Thomas,
The RS180 is the driver of interest in this thread. Mark K. has also tested it and the problem seen with the RS225 is not really noticeable.
http://206.13.113.199/ncdiyaudio/mark/7 inch woofer comparison/7_inch_driver_comparison.htm
Regarding the RS225....the primary cone breakup mode is quite a bit higher. The 1.6khz anomaly must be related to a cone edge/surround situation? It's interesting that the published curves on the PE website don't show any of this behaviour.
http://www.partsexpress.com/pdf/295-366g.pdf
Anyway, for dipole usage I still have my doubts about the RS180, but I could be wrong.
I think I'll order a pair to play with on my spare baffles.
Cheers,
Davey.
The RS180 is the driver of interest in this thread. Mark K. has also tested it and the problem seen with the RS225 is not really noticeable.
http://206.13.113.199/ncdiyaudio/mark/7 inch woofer comparison/7_inch_driver_comparison.htm
Regarding the RS225....the primary cone breakup mode is quite a bit higher. The 1.6khz anomaly must be related to a cone edge/surround situation? It's interesting that the published curves on the PE website don't show any of this behaviour.
http://www.partsexpress.com/pdf/295-366g.pdf
Anyway, for dipole usage I still have my doubts about the RS180, but I could be wrong.
I think I'll order a pair to play with on my spare baffles.Cheers,
Davey.
dayton rs series
You might want to check the sd of the 6 inch, its compable to a 5 1/4. The reason is that the mounting flange is a bit wider than usual. Very nice heavy frame though, much beefier than Focal, Vifa, or Seas. I think the 7 inch would be closer to most 6 1/2s than the 6 inch. They don't give the cone areal in the specs, too bad.
good luck
bill horn
You might want to check the sd of the 6 inch, its compable to a 5 1/4. The reason is that the mounting flange is a bit wider than usual. Very nice heavy frame though, much beefier than Focal, Vifa, or Seas. I think the 7 inch would be closer to most 6 1/2s than the 6 inch. They don't give the cone areal in the specs, too bad.
good luck
bill horn
dayton rs series
thanks for the info, i had overlooked the diameter.
comparison
seas p17rcy sd = 130cmsq dayton 7 inch rs. 123 cmsq.
seas p14rcy sd = 80cmsq dayton 6 inch rs. 81.7 cmsq.
with a xmax of 6mm the dayton 7 is probably a very good candidate for a open baffle design.
thanks again, I need to pay more attention.
bill horn
thanks for the info, i had overlooked the diameter.
comparison
seas p17rcy sd = 130cmsq dayton 7 inch rs. 123 cmsq.
seas p14rcy sd = 80cmsq dayton 6 inch rs. 81.7 cmsq.
with a xmax of 6mm the dayton 7 is probably a very good candidate for a open baffle design.
thanks again, I need to pay more attention.
bill horn
Davey said:Thomas,
The RS180 is the driver of interest in this thread. Mark K. has also tested it and the problem seen with the RS225 is not really noticeable.
http://206.13.113.199/ncdiyaudio/mark/7 inch woofer comparison/7_inch_driver_comparison.htm
Regarding the RS225....the primary cone breakup mode is quite a bit higher. The 1.6khz anomaly must be related to a cone edge/surround situation? It's interesting that the published curves on the PE website don't show any of this behaviour.
http://www.partsexpress.com/pdf/295-366g.pdf
Anyway, for dipole usage I still have my doubts about the RS180, but I could be wrong.
Cheers,
Davey.
One thing both Mark and I have seen is variance in the nearfield response (1-2") of a number of drivers from the farfield response. My own experience is that this seems more prevalent in the case of curvelinear type cones, like the Daytons and many ScanSpeak types.
Often the ultra nearifield measurements at different points on the cone surface (center, mid to edge, and edge) will reveal variations in the response which correlate with impedance anomalies or areas of energy storage.
My experience is that you get the best, most clear and natrual sound when you avoid using these areas.
Here's a couple of examples- first, a ScanSpeak Kevlar 8" midwoofer, such as Sigfried Linkwitz used in the Audio Artistry sytems...
There are several bobbles in the impedance curve, the first one being at ~700 Hz.
The sweeps were measured at the center, mid way between center and edge, and at one edge.
Now, here's a driver that is rather better behaved, in my opinion, the HiVi M8a 8" woofer, measured in the same way.
I think it's safe to say that the behavior is much more consistent, and indicative of cone behavior that is more pistonic through a wider range. The first impedance glitch is at 2.3 kHz.
MarkK has seen similar issues with near field testing of some drivers, showing substantial variation in the response at relatively low frequencies (<2 kHz) which are smoothed out in far field (1 meter) plots.
I think one ignores these "hints" from the measurements at a certain risk....
I've got RS180's on hand, and plan to order some RS150's this week also, and do some extensive testing, because I'm interested in using them in some MTM's, and they could be used in a dipole configuration, of course. It's just figuring out what range they perform best in.
I've also got RS270 10's to test. I'm interested in them for sealed and dipole applications.
A lot of work upcomging in December, but I have the whole second week of the month scheduled off for this. I'll be posting the results after I'm finished... right now, to guess at the optimal crossover frequecies from the available published data from PE would be nothing more than that... a guess.
~Jon
I don't have any trouble believing Mark's and Jon's measurements are more representative of the true nature of these drivers. I was just making an observation regarding the PE published data.
I think you fellas are losing track of the point I was trying (rather poorly I guess) to make regarding the Dayton Reference driver (the RS180.) The behaviour of the drivers themselves is one parameter (as you've noted/evidenced with your measurements,) but I'm only talking about their suitability for dipole usage...ie, how the rear radiation interacts with the front via the baffle shape and its overall effect on the horizontal polar response of the system. This is still unclear to me.
Jon, you say "they could be used in a dipole configuration, of course," but with all due respect I think you're speculating about that possibility until some further testing is accomplished. I'm assuming some kind of methodology similar to SL's would be appropriate (that's what I try to do,) but maybe you don't weight the significance of this as highly as he does?
I'll be interested to see the results of your driver testing.
Cheers,
Davey.
I think you fellas are losing track of the point I was trying (rather poorly I guess) to make regarding the Dayton Reference driver (the RS180.) The behaviour of the drivers themselves is one parameter (as you've noted/evidenced with your measurements,) but I'm only talking about their suitability for dipole usage...ie, how the rear radiation interacts with the front via the baffle shape and its overall effect on the horizontal polar response of the system. This is still unclear to me.
Jon, you say "they could be used in a dipole configuration, of course," but with all due respect I think you're speculating about that possibility until some further testing is accomplished. I'm assuming some kind of methodology similar to SL's would be appropriate (that's what I try to do,) but maybe you don't weight the significance of this as highly as he does?
I'll be interested to see the results of your driver testing.
Cheers,
Davey.
Davey,
Can you elaborate on testing for rear radiation problems? Truthfully, I'm worried about the HiVi M8A woofers that I'm going to use in my dipole, they don't look to be a very open design, say compared to the Vifa MG22 woofers that I've got stashed away. Of course those ones have a problem around 1k, as is typical for SS and Vifa drivers.
Ron
Can you elaborate on testing for rear radiation problems? Truthfully, I'm worried about the HiVi M8A woofers that I'm going to use in my dipole, they don't look to be a very open design, say compared to the Vifa MG22 woofers that I've got stashed away. Of course those ones have a problem around 1k, as is typical for SS and Vifa drivers.
Ron
I should have some RS150's on hand this evening (6 of 'em) intended for ported MTMs... however, as I always do custom templates for routing the drivers in, I haven't routed yet - so I can easily toss together a baffle or two to try them open baffle while I'm routing the other baffles.
Probably a good idea anyhow as I'm suspecting I'll be putting together a fairly big open baffle setup for music listening one of these days.
C
Probably a good idea anyhow as I'm suspecting I'll be putting together a fairly big open baffle setup for music listening one of these days.
C
Ron,
Generally, when you look at the raw horizontal response of the mid-bass driver of a typical box speaker you'll see the polar response narrow as you move up in frequency. This is what you'd expect and the responses at 0, 30, 45, 60 degrees should show a uniform and progressive roll-off respectively. With a dipole the rear radiation can add at off-axis angles with the front and you end up with a "widening" of the polar response at certain frequencies and angles. It looks like kind of a "shelf" in the off-axis response when you would normally expect an even roll-off. So, you can end up with a non-uniform horizontal response that has more of a reverberant field than would normally be the case even though the on-axis response is flat.
When I was fiddling with the baffle for this system in addition to the Seas driver I also tested Vifa PL18's and Peerless 850122. These particular drivers have a much larger magnet/basket assembly than the Seas and they vent/open more toward the sides rather than the rear.....the "sides" being in very close proximity to the circular baffle cutout wall in those cases. I could see some obvious differences in the relative polar responses of these compared to the Seas driver. The Seas driver looked much "worse," ie less uniform. I assumed this was because there was considerably more rear radiation from the Seas driver. I did some experimentation with pieces of cardboard on the sides to try and improve the situation and had some limited success.
My point is that drivers with large/constrictive basket assemblies tend to limit the rear radiation from the driver quite a bit. I guess this could be viewed as beneficial by some folks, but the design is then tending away from an "open" baffle design when I thought that's what the intention was. You end up with a sort of hybrid box/open design.
I think the objective of these types of speakers is to make as much use of the rear radiation as possible so the power response is more even. The sound IMHE is then much more spacious and open than what a conventional speaker would provide.
However, maybe I'm obsessing too much about this particular aspect of the design. SL seems to think this is important and I'm not ready to discount his outlook without good reason.
Anyway, the result sounds excellent. It's very Orion-ish.
Cheers,
Davey.
Generally, when you look at the raw horizontal response of the mid-bass driver of a typical box speaker you'll see the polar response narrow as you move up in frequency. This is what you'd expect and the responses at 0, 30, 45, 60 degrees should show a uniform and progressive roll-off respectively. With a dipole the rear radiation can add at off-axis angles with the front and you end up with a "widening" of the polar response at certain frequencies and angles. It looks like kind of a "shelf" in the off-axis response when you would normally expect an even roll-off. So, you can end up with a non-uniform horizontal response that has more of a reverberant field than would normally be the case even though the on-axis response is flat.
When I was fiddling with the baffle for this system in addition to the Seas driver I also tested Vifa PL18's and Peerless 850122. These particular drivers have a much larger magnet/basket assembly than the Seas and they vent/open more toward the sides rather than the rear.....the "sides" being in very close proximity to the circular baffle cutout wall in those cases. I could see some obvious differences in the relative polar responses of these compared to the Seas driver. The Seas driver looked much "worse," ie less uniform. I assumed this was because there was considerably more rear radiation from the Seas driver. I did some experimentation with pieces of cardboard on the sides to try and improve the situation and had some limited success.
My point is that drivers with large/constrictive basket assemblies tend to limit the rear radiation from the driver quite a bit. I guess this could be viewed as beneficial by some folks, but the design is then tending away from an "open" baffle design when I thought that's what the intention was. You end up with a sort of hybrid box/open design.
I think the objective of these types of speakers is to make as much use of the rear radiation as possible so the power response is more even. The sound IMHE is then much more spacious and open than what a conventional speaker would provide.
However, maybe I'm obsessing too much about this particular aspect of the design.
SL seems to think this is important and I'm not ready to discount his outlook without good reason. Anyway, the result sounds excellent. It's very Orion-ish.
Cheers,
Davey.
Davey said:
Davey,
I think there's a number of things to weigh in significance, starting with the cone behavior and basket design, and working outwards from there.
The Dayton's aren't as open in the rear as I would like; neither are the M8a's. The best midwoofer I've seen recently in that regard is the Adire Extremis, of which I have 8 on order from the pre-buy - I'm guessing those should be shipping pretty soon, haven't been back to the Adire site to check on status- I've been spending WAY too much time on business travel the last three months (including this week, last week, most of October and Setptember - yuck!) But the Adire certainly come at a price premium- it remains to be seen whether they'll earn it, though I'm hopeful. The Extremis 6 and the Dayton RS270 are my main candidates for midwoofers in my RD50 based system in developement.
My personal preference is to evaluate the cone behavior first nearfield, then look at what can be achieved with the complete driver on some range of baffle sizes on axis and 30 degree off axis. Ideally, the ideal driver behavior (with regards to front to rear interaction and a specific baffle may be down in senstivitiy, but not basically too different in frequency response.
Besides that, there are issues of how low one chooses to use the driver, and whether the driver Q will affect the frequency response, but these aren't very critical IME for the midwoofer- especially since I prefer or use crossovers a bit higher than SL and many others- because at this time I'm not using W cabinets on the woofers, but just short U's. There's many ways to skin a cat, and because I'm trying to do this usually with passive crossovers (soft of the odd man out in the DIY community), that adds some additional constraints.
I have been thinking about how the RS180's may fare as midwoofers in a diople, too; I'm hoping they can be crossed significantly higher than the RS225, but my first projects with them will be in boxes, for some HT applications.
In the meantime, I'm going to finish my pair of Arvo Part's (we tweaked up ThomasW's two weeks ago, and I was quite happy with the outcome- may not get the documentation of it all done and posted for a few weeks, though. My day job is applications engineering and technical publishing, so my subconscious rebels a little bit when my hobby starts to look too much like my work! So I'm running behind in documentation!
~Jon
Thanks Davey. I'll definitely be looking at the off axis response. Since I'm using a modified Phoenix style mounting, the rear of the speaker flange is flush with the rear of the baffle, so the driver is not recessed into the baffle like a front mount would be. This keeps the rear window as large as possible.
I just compared the M8A to the MG22. The Vifa driver is larger in diameter, has a smaller magnet structure, and the rear windows are a bit larger. But what really struck me is that the Vifa driver has a much smaller surround, so that there is more cone area visible throught the basket cutouts. The M8A has a very large surround, so very little of the cone is visible through the cutouts. This may be what originally lead me to be concerned about the lack of rear radiation with the HiVi driver. Unlike Jon, I'm hopeing to push this driver down to 100Hz LR4, to cross over to a small sealed sub (I know, the main advantage of dipole is in the bass region, but I don't have room for it in my 12x14' room, not enough room modes to support dipole bass according to SL).
I hope to have some preliminary measurements within the week.
Ron
I just compared the M8A to the MG22. The Vifa driver is larger in diameter, has a smaller magnet structure, and the rear windows are a bit larger. But what really struck me is that the Vifa driver has a much smaller surround, so that there is more cone area visible throught the basket cutouts. The M8A has a very large surround, so very little of the cone is visible through the cutouts. This may be what originally lead me to be concerned about the lack of rear radiation with the HiVi driver. Unlike Jon, I'm hopeing to push this driver down to 100Hz LR4, to cross over to a small sealed sub (I know, the main advantage of dipole is in the bass region, but I don't have room for it in my 12x14' room, not enough room modes to support dipole bass according to SL).
I hope to have some preliminary measurements within the week.
Ron
Wow, glad to see the thread has attracted much discussion. I will be very interested in seeing test results by those that already have the drivers. Hopefully I will be able to contribute in the coming two months.
I do have a further question however. Would it be worth it or helpful to round over the back of the mounting hole for the woofer in an OB? My assumptions without any testing as of yet would tend towards it would. It seems the back wave is hindered by having the woofer mounted in a 3/4" baffle for instance. Anyone have thoughts or previous experience? Is it worth the trouble?
I do have a further question however. Would it be worth it or helpful to round over the back of the mounting hole for the woofer in an OB? My assumptions without any testing as of yet would tend towards it would. It seems the back wave is hindered by having the woofer mounted in a 3/4" baffle for instance. Anyone have thoughts or previous experience? Is it worth the trouble?
I always use a 45 degree bevel on the back of the mounting hole, whether for OB or box speakers. It only takes a couple of seconds to do, so why not do it?
In my current OB, I"m mounting the woofer from the rear, and beveling the front. There is no blockage of the rear wave. I'll see how much of an effect it has on the front wave though.
In my current OB, I"m mounting the woofer from the rear, and beveling the front. There is no blockage of the rear wave. I'll see how much of an effect it has on the front wave though.
Well I bit and bought two 7"ers today. Hopefully I can do some simple electrical tests and possibly check the rear radiation with what limited equipment I have. With my upcoming workload though, this might be delayed till early January.
Others who have some drivers and time, keep myself and everyone else posted when you perform some tests.
Others who have some drivers and time, keep myself and everyone else posted when you perform some tests.
To follow up... I have RS150's plus Seas 27TDFC (MTM) playing on small baffles (24" by 7.5" which will eventually get affixed to boxes) right now, just to break things in while I finish the kitchen remodel (the decision was made to just take out the old tile we didn't want, so now I have holes in the wall to patch. . . and a biiiig dusty mess!)
The large magnet definitely inhibits radiation to the back. How can it not? But, it's noticeable compared to the few other driver options I have in open baffle. The sound isn't quite as open as it might be in certain circumstances. Placed relatively near a wall to the back and I think it's *better* than drivers that don't have as much behind them. There's an ambience that's there without seeming lost. But that could just be a quality difference in what I have on hand.
They certainly handle it well. Big bass tracks, no noise at all from the drivers. Not much bass, but who's realistically asking for that from these?! Not me.
That aside, the drivers are just impressive for the cost.
C
The large magnet definitely inhibits radiation to the back. How can it not? But, it's noticeable compared to the few other driver options I have in open baffle. The sound isn't quite as open as it might be in certain circumstances. Placed relatively near a wall to the back and I think it's *better* than drivers that don't have as much behind them. There's an ambience that's there without seeming lost. But that could just be a quality difference in what I have on hand.
They certainly handle it well. Big bass tracks, no noise at all from the drivers. Not much bass, but who's realistically asking for that from these?! Not me.
That aside, the drivers are just impressive for the cost.
C
maybe...
hello!
i've been wanting to learn more about crossovers and open baffles so i thought that a project was in order...
how does this sound as far as speakers...
tweeter: 1x 275-070, dayton silk dome tweeter
mid: 1x 295-364, dayton 7" reference mid
woofers: 2x 295-315, dayton 10" classic woofer
the only thing i'm worried about is the tweeter...i think i need one that will go a bit lower than that...
if built, these will be as similar as possible to the orions...why? because those are some dead sexy loudspeakers if i do say so myself!
what type of crossover should i use, and what frequencies should it be at?
the aim of this project is to build a simple (cheap, but not shitty) 3 way open baffle...so if there are cheaper alternatives i'm all ears
i mostly want to experiment with crossovers and open baffles in one project...
thanks!
hello!
i've been wanting to learn more about crossovers and open baffles so i thought that a project was in order...
how does this sound as far as speakers...
tweeter: 1x 275-070, dayton silk dome tweeter
mid: 1x 295-364, dayton 7" reference mid
woofers: 2x 295-315, dayton 10" classic woofer
the only thing i'm worried about is the tweeter...i think i need one that will go a bit lower than that...
if built, these will be as similar as possible to the orions...why? because those are some dead sexy loudspeakers if i do say so myself!
what type of crossover should i use, and what frequencies should it be at?
the aim of this project is to build a simple (cheap, but not shitty) 3 way open baffle...so if there are cheaper alternatives i'm all ears
i mostly want to experiment with crossovers and open baffles in one project...
thanks!
Re: maybe...
My thoughts-
Crossovers- open baffles require some compensation; the Orion uses a lot of active processing (all analog). I believe that the cheapest most effective way to do this, if you are going to have your computer in the listening room anyway, is to try a sound card with DSP running KXproject. I haven't tried this yet, but I really want to soon.
Tweeter- you have to understand, the Orion has a LOT of its sound invested in an extraordinary tweeter. There is talk of a Dayton RS tweeter- but it might not be for months. I'd go with an Usher, or Seas, or Morel tweeter. Use a 4th order around 2 khz or so
Mids- seriously consider MTM. - maybe with the 6" driver, since this will allow a higher crossover and more tweeter choice.
Woofers- Dipole bass takes a LOT of displacement. The project I linked to earlier has the Dayton RS 10"s used, and they're highpassed around 50 hz (IIRC) with a sealed subwooofer. You need a 10" with a lot of Xmax in a U-frame (like NaO), or at least 2 10s with moderate Xmax- or possibly two cheap 12" woofers. It's really a tossup what the best plan here is. I saw a website linked on the forum with dollars for displacement for a ton of drivers- but nothing linking that to distortion. We want a low distortion driver with tons of displacement that is smooth up past a 200 hz crossover- and it's got to be cheap. If someone finds that- please let me know!
We've got KXproject to replace the active signal processor, the Dayton RS mids, and a couple of tweeters that will be "good enough" with a 2khz crossover... but where are the woofers to replace the Peerless XLS woofers? That's the last piece to this puzzle, as far as I'm concerned.
nerd of nerds said:hello!
i've been wanting to learn more about crossovers and open baffles so i thought that a project was in order...
how does this sound as far as speakers...
tweeter: 1x 275-070, dayton silk dome tweeter
mid: 1x 295-364, dayton 7" reference mid
woofers: 2x 295-315, dayton 10" classic woofer
the only thing i'm worried about is the tweeter...i think i need one that will go a bit lower than that...
if built, these will be as similar as possible to the orions...why? because those are some dead sexy loudspeakers if i do say so myself!
what type of crossover should i use, and what frequencies should it be at?
the aim of this project is to build a simple (cheap, but not shitty) 3 way open baffle...so if there are cheaper alternatives i'm all ears
i mostly want to experiment with crossovers and open baffles in one project...
thanks!
My thoughts-
Crossovers- open baffles require some compensation; the Orion uses a lot of active processing (all analog). I believe that the cheapest most effective way to do this, if you are going to have your computer in the listening room anyway, is to try a sound card with DSP running KXproject. I haven't tried this yet, but I really want to soon.
Tweeter- you have to understand, the Orion has a LOT of its sound invested in an extraordinary tweeter. There is talk of a Dayton RS tweeter- but it might not be for months. I'd go with an Usher, or Seas, or Morel tweeter. Use a 4th order around 2 khz or so
Mids- seriously consider MTM. - maybe with the 6" driver, since this will allow a higher crossover and more tweeter choice.
Woofers- Dipole bass takes a LOT of displacement. The project I linked to earlier has the Dayton RS 10"s used, and they're highpassed around 50 hz (IIRC) with a sealed subwooofer. You need a 10" with a lot of Xmax in a U-frame (like NaO), or at least 2 10s with moderate Xmax- or possibly two cheap 12" woofers. It's really a tossup what the best plan here is. I saw a website linked on the forum with dollars for displacement for a ton of drivers- but nothing linking that to distortion. We want a low distortion driver with tons of displacement that is smooth up past a 200 hz crossover- and it's got to be cheap. If someone finds that- please let me know!
We've got KXproject to replace the active signal processor, the Dayton RS mids, and a couple of tweeters that will be "good enough" with a 2khz crossover... but where are the woofers to replace the Peerless XLS woofers? That's the last piece to this puzzle, as far as I'm concerned.
Sounds like an interesting plan. A big one as well. For a first 3-way AND OB project it sounds like quite an endeavour. Are you planning on using passive or active crossovers?
I just got two dayton 7"ers today (the other two will come around christmas time) and did some "I can't wait to put some voltage through the coils" testing without a baffle just to hear them. Of course they sounded dull and a bit shrill, like any other speaker played without being mounted on a baffle just laying on the floor, so I don't have much in the way of experience with them yet. I did however note the cone breakup a bit on a plain old third order crossover I had (2500Hz for the xover freq. maybe?) so a steep and early crossover frequency is needed, along with a notch filter most likely.
The Dayton tweeter might be able to go under 2000Hz with a steep filter (4th order or higher) but distortion might start to rise. Anyone with some dayton silk dome experience care to add to that?
I'd say as a quick estimate you'd be looking at 200Hz and down for the dayton 10s, 200-1800Hz for the Dayton RS 7", and 1800+ for the Dayton tweeter. I'd also make sure most of the filters as steep as possible (again 4th order) to minimize driver interaction, as to not over drive the tweeter and to try and keep the dayton RS out of the cone breakup area. Anyone want to let me know from more experience if 1800Hz as the crossover frequency for the dayton tweeter is too low even with a 4th order filter? I'm sure its probably a close call. Maybe 2000Hz or slightly above might be a better option.
The Open Baffle aspect brings a whole different ballgame as well. Your bass response will roll off early depending on the baffle size (any sanely sized baffle in my opinion will start with an early 6dB roll off) so you will want some equalization, most likely active EQ unless you want your sensitivity to go WAY down and deal with some increasingly complicated crossover circuitry. As for the baffle dimensions and type, you guess is as good as mine, it will probably take some experimenting and measurements.
Like I said, the project sounds promising and low budget, but its a lot for a simple learner project. Don't let that stop you though, people here on the forums tend to poopoo often when someone embarks on a complicated project to use as a begining learning experience. Just be prepared to accept that you might not like the results and need to do some re-designing. Heck, I'll probably end up re-designing my planned project a few times too.
I just got two dayton 7"ers today (the other two will come around christmas time) and did some "I can't wait to put some voltage through the coils" testing without a baffle just to hear them. Of course they sounded dull and a bit shrill, like any other speaker played without being mounted on a baffle just laying on the floor, so I don't have much in the way of experience with them yet. I did however note the cone breakup a bit on a plain old third order crossover I had (2500Hz for the xover freq. maybe?) so a steep and early crossover frequency is needed, along with a notch filter most likely.
The Dayton tweeter might be able to go under 2000Hz with a steep filter (4th order or higher) but distortion might start to rise. Anyone with some dayton silk dome experience care to add to that?
I'd say as a quick estimate you'd be looking at 200Hz and down for the dayton 10s, 200-1800Hz for the Dayton RS 7", and 1800+ for the Dayton tweeter. I'd also make sure most of the filters as steep as possible (again 4th order) to minimize driver interaction, as to not over drive the tweeter and to try and keep the dayton RS out of the cone breakup area. Anyone want to let me know from more experience if 1800Hz as the crossover frequency for the dayton tweeter is too low even with a 4th order filter? I'm sure its probably a close call. Maybe 2000Hz or slightly above might be a better option.
The Open Baffle aspect brings a whole different ballgame as well. Your bass response will roll off early depending on the baffle size (any sanely sized baffle in my opinion will start with an early 6dB roll off) so you will want some equalization, most likely active EQ unless you want your sensitivity to go WAY down and deal with some increasingly complicated crossover circuitry. As for the baffle dimensions and type, you guess is as good as mine, it will probably take some experimenting and measurements.
Like I said, the project sounds promising and low budget, but its a lot for a simple learner project. Don't let that stop you though, people here on the forums tend to poopoo often when someone embarks on a complicated project to use as a begining learning experience. Just be prepared to accept that you might not like the results and need to do some re-designing. Heck, I'll probably end up re-designing my planned project a few times too.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.