and the correct tweeter for the distorsion (WG helping as well). But we re going off topic cause it has chance to become non euphoric.
You can always buy $140k Audio Note silver box 8" +1 " crossed at 3Khz and will get guaranteed euphory. Ougo , e French guy with deep pockets who posted here and had famed TAD monitor everybody tries to copy compared it directly to fairly cheap 
~$20k Audio Note E and said it was impossible to prefer TAD.
~$20k Audio Note E and said it was impossible to prefer TAD.
I think "least worst" is one way of looking at it. But this isn't really off topic because many, many speakers have one of these 2 alternatives - 8+1 or 6.5+1 crossing over higher. We might settle for "fairly euphonic".....
As in the above posts, there's better, but it's worth saying a few words about these 2 choices en passant. The Magico A1, which is very expensive and could have used a choice of units, for example, stayed with a 6.5" mid-bass. I get the impression that the 8+1 two-way stand mount was more of a 1980s fashion, though there are also current models. Waveguides have changed the landscape more recently, though commercial speakers have been slowish to adopt them. Not sure why?
Last edited:
Because they do not care of your room, the distance you listen to the speaker and the tonal neutrality nore the confort of the sweet spot off axis, few focus on all of that at the same time. They are slow because the knowledge is harder to get rigth. Here we do not stand about marketing. We, most of time, are well aware about trade offs. But some choice are known to work less than others. About your question it is no magic, the size and blend of drivers tohethers according their frequencies of use is well known from all the members whom answered you. You saw btw a concistency in the answers. If you look at twice my answer few post above, the trade offs are explained as the better target. The choices you asked are made most of the time for good reasons with littlier woofers (Again in a two ways perspective but also in 3 ways in relation to how the middle driver is made).
For instance aand more related to th ethread topic, I chose to try two 5.5" in MTM which is a complicate choice because of the soundstage that is less good or easy to get rigth than with a 5.5" + 1. But voilà I wanted a particular driver that has not ennough sensivity according the bass driver I purchased before : a 12" PA for the bass. I wanted also lowish even more the non linear distorsion which is greater when the cone has more excursion. So with a MTM, the cones moves less to reach the same spl. So some sacrifices are made like the cut off point and the choice of the tweeteer which needs to go lower than for a 5.5" + 1" and the acceptance factor of a somewhat less good coherent soundstage.
It is all about trade offs and perspective : you can't have it all with simple designs.
For instance aand more related to th ethread topic, I chose to try two 5.5" in MTM which is a complicate choice because of the soundstage that is less good or easy to get rigth than with a 5.5" + 1. But voilà I wanted a particular driver that has not ennough sensivity according the bass driver I purchased before : a 12" PA for the bass. I wanted also lowish even more the non linear distorsion which is greater when the cone has more excursion. So with a MTM, the cones moves less to reach the same spl. So some sacrifices are made like the cut off point and the choice of the tweeteer which needs to go lower than for a 5.5" + 1" and the acceptance factor of a somewhat less good coherent soundstage.
It is all about trade offs and perspective : you can't have it all with simple designs.
Last edited:
< About your question it is no magic, the size and blend of drivers together according their frequencies of use is well known from all the members who answered you. You saw btw a consistency in the answers.>
There have been some different views, but you are right that several of the members here have said that for a 2-way the preferred option is an 8" with a tweeter in a waveguide crossing over somewhere between 1.5K and 2K. So I take it that this is preferred to using a 6.5" for a 2-way. I get the message.
There have been some different views, but you are right that several of the members here have said that for a 2-way the preferred option is an 8" with a tweeter in a waveguide crossing over somewhere between 1.5K and 2K. So I take it that this is preferred to using a 6.5" for a 2-way. I get the message.
this a trade off, the other 6.5" choice will have others virtues. We tried to cope to your tastes and limited power amp. Most of the two ways are more with 5" and 6.5" than with 8" or 10" . The mid to treble quality should be be better in theory with the 6.5" but not the bass you also asked.
Look at for instance the famous Proac Tablet, many are happy and the driver is not big (however it is vented design you didn't want)
And it could be asked in this thread : what the most euphonic midrange you have heard and how was it loaded (vented, open baffle etc) ?
Look at for instance the famous Proac Tablet, many are happy and the driver is not big (however it is vented design you didn't want)
And it could be asked in this thread : what the most euphonic midrange you have heard and how was it loaded (vented, open baffle etc) ?