I did a little bit of looking around and as a dedicated mid I would still choose the MCA15RCY, but I am a learner so I may be wrong! From what I could tell though if I wanted to make a small 2 way the U16 would be my choice but for use as a 3 way I would choose the MCA15 as to me it appeared as if it had the better performance for midrange use.
.
But as 3-way speakers are an order of magnitude harder I just assumed that there would be more talk about suitable drivers and XO slopes before we actually had a consensus on the design.
Don't think I'm pushing for a driver choice right now, rather just trying to get some understanding on what makes some of the mentioned drivers suitable. As I'm the first to acknowledge I don't know everything, so really i'm just seeking a more detailed explanation as to why some of the mentioned drivers should be chosen over others, as some of them I have no knowledge of, I guess i'm trying to provoke some more detailed discussion you could say.
To give you my answer on multiple woofers will take a few lines so be warned; personal opinion only and I am no expert.
For a simple 3-way my own very biased opinion is to use dual 8 inch or a single 10 inch PLUS a subwoofer for that bottom octave
regards
Ted
Agreed I would feel that dual 8" or a single 10" is a nice compromise, and then add a seperate sub to your setup if you really want to go lower. You could go multiple 10"s or bigger, but your cabinet size is going to end up huge and the construction difficulty to take in the extra bracing will go up.
In the spirit of bringing more drivers to the table how about this SB driver it is only a 4" SB Acoustics SB12NRXF25-4, 4" midrange - 4 ohm from Madisound but it is capable of reasonable excursion but if your having to use that extra excursion your generally introducing more distortion.
This Fountek also looks like a nice driver Fountek FW146 5.5" Aluminum Cone Woofer from Madisound I believe Zaph has tested the larger version of this and it appears to test well although the cone breakup may or may not be an issue.
I have just been window shopping in the Madisound website, and if dual 8inch woofers is going to give greater WAF due to the narrow footprint the Peerless SLS 830667 seems to optimized for small sealed boxes
Peerless SLS 830667, 8" Paper Cone Woofer from Madisound
Just noting Rabbitz comments on Peerless dropping models quickly though,
Peerless SLS 830667, 8" Paper Cone Woofer from Madisound
Just noting Rabbitz comments on Peerless dropping models quickly though,
Last edited:
High Fs, high mms, low SPL, awful specs, awful response
I wouldnt
This looks much better http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=45_228_257&products_id=850
Relatively high re 7.3ohm is good fore paralelled
Only, maybe it isnt widely available
Tempting to try a 3.5way
Low 8" crossed 200hz, high 8" crossed 800hz
Midrange, a 2-3" widerange
Supertweeter from 5-8khz, or so
I wouldnt
This looks much better http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=45_228_257&products_id=850
Relatively high re 7.3ohm is good fore paralelled
Only, maybe it isnt widely available
Tempting to try a 3.5way
Low 8" crossed 200hz, high 8" crossed 800hz
Midrange, a 2-3" widerange
Supertweeter from 5-8khz, or so
Last edited:
Hey maybe just maybe we can work on a 2 x CA26RE4X + MCA15RCY + 27TFFC combo?
2 x 10" in sealed box should give adequate bass for everyone but the extreme bass heads (and these guys have dedicated IB subs etc.. anyway).
What say guys?
10 inch PLUS subwoofer (assumed to be bigger than 12") will be a big speaker. I thought we were looking at a simple tower speaker about 1.2m (4ft) tall, 12-14" wide, and 16-18" deep.
Which is why I suggested SB Acoustics (SB17NRX35, SB29RDC). From what I understand "SB" (along with companies like Wavecor) were founded by ex-ScanSpeak/Vifa engineers. John K (Zaph) has also rated SB highly. Madisound has many of their drivers (http://www.madisound.com/manufacturers/sb-acoustics/index.php).
Last edited:
OH YES!
Main speakers should be small enough to have good WAF and big enough to have reasonable bass; these parameters alone make decisions harder.
Navin I use big speakers at the moment with dual 15inch sub-woofers, but my beloved wife would be happier if I could compromise on something smaller, tall is OK big footprint not so much.
I confess a liking for carbon fibre woofers too after listening to the cheap Jaycar 10inch woofers
Main speakers should be small enough to have good WAF and big enough to have reasonable bass; these parameters alone make decisions harder.
Navin I use big speakers at the moment with dual 15inch sub-woofers, but my beloved wife would be happier if I could compromise on something smaller, tall is OK big footprint not so much.
I confess a liking for carbon fibre woofers too after listening to the cheap Jaycar 10inch woofers
Before I got married (1988-1995) I had a pair of JBL 2245 (B460) bass bins for the bass (the rest was a pair of Focal 8N515 and a MDT33 in MTM). Today (for the past 14-15 years) my bass bins (per channel) are 2 x Audio Concpets DV12 and the top end is a 18W8546-9900 MTM. I think as we age our needs for higher SPLs get less.
So lets stick to a footprint of about 1.5 sq. ft. (1ft x 1.5 ft) and a height of say 4 ft (the tweeter would be at sitting ear/eye level anyway). What say?
The box size (once defined) alone will help determine the woofer size. If we are looking at about 4 cu. ft internal volume and we allot about 0.5 cu. ft. for the mid-tweeter box we have left about 3.5 cu. ft. which means 2 x 10" woofers with 1.5-1.75 cu. ft. should fit.
At post 101 19th October
At post 89 we have sugested drivers and a crossover freq
At post 209 are we at post 89
Even though between them the ANZ distributor for the major quality brands has offered to organise a crossover a do a kit and given us special pricing.
I sense a fear of making a decision. remember its a lowish cost baseline. With those drivers we can't really go too wrong.
Sorry i don't mean any personal offence and i'm not directing this at any individual. I'm just impatient and also don't want to see this opportunity wasted for good local kit. Especially given the input from HAS
Last edited:
10 days? Luxury!!!! when I was a boy it would have taken 10 Months.....
Sorry a bit of python humour... But seriously getting a consensus is going to take a while I would say.. We got a bit side tracked with the woofers, I think the Seas CA26RE4X is looking like a good candidate.... There really seems to be a dearth of good 10" (or 12" for that matter) woofers that are "affordable".
We were originally going to pick a Mid and then go from there... I think that was the right approach, I guess the woofer has more effect on the WAF so it became a bit of a focus.
I modeled the Peerless 830669, which was about the only 12" I could see on Madisound that came close to meeting the requirements, and with the peerless 12" in a 104L sealed and the Seas 10" in a 63L vented box the Seas was better for Bass extention (down to 27Hz after which the 12 inch took over). You needed to go vented with the Peerless to get any significant advantage over the 10" seas and at that point the cabinet size was 200L or 293L for the ultimate extension... This made me think that the 10" Seas really was a winner as far as bang for the Litre was concerned! All modeled with 80W input power.
Tony.
Attachments
Any reason why you choose it above the CA26RFX? It got almost half the linear and max travel and lower wattage.
Good morning all..
Wintermute.... interesting comparision between the Seas 4X and the Peerless 669. Thanks for posting. I have played with both and Seas sealed box cousin.... the 4 as well.
If I were to choose between the 4 & 4X... I would naturally prefer the 4. Both the 4 & 4X have about the same efficiency... and in roughly the the same size box exhibit a near eqaul f3... except the 4 is easier to work with... and has a better hf roll off and sounds cleaner. The 4X in it's ported box does seem a touch more dynamic... mainly in the mid bass area... but does not go as deep as the 4. The sealed rolloff is naturally shallower. Better transient responce too.
Other considerations... the Sealed 4 also seems more forgiving with room placement and with it's smoother roll off it is easier to cross... you can even run it wide open... bare back if you will.. it's midrange is that good. I had a pair of these as RMAF earlier this month in 1.75 cu. ft. boxes running bare back with the SS Revelator tweet (D2905) on top and those who heard them were amazed. Dare I say better than the majority of systems there. Not just my conclusion... but this was also stated by several others.
With a single 10" with a limited 4 MM peak xmax you are done at about 100 db at 40 hz.... just the way it is. But for most listeners with most music that is plenty!
As for the Seas 10's up against the 669.... The shear dynamics and displacement of the 669 is hard to ignor. The 669 will play at live levels in most domestic settings. F3 in a heavily stuffed 4 cu ft with a large inductor is about 37 hz with f6 around 29-33 hz depending on room placement. And you are flat at 40 hz. Also have a net efficiency of 91 dbw. And you do not have to counter sink the low defraction frame. And it is less that half the cost of either of the Seas. Simple and cost effective. Have pics if any one is interested.
OK.. I will go away again!
Wintermute.... interesting comparision between the Seas 4X and the Peerless 669. Thanks for posting. I have played with both and Seas sealed box cousin.... the 4 as well.
If I were to choose between the 4 & 4X... I would naturally prefer the 4. Both the 4 & 4X have about the same efficiency... and in roughly the the same size box exhibit a near eqaul f3... except the 4 is easier to work with... and has a better hf roll off and sounds cleaner. The 4X in it's ported box does seem a touch more dynamic... mainly in the mid bass area... but does not go as deep as the 4. The sealed rolloff is naturally shallower. Better transient responce too.
Other considerations... the Sealed 4 also seems more forgiving with room placement and with it's smoother roll off it is easier to cross... you can even run it wide open... bare back if you will.. it's midrange is that good. I had a pair of these as RMAF earlier this month in 1.75 cu. ft. boxes running bare back with the SS Revelator tweet (D2905) on top and those who heard them were amazed. Dare I say better than the majority of systems there. Not just my conclusion... but this was also stated by several others.
With a single 10" with a limited 4 MM peak xmax you are done at about 100 db at 40 hz.... just the way it is. But for most listeners with most music that is plenty!
As for the Seas 10's up against the 669.... The shear dynamics and displacement of the 669 is hard to ignor. The 669 will play at live levels in most domestic settings. F3 in a heavily stuffed 4 cu ft with a large inductor is about 37 hz with f6 around 29-33 hz depending on room placement. And you are flat at 40 hz. Also have a net efficiency of 91 dbw. And you do not have to counter sink the low defraction frame. And it is less that half the cost of either of the Seas. Simple and cost effective. Have pics if any one is interested.
OK.. I will go away again!
I agree
Every thing is a compromise, but I would still put the right midrange as the primary speakers in any 3-way, I am out of touch myself, so I'm relying on others to get the best bang for buck worldwide
But 10" is a bit small in my book...I would use 12-15", or at least 2x 10"
WWMT with the 26RFX would mean a rather big box (200L) right?
Why not offer both options 27TDFC and TFFC? From Troel's (Poor Man Strad) posts there it not much design change for the XO.
So do we have drivers (as suggesdted in Andre Visser's post) finalised?
Nice combination navin. I think there are advantages using drivers from the same supplier as they tend to be tonally similar and save crossover time and cost, not to mention they are well behaved without nasties to knock out in the crossover. It puts up a strong case for SEAS due to worldwide availabilty and they are generally available for long term.
You have mentioned it previously and I agree the 27TDFC would be a good option as is a good tweeter that is the darling of the DIY crowd. I've had good success with it as well as the 27TFF and 27TFFC and depends on the application to which is better.
A single 10" vented option would be a good idea as has great bang for buck and an economical alternative that's smaller and a bit more WAF.
At this stage this seems to be heading towards:
Tweeter 27TFFC with option of 27TDFC
Mid MCA15RCY
Woofer CA26RE4X with 2x sealed (vented?) alt 1x vented (sealed?).
Ted said the mid is the most important driver and I agree as it carries the bulk of the character of a 3-way. When you think about it the woofer and tweeter are there for support even though they have a large roll to play. I haven't used the MCA15RCY but from all accounts from what I've read would be an excellent choice and hard to beat for the money. You could use the CA15RLY as a choice for those who want to crossover lower but I think distracts from the classic 3-way speaker ideal. If crossing over very low then a 6" option would be better IMO.
Mainly the cost Andre! I will have another look at the CA26RFX I modelled a lot of drivers and didn't take notes
... The other thing was the CA26RE4X looked like it would be a little easier from a crossover point of view (as it seemed to have a flatter response) The CA26RFX certainly has a big advantage in xmax, 7mm compared to 4mm... in the modelling at 80W (which is what I modeled the others) It keeps within the linear range at all times until 30Hz after which it becomes a problem.. Other than that it models almost identically to the CA26RE4X (albeit requiring an extra 9L box volume).
edit: Note I haven't listened to either, and a model is only good for getting an idea, the tonal differences could vary a lot.. anyone who has listened to both would be in a much better position to make a recommendation!
Tony.
