Are they from a current catalogue?
If so I have a quad of the 8" here and they are a good little woofer but I didn't like the current 4"
My 6" are the very old Response and I've never managed to get it right but Pete seems to be happy with it in some of his builds
I do have one of the old 10" Carbon fibre woofers tho that is a real beast except for the limited excursion, well a pair actually
If so I have a quad of the 8" here and they are a good little woofer but I didn't like the current 4"
My 6" are the very old Response and I've never managed to get it right but Pete seems to be happy with it in some of his builds
I do have one of the old 10" Carbon fibre woofers tho that is a real beast except for the limited excursion, well a pair actually
In theory (and this doesn't do much to predict how much of a problem this might or not be), I've marked some points on your 5" plot.
It's preferable to cross not higher than A, but B might be acceptable. C is a compromise but could be done, and D is best reduced way down in level.
Attachments
Allen does have the catalogue numbers correct, I bought these about a year ago, and intend to get a set of spares, stored away. as they seem to work OK together, at a modest cost.
Yes Allen I see where your going with this, and the reasons. hmmm. That will keep me occupied for a while tomorrow..🙂.
Thanks S
Hmmm continued, 🙂.
Allen , If I understand your assertion correctly, and I believe I do. Allowing the 5" to run out of puff without intervention, as my crossover does. I run the risk of the aforementioned issues..
Now the sticky bit, paradoxically Ill be blunt and come straight to point, 🙂. I need a better tweeter. The ones I'm using and where the only ones available and have a nasty dip at around 7k, and my crossover is using the 5" to mask it at the very extremes of its usable band. So there is nothing I can do with the crossover actual to fix that..Hence I need a better or at least more suitable tweeter that I may roll the 5" off sooner. If Im right in my interpretation, I assume you have many curves from many drivers to look at with ease. If you can possibly find the time to suggest a replacement for these cheap chinese ones, preferably available here in AUS. I will go that way..Its easy to swap out the baffle on the tweeter module because its the only one that's square..So physical size is not an issue..within reason off course..
Many appreciations thankyou
S
Allen , If I understand your assertion correctly, and I believe I do. Allowing the 5" to run out of puff without intervention, as my crossover does. I run the risk of the aforementioned issues..
Now the sticky bit, paradoxically Ill be blunt and come straight to point, 🙂. I need a better tweeter. The ones I'm using and where the only ones available and have a nasty dip at around 7k, and my crossover is using the 5" to mask it at the very extremes of its usable band. So there is nothing I can do with the crossover actual to fix that..Hence I need a better or at least more suitable tweeter that I may roll the 5" off sooner. If Im right in my interpretation, I assume you have many curves from many drivers to look at with ease. If you can possibly find the time to suggest a replacement for these cheap chinese ones, preferably available here in AUS. I will go that way..Its easy to swap out the baffle on the tweeter module because its the only one that's square..So physical size is not an issue..within reason off course..
Many appreciations thankyou
S
So what do you do with a multi-way? Super-tweeter, dome tweeter, dome mid, cone mid, mid/woofer, woofer, sub kind of thing?
Or, do you break it into bands that have certain resonance damping properties, as I think I recall once reading about Wilson's philosophy, and could be one reason for them wanting separate boxes.
Maybe this could be about reducing the effect of intermodulation distortion in the drivers by breaking up the bands, which I suspect I've also read about Wilsons.
It could be about maintaining directivity so that you have a smooth characteristic across the spectrum, so the size of the driver is a factor for the wanted band.
And it could also be about the frequencies. Maybe dividing according to the voice bands, or according to our hearing sensitivity, or just to make them evenly spaced.
We'd each have our preferences, probably a blend of the above.
It's great to talk theory, but remember where you're at now. Many's the time I've talked myself into something that I didn't end up liking. 😉
Or, do you break it into bands that have certain resonance damping properties, as I think I recall once reading about Wilson's philosophy, and could be one reason for them wanting separate boxes.
Maybe this could be about reducing the effect of intermodulation distortion in the drivers by breaking up the bands, which I suspect I've also read about Wilsons.
It could be about maintaining directivity so that you have a smooth characteristic across the spectrum, so the size of the driver is a factor for the wanted band.
And it could also be about the frequencies. Maybe dividing according to the voice bands, or according to our hearing sensitivity, or just to make them evenly spaced.
We'd each have our preferences, probably a blend of the above.
For example by running the woofers up high, and by overlapping the drivers in inconsistent ways you risk your room reflections standing out from the direct sound, rather than blending into the ambience.
It's great to talk theory, but remember where you're at now. Many's the time I've talked myself into something that I didn't end up liking. 😉
Scan Speak 1 DomeTweeter Discovery Neutral Design Coated Textile Diaphragm | eBay
Generally regarded as being OK
Loudspeaker Components Loudspeaker Drivers
Rabbitz sold me some little drivers a while ago and the SB 21SDC was among them, small but very smooth and might be enough to obviate the need to a supertweeter but would probably mate better with a 4" or 4" MTM
Generally regarded as being OK
Loudspeaker Components Loudspeaker Drivers
Rabbitz sold me some little drivers a while ago and the SB 21SDC was among them, small but very smooth and might be enough to obviate the need to a supertweeter but would probably mate better with a 4" or 4" MTM
I'm listening to them right now, and yes, and I think I'm losing track of the goal..
Fine words, Allen... Maybe I am chasing the proverbial rainbow with a limited availability of resources , but its still nice to know that I'm on the right track with those resources, once my UMIK has arrived Ill be able to quantify what my ear likes and does not like, I guess this is all learning..
why cross the tweeter so high? dont cross over 4khz, 3khz ideally.
what's the point of the midbass driver almost being the same size of the dual mids? you use dual mids that could easily go down low enough to meet the woofer. makes no sense to me to add the upper midbass driver. just adds complication
if that was my speaker, id let go of the sub, and try to double the woofer. remove that upper midbass woofer and try to find a way to double up.
wait.. are they dual mids? is this system a 5.1 system or 4.1?
what's the point of the midbass driver almost being the same size of the dual mids? you use dual mids that could easily go down low enough to meet the woofer. makes no sense to me to add the upper midbass driver. just adds complication
if that was my speaker, id let go of the sub, and try to double the woofer. remove that upper midbass woofer and try to find a way to double up.
wait.. are they dual mids? is this system a 5.1 system or 4.1?
SirDystic, this is one seriously nice looking build. I would have changed the color, but thats just me. Very well done sir. 🙂
Technically neither, 2 Amps, 1 on the Bottom two, and another on the top 3. obviously this has inherent adjustment for personal taste, vis a vis comparative levels of bass vs mid/high. so best considered as a three way and a two way combined. 🙂
Subwoofer excluded from this explanation,of course..
AllenB & Ballistiz4, thankyou for your kind words..