6.5 inch v 8 inch drivers for 2 way speaker

What would you use

  • Total voters
    73
Jump to Latest
#25
That really doesn’t look like a 12” full-ranger that was mentioned previously, and what I had responded to now does it?

That is a nice, reasonably priced speaker, but I’d bet that a single 6.5 would best it in this application.

I’ll stand by what I said in that a pair of 6.5” would cover the spectrum better without resorting to a subwoofer.
 
#26
For years, I had two way passive speakers with a Peerless 8" and Vifa 1" tweeter. Because of what I had read, I decided to convert them to active. This made an audible difference. I then thought, why not put in a mid so I added a Peerless 5". This made a bigger difference making the midrange clearer and more distinct.

As you will be going active, my advice would be to seriously consider adding a midrange (4-5") for a little extra complexity. It will be worth it.
 
#27
Tromperie said:
For years, I had two way passive speakers with a Peerless 8" and Vifa 1" tweeter. Because of what I had read, I decided to convert them to active. This made an audible difference. I then thought, why not put in a mid so I added a Peerless 5". This made a bigger difference making the midrange clearer and more distinct.

As you will be going active, my advice would be to seriously consider adding a midrange (4-5") for a little extra complexity. It will be worth it.
Click to expand...

Thanks,
Are you able to list the speaker driver numbers you used and say more about how you implemented the active side? Do you have any pictures?
Lee
 
#28
I used the following (using an UK website, if possible, to show availability only);
1" tweeter Peerless Vifa XT25BG60-04 Tweeter
5" mid 832873 Peerless By Tymphany 5" Mid-Woofer Hds-Nomex, Peerless | Wagner Online Electronic Stores
8" woofer 830869 Peerless By Tymphany 8" Woofer Hds-Nomex, Peerless | Wagner Online Electronic Stores

The crossovers were from ESP (Rod Elliott) P09
Linkwitz-Riley Electronic Crossover

The amplifiers were also from ESP P19
Single Chip 50W Stereo Amplifier
I sold the drivers and boxes so am unable to provide any photos. The boxes were bass reflex (ported) rectangular in shape with a length of plumbing pipe as the port, simple to make.

With the abundance of cheap Class D amps, switch mode power supplies and a variety of ways of doing crossovers, it can be done at a more reasonable cost and lower complexity than mine.

There are also a variety of combinations of speakers that will match the above, such as;

SB Acoustics
https://www.wagneronline.com.au/sb-acoustics-8-woofer-nrxs/speaker-drivers/audio-speakers-pa/sb23nrxs45-8-7077/3182/pd/
https://www.falconacoustics.co.uk/drive-units-1/sb-acoustics/sb-acoustics-midranges/sb-acoustics-sb12nrxf25-4-midwoofer.html
https://www.falconacoustics.co.uk/drive-units-1/sb-acoustics/sb-acoustics-tweeters/sb-acoustics-sb26stac-c000-4-tweeter.html

SEAS
https://www.falconacoustics.co.uk/drive-units-1/seas-drive-units/seas-speakers-woofers-drive-units/seas-l22rnx-p-h1252-prestige-series.html
https://www.falconacoustics.co.uk/drive-units-1/seas-drive-units/seas-speakers-midranges-drive-units/seas-mca12rc-h1304-prestige-series.html
https://www.falconacoustics.co.uk/drive-units-1/seas-drive-units/seas-speakers-tweeters-drive-units/seas-22tff-h1280-tweeter-prestige-series.html

With SMPS (switch mode ps), complexity of power supply is greatly reduced and many also come with +-15V DC for crossovers etc. Just order it with the correct voltage/s for Class D amps and I would use all the same or get a unit with three amps on the one board. Use modelling software to determine the size of the box (or use the recommended size on the Madisound website).

Happy to help further, but I have to say it will take some work and you must have some familiarity with electricity and its dangers. If the latter is a problem, don't die for a hobby.
 
Last edited:
#29
How does it compare to a DSP with that crossover?
My knowledge is limited, but I'm thinking it would require drivers that is well matched even compared to a passive crossover.
But I do find it interesting, so if you have any further insight I'm interested. 🙂
 
#31
PSA78 said:
How does it compare to a DSP with that crossover?
My knowledge is limited, but I'm thinking it would require drivers that is well matched even compared to a passive crossover.
But I do find it interesting, so if you have any further insight I'm interested. 🙂
Click to expand...

I can't see any reason to use other than well matched drivers with a reasonably flat response. Anything else is inviting known problems that may not be easily solved, if at all.
The crossover has level adjustments and works well. I am about to embark on a DSP adventure so will soon see the differences, if any.
 
#32
Tromperie said:
I can't see any reason to use other than well matched drivers with a reasonably flat response. Anything else is inviting known problems that may not be easily solved, if at all.
The crossover has level adjustments and works well. I am about to embark on a DSP adventure so will soon see the differences, if any.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your respons, and I see your point.
I guess the level adjustment should solve any resonable problems that you might see, and if it can't you might be on the wrong path. 🙂

I'm more at the beginning of my journey I guess, so I liked the simplicity compared to a passive cross over and will keep it in mind.

Thank you for your respons! 🙂
 
#33
My knowledge is limited, but I'm thinking it would require drivers that is well matched even compared to a passive crossover.
But I do find it interesting, so if you have any further insight I'm interested.
Click to expand...

Modern manufacturing being what it is, I expect nearly all drivers to be well matched, regardless of price. Am I wrong?
 
#35
eriksquires said:
Modern manufacturing being what it is, I expect nearly all drivers to be well matched, regardless of price. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion, my thoughts was more in line with cone break-up or uneven respons. I believe it's called notch filters(?) that's used in passive cross over to correct some of this.
I'm guessing DSP is easier when working with these kind of problems, especially if they have the ability to run FIR.
I might be wrong, but from my limited experience it seems like there are more modern drivers that has these 'nasty' habits, perhaps due to modern solutions to combat it and in the end get a superior product.
 
#36
PSA78 said:
Sorry for the confusion, my thoughts was more in line with cone break-up or uneven respons. I believe it's called notch filters(?) that's used in passive cross over to correct some of this.
I'm guessing DSP is easier when working with these kind of problems, especially if they have the ability to run FIR.
I might be wrong, but from my limited experience it seems like there are more modern drivers that has these 'nasty' habits, perhaps due to modern solutions to combat it and in the end get a superior product.
Click to expand...

Oh, those. It's about the same. In the passive world you use a simulator like XSim. With a DSP solution you may have an easier time testing it live, and adjusting in real time.

My bit of advice : Dont' fix driver problems with speaker EQ. That is, use the parametric filter that goes to the mid-woofer to fix mid-woofer problems. Don't leave it in and attempt to fix it with global EQ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom