The point I was trying to make is that once you have measured your own speaker with polar data you can try out both of them and tweak the values or try another layout by using revisions to the crossover and see the effects on all of the on and off axis curves simultaneously. By loading up your original cross over you can see what effect it was having and that might well tell you why you didn't like it.
@Jimbones
I'd build at least one rinjani xo and if you much prefer its sound to yours, measure it and tweak in xsim from there to get a flatter response (due to the baffle width differences).
Or. Just build rinjani type cabinet, the bass is quite optimally tuned and the common tuned port resonance is not obvious
I'd build at least one rinjani xo and if you much prefer its sound to yours, measure it and tweak in xsim from there to get a flatter response (due to the baffle width differences).
Or. Just build rinjani type cabinet, the bass is quite optimally tuned and the common tuned port resonance is not obvious
with a MW16P 4 ohms but a good place to read on the low pass filter. www.audioexcite.com >> Satori Two – Monitor
Theres commonality in parts between my 2 way and the Rinjani 2.5 way. It wont take too much to modify mine. I plan on that.
There is also a well established open plan design for MTM for the same drivers from the renowned Martin J King
http://www.quarter-wave.com/Project11/Satori_MTM_Bass_Reflex_Speaker_System.pdf
http://www.quarter-wave.com/Project11/Satori_MTM_Bass_Reflex_Speaker_System.pdf
All a bit Mickey Mouse on the bass front isn't it. Don't really know why you would even need to sim it? 😀
Joachim Gerhard gets 2.2-2.4mH on a single Satori 8 ohm. Martin J. King gets 1.3mH on two in parallel. I could have guessed that. Along with 15-20L per 6" driver. Usual 2" x 4" port for each driver. About 2.2kHz tweeter filter. Is it hard?
Joachim Gerhard gets 2.2-2.4mH on a single Satori 8 ohm. Martin J. King gets 1.3mH on two in parallel. I could have guessed that. Along with 15-20L per 6" driver. Usual 2" x 4" port for each driver. About 2.2kHz tweeter filter. Is it hard?
At this stage I am not considering making a new front baffle. It is something i could consider in a future build. Ideally I would like to make a small floorstander in an MTM configuration. That would entail a new cabinet etc so a whole new build.
I am considering buying a commercially available speaker that I can listen to while I fiddle. Salk Veracity ST looks nice but I dont know how they sound and if they are highly regarded.
An MMT or TMM is exactly the same as an MTM electrically. Just the lobing is different and asymmetric vetically. But the same on axis. You'd hope the woofers are close together though.
I want to reiterate something that has been mentioned, that is you cannot answer this question based on the currently available information.
In pursuit of a shorter term answer, common wisdom suggests that you don't overreact and go for an MTM here if it's for the wrong reasons.
My suggestion for someone who doesn't happen to be in a position to control the outcome, is that the 2.5 way will simplify your job.
However, the correct way will involve mesurement. I'd like to offer a simpler (though less comprehensive/accurate) alternative to the full simulation. You sweep your microphone up and down to detect lobes while doing RTA.
Now I know what to do beyond ogling at drivers and speakers... crossover design differences! 😱
Hi Jim,
Pardon me, but have you managed to get the 3 raw measurements that were discussed in your other thread?
It must be actual data taken on your baffle without physically touching the mic or the speaker or the electrical amplitude of the amp or source. Only wire connections are allowed to be made outside of the box (to prevent movement).
If you can get all the raw data for tweeter, woofers (in parallel), and tweeters and woofers all in parallel, I can take a go at this. Plus ZMA files for all drivers.
Or if this data is already shared previously, please point me to the right link.
Thanks.
Pardon me, but have you managed to get the 3 raw measurements that were discussed in your other thread?
It must be actual data taken on your baffle without physically touching the mic or the speaker or the electrical amplitude of the amp or source. Only wire connections are allowed to be made outside of the box (to prevent movement).
If you can get all the raw data for tweeter, woofers (in parallel), and tweeters and woofers all in parallel, I can take a go at this. Plus ZMA files for all drivers.
Or if this data is already shared previously, please point me to the right link.
Thanks.
I believe that despite it being a TMM, the main complaint is due to voicing and not due to speaker physical topology. Jim appears to have a complaint about the frequency response not being right. To that end, I do believe some crossover tweaks to get the voicing right may be beneficial and keep the baffle the same as Jim has already said he doesn't want to redo the baffle (I know, woodworking to make a baffle is hard work and much more difficult and laborious) and I think perhaps some adjustments in speaker voicing may help.
Speaker physical topology does have an effect on voicing, and in any case will affect the crossover so these things become a package.
The Kef104.2 MTM filter was a bit different though with not exactly the same treatment between the two mids !
MTM can be either 2-way or 2.5 way. TMM can never be anything except 2.5 way. Unless the woofer center distance is a fraction of the listening distance.
I have not, I had some medical issues to deal with and then I just got some new power amps so I was busy with that. It's in my queue. My plan was to try what Allen said is to do sweeps off axis (both vertical and horizontal) I would like to initially take measurements of what I have currently as the data may give us a clue. I dont think I am very far off from some of the suggested designs it is literally one cap value change on one driver and making one woofer 1/2 way. Before I do that I will share measurements. Thanks