I'm wondering if anyone successfully crossed Dayton Audio RSS390HF-4 a bit higher, let's say at 400 Hz or so, to a smaller mid/extended range?
If someone did that or at least heard such beast, how did it sound?
Is it something one would want to attempt on purpose..?
Any experiences or opinions would be appreciated!
If someone did that or at least heard such beast, how did it sound?
Is it something one would want to attempt on purpose..?
Any experiences or opinions would be appreciated!
Last edited:
I have a related driver the RSS390HO-4 and I have always been wary of using it as a woofer unless it was crossed very low because of a 15dB tall sharp breakup peak at 2kHz. I wanted to point this out to you, but when I look at the current model HF version I hardly see any breakup at all... hmmm. Did they redesign the cone at some point? My HO version drivers are several years old at this point (almost 10 I think).
If the breakup is indeed smooth, the HF driver is known to be very "musical" and well designed, etc. so yes go for it.
If the breakup is indeed smooth, the HF driver is known to be very "musical" and well designed, etc. so yes go for it.
Also use this driver, and can se rising 2 K peak in measurement with 4mH coil and ca 180 uF cap (12dB), but i can´t notice/hear it when listening.
Peak at 2 K is 25-28 dB down
I used the RSS315-HF up to 400 Hz and didn't notice any problems.
Thanks for the feedback everybody.
Measurements posted at Dibirama, Dayton's data and the tech used with RSS390HF-4 all suggested crossing higher should be OK. It's good to know that practical experiences with related drivers confirm this.
Measurements posted at Dibirama, Dayton's data and the tech used with RSS390HF-4 all suggested crossing higher should be OK. It's good to know that practical experiences with related drivers confirm this.
Funny this question gets posted so soon after I was recently imagining 4 of these per channel in large sealed enclosures or IB with a couple thousand wpc on tap below K402 horns as the ultimate 2-way dream system...
Edit: You would think there'd be more potential candidates that are readily available for such a task, but there really aren't many choices for clean, wide range, higher output 15's that dig deep. AE TD15X is another option that probably performs better than the Dayton, but the price increase is substantial. These are really the only two options I can find.
Edit: You would think there'd be more potential candidates that are readily available for such a task, but there really aren't many choices for clean, wide range, higher output 15's that dig deep. AE TD15X is another option that probably performs better than the Dayton, but the price increase is substantial. These are really the only two options I can find.
Attachments
Last edited:
...TD15S, I meant, not X.
I figure 4 of these per channel with wood K402 clones with 4" beryllium drivers and adequate power on hand would be nice for LCR mains.
But yeah, the 15" Dayton HF is about the only reasonably priced alternative I know of, especially for sealed enclosures.
I figure 4 of these per channel with wood K402 clones with 4" beryllium drivers and adequate power on hand would be nice for LCR mains.
But yeah, the 15" Dayton HF is about the only reasonably priced alternative I know of, especially for sealed enclosures.
Yeah. It really wouldn't be a crazy amount of output when paired with such a horn, as Parts Express shows a sealed F3 of 36 Hz. With "only" 14 mm of Xmax, maximum output down low would be similar to 2 high output 15's with twice the Xmax (28 mm), which became quite common even 20 years ago. And since the high-ish Qts helps them go lower than most in a sealed box, max output will be even less than that.
The problem would be the large enclosure size requirement while still being able to fit the large K402 on top, especially if placed behind an acoustically transparent screen. I have no way to model them right now, but PE says 2.9 cubes (that's probably .707 Qtc). So, I figure roughly 12 cubic feet minimum for all 4, which is why I mentioned that infinite baffle may be a better option here, but I'm not sure how this would affect overall performance with the horns.
This is all speculative contemplation, of course. Just toying with ideas.
The problem would be the large enclosure size requirement while still being able to fit the large K402 on top, especially if placed behind an acoustically transparent screen. I have no way to model them right now, but PE says 2.9 cubes (that's probably .707 Qtc). So, I figure roughly 12 cubic feet minimum for all 4, which is why I mentioned that infinite baffle may be a better option here, but I'm not sure how this would affect overall performance with the horns.
This is all speculative contemplation, of course. Just toying with ideas.
