what about the 4 ohm version of the dayton 130BS? even higher sensitivity, plus would draw more power from amp to prevent TB from overpowering again?
So either of the BS daytons will work fine in a MLTL 30 high 32 inch cross section? Thats like 4.5 x 7.125 right?
How about that other dayton, the silver one...
Does it perform well in similar enclosure? The only reason is looks. I mean, the 4 ohm with higher sensitivity will obviously be louder, but the Tang BAnd is really going to be the limiting factor.
So If we can get a flat response out of a similar MLTL with the better looking driver, IMO, then it will come down to which crosses over best.
So 500hz seems like the XO point? Perhaps I will start a thread tomorrow or next to determine best XO scheme.
How about that other dayton, the silver one...
Does it perform well in similar enclosure? The only reason is looks. I mean, the 4 ohm with higher sensitivity will obviously be louder, but the Tang BAnd is really going to be the limiting factor.
So If we can get a flat response out of a similar MLTL with the better looking driver, IMO, then it will come down to which crosses over best.
So 500hz seems like the XO point? Perhaps I will start a thread tomorrow or next to determine best XO scheme.
I'll try the silver one tomorrow. As well as the Audax. But the Thiele-Small numbers seem to work well with these two.
I might reconsider the 500 Hz point as being mandatory. I forgot about the lower sensitivity of the TangBand-82 dB @ 1W/1M, 85 dB @ 2.83 volts. If 20 watts is going to be the judge, then 95 dB SPL is the result of 20 watts. That is 5 dB lower than the number I was using for a baseline, and as a result you might get away with crossing lower than 500 Hz-perhaps 280 Hz is okay after all.
I'll work on the details tomorrow.
I might reconsider the 500 Hz point as being mandatory. I forgot about the lower sensitivity of the TangBand-82 dB @ 1W/1M, 85 dB @ 2.83 volts. If 20 watts is going to be the judge, then 95 dB SPL is the result of 20 watts. That is 5 dB lower than the number I was using for a baseline, and as a result you might get away with crossing lower than 500 Hz-perhaps 280 Hz is okay after all.
I'll work on the details tomorrow.
Pretty good, Relax. How are you?
I just popped into the thread to look up the URL for the silver driver and saw that you just posted.
I'll be doing the sim for the silver speaker right now. Got Martin J King's software all fired up. Should be posting the sim in half an hour or so.
I just popped into the thread to look up the URL for the silver driver and saw that you just posted.
I'll be doing the sim for the silver speaker right now. Got Martin J King's software all fired up. Should be posting the sim in half an hour or so.
Cool cool, i just get really pschyed throughout the day waiting for the prgress we make at night. lol
So I was like, I hope he will be coming tonight....
So I was like, I hope he will be coming tonight....
I'm here most days, at some time during the day. If we get in the middle of something and I don't answer in a day or two, feel free to ask via Email button.
Okay, here is the aluminum coned Dayton, same enclosure. This one goes even lower than 40 Hz. The curve is not perfect, but it sure looks close enough. It is an 8 ohmer, not a four, so the TangBand will be playing at a similar SPL output. However, the TangBand will be drawing twice as much power.
Sreten seems to have some advice on Baffle Step Compensation which would fit better with a more efficient driver. So you might want to consider that in your driver selection.
The same box seems to work for three different drivers. We might be onto a winner here, lol.
Okay, here is the aluminum coned Dayton, same enclosure. This one goes even lower than 40 Hz. The curve is not perfect, but it sure looks close enough. It is an 8 ohmer, not a four, so the TangBand will be playing at a similar SPL output. However, the TangBand will be drawing twice as much power.
Sreten seems to have some advice on Baffle Step Compensation which would fit better with a more efficient driver. So you might want to consider that in your driver selection.
The same box seems to work for three different drivers. We might be onto a winner here, lol.
Attachments
dnsey said:
Dnsey:
The Dayton Loudspeaker line is the "house brand" of Parts Express, located in Dayton, Ohio-Relax's home town, by coincidence.
House brands traditionally fit a niche of economy brand, and the Dayton's are no exception. They are considered very good value for the money, and have a following, but they do not have the reputation of the Jordans.
The TangBands are made in Taiwan, and are very economical. However, their quality seems to exceed their price. They also are developing quite a following. However, they are not in the same category as the Jordans or Bandors. For one thing, the TangBand has a linear excursion of 0.5 mm, (1.0 mm in the newest model). Jordans or Bandors have excursions much, muich greater than that. Jordan's and Bandors also have somewhat smoother response curves, although TangBands' response curve is frequently very good.
As for the crossover point, I forgot that the TangBand only had a sensitivity of 82dB @ 1W/1M. since we are using 20 watts per channel as a baseline, that means that 20 watts drive the output up to 95 dB.
Tha TangBands have a cone area of 5 sq inches, and an excursion of 0.5 mm-which is one fiftieth of an inch. To briefly summarize, For crossover puposes, (that is, taking into account the fact that TB's SPL will be 3 or 6 dB down at the crossover point), the TB's can achieve 97 dB SPL crossed over at 280 Hz.,
So you can go down that far-280 Hz-if you want to. You can cross over higher if you want and meet that 20 watt requirment, as well as increasing your power handling above the 20 watts we discussed. But excursion is not an issue if you cross the TangBands over at 280 Hz or above.
As you can see from the charts, reprinted from Small, on this page, (take your choice, Metric or normal measurements), it takes 1.28 cu inches of air moved to achieve an SPL of 97 dB at 100 Hz. If you move up an octave, only one quarter of the air must be moved to preserve the same SPL output. So 97 dB at 200 Hz, would require only 0.32 cu inches of air to be moved.
Tha TangBands have a cone area of 5 sq inches, and an excursion of 0.5 mm-which is one fiftieth of an inch. To briefly summarize, For crossover puposes, (that is, taking into account the fact that TB's SPL will be 3 or 6 dB down at the crossover point), the TB's can achieve 97 dB SPL crossed over at 280 Hz.,
So you can go down that far-280 Hz-if you want to. You can cross over higher if you want and meet that 20 watt requirment, as well as increasing your power handling above the 20 watts we discussed. But excursion is not an issue if you cross the TangBands over at 280 Hz or above.
As you can see from the charts, reprinted from Small, on this page, (take your choice, Metric or normal measurements), it takes 1.28 cu inches of air moved to achieve an SPL of 97 dB at 100 Hz. If you move up an octave, only one quarter of the air must be moved to preserve the same SPL output. So 97 dB at 200 Hz, would require only 0.32 cu inches of air to be moved.
hi,
as I've said before for a simple (low cost) c/o its best to go for
series first order, as it handles impedance peaks much better.
If the bass unit is chosen to give some baffle step, c/o frequency
will need to be ~ 500Hz or a bit higher.
If the bass unit is chosen for no baffle step, BS will need to be line level.
In this case you have more control over c/o frequency and I'd recommend
a parallel second order Linkwitz/Riley c/o at around 300Hz.
🙂/sreten.
as I've said before for a simple (low cost) c/o its best to go for
series first order, as it handles impedance peaks much better.
If the bass unit is chosen to give some baffle step, c/o frequency
will need to be ~ 500Hz or a bit higher.
If the bass unit is chosen for no baffle step, BS will need to be line level.
In this case you have more control over c/o frequency and I'd recommend
a parallel second order Linkwitz/Riley c/o at around 300Hz.
🙂/sreten.
Just to continue on with how much excursion is required from my previous post, (I left a little off-it was late).
And 280 Hz is one half octave above that, (to go up one octave, multiply your frequency by 1.4), so you would only need 0.16 cu inches of air to be moved at 280 Hz.
At the cross over point, both speakers are putting out either 3 dB or 6 dB less than the midband. So we cut the excursion requirements by 25% or 50% respectively, depening on whether we are 3 dB or 6 dB down from the midband at the cross over point. At 3 dB down, our excursion requirements are 0.128 cu inch-not much over 0.1 cu inch that we have-remember that every speaker has a little bit extra excursioin over and above the linear excursioin rating. At 6 dB down, the excursion requirements are 0.08 cu in, which is below our linear excursion of 0.1 cu in.
So a 280 Hz crossover point is all right, excursion wise.
And 280 Hz is one half octave above that, (to go up one octave, multiply your frequency by 1.4), so you would only need 0.16 cu inches of air to be moved at 280 Hz.
At the cross over point, both speakers are putting out either 3 dB or 6 dB less than the midband. So we cut the excursion requirements by 25% or 50% respectively, depening on whether we are 3 dB or 6 dB down from the midband at the cross over point. At 3 dB down, our excursion requirements are 0.128 cu inch-not much over 0.1 cu inch that we have-remember that every speaker has a little bit extra excursioin over and above the linear excursioin rating. At 6 dB down, the excursion requirements are 0.08 cu in, which is below our linear excursion of 0.1 cu in.
So a 280 Hz crossover point is all right, excursion wise.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of crossing over at a low point, say 280 Hz, versus 500 Hz or above?
Some time ago, the normal speaker was a 3 way-woofer, mid and tweeter-and there were very few subwoofers. The crossover points were usually 500 or 800 Hz between woofer and mid, then 2000 to 4000 Hz between mid and tweeter.
Then the trend changed and designers decided that it was a good idea to have one driver carry the entire vocal range instead of splitting it up between drivers. So the normal config changed to a tweeter and bass/mid which went down to 150 Hz or so, then a subwoofer. This was supposed to make the vocals clearer, by not having a crossover in the vocal range. It is still a matter of taste if this was a good idea. But this is the reasoning behind it, and constitutes the main argument for the low crossover point.
The other argument for a low crossover point is that if you are going to use a simple inductor on the Dayton, (a 6 dB/octave crossover), the Dayton will perform better with a 280 Hz crossover point than with a 500 Hz crossover point.
The arguments for a high crossover point are: crossover components cost less the higher the crossover point, power handling is increased, and intermodulatin distortion is lessened, as the TangBand does not have to reproduce lower notes, which puts a strain on it's ability to handle higher notes cleanly.
There is no right or wrong answer to this. Both low and high crossover points have their pro's and cons.
Some time ago, the normal speaker was a 3 way-woofer, mid and tweeter-and there were very few subwoofers. The crossover points were usually 500 or 800 Hz between woofer and mid, then 2000 to 4000 Hz between mid and tweeter.
Then the trend changed and designers decided that it was a good idea to have one driver carry the entire vocal range instead of splitting it up between drivers. So the normal config changed to a tweeter and bass/mid which went down to 150 Hz or so, then a subwoofer. This was supposed to make the vocals clearer, by not having a crossover in the vocal range. It is still a matter of taste if this was a good idea. But this is the reasoning behind it, and constitutes the main argument for the low crossover point.
The other argument for a low crossover point is that if you are going to use a simple inductor on the Dayton, (a 6 dB/octave crossover), the Dayton will perform better with a 280 Hz crossover point than with a 500 Hz crossover point.
The arguments for a high crossover point are: crossover components cost less the higher the crossover point, power handling is increased, and intermodulatin distortion is lessened, as the TangBand does not have to reproduce lower notes, which puts a strain on it's ability to handle higher notes cleanly.
There is no right or wrong answer to this. Both low and high crossover points have their pro's and cons.
Hi,
one should note that with constant power and 6dB rolloff for
a high pass filter, excursion carries on increasing below cutoff
until you hit the drivers intrinsic high pass function.
For 12dB filters excursion remains constant below cut-off.
🙂/sreten.
one should note that with constant power and 6dB rolloff for
a high pass filter, excursion carries on increasing below cutoff
until you hit the drivers intrinsic high pass function.
For 12dB filters excursion remains constant below cut-off.
🙂/sreten.
How about a 12db roll off on the TB, and a 6db roll off on the Dayton,whichever one..
Or do you want the slopes to match?
Also, do you want the slopes to be off center, i.e. the tang band rolls off at 500 hz whereas the Daytyon is cut off at 400hz? that way the roll offs sum to a flat response? otherwise wouldn't you get a large bump in response at XO point? Or is significant wattage lost between the crossover components that this bump is attentuated by a rise in system impedance?
Or do you want the slopes to match?
Also, do you want the slopes to be off center, i.e. the tang band rolls off at 500 hz whereas the Daytyon is cut off at 400hz? that way the roll offs sum to a flat response? otherwise wouldn't you get a large bump in response at XO point? Or is significant wattage lost between the crossover components that this bump is attentuated by a rise in system impedance?
Relax said:
Hmmm.....
suddenly we are an expert on assymetric crossover topologies.
The 6dB c/o at ~ 500Hz is deliberate to allow smooth BSC for that case.
The whole point of L/R crossovers is to avoid the bump.
To do it properly you need measuring equipment, and implement
target acoustic (not electrical) crossover slopes and points.
🙂/sreten.
What do you mean, "suddenly we are an expert at assymetric crossover topologies."?
I have a little bit of high school physicsa and I remember wave addition is all.
I am by no means an expert in anything, well I may be an expert at asking common questions....
So do I want a 6db roll off on both drivers then? I was just suggesting the 12db roll off for the TB to limit the excursion you stated would still increase. Not to mention it will cut out the low frequencies quicker that make the driver sound bad.
As far as sound goes though, do I really want to have the TB coupled with a driver with a higher sensitivty? oir do I want to try and match the? If It doesn't matter that they are equal, do they need to be close at least?
Ultimately, what do you suggest would be cheaper in the long run? i.e. the Silver or the Black Dayton fo 8 or 4 ohm?
I have a little bit of high school physicsa and I remember wave addition is all.
I am by no means an expert in anything, well I may be an expert at asking common questions....
So do I want a 6db roll off on both drivers then? I was just suggesting the 12db roll off for the TB to limit the excursion you stated would still increase. Not to mention it will cut out the low frequencies quicker that make the driver sound bad.
As far as sound goes though, do I really want to have the TB coupled with a driver with a higher sensitivty? oir do I want to try and match the? If It doesn't matter that they are equal, do they need to be close at least?
Ultimately, what do you suggest would be cheaper in the long run? i.e. the Silver or the Black Dayton fo 8 or 4 ohm?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.