There's nothing inherently wrong with a 2nd/3rd/4th order set of slopes. When designing without measurement, higher slopes can find themselves revealing of crossover mistakes IME. On the other hand, low order slopes can leave driver/acoustic problems exposed.
Luckily 400Hz is a region where less things end up being a problem. Overlaps are up, sensitivity to problems is down..
However I'm not saying there is nothing to be gained by doing it all carefully and properly.
If you can make a successful baffle that holds your directivity forward to the Scroeder frequency of the room, you might like the result. Dave's is one example of the kind of size needed, give or take.
I have a pair of M.A. 5.3 in waiting.
I will likely either gift them as a full range system for ambient/ bedroom use, or keep them for another iteration of a 2-way system.
For full range, there is more pressure to develop some bass enhancement. For instance, it would do a few things: compensate for and correct speaker distortion, add soft saturation when approaching Xmax, and isolate that distortion from the treble by splitting and then recombining the signals.
For instance, say you want a hard limit of +/-3mm Xmax, you limit the bass to 2mm, leaving 1mm head room for treble. Then, even if the level is turned way up, the bass merely generates unobtrusive low harmonics without harsh IMD.
The classic problem of dipole vibration always rears its head when designing new boxes, and this time I'm thinking of building them from the magnet up. So, instead of transferring vibrations from the magnet to the front of the basket and into the box panels, I'm inclined to bulk-up the magnet directly with a granite rectangle or something like that glued to it, and control vibrations at the interface between the granite and the plywood. The legacy plastic basket can float in mid air, with silicone for an airtight seal.
For a 2-way, the MA 5.3 would be playing with something like a 10" Faital 200FE10 or Eminence Beta 12A in 50L+. A waveguide could help raise the 5.3's sensitivity but it would be an experimental process to find out what sounds best.
300Hz seems a bit low, btw. Try auditioning a range of frequencies to hear which speaker sounds better playing the same tone, and you might be surprised at how high a woofer can go.
I think we may be slightly at cross-purposes. The objective is to put together what the majority of wideband enthusiasts would view as a good valid design by their criteria not mine. This is where the 300 Hz crossover frequency is coming from. I think a 3" driver is considered preferable to a 4" but it may break never mind distort in listening tests at standard levels. How to validly represent the wideband approach and perform a valid listening test of high fidelity main speakers for a room?
^^ hi abstract, I use your example as basis for quick calculation, its not to critizice your post but to show how dramatically wavelenght changes from bass to treble.
Quick calculation, on a closed box every octave of bandwidth down, keeping SPL constant, requires four times volume displacement. For fullrange driver whose Sd is relatively constant it means excursion quadruples every octave down if frequency response is flat, even more with bafflestep. 2mm excursion for bass and 1mm for treble means the bass is only ~half octave below the treble 🙂 or conversely, bass eats all the excursion of any driver. carry on
Quick calculation, on a closed box every octave of bandwidth down, keeping SPL constant, requires four times volume displacement. For fullrange driver whose Sd is relatively constant it means excursion quadruples every octave down if frequency response is flat, even more with bafflestep. 2mm excursion for bass and 1mm for treble means the bass is only ~half octave below the treble 🙂 or conversely, bass eats all the excursion of any driver. carry on
Last edited:
I had thought this was fundamental to the fullrange driver approach in order to keep crossovers out of the important frequency range. Is this not the case?
Typically the range of wAW XOs is about 200-450 Hz, below that it morphs into a sub/satelite system and above that a riobust cone tweeter (the MA SOTA that used something akin to A5x was XOed at 2KHz). Given the overlap one can move from “mostly the FR” up to “plays louder”. Ideally the C-C distance is greater than the quarter-wave at the XO. But sometimes one has to compromise. These for instance (but with A10p instead of A7x. meant to play fairly loud with little or no strain) is more like a third at the lowest part of the potental XO range.
The woofer we use in the MTM is good on-axis to 10k, the XO is chosen to stay within the quarter-wave criteria. The ones in the Ellipsa (apologies to SF) only reach 1.7 kHz.
There is a ton of room to explore with WAWs. Few examples have been done and published (OBs excepted, almost every OB that uses a FR top is a WAW). A growing number of nice FRs that get to a 100, and reach up high quite well… from clean (A5.3) to romantic (FE108e∑) and, and… and a huge number of midBasses done for dome+cone systems where you only have to worry about <500 Hz or so. A huge range of potential capabilities.
dave
The woofer we use in the MTM is good on-axis to 10k, the XO is chosen to stay within the quarter-wave criteria. The ones in the Ellipsa (apologies to SF) only reach 1.7 kHz.
There is a ton of room to explore with WAWs. Few examples have been done and published (OBs excepted, almost every OB that uses a FR top is a WAW). A growing number of nice FRs that get to a 100, and reach up high quite well… from clean (A5.3) to romantic (FE108e∑) and, and… and a huge number of midBasses done for dome+cone systems where you only have to worry about <500 Hz or so. A huge range of potential capabilities.
dave
Last edited:
The Alpair 7.3MS has 8khz peak then missing 9-11khz before sharp rise to 13khz, audioclip sounds slow, woodwind a metallic edge.
Please share more recipes for the 5.3, 5W 86dB, actually a basin 300-500hz. (I'd try tiny sealed cap-assisted fall-off if needed.)
Please share more recipes for the 5.3, 5W 86dB, actually a basin 300-500hz. (I'd try tiny sealed cap-assisted fall-off if needed.)
Last edited:
These are the mniOnkens:
Frugel-Horn Lite drags maximum bottom out of them.
Giraffe, a Woden ML-TL
Next to it is the BabyLab for the FE105wk, there is ne for A5.2/3 (Bloodhound).
And they will be the midTweeters in this monstrosity (WAW with 4xPeerless 830870 in an ML-Voigt, midT an aperiodic midTL. Called Facets. A bugger to build.just ask Chris.
dave
Frugel-Horn Lite drags maximum bottom out of them.
Giraffe, a Woden ML-TL
Next to it is the BabyLab for the FE105wk, there is ne for A5.2/3 (Bloodhound).
And they will be the midTweeters in this monstrosity (WAW with 4xPeerless 830870 in an ML-Voigt, midT an aperiodic midTL. Called Facets. A bugger to build.just ask Chris.
dave
Hi tmuikku, I'm aware of that. I probably wasn't very clear in what I meant.
In order of signal processing steps:
-a high-pass and low pass filter splits the incoming signal,
-the bass output is processed with a soft saturator, predistortion, etc
-the bass and bypassed treble signals are then summed and amplified in an "active speaker" setup.
Last edited:
There’s no hard steadfast rule here how low you can/should cross a wide band driver to a helper woofer…..let it be about the system and it’s intended purpose which is the hallmark of what makes DIY so special. Sometimes I think we get away from that principle. Where commercial residential systems have to appeal to and work in a wide variety of spaces and lifestyles, is as DIYers have the distinct advantage of working within our own unique environments and needs.
Of course the wide band and woofer solution isn’t for everyone……some need greater playback levels than a 3-4” wide band driver can take……but these are often the same folks pushing 1” domes to the same levels….power compression still becomes part of the equation, I just think their ears shut down before they realize the flaw. In all honesty, it’s only ever been for me 1” compression drivers or larger that are capable of those playback levels and still retain poise. But my lifestyle doesn’t allow for big boxes or many opportunities for high playback levels.
Wanna cross to your woofer at 700hz to reduce power compression and distortion on the bottom end of the pass band?……have at it.…..the crossover is going to be a bit more complex and time consuming and that’s it. While the fullrange purists will argue against any XO components, our ears just aren’t that acute to isolate or identify their insertion unless the listener is thoroughly trained and critical in their observations.
My point here….and maybe the thread title really was a bit obscure (on purpose to rally a robust discussion. Lol) was to consider a small two way that would fit the lifestyle and listening habits of most……the small fullrange offers options….like those that can spare the room for an 8 or even 10” woofer where a tweeter based 2 way is gonna be a struggle. Can’t have a wide baffle?……fine…..go with the wide band in an MTM set between two 6” woofers. Add an inductor to one of ‘em and shoot for the bottom with a .5 overlapp.
Something I’m gonna work on over the winter is a mild horn loading of one of the 3.5” drivers I have set on a 10” wide baffle mated to an 8” woofer. The offset of nothing else will better align the drivers acoustic centers and aid in combating baffle step loss to where a correction circuit won’t be needed at all.
Of course the wide band and woofer solution isn’t for everyone……some need greater playback levels than a 3-4” wide band driver can take……but these are often the same folks pushing 1” domes to the same levels….power compression still becomes part of the equation, I just think their ears shut down before they realize the flaw. In all honesty, it’s only ever been for me 1” compression drivers or larger that are capable of those playback levels and still retain poise. But my lifestyle doesn’t allow for big boxes or many opportunities for high playback levels.
Wanna cross to your woofer at 700hz to reduce power compression and distortion on the bottom end of the pass band?……have at it.…..the crossover is going to be a bit more complex and time consuming and that’s it. While the fullrange purists will argue against any XO components, our ears just aren’t that acute to isolate or identify their insertion unless the listener is thoroughly trained and critical in their observations.
My point here….and maybe the thread title really was a bit obscure (on purpose to rally a robust discussion. Lol) was to consider a small two way that would fit the lifestyle and listening habits of most……the small fullrange offers options….like those that can spare the room for an 8 or even 10” woofer where a tweeter based 2 way is gonna be a struggle. Can’t have a wide baffle?……fine…..go with the wide band in an MTM set between two 6” woofers. Add an inductor to one of ‘em and shoot for the bottom with a .5 overlapp.
Something I’m gonna work on over the winter is a mild horn loading of one of the 3.5” drivers I have set on a 10” wide baffle mated to an 8” woofer. The offset of nothing else will better align the drivers acoustic centers and aid in combating baffle step loss to where a correction circuit won’t be needed at all.
What if you hate tweeters?
I do - or at least did. For most of my life tweeters all sounded fake to me. Sure they added “something” but that something was not like any natural sound I ever heard. So I was happy to take limited bandwidth rather than the fake sound of tweeters.
Cone tweeters in old gear didn’t bother me, even with their limitations. So I looked to small full range cones to take over from the woofer. I still don’t know what bothered me about tweeters. Was it the top end or was it their low end where they crossed? Dunno
One of the rare tweeters I’ve heard that sounded natural to me was the RAAL. But of course $$$$$
Now that I’m in my mid sixties tweeters no longer sound fake to me.
IMO, if you can’t find a good 3” full range driver to mate with a 10-15” woofer and make the system sound great, you aren’t much of a speaker builder. 😛
I do - or at least did. For most of my life tweeters all sounded fake to me. Sure they added “something” but that something was not like any natural sound I ever heard. So I was happy to take limited bandwidth rather than the fake sound of tweeters.
Cone tweeters in old gear didn’t bother me, even with their limitations. So I looked to small full range cones to take over from the woofer. I still don’t know what bothered me about tweeters. Was it the top end or was it their low end where they crossed? Dunno
One of the rare tweeters I’ve heard that sounded natural to me was the RAAL. But of course $$$$$
Now that I’m in my mid sixties tweeters no longer sound fake to me.
IMO, if you can’t find a good 3” full range driver to mate with a 10-15” woofer and make the system sound great, you aren’t much of a speaker builder. 😛
How widespread within the community is a desire for no crossover components when using a helper woofer? On a related theme how widespread are feelings against active DSP crossovers which was expressed by someone earlier?
Crossed at 300 Hz or 800 Hz? Personally I cannot see how a single 3" 5W 85 dB driver crossed at 300 Hz is going to sound great. The best I am expecting is OK but good for the price and simplicity. Seems to be another vote for a 3" driver though.
for me, the "wideband sound" goes together with mid to high efficiency.
using a 3" wideband that is 86db efficient is not reprensentative of the typical "wideband sound". basically, one of the point to be using wideband is its efficiency and the possibility to use low powered amps.
also, a 3" needs to be xo too high. if a 3" needs a xo at 800hz, I feel it completely ruins the entire point. thats only me, maybe some would disagree