I like to share what I have found.
I am experimenting with a no of speaker configuration based on MK's MLTL worksheet. The speaker config is based on
1. 1 full range driver and MLTL cabinet, the driver is
FE167E.
2. 2 way speakers using same cabinet based on Usher
8945 and 9950 tweeter. Overall efficiency is less
than 87db.
I try to match the driver to the cabinet and do the necessary tweaking to match to the cabinet. Option 1 sounds ok but really lacks the bass response and the high is not 100% satisfactory. I believe option 2 is the way to go for MLTL, it will give sufficient bass and top end.
However option 2 lacks the efficiency which FE167E provides. my next step is to use better efficiency woofer about 95 db and compatible compression driver cross around 1.5Khz, similar concept to audiokinesis speakers. I use active filter this combo will sound awesome. Overall efficiency will approach 95db.
Any comments welcomed.
I am experimenting with a no of speaker configuration based on MK's MLTL worksheet. The speaker config is based on
1. 1 full range driver and MLTL cabinet, the driver is
FE167E.
2. 2 way speakers using same cabinet based on Usher
8945 and 9950 tweeter. Overall efficiency is less
than 87db.
I try to match the driver to the cabinet and do the necessary tweaking to match to the cabinet. Option 1 sounds ok but really lacks the bass response and the high is not 100% satisfactory. I believe option 2 is the way to go for MLTL, it will give sufficient bass and top end.
However option 2 lacks the efficiency which FE167E provides. my next step is to use better efficiency woofer about 95 db and compatible compression driver cross around 1.5Khz, similar concept to audiokinesis speakers. I use active filter this combo will sound awesome. Overall efficiency will approach 95db.
Any comments welcomed.
Interesting. And there you go: shows how people favour different things. I really enjoy my 167 MLTLs for example -for the money, I haven't heard a better floorstander -we're really in the realm of differences rather than superiority from this point.
In re the XO, it's not to my personal taste -I generally don't like crossovers at that frequency, but OTOH, I'm a big fan of compression drivers, and if you value the presentation a multiway of this particular type gives, then that looks to me like a good way to go, assuming you design it right. Good luck & let us know how things progress.
In re the XO, it's not to my personal taste -I generally don't like crossovers at that frequency, but OTOH, I'm a big fan of compression drivers, and if you value the presentation a multiway of this particular type gives, then that looks to me like a good way to go, assuming you design it right. Good luck & let us know how things progress.
Nothing says that the ML TL concept is only for full range drivers. Two or three way will also benefit from the design approach. The typical trade-off between multiway and full range is higher cost and extension at the top and bottom frequencies for the multiway versus probably lower cost and no crossover (will still need a BSC circuit) for the full range approach.
MJK said:
I understand if it is more than 1 way, there is added costs, if you think about it Lowther full range is not cheap either. Some people prefer one way because of its coherent sound reproduction, that I understand as well.
I believe 2 way is probably the best of both worlds, ie better sound than a cheap to moderate priced full range and easier to design than a 3-way. My anticipated cost would be about $260 per side excluding x-over(I use active x-over and apply BSC using this x-over). I have the option to design passive X-over if I think the combo is worth the effort. I think a single Lowther costs more.
If you are building a two way design with drivers that have the same high end status as the Lowther does in the full range driver world, I am not so sure. A Lowther represents a driver near the top of the full range driver food chain. If I look at a few of the SEAS Excel tweeters and a matching SEAS mid-bass drivers the price starts to approach or exceed the model of Lowther (PM6C works great and I would not go above a DX3) that would work in a ML TL enclosure. There are even more expensive tweeters and mid bass units available near the top of their respsective food chains.
But returning to more typical drivers that the average DIYer can afford. The Fostex drivers would be very price competitive with decent quality two way pairings of drivers. If anything, I would think it would be difficult to build a decent two way for less than the cost of the FE-167E driver. That was my point.
Leaving the crossover parts out since you are bi-amping, how are you including the cost of the active crossover and a second amp in the comparison? Those are additional parts if you want an apples to apples comparison. The costs of a two way, passive or active, is not trivial and I believe an equivalent two way system would extend beyond the cost of just the FE-167E drivers and a BSC circuit for equivalent acoustic performance.
I am not disagreeing with you in concept, I just want to make sure it is a fair trade-off study.
MJK,
Thanks for your input, I understand your point, I find FE167E in an MLTL cabinet does not give me the sound satisfaction that I can derive from a two way. It lacks the "body" sound that a 2way will provide besides the top and bottom end I am not totally satisfy with. It plays certain of music well, others like rock and heavy metal, is beyond its league. I play all kind of music.
The combo I am proposing will be very dynamic , open soundstage, adds more "body" to the sound(determines by the woofer).
BTW I like experimentation and keeps me off the street and bars! What I don't like ie drivers, I can sell them on Ebay and recover some money. This is a cheap hobby compared to others, no travelling costs, etc.
BTW Martin, thanks for the worksheets...
Thanks for your input, I understand your point, I find FE167E in an MLTL cabinet does not give me the sound satisfaction that I can derive from a two way. It lacks the "body" sound that a 2way will provide besides the top and bottom end I am not totally satisfy with. It plays certain of music well, others like rock and heavy metal, is beyond its league. I play all kind of music.
The combo I am proposing will be very dynamic , open soundstage, adds more "body" to the sound(determines by the woofer).
BTW I like experimentation and keeps me off the street and bars! What I don't like ie drivers, I can sell them on Ebay and recover some money. This is a cheap hobby compared to others, no travelling costs, etc.
BTW Martin, thanks for the worksheets...
I believe 2 way is probably the best of both worlds, ie better sound than a cheap to moderate priced full range and easier to design than a 3-way.
I totally agree. The top of the food chain ( i like that Martin) is a 4 way horn system. But then again who can afford the volume/cost/SAF.
The OBs that Martin designed does what i want. I have designed horn systems (SD ) in the past that would shake the walls and give an extreem BW, but the intricate ,detailed and huge size would not be built by anybody but a few wild eyed types.( you know, Postal workers and the like)
ron
(my mentor and friend "the hardest thing you can do is to make something simple"
I totally agree. The top of the food chain ( i like that Martin) is a 4 way horn system. But then again who can afford the volume/cost/SAF.
The OBs that Martin designed does what i want. I have designed horn systems (SD ) in the past that would shake the walls and give an extreem BW, but the intricate ,detailed and huge size would not be built by anybody but a few wild eyed types.( you know, Postal workers and the like)
ron
(my mentor and friend "the hardest thing you can do is to make something simple"
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.