100% agree. I have a "pile" of expensive tweeters, most of them selected for their supposed ability to play low in a 2 way design without significant distortion. What I hear, and what the distortion measurements would indicate, are two different things. I prefer the sound of tweeters crossed well into their comfort zone, for example , I have yet to hear a 1" dome that I can tolerate crossed at 2K, no matter what the slope is, except maybe an extremely robust tweeter in a waveguide. This is one of the things I have come to love about a 3 way speaker, you dont have to force the tweeter to play down where it is strained. Crossing my Scanspeak Discovery D2608/9130 anywhere between 3-4K and loving them.
Can i actually test this approach with active?
i just made an Petr Kocourek 2-way speaker called Classillu: https://pkaudio.webnode.cz/classillu/
I Have not yet completely burned it in (so this might change the final tonality..) but i feel the sound is bit too sibilant for me.. None of my friends who had listened it think the same way i do, they actually feel it is smooth..
Anyway, i have always been very acute hearing quality of tweeter range, and so i have made few tests with quick active 2-ways that supports Olson/Profiguy 3k+ tweeter range theory..
So, to test this:
if i used EQ on my computer to mute tweeter range from 1k to 3.5k or 4k, should this make the speaker sound smooth (and show if higher crossover works for me, compared to original 1.6k.) or is this too heavy fisted approach to tell anything?
i just made an Petr Kocourek 2-way speaker called Classillu: https://pkaudio.webnode.cz/classillu/
I Have not yet completely burned it in (so this might change the final tonality..) but i feel the sound is bit too sibilant for me.. None of my friends who had listened it think the same way i do, they actually feel it is smooth..
Anyway, i have always been very acute hearing quality of tweeter range, and so i have made few tests with quick active 2-ways that supports Olson/Profiguy 3k+ tweeter range theory..
So, to test this:
if i used EQ on my computer to mute tweeter range from 1k to 3.5k or 4k, should this make the speaker sound smooth (and show if higher crossover works for me, compared to original 1.6k.) or is this too heavy fisted approach to tell anything?
@profiguy do you have any experience with those SB26ADC tweeters? I have a local friend who is planning on a 2 way speaker using that driver and RS225. He has 3d printed 6.5" somasonus wgs for the tweeters, and is planning on a crossover point of ~1400Hz
D&D 8C clone
Feel free to ignore it this is too far off topic. Seems to fit the tangent of the last few messages though
D&D 8C clone
Feel free to ignore it this is too far off topic. Seems to fit the tangent of the last few messages though
Last edited:
100 % my opinion also, high SPL test separates out speakers that are completely uninteresting to me.
To test that and then also piano & female voices, then im pleased 👍
@matsurus The SS 18W8545 with its boatanchor of a cone won't do more than 1.5k cleanly without alot of hammering and finessing the mids into shape. Its definitely not a very suitable woofer for a 2 way IMO. Thats the problem with many of the newer higher end 2 ways using these types of woofers with the steep filters they require. The tweeter will stand out in a bad way when crossed low. No 1" dome should ever be crossed at 2k using any type of filter if you want decent dynamics capabilities.
@Bryguy The SB26ADC is a very capable tweeter although not a very sensitive one for output. It will do anything within reason asked of it if you deal with the primary Fs properly using an LCR. That goes double for its upper VHF peak. In a decent WG it will go down to 2k with a steep HP and low mid contouring from the WG gain. Thats pushing it IMO and any lower isn't reasonable, especially 1.4k and even with the excellent WG design from Brennwa. I love D&D clones. They're very intriguing and very useful for acoustically difficult rooms.
I know we're getting off the path of midrange domes here, but the topic of crossing a 1" dome too low applies here when considering a beneficial application of the midrange itself. As I said, there's not much point in crossing a dome tweeter in a 3 way under 3k if you want to reap the benefits of the midrange doing all the heavy lifting in the critical mids. Thats the whole entire point of it all.
@Troy Madden I also have a huge stash of disappointing tweeters which were recommended for 2 way use with larger woofers. The SS 9130 is a good example of a soft dome that does weird stuff when asked to play down past 3k using a 2nd order filter.
I have used the TW034 with a larger modified back volume down to 2.3k with reasonable results. I still don't like the sound it can have on some vocals. I had to use an LCR on it so the vocals didn't aggravate the tweeters tendency to start becoming nasal sounding when it was pushed. I have an Ula Meinecke album that can provide this condition with 100 percent success and its one of my first tests when auditioning a.tweeter in a new design.
I honestly believe most people can't hear the issues caused by too low of a HP used on dome tweeters. These people also tend to be happy with streaming music online from compressed bit rate sources. That's something I can't tolerate even if I don't listen that loud. The excessive dynamic compression itself is bad enough, but having extra noise in your music is unacceptable. The swishing and swooshing sounds are still evident on the top end with 256k mp3s. Most people don't notice that past 128k bit rates.
@Troy Madden I also have a huge stash of disappointing tweeters which were recommended for 2 way use with larger woofers. The SS 9130 is a good example of a soft dome that does weird stuff when asked to play down past 3k using a 2nd order filter.
I have used the TW034 with a larger modified back volume down to 2.3k with reasonable results. I still don't like the sound it can have on some vocals. I had to use an LCR on it so the vocals didn't aggravate the tweeters tendency to start becoming nasal sounding when it was pushed. I have an Ula Meinecke album that can provide this condition with 100 percent success and its one of my first tests when auditioning a.tweeter in a new design.
I honestly believe most people can't hear the issues caused by too low of a HP used on dome tweeters. These people also tend to be happy with streaming music online from compressed bit rate sources. That's something I can't tolerate even if I don't listen that loud. The excessive dynamic compression itself is bad enough, but having extra noise in your music is unacceptable. The swishing and swooshing sounds are still evident on the top end with 256k mp3s. Most people don't notice that past 128k bit rates.
I tend to look at total system design requirements and select the appropriate transducer.
Re: RS225- are we using one, two, or multiple? That will determine maximum SPL, and hence whether the HF device that can “keep up”
How low you want to go depends of excursion of the transucers.
Here is a sine sweep at 100dB/1m of the SB26ADC:
If you want 106dB/m you need to move the crossover point higher.
And if you want to reach 107dB with a 100 hour torture test
eg. IEC 268-5, cl 18.4 Rated noise test you’ll need a 2nd order Butterworth HPF at 2.6Khz, as per manufacturer spec.
But that is all with noise test signals.
These power ratings are standardised by IEC and AES, and are designed for testing for transducer BEFORE the onset of damage.
But they are not indicative of real world music, or distortion artefacts.
Pink noise has a crest factor (the ratio between peak to average) of only 6dB,whereas music has lots of peaks and dips and is not as “abusive” as noise signals. In fact “AES Music Program” is defined as 2 times the continuous rating, in part because music typically has higher crest ratios (10-20dB) than continuous pink noise.
Some useful links:
SPL calculator based on driver diameter and excursion
IEC Power ratings
AES power ratings
Emerging test standards with
Music noise
Testing for audible artefacts with your own real music:
FSAF
Only this can solve the how long is a piece of string
“decent dynamic capabilities“
What is decent?
How far away?
And what music?
(For whom)
Last edited:
I did not know about those, but they look like a sweet package. Small, solid looking, dome guard, low FS, high power handling. Not very sensitive, but many smaller systems end up there anyway.
@profiguy I think we have similar ideas about a good speaker but with different environments.
A lot of "High End" speakers fall apart when pushed with full range material to higher levels - that's a total NoGo for serious music listening. These classic 6"/1" speakers ... don't get me started.
My last main speakers had 2 really good ScanSpeak 8" for LF and I am sitting about 1,2m distance in my control room - and this was only just enough for what I need. So I'm also listening loud but maybe not as extreme as your needs.
One difference is I always use active DSP crossovers. I set delay between drivers precisely and can use steeper filters. Correctly set and fine tuned it's no problem to have your crossover in the sensitive 2k range! This is pretty hard or even impossible to achieve with a passive crossovers. I am also a big fan of coax speakers and keep acoustic centers very close, the transition is seamless - important with the closer listening distances I sometimes need. This leads to low crossover frequencies and therefore I always check what's possible with the drivers I use.
THD is a nice measurement to check if a driver still behaves and it shows pretty good when the motor and magnet system get's out of linearity. That's a BIG factor. But there are more parameters like Rub&Buzz to check if everything is linear and under control.
There is also a difference between electrical filter and acoustical filter slope. Like my last project - the electrical filter was at 2,5k 2nd order, acoustical slope was at 1,8kHz 4th order. You don't overload a modern tweeter with a filter at 2,5k but still get a lower acoustical slope.
Worked perfect and as the lf driver was only a 6,5" the tweeter could do that without a sweat. I could not hear my own voice when playing loud at the target listening distance.
Off axis performance. The longer I'm in the speaker building game the more I value a "well behaved" speaker. I compared a "few" concepts and my references for linearity and off axis behaviour are a KEF Coax or KH120ii. I often thought "that's sounding good" and then compared to a speaker with great in room behaviour 1:1, moved around and recognised "ok, there is still work to do".
One characteristic of a really great speaker is that it sounds similar in every room. You can trust what you hear, it's the signature of the speaker and the sound you know. That's probably more important for sound engineering as for casual listening but as we are trying to reach for the stars it's high on my list of properties.
So let's agree to disagree 😎
I totally understand the "get the most important range from one midrange driver" idea but with perfect aligned (DSP) and sound matched drivers and coax like behaviour this is way less of an issue as it was years ago.
I also did designs this way but with modern drivers and crossovers my design goals shiftet and I'm very happy with the results.
A lot of "High End" speakers fall apart when pushed with full range material to higher levels - that's a total NoGo for serious music listening. These classic 6"/1" speakers ... don't get me started.
My last main speakers had 2 really good ScanSpeak 8" for LF and I am sitting about 1,2m distance in my control room - and this was only just enough for what I need. So I'm also listening loud but maybe not as extreme as your needs.
One difference is I always use active DSP crossovers. I set delay between drivers precisely and can use steeper filters. Correctly set and fine tuned it's no problem to have your crossover in the sensitive 2k range! This is pretty hard or even impossible to achieve with a passive crossovers. I am also a big fan of coax speakers and keep acoustic centers very close, the transition is seamless - important with the closer listening distances I sometimes need. This leads to low crossover frequencies and therefore I always check what's possible with the drivers I use.
THD is a nice measurement to check if a driver still behaves and it shows pretty good when the motor and magnet system get's out of linearity. That's a BIG factor. But there are more parameters like Rub&Buzz to check if everything is linear and under control.
There is also a difference between electrical filter and acoustical filter slope. Like my last project - the electrical filter was at 2,5k 2nd order, acoustical slope was at 1,8kHz 4th order. You don't overload a modern tweeter with a filter at 2,5k but still get a lower acoustical slope.
Worked perfect and as the lf driver was only a 6,5" the tweeter could do that without a sweat. I could not hear my own voice when playing loud at the target listening distance.
Off axis performance. The longer I'm in the speaker building game the more I value a "well behaved" speaker. I compared a "few" concepts and my references for linearity and off axis behaviour are a KEF Coax or KH120ii. I often thought "that's sounding good" and then compared to a speaker with great in room behaviour 1:1, moved around and recognised "ok, there is still work to do".
One characteristic of a really great speaker is that it sounds similar in every room. You can trust what you hear, it's the signature of the speaker and the sound you know. That's probably more important for sound engineering as for casual listening but as we are trying to reach for the stars it's high on my list of properties.
So let's agree to disagree 😎
I totally understand the "get the most important range from one midrange driver" idea but with perfect aligned (DSP) and sound matched drivers and coax like behaviour this is way less of an issue as it was years ago.
I also did designs this way but with modern drivers and crossovers my design goals shiftet and I'm very happy with the results.
I just got done listening to an older Depeche Mode album from the early 80s - Construction Time Again. I'm a huge DM fan of their earlier work, mainly when Vincent Clarke left and Alan Wilder joined. This is synth pop in its beginnings when it mainly embraced older analog symth technology but also first generation sampling using the Fairlight CMI and the Emu Emulator I/II. I also love the group Japan, specifically their live album Oil on Canvas.
I brought up these albums because they both have alot of time domain critical content and spacial cues while being midrange forward. They're not considered "audiophile" listening material and usually not taken seriously being early electronic pop music, but the artists actually cared alot when they made these albums from an engineering POV, unlike most 80s cheesy pop, which often just melted your ears at any level. On bad speakers at excessive levels, this music will be hard to tolerate, yet it will sound excellent on very good speakers. This music is a reliable test for midrange clarity at very high playback levels ie. above 105 dB, where most speakers will slice off your ears in the 1 to 5k range.
The D7608 was also being put through its paces with the mentioned material earlier today. It dId very well above 600 hz LR2 with a second mid playing shaded with it and tapered off at about the lower 1k point. The combo does extremely well with the harshness test. It sounds accurate and tight from a transient perspective and very clean overall. I'm not perceiving anything bad so far with this first type of back chamber I designed with the toroidal shape. Its is doing well and I feel happy with its performance from a listening POV. Im going to leave the measurements up to other on here so they can determine the suitability for their own design.
I'm close to releasing the 3D files for this and let others experiment with dampening material.types/densities etc.
PS, if you look up the albums I mentioned, make sure they're the early non-remastered versions. The newer ones being streamed are doctored up too much with poor dynamics and EQ. Older CD versions are your best bet. I use physical media for the most part.
I brought up these albums because they both have alot of time domain critical content and spacial cues while being midrange forward. They're not considered "audiophile" listening material and usually not taken seriously being early electronic pop music, but the artists actually cared alot when they made these albums from an engineering POV, unlike most 80s cheesy pop, which often just melted your ears at any level. On bad speakers at excessive levels, this music will be hard to tolerate, yet it will sound excellent on very good speakers. This music is a reliable test for midrange clarity at very high playback levels ie. above 105 dB, where most speakers will slice off your ears in the 1 to 5k range.
The D7608 was also being put through its paces with the mentioned material earlier today. It dId very well above 600 hz LR2 with a second mid playing shaded with it and tapered off at about the lower 1k point. The combo does extremely well with the harshness test. It sounds accurate and tight from a transient perspective and very clean overall. I'm not perceiving anything bad so far with this first type of back chamber I designed with the toroidal shape. Its is doing well and I feel happy with its performance from a listening POV. Im going to leave the measurements up to other on here so they can determine the suitability for their own design.
I'm close to releasing the 3D files for this and let others experiment with dampening material.types/densities etc.
PS, if you look up the albums I mentioned, make sure they're the early non-remastered versions. The newer ones being streamed are doctored up too much with poor dynamics and EQ. Older CD versions are your best bet. I use physical media for the most part.
This is so evident with YouTube music. Even in my office with "only" KH120ii you clearly hear that effect when compared to better sources.
I archived my CDs and stored everything uncompressed as .wav files and this is still the most reliable music source for listening comparisons.
When something is labled as "audiophile" it's most of the time totally unusable for a significant listening test. Every 6"/1" can reproduce a pan flute with acoustic guitar ... (ok, maybe a "little" exaggerated ... 😎)
@IamJF i definitely respect your POV and approach. I think we come from differing corners in how we look at the entire system and the priorities we place on their design criteria. I work almost exclusively in the passive analog domain. This is my preference which supports a fully analog signal chain and its an important aspect for myself.
I also feel that many people don't put that much care for having a fully analog signal chain, so they don't necessarily understand their strengths or limitations, specifically concerning the dedicated design of passive crossovers.
The area where we differ in opinion is the crossover point preference. I won't ever cross above 1k and/or below 3k. I can readily perceive this on steep digital filters, when the image will bounce back and forth between transducers on certain sources. I'm likely also more tuned into certain distortion artifacts from mids and tweeters that don't do well in their given operating range. The sudden shift from a large surface area driver to a small one (ie. large cone to small dome) causes a different tonal balance. This is what cues me to some of the issues I mention.
So no worries, I just have a different approach and that's one of the reasons why I started this thread.
I also feel that many people don't put that much care for having a fully analog signal chain, so they don't necessarily understand their strengths or limitations, specifically concerning the dedicated design of passive crossovers.
The area where we differ in opinion is the crossover point preference. I won't ever cross above 1k and/or below 3k. I can readily perceive this on steep digital filters, when the image will bounce back and forth between transducers on certain sources. I'm likely also more tuned into certain distortion artifacts from mids and tweeters that don't do well in their given operating range. The sudden shift from a large surface area driver to a small one (ie. large cone to small dome) causes a different tonal balance. This is what cues me to some of the issues I mention.
So no worries, I just have a different approach and that's one of the reasons why I started this thread.
I use my system primarily for home theater, and often listen to fairly dynamic soundtracks at reference levels. It usually doesn't take long for an overstressed tweeter to reveal itself. As I have aged I have less and less tolerance for that, I'm pretty fussy about a tweeter staying clean.
They are some of the best 3/4" dome tweeters ever made with any sort of capability to go sub-2 kHz with good performance.
@tktran303 Yes, I understand what your saying with maximum output levels and excursion limits related to emissive surface area. A 26mm dome tweeter may be able to play reasonably clean at elevated levels ie. in a WG if the output vs frequency allows for it. However, a 26mm dome playing a 1.3k sine at 100 dB will sound quite different than a 75mm dome playing the same signal and level. This would also be the case compared with a 120mm cone. Both the cone and larger dome will almost certainly sound cleaner (given the same motor distortion performance), even if the observed distortion is already relatively low on the smaller dome.
What's clean or low enough in offending distortion to one person won't be so to others who are more sensitive and aware of the offending sound. Also changing the driver's acoustic signature (specifically at max output levels) are the motor, suspension, compliance linearity, diaphragm material, construction, etc. All of this changes the specific acoustic signature of the output signal from a given driver.
Almost all dome drivers have a simple suspension system with only one stabilizing element, unlike cone drivers with more stable dual suspensions. This considerably impacts distortion performance around its resonant frequency. There are no specified hard cutoff limit numbers for tolerable levels of distortion or other output anomalies when different listeners consider and compare a given driver's acoustic performance at its limits. So despite the tweeter being able to play a given signal relatively loud at an arbitrary tolerable level of perceived distortion, the listener will determine for themselves whether the performance is tolerable for their own tastes and priorities.
A 26mm dome cranking out 100 + dB (even in a WG) almost certainly won't be as clean sounding (apples to apples) as a larger mid dome or especially a smaller cone, all with similar relative distortion performance. This is also considering other various unmentioned parameters that affect performance. If others are happy with the sound a relatively small dome delivers at higher output levels, that's fine, but I personally prefer a driver that isn't being pushed hard close to its limits when I have a choice. Reliability is certainly an issue as well - some lower price tweeters don't have very flexible lead wires which can fracture relatively easily at higher excursion levels. Just one snap or pop through the amp from a power transient can easily take out a small dome fed through a lower filter cutoff point. The risk increases with lower filter cutoff points. While this is a minor concern and likely not that critical, its still relative to the overall decision of specific driver application.
What's clean or low enough in offending distortion to one person won't be so to others who are more sensitive and aware of the offending sound. Also changing the driver's acoustic signature (specifically at max output levels) are the motor, suspension, compliance linearity, diaphragm material, construction, etc. All of this changes the specific acoustic signature of the output signal from a given driver.
Almost all dome drivers have a simple suspension system with only one stabilizing element, unlike cone drivers with more stable dual suspensions. This considerably impacts distortion performance around its resonant frequency. There are no specified hard cutoff limit numbers for tolerable levels of distortion or other output anomalies when different listeners consider and compare a given driver's acoustic performance at its limits. So despite the tweeter being able to play a given signal relatively loud at an arbitrary tolerable level of perceived distortion, the listener will determine for themselves whether the performance is tolerable for their own tastes and priorities.
A 26mm dome cranking out 100 + dB (even in a WG) almost certainly won't be as clean sounding (apples to apples) as a larger mid dome or especially a smaller cone, all with similar relative distortion performance. This is also considering other various unmentioned parameters that affect performance. If others are happy with the sound a relatively small dome delivers at higher output levels, that's fine, but I personally prefer a driver that isn't being pushed hard close to its limits when I have a choice. Reliability is certainly an issue as well - some lower price tweeters don't have very flexible lead wires which can fracture relatively easily at higher excursion levels. Just one snap or pop through the amp from a power transient can easily take out a small dome fed through a lower filter cutoff point. The risk increases with lower filter cutoff points. While this is a minor concern and likely not that critical, its still relative to the overall decision of specific driver application.
It's too late for me to edit this, but I should have added the qualifier that this applies only to medium SPL, so more like for nearfield vs large living rooms. They are only 3/4" domes, after all.
There are wildly significant differences between just tolerable to very convincing examples of basic 6" + 1" 2 way speakers. Its actually not at all that easy to build an excellent example of this type of speaker, even at higher price points.