Yes perhaps, I was talking about the crossover. As an example, astrojet is considering a 70cm spacing between drivers...
As you go higher, there will begin to be nulls, small and relatively insignificant at first, but developing more completely by a cross of about 250Hz. They won't be on-axis (if the crossover is ok), but they will still be in the room.
Which means a maximum XO point of ~125 Hz. If 70 cm is the spacing, then the centre-to-centre will be larger and the higest XO lower.
In a WAW i always put the drivers as close together as possible.
The quarter wavelength criteria means you ar eunlikely to get that high, and if it turns out to be an issue even then, then you probably have the wrong woofers and blend will be weak.
.
dave
It merely becomes time to review the design criteria and adjust the available compromises to suit.
I don't know if it would have that effect.
Said woofers did not extend up high enuff, and the sonic su=ignature did not match closely enuff with the FR.
The helper woofers we have had success with have HF extention from 1.8k to 10k.
dave
The helper woofers we have had success with have HF extention from 1.8k to 10k.
dave
When the acoustic arrangement is for a crossover around 250Hz, maintaining driver interaction up to kHz and ensuring a good overall result could get fiddly at best. It is one thing to want a low order crossover in the region where the crossover is functioning with minimal compromise, but past that frequency range wouldn't it be beneficial to cross the driver out in a deliberate and controlled fashion?
I have had little issues with driver matching, and while passive XOs are hard (sometimes really hard), a simple 1st order PLLXO is pretty easy.
The passive for the big MTM cost more than the extra amp & XO needed to biamp. Both sound good thou.
dave
dave
The passive for the big MTM cost more than the extra amp & XO needed to biamp. Both sound good thou.
dave
dave