Maybe heresy around here, but are there any good options for compact (in the neighborhood of 2L or less) full range drivers that would crossover low enough to eliminate sub localization in a 7.1 setup? Cost is a concern since it is 7.1... if not, I'm indifferent between 2-way solutions that reach down to 80Hz xover or full range satellites with L and R subs that reach to 150Hz xover... any thoughts/ideas are welcome.
Thanks!
Thanks!
The Fostex line of drivers is perfect for your application..The FE126E would fit the bill quite nicely.
Using the suggested "standard" enclosure would be a straightforward woodworking build & you wouldn't have to design up a crossover.
93 Db is a great number! www.madisound.com
______________________________________________Rick.....
Using the suggested "standard" enclosure would be a straightforward woodworking build & you wouldn't have to design up a crossover.
93 Db is a great number! www.madisound.com
______________________________________________Rick.....
Richard Ellis said:
The fostex standard BR enclosure is >10L (bigger than I was looking for), and a bit more expensive than I am looking for as well (although not out of the question if the rest of the qualities are on target).
Been following this, nice cabinets by the way! You used 4L cabinets, and have commented that it would work down to 2L at the expense of loss of bass... Have you tried this? How low could I cross this with a 2L enclosure? The price is decent at $50USD per pair.Henkjan said:
zaph's design for the hivi b3s is ineteresting, but crosses too high for a single sub in HT (150Hz).
I have not tried the 2 liters, that is just based on the sim.
where to cross also depends on how your setup is. if you can independetly set the HP and LP than you could cross the 2 liter around 80hz, the sats already have their own HP, so set the sub LP around that at 18dB/octave and you have a good chance on success. if you have to use a 'single setpoint' x-over in yr 7.1 set, you would be safer using the 4 liter version and crossing over at ~100Hz, you'll get a much better integration that way.
the usual disclaimer: this is my experience, ymmv
where to cross also depends on how your setup is. if you can independetly set the HP and LP than you could cross the 2 liter around 80hz, the sats already have their own HP, so set the sub LP around that at 18dB/octave and you have a good chance on success. if you have to use a 'single setpoint' x-over in yr 7.1 set, you would be safer using the 4 liter version and crossing over at ~100Hz, you'll get a much better integration that way.
the usual disclaimer: this is my experience, ymmv
2 litres & 80 Hz is a big challenge. mFonken (FE127e/4.5 litre) or CHR-70 (sealed >4 litre) would make the cutoff but not the size.
uFonken (FF85k) is 2 litre, but only hits 100 hz (and with somewhat limited loudness levels). A real stunner thou.
A box that small is really going need a 3"
dave
uFonken (FF85k) is 2 litre, but only hits 100 hz (and with somewhat limited loudness levels). A real stunner thou.
A box that small is really going need a 3"
dave
probably, much of the appeal of the sub-sat approach is the teeny-ness of the "sats" - it's always nice to use an equally compact woofer.qingcai said:
There may be any number of commercial products out there that would suit the application, but I've yet to hear one that couldn't be bettered by a DIY or kit , for a fraction of the price.
The CSS SDX7( or similar) can deliver great performance in boxes as small as less than 1 cut ft per driver - sometimes the biggest issue is making the box (just) big enough to fit the plate amp of choice. Of course if you can afford the space for outboard amps, that problem disappears.
aye, there's the rub -
What we ended up with as XO for the Tysen/uFonken was high enough ( 300Hz - ish) that stereo woofers ( can't really call them "subs") were mandatory, and was also beyond the range of built-in filters of any plate amp we could find. No big loss there, as the filters in most budget plate amps is definitely not their best feature.
With careful selection of drivers to allow for simple 1st order filters, calculating and building a passive speaker level XO at this range wouldn't be particularly difficult, but the parts could be very costly and large.
The most practical solution was line level XO (active or passive), and bi-amping. The number and value of parts required for a simple 2-way PLLXO are such that the cost of the enclosure / jacks and interconnects could easily be several times more.
qingcai said:
How low you cross will deteremine how loud you can play.
The very 1st uFonken we built also included a 1/2 ft^3 SDX7 sub with the Keiga 2.1 plateamp (satelite amps built-in). The Keiga has a maximum XO of 150 Hz, and this is a reasonable compromise. The sat amps in the Keiga were really dissapointing, but we found that each channel has a compressor board in it, that once removed makes the amps much better (still not great).
That lead to us building stereo 17 litre SDX7 boxes as stands, and that turned out so stunninly well that it lead to Tysen which turned that into a dedicated bi-amped 2-way with XO at 333 Hz.
At one point i popped in the uFonken in place of the Fonken on top of the push-push SDX7 woofers (1 ft^3 each, shaped to the footptint of the Fonken). Looked like a shrunken head sitting on the woofers, but even with a 100 Hz (2nd order active) XO they did well in my big room, being able to play louder without strain than expected.
Actually on the latter, i have had the uFonekn playing in my BIG room alll by themselves and people asking, "are the woofers playing" (fully expecting them to be when they weren't)
dave
chrisb said:
The Tysens's have a single, side firing, SDX7 IIRC? Do you find that there are any issues with the bass sounding un-natural in it's presentation with the combination of the side firing driver and the relatively high XO point? When I say the XO point is high I'm assuming that what I've read WRT being able to localize signals above the mid 100 hz range is true....
Hi,
what about a small open baffle rather than a box?
Could you increase the crossover to 100Hz or even 120Hz.
Use a 4pole Linkwitz Reilly.
what about a small open baffle rather than a box?
Could you increase the crossover to 100Hz or even 120Hz.
Use a 4pole Linkwitz Reilly.
CHR70 in 2 liters with 680µF in series should be fineplanet10 said:
built in HP, just match the sub at 18dB/octI think my best bet will end up being the obvious... buy one of the drivers that works well with 80Hz xover at 4L and try to make it as small as I can until my ears cringe 😉 4L is not exactly huge after all.Henkjan said:
planet10 said:
Sounds like the requirements are too constraining... a 3" needs stereo woofers... I guess that's why the the teensy sats sound like they do... square peg, round hole and all.
I like the efficiency of the fostex line, but they seem to need a larger enclosure and bit higher crossover than the CHR-70... Is the CHR-70 excursion-limited? i.e. would crossing at 100Hz give it more power handling?
strider75 said:
yep
With the bass driver's higher than "normal" side-mounted position, the only issue I (actually, my wife) found was an aesthetic one when used with a 42" flatscreen TV that is not wall mounted. Due to the cabinet housing the source gear, and the diminutive size of the enclosures, the look was not quite "zen" for "feng shui" enough, which is quite funny actually, because she quite tolerates the much larger Fonken 167 cabinets.
In this case, it's a matter of balance of proportions.
dougr said:
Doug - I think you're definitely right about the stereo woofers - FWIW, I'd consider them required at anything above XO of 120Hz, regardless of the size of the driver(s) being supported, and most particularly so in larger rooms.
We've just started playing with the CHR70 and Alpair 10, and while either of them can work well enough in small boxes ( 4 liters is as small as we've tried so far for wide-band use with the CHR70), the sensitivity could certainly be an issue for those used to the combination of Fostex and single digit watt tube power. Of course, I think Mark has willingly paid the "Hoffman" premium in exchange for increased excursion capabilities, for which I'm not sure anecdotal / real-world field measures have yet been reported.
but, all you need to do is watch the little buggers move with my personal favorite torture track, "Flight of the Cosmic Hippo" to know that he's done something right.
Henkjan said:CHR70 in 2 liters with 680µF in series should be fine
It sims fine, but the idea of putting a BIG bipolar in series is just something i don't like doing. Especially with the CHR70eN it will take a lot of information away. One of course could do this as a PLLXO with much less loss.
(Sim shows 2 litre with & without 680uF cap)
dave
Attachments
strider75 said:
In a really small room with close sidewalls it may be an issue, but we haven't tried that yet. Woofers are stereo, so the need for a really low XO goes out.
The speaker placement is best with a fair amount of toe-in. You are listening to both the drivers off-axis. The FF85KeN works well like this, and it means that the SDX7eN is still reaching up to the XO on axis, and provided BSC as it goes further up (BS frequency of the side is just above the XO and the front about 950, just about where the SDX7 starts its natural roll-off. (note that i don't recommend using the SDX7 without at least the minimal cone quieting mod -- easy to do at home)
With a close side-wall you may get higher frequency reflections off the sidewall from the on-axis of the SDX7.
dave
dougr said:
The CHR70 exchange efficiency for bass capabilities. They have higher power handling, but need it due to lower efficiency. It does make them easy to house in a wide range of sealed boxes, and they seem to be a bit more synergistic with lower quality SS amps.
dave
planet10 said:
Hi Dave,
Hadn't thought about it 'til you mentioned that both drivers are off-axis with a good deal of toe in. That makes sense when I think about my experiences when I 've been fooling around with placement of my Fonken/Fonkenwoof combo. Had mine running for a few weeks now, sounds great so far. Thanks for the help!
Ben
alpair 6 BR?
Is the alpair 6 a decent compromise for a compact sat??? at <6L BR enclosure it has an F3 of <60Hz, and some have used it in 3L BR designs, although I have not seen any response stats for a 3L box. Anyone with experience with the alpair 6 in small ported designs (3L or less)? It seems if I would budge a little here, a little there, I might get a nice compromise (e.g. 3L crossing at 100Hz, albeit at a higher price than I had hoped).
Is the alpair 6 a decent compromise for a compact sat??? at <6L BR enclosure it has an F3 of <60Hz, and some have used it in 3L BR designs, although I have not seen any response stats for a 3L box. Anyone with experience with the alpair 6 in small ported designs (3L or less)? It seems if I would budge a little here, a little there, I might get a nice compromise (e.g. 3L crossing at 100Hz, albeit at a higher price than I had hoped).
If you can live with 4L sealed, get the CHR70. It's the least expensive of the Mark Audio drivers but there is a magic to it. In 4L sealed, it will do 80Hz. It doesn't require any kind of filter and can handle 20W continuous, where the A6 is only 6W.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.