My suggestion is to do the other TB BIB - and judge the results for yourself.
EnABL works just as well in the ports of multi-way speakers, so it's worth exploring.
Cheers,
Alex
EnABL works just as well in the ports of multi-way speakers, so it's worth exploring.
Cheers,
Alex
MrKramer are you are asking for advice or opinions with that last query??
Because I've got solid opinions but can't offer more advice until you decide on your format and the mid driver, and I am no expert.
That said; it is an good woofer, as per my earlier post I do suggest you use 2 woofers in each box and you get a taller box that will not need a stand. you will get the extra dB you need and the price is USD is very reasonable ( we pay a heck of a lot more here) two 10 inch moves about as much air as a 12inch, and you get the ability to use a first order roll-off on the second woofer to counter baffle step.
How much bass do you want and need??
How loud do you really need?
And if you want serious bass there is the option in the future to add a subwoofer or two to fill in that bottom octave
Because I've got solid opinions but can't offer more advice until you decide on your format and the mid driver, and I am no expert.
That said; it is an good woofer, as per my earlier post I do suggest you use 2 woofers in each box and you get a taller box that will not need a stand. you will get the extra dB you need and the price is USD is very reasonable ( we pay a heck of a lot more here) two 10 inch moves about as much air as a 12inch, and you get the ability to use a first order roll-off on the second woofer to counter baffle step.
How much bass do you want and need??
How loud do you really need?
And if you want serious bass there is the option in the future to add a subwoofer or two to fill in that bottom octave
Heres what Im leaning towards at this point. Love either opinions or advice!
Floorstanding. Sealed. Roughly 20inch by 48inch by ...?
series 1st order XO at 200-4500
Bass drivers-
(2x) peerless 10" sls 830668
8 ohm, fs 33, qts .51, xmax 8mm, SPL 88.7, Vas 69.3L
Mid driver-
Tang Band 4" w4 1320
8ohm ,fs 75, qts .37, xmax 3mm, SPL 89, Vas 5.99L
Tweeter-
Audax 1" tw025a0
8ohm, fs 900, SPL 90
I guess my first question- does this seem a good setup?
Second question- does anyone have experience with this Audax tweeter?
Ive been reading the other thread regarding Dual woofers Vs single in OB. It has answered alot of my questions. One that is more specific to my design would be the effect of box volume. I need to maintain a fairly thin box. In my house WAF equals "skinny" in at least 1 dimension. In this case it's depth.
So... question three - The manufacturers specs suggest a sealed volume of 1.5-2.75 cubic feet. I futzed around in WinISD and it seems thats a QTC range roughly .737 - .857. Now say my internal volume stays around 3 cubic feet. Am I better off with 1 of the Peerless woofers and a lower QTC or use 2 and have a higher QTC?
My goal has always been to have a "coherent" sound that has a bit more warmth and "authority" on the bottom. Im leaning towards using 2 woofers for a number of reasons but Im worried having almost .9 QTC will give me boomy bass. I have read a lot of postings where people talk about .5 or lower being "Ideal". Not sure I believe in "Ideal" anything but it gives me pause.
MrKramer
Floorstanding. Sealed. Roughly 20inch by 48inch by ...?
series 1st order XO at 200-4500
Bass drivers-
(2x) peerless 10" sls 830668
8 ohm, fs 33, qts .51, xmax 8mm, SPL 88.7, Vas 69.3L
Mid driver-
Tang Band 4" w4 1320
8ohm ,fs 75, qts .37, xmax 3mm, SPL 89, Vas 5.99L
Tweeter-
Audax 1" tw025a0
8ohm, fs 900, SPL 90
I guess my first question- does this seem a good setup?
Second question- does anyone have experience with this Audax tweeter?
Ive been reading the other thread regarding Dual woofers Vs single in OB. It has answered alot of my questions. One that is more specific to my design would be the effect of box volume. I need to maintain a fairly thin box. In my house WAF equals "skinny" in at least 1 dimension. In this case it's depth.
So... question three - The manufacturers specs suggest a sealed volume of 1.5-2.75 cubic feet. I futzed around in WinISD and it seems thats a QTC range roughly .737 - .857. Now say my internal volume stays around 3 cubic feet. Am I better off with 1 of the Peerless woofers and a lower QTC or use 2 and have a higher QTC?
My goal has always been to have a "coherent" sound that has a bit more warmth and "authority" on the bottom. Im leaning towards using 2 woofers for a number of reasons but Im worried having almost .9 QTC will give me boomy bass. I have read a lot of postings where people talk about .5 or lower being "Ideal". Not sure I believe in "Ideal" anything but it gives me pause.
MrKramer
In a sealed box a higher "Q" will give a peak at the resonance frequency, how big/high that quality factor is will define the height of the peak.
0.9 is sort of "Rock&Roll" bass, I assume that you have just modelled the boxes as an enclosed volume, did you know that filling the box can effect box "Q"?? If you use an apropriate stuffing medium you can increase the apparent box size by up to 15%, 10% is probably more realistic using a combination of fibreglass and polyfill.
WAF is important, but try and get in an extra inch in depth if you can, you dont want the woofers too close to the back of the box.
So to answer the first part of your question, I'd go for two woofers and stuff the box, but thats only my opinion.
You will need to pad the tweeter down by a couple of dB using either an "L-pad" or a series resistor.
I'm not competent to offer an opinion on that XO with those drivers
0.9 is sort of "Rock&Roll" bass, I assume that you have just modelled the boxes as an enclosed volume, did you know that filling the box can effect box "Q"?? If you use an apropriate stuffing medium you can increase the apparent box size by up to 15%, 10% is probably more realistic using a combination of fibreglass and polyfill.
WAF is important, but try and get in an extra inch in depth if you can, you dont want the woofers too close to the back of the box.
So to answer the first part of your question, I'd go for two woofers and stuff the box, but thats only my opinion.
You will need to pad the tweeter down by a couple of dB using either an "L-pad" or a series resistor.
I'm not competent to offer an opinion on that XO with those drivers
I realize that stuffing could lower the Q a bit. Still, any reasonable size Id look at wouldn't be much off that 3 foot size. Even with the added 10-15% it would only bring QTC down to around a little above .8
Does "Rock&Roll bass" equal boomy bass? WinISD seemed to show only a pretty mild bump. Actually made the curves look a little flatter overall at the expense of a little more falloff down low. Not a bad trade off if it sounds alright.
MrKramer
Does "Rock&Roll bass" equal boomy bass? WinISD seemed to show only a pretty mild bump. Actually made the curves look a little flatter overall at the expense of a little more falloff down low. Not a bad trade off if it sounds alright.
MrKramer
Thanks Moondog.
Anybody out there have any experience with that Audax tweeter? Is crossing it 1st order at 4500 viable?
MrKramer
Anybody out there have any experience with that Audax tweeter? Is crossing it 1st order at 4500 viable?
MrKramer
No experience, but the rule-of-thumb is an octave/order from Fs at a minimum -12 dB, so 3600 Hz minimum/1st order. Of course using a hybrid allows a lower minimum, but at 4500 Hz it's not an issue.
GM
GM
Beats me, I'm not familiar this tweeter, but if it were me I'd be looking at 3/4" units to mate to a 4". Spec-wise something like this, though not specifically suggesting it since I've no experience with them. Remember, short of a coax you ideally want the c-t-c spacing to be < 1/4 WL of the XO point or ~13560/4/4500 = 0.75" and certainly no > 1 WL = 0.75*4 = 3", so even this one is on the ragged edge of acceptable.
This one at 4500 Hz would need at least a 2nd order XO based on the ROT, but a 1st order combined with another cap below the XO point with a damping resistor to roll it off more sharply near Fs is an option to protect it.
GM
This one at 4500 Hz would need at least a 2nd order XO based on the ROT, but a 1st order combined with another cap below the XO point with a damping resistor to roll it off more sharply near Fs is an option to protect it.
GM
Visaton neo tweeter
excellent C2C spacing smooth too
http://www.soundlabsgroup.com.au/p/V-1199-G25ND/G+25+ND+-+8+Ohm
Xo a bit higher than Visaton reccomend as minimum but lower than your possible 4500
Try 3500/3700
\although as GM says the tighter the better
excellent C2C spacing smooth too
http://www.soundlabsgroup.com.au/p/V-1199-G25ND/G+25+ND+-+8+Ohm
Xo a bit higher than Visaton reccomend as minimum but lower than your possible 4500
Try 3500/3700
\although as GM says the tighter the better
So, a couple of observations regarding that rule of thumb for ctc spacing.
I did some back of the napkin calculations. Poked around at the specs for various tweeters.
As far as I can tell, there are no commonly available tweeters that can be crossed 1st order at 4500Hz with the frame size of my TB 4" and stay within your ROT guidelines.
Lots of 3/4" tweets can match the ctc but none that I have found that can then be used 1st order.
So that leaves me with a small selection of 1" tweeters. I couldnt find that visaton over here but I think I found another that might fit the bill.
Morel MDT-39
fs 750, frame size 2-1/8", SPL 88 (my TB is 89)
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=277-035
I figure I could cross this somewhere around 3600.
MrKramer
I did some back of the napkin calculations. Poked around at the specs for various tweeters.
As far as I can tell, there are no commonly available tweeters that can be crossed 1st order at 4500Hz with the frame size of my TB 4" and stay within your ROT guidelines.
Lots of 3/4" tweets can match the ctc but none that I have found that can then be used 1st order.
So that leaves me with a small selection of 1" tweeters. I couldnt find that visaton over here but I think I found another that might fit the bill.
Morel MDT-39
fs 750, frame size 2-1/8", SPL 88 (my TB is 89)
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=277-035
I figure I could cross this somewhere around 3600.
MrKramer
Nice looking graphs, should be safe enough first order as XO is more than 2 octaves above Fs, if you are crossing the tweeter at 3600 put the low pass on the mid somewhere around 3300 ( depends on the mids bandwidth of course)
And if you find first order isn't clean enough you can then try second order.
I have seen some builders make a removable panel in the back with the XO attached to it, makes it easy to make changes and easy to seal if you use "T-Nuts" and weather strip
And if you find first order isn't clean enough you can then try second order.
I have seen some builders make a removable panel in the back with the XO attached to it, makes it easy to make changes and easy to seal if you use "T-Nuts" and weather strip
mrkramer said:
Be very wary of that Morel line. I do not believe that it is usable for first order, not even second order. I've got an MDT-44 that in no way measures as advertised. I had hope to use it LR2 @2K, but had to settle for LR4 @3k due to very bad response dip at about 1.5K and even that required a signficant trap to get close to targeted response.
I think you're being too restrictive on the CTC vs. wavelength. CTC of half a wavelength should work, rather than trying to get a quarter wavelength. Closer is generally better, but there's a point of diminishing returns in this area just as for others.
Dave
Hi there
I recently built a 3-way sealed pair of speakers and it too was the first project I have attempted of my own design.
They were for a friend who listens to a lot of electronic dance music especially techno, micro house etc so deep bass and crisp highs were in order. He also wanted the option of using these for parties so decent max-spl was required. Drivers:
Bass: Peerless sls12 830669
Mid: 127e
top: fountek neo cd3
Like you I chose a full/wide range driver for the mid. I think this is really the key decision in managing to pull off a 3 way well without the correct tools/know how to really do it properly. The extended flat response and the fact that impedance peaks are kept away from crossover points i think makes getting the crossover right much easier and the acoustic slopes should be pretty similar to the electric slopes you choose.
For what it's worth I went with a 2nd order paralell xo at 240-4000Hz using values calculated using a narrow bandpass calculator online and the best driver impedance values i could find (mostly read from impedance sweeps i could find online). I then put L pads on the mid and tweeter and simply adjusted their levels to taste.
The result was far better than i thought would be possible for a completely blind design. In fact, theyre excellent speakers by any standard and I couldnt have been happier with them. My friend was blown away too...
Another option here could be to design the mid and bass as a simpler 2-way and just roll in the tweeter with a 1uF or so cap to fill in the top end. That approach has its own problems, but many people report good success with it in FR speakers
I recently built a 3-way sealed pair of speakers and it too was the first project I have attempted of my own design.
They were for a friend who listens to a lot of electronic dance music especially techno, micro house etc so deep bass and crisp highs were in order. He also wanted the option of using these for parties so decent max-spl was required. Drivers:
Bass: Peerless sls12 830669
Mid: 127e
top: fountek neo cd3
Like you I chose a full/wide range driver for the mid. I think this is really the key decision in managing to pull off a 3 way well without the correct tools/know how to really do it properly. The extended flat response and the fact that impedance peaks are kept away from crossover points i think makes getting the crossover right much easier and the acoustic slopes should be pretty similar to the electric slopes you choose.
For what it's worth I went with a 2nd order paralell xo at 240-4000Hz using values calculated using a narrow bandpass calculator online and the best driver impedance values i could find (mostly read from impedance sweeps i could find online). I then put L pads on the mid and tweeter and simply adjusted their levels to taste.
The result was far better than i thought would be possible for a completely blind design. In fact, theyre excellent speakers by any standard and I couldnt have been happier with them. My friend was blown away too...
Another option here could be to design the mid and bass as a simpler 2-way and just roll in the tweeter with a 1uF or so cap to fill in the top end. That approach has its own problems, but many people report good success with it in FR speakers
I use the Peerless 811582 in "Blackwood" at around 2.8k (iirc) 1st order. no audible problems.
It does roll off a bit just below 20k, but nothing I'm gunna notice 😉
It does roll off a bit just below 20k, but nothing I'm gunna notice 😉
valleyman said:
yep, you can make most FR drivers sound quite decent by adding a bass unit and a tweeter !!
valleyman-
Glad to hear you had some success. There is hope after all.
Im really curious about that ribbon. Honestly I hadn't considered one. Thought it might not match well.
If you had to do it all over would you still use one?
MrKramer
Glad to hear you had some success. There is hope after all.
Im really curious about that ribbon. Honestly I hadn't considered one. Thought it might not match well.
If you had to do it all over would you still use one?
MrKramer
I would recommend trying to listen to a ribbon to see if you like them. Personally, I love them. I would describe the sound as extremely accurate and they play very very high. There is also an airy quality to the sound. Dont ask me what that means its just the impression i get when i listen to a ribbon.
The brutal accuracy of a ribbon is perfect for the kind of music my friend likes and the clicks, pops and noises they reproduce while playing techno sound stunning. I dont think any conventinal tweeter could keep up with a ribbon for this type of music.
I listen mostly to more "conventional" music, but i would still choose a ribbon for myself. I enjoy the precision even though the music i listen to doesnt really let them shine.
The fountek ribbons seem nice. They have a good quality feel and aren't too expensive. I don't know how low you can cross them but I played safe at4kHz lr2... ribbons are known for poor distortion at "low" frequencies, and the fostex copes easily.
The brutal accuracy of a ribbon is perfect for the kind of music my friend likes and the clicks, pops and noises they reproduce while playing techno sound stunning. I dont think any conventinal tweeter could keep up with a ribbon for this type of music.
I listen mostly to more "conventional" music, but i would still choose a ribbon for myself. I enjoy the precision even though the music i listen to doesnt really let them shine.
The fountek ribbons seem nice. They have a good quality feel and aren't too expensive. I don't know how low you can cross them but I played safe at4kHz lr2... ribbons are known for poor distortion at "low" frequencies, and the fostex copes easily.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.