I seem to have lost a post,
playing with Jeff Bagbys box program that peerless seems to give an F10 of 27 with a 1 watt input/88dB in a 55liter box for a system Q of 0.754
Remember that this is using factory specs ( close enough for preliminary comparisons )
Upping th box size to 80 liters gives Q of 0.708 and an F10 of 25.6, to get much better i had to increase the box size to 210 liters
playing with Jeff Bagbys box program that peerless seems to give an F10 of 27 with a 1 watt input/88dB in a 55liter box for a system Q of 0.754
Remember that this is using factory specs ( close enough for preliminary comparisons )
Upping th box size to 80 liters gives Q of 0.708 and an F10 of 25.6, to get much better i had to increase the box size to 210 liters
Sorry for the multiple posts here, I did stuff up.
As would be expected the 10inch woofer needs a bigger box, I ran the numbers again using the correct parameters.
90 liter box gives an F10 of 27.85Hz and 87db for a 1 watt input system Q of 0.74 and an Fc of 44, interestingly when the box size is increased to 210 liters the F10 is 25Hz with an Fc of 38.4, in a box that big we run out of excursion at 15 watts so I do not think a box that big is warranted as a starting project and aiming for a warm Q = 0.8 may be more reasonable.
The 8 inch Peerless actually looks pretty good, as does the Visaton.
Here is where I would love to see 16 or 24ohm drivers, running 3 in parallel with 2 firing to the front and the 3rd firing to the rear and giving a nominal 6ohm impedanace seems to be the best of both worlds
As would be expected the 10inch woofer needs a bigger box, I ran the numbers again using the correct parameters.
90 liter box gives an F10 of 27.85Hz and 87db for a 1 watt input system Q of 0.74 and an Fc of 44, interestingly when the box size is increased to 210 liters the F10 is 25Hz with an Fc of 38.4, in a box that big we run out of excursion at 15 watts so I do not think a box that big is warranted as a starting project and aiming for a warm Q = 0.8 may be more reasonable.
The 8 inch Peerless actually looks pretty good, as does the Visaton.
Here is where I would love to see 16 or 24ohm drivers, running 3 in parallel with 2 firing to the front and the 3rd firing to the rear and giving a nominal 6ohm impedanace seems to be the best of both worlds
Which woofer Moondog? I modeled the peerless 830668 but didn't post after rabbitz mentioned he would steer clear of peerless....
It doesn't look too bad in a 72L box (modeled with unibox) but it isn't going to break any records for powerhandling... keeping it at or below 35W will allow decent extention without going too far out of it's linear range, according to the model. F10 appears to be around 28Hz...
72L is pretty big (It is what I currently have my Vifa 10" drivers in) though that is ported... Sealed is certainly better from a simplicity point of view but vented may allow a smaller box (depending entirely of course on the woofer in question).. This peerless is definitely not suited to vented..
anyway attached is the unibox model at 72L
Although Unibox doesn't recommend vented (I suspect that it only recomends vented up to qts 0.5), I modeled it anyway
172L box is pretty flat down to 25Hz (something fishy going on me thinks) with an F3 of 22Hz and an F10 around 18Hz... Well within linear excursion limits to 22Hz at which point it goes off the chart... However a) 172L will be too big I think for most people, and b) a model and real life may be quite different
Tony.
It doesn't look too bad in a 72L box (modeled with unibox) but it isn't going to break any records for powerhandling... keeping it at or below 35W will allow decent extention without going too far out of it's linear range, according to the model. F10 appears to be around 28Hz...
72L is pretty big (It is what I currently have my Vifa 10" drivers in) though that is ported... Sealed is certainly better from a simplicity point of view but vented may allow a smaller box (depending entirely of course on the woofer in question).. This peerless is definitely not suited to vented..
anyway attached is the unibox model at 72L
Although Unibox doesn't recommend vented (I suspect that it only recomends vented up to qts 0.5), I modeled it anyway
172L box is pretty flat down to 25Hz (something fishy going on me thinks) with an F3 of 22Hz and an F10 around 18Hz... Well within linear excursion limits to 22Hz at which point it goes off the chart... However a) 172L will be too big I think for most people, and b) a model and real life may be quite different Tony.
Attachments
Last edited:
ok I just decided to play around with the modelling... not using any normal alignments and got an interesting result with 70L vented tuned to 23Hz... Whether this would work in reality however I don't know... certainly not a perfectly flat response, but a peak of 0.24db at 92Hz isn't that bad.. very interesting response rolloff for a BR box... I've heard of tuning below driver resonance to get this kind of effect but have not tried it... Just putting it out there, this is in no way intended to be a suggestion!!!
attached graphs.. F3 around 37Hz F10 around 19Hz.... but don't give it a signal less than 20Hz or mechanical failure is likely!!!!
Tony.
attached graphs.. F3 around 37Hz F10 around 19Hz.... but don't give it a signal less than 20Hz or mechanical failure is likely!!!!
Tony.
Attachments
How available are Silver Flute?
Here is a similarly strange vented box for their shielded 8". I didn't optimize the vent... it will be long thou
Silver Flute W20RC38-S-08, 8" Wool Cone - Shielded from Madisound
dave
Attachments
Tony, That looks OK for a high Q driver vented.
The Peerless 8 that i modeled was the 830667, I'll play with the Visaton in a while.
Thinking about the midrange first; I have little experience with anything other than Vifa ( and cheap Jaycar ) and think that the midrange being the determiner of the overall quality of the complete speaker though t we would get more comment on which driver should be recommended for that
The Peerless 8 that i modeled was the 830667, I'll play with the Visaton in a while.
Thinking about the midrange first; I have little experience with anything other than Vifa ( and cheap Jaycar ) and think that the midrange being the determiner of the overall quality of the complete speaker though t we would get more comment on which driver should be recommended for that
I agree we should put in something quite good here
How about these at just under 120 usd ea.
Morel EM428 Elite 4" Midrange from Madisound
How about these at just under 120 usd ea.
Morel EM428 Elite 4" Midrange from Madisound
Just looked at the spec's, crossing at 2700? no great spikes or bumps to deal with and reasonable roll-off at the top.
not as smooth as the Vifa P-13 I'm familiar with but it needs some-one better qualified than me to comment further.
The 10 buy price is a reasonably good discount, postage to OZ may be costly though, any OZ dealers for this Morel??
not as smooth as the Vifa P-13 I'm familiar with but it needs some-one better qualified than me to comment further.
The 10 buy price is a reasonably good discount, postage to OZ may be costly though, any OZ dealers for this Morel??
Also from Madisound is the little SEAS Prestige which has been mentioned before
SEAS Prestige MCA15RCY (H1262) 5.5" Coated Paper Midrange from Madisound
I know nothing about it except the name tho.
Madisound still show Vifa P-13 as standard stock, has Vifa started making again??
SEAS Prestige MCA15RCY (H1262) 5.5" Coated Paper Midrange from Madisound
I know nothing about it except the name tho.
Madisound still show Vifa P-13 as standard stock, has Vifa started making again??
Last edited:
Yes I'd been eyeing those off too, and the EW428. I'm personally using Morel MW-144's in my MTM's and the midrange is very nice indeed!! Voices are so natural! These 4" morels don't have the extension in the upper frequencies that some of the full ranges we have already mentioned do.... The main reason I originally mentioned 4" full ranges was to enable a higher crossover freq (4" should allow higher freq before beaming) and keep the crossover out of the critical midrange section.
Certainly won't get any objections from me on using a morel mid
I thought they might be out of the price range though. The only other experience I have with mids is Philips domes and the polycone mids from Jaycar which are an absolute abomination... They are hideous in my opinion) at least all the ones I have owned)... I used to use them when I took the speakers to a lot of parties and kept blowing drivers. The other (other than my MW-144's) is a Phillips dome midrange (the type they had in the ETI 4000 speakers). They are currently the mids in my 3 ways (they were out for a while, replaced by some jaycar polycone mids because I thought I'd blown them), and even though they are crossed over too low (a lot too low) they sound far superior to any of the polycone jaycar mids I have ever used (and there have been a few!) The morels are at another level
Tony.
Oh and Terry (Phoenix358) Used to be the Australian Distributor for Morel. I say used to be because I noticed he said that in a recent post he made. I bought my MW-144's and DMS-37's off him, way before he was a member here
It seems he isn't any longer but perhaps he might know who is (if indeed there is one, as there isn't anyone listed on Morel's website).
That seas unit certainly looks good on Paper Moondog, has decent power handling and the price is good. Interesting that the seas graph (in the pdf) is quite different (better) to the madisound one...
edit: with respect to smoothness, I think that you will find that different manufacturers use varying degress of smoothing in their graphs Morel I think are pretty much warts and all graphs... Certainly the current MW-144 graph is a lot nastier looking than the original one that I made my decision to buy the drivers, but despite the the graph it is a wonderful sounding driver
the first of the two attached images is the original graph I saw for the MW144 (which is the one I made the decision on).. I did my own measurements (which are dubious) but they were no where like it... they were actually a lot closer to the second graph, at least at the end of their range.. I have a big dip, but it is at 2Khz not 1Khz. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that good (or bad) graphs from the manufacturer probably need to be taken with a grain of salt. The fact that the morel's were used in a lot of high end speakers was one of the things that pushed me in that direction, the other was the fact that they were similar to the renound Dynaudio drivers...
Tony.
It seems he isn't any longer but perhaps he might know who is (if indeed there is one, as there isn't anyone listed on Morel's website).
That seas unit certainly looks good on Paper Moondog, has decent power handling and the price is good. Interesting that the seas graph (in the pdf) is quite different (better) to the madisound one...
edit: with respect to smoothness, I think that you will find that different manufacturers use varying degress of smoothing in their graphs
Morel I think are pretty much warts and all graphs... Certainly the current MW-144 graph is a lot nastier looking than the original one that I made my decision to buy the drivers, but despite the the graph it is a wonderful sounding driver the first of the two attached images is the original graph I saw for the MW144 (which is the one I made the decision on).. I did my own measurements (which are dubious) but they were no where like it... they were actually a lot closer to the second graph, at least at the end of their range.. I have a big dip, but it is at 2Khz not 1Khz. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that good (or bad) graphs from the manufacturer probably need to be taken with a grain of salt. The fact that the morel's were used in a lot of high end speakers was one of the things that pushed me in that direction, the other was the fact that they were similar to the renound Dynaudio drivers...
Tony.
Attachments
Last edited:
Looking forward to see YOUR solution rabbitz
My 3-way designs suck. They sounded very good but not great. I've given up on them.... I know my limitations. I'll watch from the sidelines.
My mains are not 3-ways but use the 810921 + 18W8531G00 + M22WR-09-08 which are a very nice combination.
hasaudio have them. I like the idea of morel hf and mids, not sure on LF though i couldn't find anything better than the peerless in a similar price range mid woofers everywhere. Given the importance of the mid id vote to allocate it a fair chunk of the budget. Then look at the the H F and design the crossover to accomodate some different dome tweeters say an entry level, mid and high level with basic component substitution modifications. More sophisticated mods would come later as others contributed their own efforts.
To clarify my comment on Peerless drivers.
I have plenty of speakers here that use Peerless drivers and I really like them. The issue I have is they don't tend to stick around for long. For example I was using the 850488 which to me is better than the P13 but they pulled the plug on it after a short while and replaced it with a Nomex 830873 and you guessed it, it was replaced by the 832873 which uses different cone material.
The point I'm trying to make is to choose drivers that will be around for a decent period as you don't want to have a design ready to go and find the drivers go MIA.
When you do choose a woofer ask around for those who have used it as tonal qualities do vary greatly and some are more suited to HT rather than music. There are woofers and then there are woofers if you know what I mean.
Try and choose drivers that are well behaved as will pay off big time in the crossover design. The 2-way ref speaker drivers did just that so allowed most of the offered crossovers to use only 3 components.
I have plenty of speakers here that use Peerless drivers and I really like them. The issue I have is they don't tend to stick around for long. For example I was using the 850488 which to me is better than the P13 but they pulled the plug on it after a short while and replaced it with a Nomex 830873 and you guessed it, it was replaced by the 832873 which uses different cone material.
The point I'm trying to make is to choose drivers that will be around for a decent period as you don't want to have a design ready to go and find the drivers go MIA.
When you do choose a woofer ask around for those who have used it as tonal qualities do vary greatly and some are more suited to HT rather than music. There are woofers and then there are woofers if you know what I mean.
Try and choose drivers that are well behaved as will pay off big time in the crossover design. The 2-way ref speaker drivers did just that so allowed most of the offered crossovers to use only 3 components.
Last edited:
A friends speakers use morel hf, and mids and amazing jaycar carbon fibre woofers which unfortunately are no longer available. They sound great and were $100
If it were me who was going to build this I'd use the Vifa XT25, Zaphs new ZA14 and a pair of Dayton RS225s. WWMT.
Crossover around 300-400hz and 2000-2500hz.
If implemented correctly this would/should give you a huge amount for the money. All the drivers are fairly cheap, but have performance equalling other drivers at many times the cost.
You could of course use another tweeter if you don't like the XT25.
Crossover around 300-400hz and 2000-2500hz.
If implemented correctly this would/should give you a huge amount for the money. All the drivers are fairly cheap, but have performance equalling other drivers at many times the cost.
You could of course use another tweeter if you don't like the XT25.
Very good point. That limits the choice to only a few manufacturers. Visaton, Fostex, Eton, Morel?