Yes my dad would love to save money but not if it's going to affect the sound that much. The original xover and dayton mid still works together right?
I think I have used the wrong terminology.
I guess point source is generally accepted as a single true point (single coil) or coaxial arrangement where there is no multi-driver integration. I used that term wrong.
The idea I am trying to convey, is that, at frequencies that are larger than the distance between drivers, the sound should combine and not "lobe." At frequencies smaller than driver spacing, there will be more lobing, which is characteristic of multi point source configurations and should be avoided when possible.
In this case, instead of drawing a "line" like you would with most speaker arrangements, we happen to be drawing a triangle. I'm not a big fan of this because it means more horizontal lobing (which the steeper sloped x-over would help combat).
Does that sound more correct?
Thanks,
Eric
I guess point source is generally accepted as a single true point (single coil) or coaxial arrangement where there is no multi-driver integration. I used that term wrong.
The idea I am trying to convey, is that, at frequencies that are larger than the distance between drivers, the sound should combine and not "lobe." At frequencies smaller than driver spacing, there will be more lobing, which is characteristic of multi point source configurations and should be avoided when possible.
In this case, instead of drawing a "line" like you would with most speaker arrangements, we happen to be drawing a triangle. I'm not a big fan of this because it means more horizontal lobing (which the steeper sloped x-over would help combat).
Does that sound more correct?
Thanks,
Eric
On paper and [maybe] in a padded room, yep 🙂
Based on what I have read, these sorts of simulations, assuming the driver data is good, often come within +/-1-2dB of the real world. Which is probably going to be more than close enough for the scope and intention of th project.
says they will be in on the 18th.
Ok guys so is this build going to work or not I really want to get started on something that is going to work. 3-way, 2-way, towers, mtm whatever right now I'm about ready to just scrap this whole build.
Ninesvnsicks, the point I've just made with mdocod is not, on its own, enough to make this project fail. For all I'm aware it may have been no more than a poor choice of words, and it wasn't directed towards your project.
While I'm chiming in, if I were using your midrange I'd accept an anclosure as small as 0.1 cu ft, which would allow the use of PVC pipe behind it as an enclosure.
While I'm chiming in, if I were using your midrange I'd accept an anclosure as small as 0.1 cu ft, which would allow the use of PVC pipe behind it as an enclosure.
That is a good idea about the enclosure it wasn't your words or whatever you 2 were talking about it's just getting to sound like too much work and I'm just overwhelmed. My dad needs something and he doesn't have a lot of money to do it I can't see him spending over $300 on this project.
The 0.1 ft^3 box would technically work, however, keep in mind that in making that change, the impedance spike at resonance would increase by almost an octave, which would probably interfere with the x-over much more prominently.
That change to a smaller box "could" be a major problem. The simulated impedance spike would have to be traced and integrated into the x-over simulation to see the effects.
----
edit in: The issue I am talking about above, is very much related to the reason that a sealed back midrange probably isn't a good idea here. trying to get a low x-over point working properly depends on having that resonance related impedance spike down and out of the way far enough so as not to have to correct for it. Correcting for an impedance spike down that low can get expensive unless you have several dB worth of attenuation already planned for that driver.
(perhaps the most interesting part of this revelation, is the fact that it was AllenB's stickied post pertaining to non-measured x-over building that supports the idea that impedance correction down this low could be obtained via simple attenuation efforts, something I had never thought of until reading that very nice piece of work!)
That change to a smaller box "could" be a major problem. The simulated impedance spike would have to be traced and integrated into the x-over simulation to see the effects.
----
edit in: The issue I am talking about above, is very much related to the reason that a sealed back midrange probably isn't a good idea here. trying to get a low x-over point working properly depends on having that resonance related impedance spike down and out of the way far enough so as not to have to correct for it. Correcting for an impedance spike down that low can get expensive unless you have several dB worth of attenuation already planned for that driver.
(perhaps the most interesting part of this revelation, is the fact that it was AllenB's stickied post pertaining to non-measured x-over building that supports the idea that impedance correction down this low could be obtained via simple attenuation efforts, something I had never thought of until reading that very nice piece of work!)
Last edited:
actually.... a PVC pipe might not be a bad idea, but not to box that mid-range in so tight, instead, take that pipe and run it right to the back of the box. Go open back on that sucker and cram it full of polyfill or insulation or something like that. Try to give it the "IB" effect.
I don't think so. The response should be down by around 24dB close to 200Hz regardless of whether the resonance peak is there or an octave lower.
driver/box rolloff should be a good match for whatever xo design you choose to use
would matter more with low xo point
with higher xo point, less so
but it will still influence xo
how do you put driver/box rolloff(without xo) into your simulation ?
(Im just interested to hear if its easy to do)
would matter more with low xo point
with higher xo point, less so
but it will still influence xo
how do you put driver/box rolloff(without xo) into your simulation ?
(Im just interested to hear if its easy to do)
Hi tinitus,
There is a "splice" tool.
I spliced in the box sim from 200hz. It's not "hard" per se... just have to get the stinkin program to do what you want (try, try, try again).
Eric
There is a "splice" tool.
I spliced in the box sim from 200hz. It's not "hard" per se... just have to get the stinkin program to do what you want (try, try, try again).
Eric
- Status
- Not open for further replies.