1 - To properly design a passive xo, in-cabinet frequency and impedance measurements of all the drivers are required. Given that 'the ultimate sound' may not be what you are looking for here, using the manufacturers' measurements may suffice for you but be aware that this may not be a perfect solution.
2 - I thought you would be running 6 M6N's as woofers series/parallel (kind of like the Uluwatus), but your drawing in post #7 suggests otherwise. Both ideas are bad ones. Running both the M6N and M3N as mids (?) definitely won't work (sensitivities, FR's, impedances don't match and 1 shared chamber doesn't work either) and running 6 woofers together will be too loud for just the 2 M3N's as mids. However, running 4 woofers with 2 of the mids looks like the sensitivities should just be able to just about work if the speakers aren't too close to back/side walls and lose the full 6dB to baffle step loss.
mids -> 82dB @ 2.83V/1m + 6dB for 2 in parallel = 88dB
woofers -> 89dB @ 2.83V/1m + 6dB for 2+2 series/parallel - 6dB to baffle step loss = 89dB
So a WWMTMWW in other words and in fact to maintain your height requirement and the same front aesthetic, change the TB's to the front so you end up with SWWMTMWWS.
3 - Using the same cabinet depth and width is not recommended. It encourages internal standing waves. Try to change 1 of them even just by an inch or so.
2 - I thought you would be running 6 M6N's as woofers series/parallel (kind of like the Uluwatus), but your drawing in post #7 suggests otherwise. Both ideas are bad ones. Running both the M6N and M3N as mids (?) definitely won't work (sensitivities, FR's, impedances don't match and 1 shared chamber doesn't work either) and running 6 woofers together will be too loud for just the 2 M3N's as mids. However, running 4 woofers with 2 of the mids looks like the sensitivities should just be able to just about work if the speakers aren't too close to back/side walls and lose the full 6dB to baffle step loss.
mids -> 82dB @ 2.83V/1m + 6dB for 2 in parallel = 88dB
woofers -> 89dB @ 2.83V/1m + 6dB for 2+2 series/parallel - 6dB to baffle step loss = 89dB
So a WWMTMWW in other words and in fact to maintain your height requirement and the same front aesthetic, change the TB's to the front so you end up with SWWMTMWWS.
3 - Using the same cabinet depth and width is not recommended. It encourages internal standing waves. Try to change 1 of them even just by an inch or so.
I did word it bad (too many beers) - he can tweak the crossover with miniDSP but with a passive one it will be harder and more expensive unless he`s pretty lucky. All this based on my understanding that no measurement equipment is available. And yes, passive is not the reason 😀
JReave, I was going for the "Uluwatu" design, that is the most amazing/beautiful speaker I have seen. Over many of years, I always wanted to try and build a eligant set of towers and the Uluwatu caught my eye. I of course made bad changes to the design quite considerably and hopefully not for the worst. That totally makes sense on what you've suggested on driver placement and yes, I have always been aware of the equal sides and "boxiness" will make a dramatic affect. I'm sure I'm making people roll there eyes and shaking their heads after seeing all the major mistakes I made and probably still will make lol. Like I said I'm all new to this and it's very fun and like a big long adventure to me! There's lots of things I miss or may or may not do.anyways.....lol, when you say "SWWMTMWWS" what are you suggesting as mids? The M6N or the M3N's? curious cause I haven't thought of the placement like that. and now that I'm re-thinking the ribbon tweeter for these towers, the Dayton Audio ND20FA-6 is a better choice or are there other similar ones that will work better in its place? I really do appreciate all the helpful replies everyone has suggested!
Build the Uluwatu. It's reasonably priced and Curt is a competent designer. If you decide to build your own you'll have a frame of reference and nice music to listen to while you do it.
If you decide to go for it passively you should atleast have a measurement setup and learn one of the passive crossover design software. The design you propose is not trivial and has some issues. With a basic two-way with known drivers someone could cobble together a crossover for you that would work reasonably well, probably not possible to wing it with this kinda design.
I agree the first thing to do is get rid of 2 of the 6 midbasses.
If you decide to go for it passively you should atleast have a measurement setup and learn one of the passive crossover design software. The design you propose is not trivial and has some issues. With a basic two-way with known drivers someone could cobble together a crossover for you that would work reasonably well, probably not possible to wing it with this kinda design.
I agree the first thing to do is get rid of 2 of the 6 midbasses.
I was thinking the M3N's. Match your CC. Plus I think with the Beston, you'll want to cross higher so you'll need the smaller mid.
Also, although the suggestion to not use the ribbon is technically sound, you are already implementing it in your CC and here, the lobing would be in the horizontal plane which can be more noticeable than the vertical plane. If you however don't notice this problem, then there isn't really much need to change the design for your left and right speakers.
Opinions and options, lots of them.lol, they all have me thinking real hard. It may be back to the drawing board and re-do some already long planning!
One Example MTM with Dayton ND20
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php?24504-First-diy-project-Bose-buster/page2
Attachments
- Status
- Not open for further replies.