Alpair 5.3 best crossover / stop jumping

[Herb777]

Exactly, you will need 100mm/6” pipe.

dave

So 4" 100mm pipe lined with wadding, what low Pass point would you recommend?

 

[planet10]

Lined and filled. Fill at low density near the driver getting denser as you rech the terminus.

How much damping? Either measure for the flattest impedance or GM’s clik-test

dave

 

[Herb777]

Right going to order the drivers today, but need some advice regarding the crossover parts. From the Snell Freq specs , woofer in blue and the Markaudio specs it looks like I have a wide crossover point options 250 to 1000, what audible difference would I hear between a higher or lower crossover?
1st order? 2nd order. Thanks

 

[Herb777]

Thank you for the feedback. I just ordered the parts. I am going for a 400/450 HZ XO. Lets see if that works.

Any updates from your project, which parts did you order?

 

[planet10]

Lower XO moves the XO out of teh critical range — if you can keep the centre-to-centre of the 2 drivers to less than a quarter wavelength at the XO point.

Often in a WAW one chooses an XO just below the bafflestep — 0.707 to 1 time F_bs(-3). This allows for baffle step just by adjusting midTweeter level.

Lower XO means more of the range is covered by a single driver. Half-energy point is about 300 Hz.

Higher XO, in theory, allows you to play louder.

I’d tend towards 300-450 Hz.

dave

 

[Herb777]

Right thanks for the reply , so if I was to go with a crossover at 400Hz parts I would need are 2.25mH coil and 70uf cap for the bass unit, could I then just use a single 100uf cap for the alpair 5.3?

 

[planet10]

I am not a guy to give solid answers for passive XOs.

dave

 

[Herb777]

Ok thanks, hope somebody else can chip in.

 

[GM]

Again, per post #7, you have to look back (and forward) to how it's going to be impacted by both driver's in-box impedance and inductance, so no simple answers for best performance, though thankfully one can get close with modern XO designers without historically needing a significant time, parts investment to experiment with.

 

[Herb777]

Can you recommend a xo design tool please.

 

[GM]

VituixCAD seems to be the current most popular freeware.

DIYaudio thread

 

[zintolo]

A WAW is a 2-way. The distinction is a low XO point in the WAW.

Hi Dave, the reason why a low XO point is less problematic is that at lower frequencies the music is "simpler" with less instruments overlapping?
Thanks

 

[planet10]

No.

At lower frequencies the ear is less sensitive to the issues XO cause but the big one is that one can reach a centre-to-centre of less than a quarter wavelength at the XO frequencies so the drivers become essentially coincident and lobing goes away.

dave

 

[GM]

Right 'sound is round' expanding exponentially (1/f), so 34400/pi/2000 = ~5.475 cm dia. Vs 1000 = ~10.95 cm dia., ergo a 4x area expansion/octave and one can draw circles on a cab, room, whatever drawing to visualize what's what.

For the optimal max WAW spacing: 34400/4/XO point

 

[zintolo]

Thanks @planet10 and @GM .

So with my speakers approximately 3 meters far from each other, XO must be lower than... 36,5 Hz?

 

[planet10]

3m? How tall are your loudspeakers? We are talking about any 2 drivers in a single loudspeaker, not the spacing of the pair where the delta between the speakers is key to providing the environment where a solid 3D image/soundstage can be produced.

If you how mono aubwoofer it would ideally only operate below 40 Hz.

dave