No, swapping the fullrange with RS28F and waveguide. Although it’s not easy because the TL does not have a removable baffle. I could do it on the sealed version as I have spare baffles for that one. In hindsight, the baffle of the TL should have been removable also. Vunce is building his with a removable baffle made by my cabinet maker.
Attachments
Last edited:
Just for fun, since I have the FRD and ZMA files already for the RS28F-WG300, and the RS225-8 (but in different speakers), I decided to see what they might look like together. The RS28F loaded in a waveguide can be crossed pretty low at 1.5kHz and I wanted to cross a little lower to take the hand-off from the RS225 as it is 8in and will start to beam if we cross too high. With just a few minor tweaks to the existing crossover PCB, this can be accommodated and it actually looks really good. I don't know how I did it, but both drivers are positive polarity and the phase shift is very flat and smooth - almost dare I say it, transient perfect? If we look at the step response, it exhibits a nice right trinagle shape with a negative overshoot on the tweeter leading edge. When I flip the polarity of the tweeter, it has a deep null at exactly 1.5kHz, so I suspect that this is just no more than a time-aligned 2nd order crossover. The impedance never dips lower than 6ohms and is reasonable behaved with a smooth peak near 1.1kHz that is at abou 30ohms.
This might be a worthwhile speaker to try out - and if you put the RS225 into the TL, bang! A great sounding speaker, I predict.
Here is the new XO design:
Here is the predicted frequency response and acoustic phase:
Here is the predicted electrical impedance:
Here is the predicted step response:
Any takers?
This might be a worthwhile speaker to try out - and if you put the RS225 into the TL, bang! A great sounding speaker, I predict.
Here is the new XO design:
Here is the predicted frequency response and acoustic phase:
Here is the predicted electrical impedance:
Here is the predicted step response:
Any takers?
Attachments
xrk971 or anyone,
This question may have answered before but there are so many pages here it would be time consuming to hunt through all the discussions.
8ohms Version
Discovery 10F/8424G or 10F/8414G
What is main differences between these 2 drivers, it appears 8424G costs 30% more and why?
I suppose similarly for the 4 ohms 10F/4424G and 4414G, Does a 4414G exist?
Thanks for your help.
This question may have answered before but there are so many pages here it would be time consuming to hunt through all the discussions.
8ohms Version
Discovery 10F/8424G or 10F/8414G
What is main differences between these 2 drivers, it appears 8424G costs 30% more and why?
I suppose similarly for the 4 ohms 10F/4424G and 4414G, Does a 4414G exist?
Thanks for your help.
ttan98,
Please refer to X's following post:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ful...5-8-fast-waw-ref-monitor-229.html#post6130903
FR curves for both divers attached for your reference.
The 10F/8414 will also work in this design. You might have to adjust the XO a bit.
10F/8424 & RS225-8 FAST / WAW Ref Monitor
Please refer to X's following post:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ful...5-8-fast-waw-ref-monitor-229.html#post6130903
FR curves for both divers attached for your reference.
The 10F/8414 will also work in this design. You might have to adjust the XO a bit.
10F/8424 & RS225-8 FAST / WAW Ref Monitor
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks, Zman. You probably won’t hear a difference just tiny bit less sensitive so maybe make R1 4.2ohms vs 4.7ohms, etc. - adjust to taste.
It’s more expensive because of larger magnet and ability to be used in smaller chamber. But that’s not an issue here. It’s a tad bit smoother maybe.
I would get 8414 if you had a chance to try.
It’s more expensive because of larger magnet and ability to be used in smaller chamber. But that’s not an issue here. It’s a tad bit smoother maybe.
I would get 8414 if you had a chance to try.
A great speaker
...a big default is the max spl it can provides hence the horn or the monitor a la Troels Gravsen. I asking myself if the pair I have disearves a pair more for a D Apolitto a la Proac or a la Kef 104 ref with a nice tweeter spl matched for a without resistor filter to stay passive Of course it would not go as low as a Kef b110 but at 500 XO it will sound more acurate than any Kef or Proac if one is able to make a filter... challengy though I have no doubt a heavy baffle with wide angle and decoupled from the bass cabinet a la Kef 104 ref will do to kill cabinet vibration from the middle frequency range where the 10F excels.
Last edited:
The sound signature of the 10F fiberglass cone is probably what I call “glassy smooth”. There is just a pure and very clear sounding vocals and midrange. The treble is not bad either. I have had good success with 8ohm TG9FD which only cost $22. Unfortunately, they are no longer available.
I seem to have an 8" itch to scratch since I sold my new unused Seas LR22RNXPs.
I dip in and out of thos thread but unfortunately I cannot accommodate a 22litre cabinet. I have some cabinets that are 17litres....415mm x 255mm baffle...so very close to XRKs Ref Monitor...just lacking some volume.
I have modeled in winisd quite a few 8" to see if any would give me an acceptable LF extension in small sealed box. (15 to 17 litres).
I recently saw XRKs comment on another thread regarding a Monacor pape 8" SPH 220HQ
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...aled-box-ls3-5a-sph-135tc-22.html#post6350200
I hadnt heard of this driver and it looks interesting and so I modelled it. I did a bit more digging and found the Monacor SPH-8M poly cone driver. Quite a bit cheaper than the 220HQ.
MONACOR SPH-8M - 8" Woofer
Granted these drivers aren't as wide bandwidth as the RS225 but both showed good LF in 17 litres sealed. Obviously compromised but they appear to go atleast as low as my 15 ish litres SB17NBAC35-4 and don't roll off quite as early as the SBs.
Then I realised I have never modelled the RS225-8 and they gave the best LF reach of all the above mentioned 8" in 17litres whilst still maintaining a sensible Q.
So i think I may try a build of XRKs Ref Monitor maintaing the baffle size but with a shallower csbinet and therefore less volume....we shall see.
I have 3fe22 8r, W3-871, and MA CHP70.2 to play with on the fr side of things.
I dip in and out of thos thread but unfortunately I cannot accommodate a 22litre cabinet. I have some cabinets that are 17litres....415mm x 255mm baffle...so very close to XRKs Ref Monitor...just lacking some volume.
I have modeled in winisd quite a few 8" to see if any would give me an acceptable LF extension in small sealed box. (15 to 17 litres).
I recently saw XRKs comment on another thread regarding a Monacor pape 8" SPH 220HQ
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...aled-box-ls3-5a-sph-135tc-22.html#post6350200
I hadnt heard of this driver and it looks interesting and so I modelled it. I did a bit more digging and found the Monacor SPH-8M poly cone driver. Quite a bit cheaper than the 220HQ.
MONACOR SPH-8M - 8" Woofer
Granted these drivers aren't as wide bandwidth as the RS225 but both showed good LF in 17 litres sealed. Obviously compromised but they appear to go atleast as low as my 15 ish litres SB17NBAC35-4 and don't roll off quite as early as the SBs.
Then I realised I have never modelled the RS225-8 and they gave the best LF reach of all the above mentioned 8" in 17litres whilst still maintaining a sensible Q.
So i think I may try a build of XRKs Ref Monitor maintaing the baffle size but with a shallower csbinet and therefore less volume....we shall see.
I have 3fe22 8r, W3-871, and MA CHP70.2 to play with on the fr side of things.
jimk04,
If you decide to use a different driver, be it the woofer or the wide-band (aka full-range) unit, the XO that xrk971 has put together needs to be changed/tweaked accordingly.
As far as I know, there are published XOs for 3 wide-band units for using in combination with the Dayton RS225 driver: ScanSpeak 10F/8424, Visaton B80, Dayton RS100.
If you decide to use a different driver, be it the woofer or the wide-band (aka full-range) unit, the XO that xrk971 has put together needs to be changed/tweaked accordingly.
As far as I know, there are published XOs for 3 wide-band units for using in combination with the Dayton RS225 driver: ScanSpeak 10F/8424, Visaton B80, Dayton RS100.
Thanks for that input. Yes I should have been clearer in that I would use the RS225 as I believe it is the critical part of this design. I think X has mentioned that many 3 or 4" full range units could be used....with XO tweaks granted.
My biggest concern is the change in cabinet volume. I am not sure what factors that has a bearing on....does the change in Q value due to a smaller box effect the behaviour of the XO.?
It is a trial and error exercise i am willing to undertake!
My biggest concern is the change in cabinet volume. I am not sure what factors that has a bearing on....does the change in Q value due to a smaller box effect the behaviour of the XO.?
It is a trial and error exercise i am willing to undertake!
You can get any box modeling program and enter your volume and see what the predicted response is. I think I chose 24L to have the best combo of bass extension and Q circa 0.60 as compromise between 0.5 and 0.7.
The sealed can benefit from a sub most definitely. The TL needs no sub.
Thanks X.
My comment about the box volume and Q maybe belies my lack of experience...I am OK with modelling drivers response in different enclosure sizes but as I alter the Vb and Qtc changes, does Qtc effect the crossover? beginners stuff here I do apologise.
My attachment shows RS225-8 in blue 23 litres Qtc 0.705
red 15 litres Qtc 0.813.
15 litres comes from my 17litre gross box at present minus XO, FR dagger and bracing.
Will your XO design still perform as was intended with the different Qtc.? Sorry but I do not know if the two factors effect each other.
Otherwise I am quite pleased that the RS225-8 models closely in 15litres as it does 23. The smaller volume gives quite a bit more headroom for hitting xmax it would seem too. I am sure I've missed something though!
My comment about the box volume and Q maybe belies my lack of experience...I am OK with modelling drivers response in different enclosure sizes but as I alter the Vb and Qtc changes, does Qtc effect the crossover? beginners stuff here I do apologise.
My attachment shows RS225-8 in blue 23 litres Qtc 0.705
red 15 litres Qtc 0.813.
15 litres comes from my 17litre gross box at present minus XO, FR dagger and bracing.
Will your XO design still perform as was intended with the different Qtc.? Sorry but I do not know if the two factors effect each other.
Otherwise I am quite pleased that the RS225-8 models closely in 15litres as it does 23. The smaller volume gives quite a bit more headroom for hitting xmax it would seem too. I am sure I've missed something though!
