Similar to the OP's idea of combining a 12" woofer with a small fullrange is this recent project "Terra Luna" by the german magazine Klang & Ton. Both units are Visaton, the graphics at least are quite interesting.
However it crosses at 900hz, which may be relatively low for a 2 way box, but it's high compared to what you are looking for:
Description: TerraLuna
Off topic (sorry) but that is a prime candidate for the ugliest speaker ever designed. I can only look at it very briefly before averting my eyes.
Naaah, orangutan = man
Yes, man can be ugly
But also manas=thought, so think....
Before, I quoted Tuxedocivic but now his absolutism in saying passive=bad
doesn't fit very well.
Of course nobody is experimenting with 2" and waveguides, I see...
Yes, man can be ugly
But also manas=thought, so think....
Before, I quoted Tuxedocivic but now his absolutism in saying passive=bad
doesn't fit very well.
Of course nobody is experimenting with 2" and waveguides, I see...
I've built many uglier 😀
I've done passive as well, but it's generally a bad idea, as in, not worth it. But in some cases passive is the appropriate way to go. Most discussion around active vs passive for a FAST has unanimous agreement that active is better. You would prefer passive for such a low cross over?
I've done a lot with waveguides with compression drivers and dome tweeters, but not on a 2" full range. Do you have an example you could share? Very interesting idea to me. Would have to be very large to be of any use I imagine?
Hi, care must be taken in choosing the driver.
The ones with inverse surround work better, as there isn't any primary source of diffraction
I've tried 6-7-8" cones ( exp shape ) and the diameter depends on which crossover point is chosen.
The limit is the power- 50 W is determined by the amount of power delivered to the mid-hi unit usually...so no big deal for active .
And the results may vary, depending upon circustances : I have a 10" crossed higher ( about 800 Hz) together with a 2" +6 " WG
And a 8" with a 2"+ 8 " waveguide .....
The ones with inverse surround work better, as there isn't any primary source of diffraction
I've tried 6-7-8" cones ( exp shape ) and the diameter depends on which crossover point is chosen.
The limit is the power- 50 W is determined by the amount of power delivered to the mid-hi unit usually...so no big deal for active .
And the results may vary, depending upon circustances : I have a 10" crossed higher ( about 800 Hz) together with a 2" +6 " WG
And a 8" with a 2"+ 8 " waveguide .....
Not the ugliest. Check out this poor woofer:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
well as they say, beauty is in the "eye" of the beholder - certainly subjective, and variable - some days you can look in the mirror and not want to laugh .... 😱
but of course digression is my middle name - if "ugly" refers to the squat 2-way in photo posted above, it's not even close IMO
for ugly, as in "not in my living room you don't, honey" I'd certainly nominate early WAMM - and you could probably pick at random from the archive review list at 6moons and find something what would be similarly ungainly
but of course when it's all about performance, appearance shouldn't matter - which takes me back to the "mirror" comment 😀
kevin, that should have come with a warning - I almost choked on my coffee
methinks that had to be bred in a petri dish
Active is easier but passive will be simpler in the long run when done right. Less wires, less amps, less complicated.
Also, there are plenty of three ways that cross in the region between 200 Hz and 500 Hz. Not sure why Tux is having trouble, but there is no reason to think that it's not doable.
Also, there are plenty of three ways that cross in the region between 200 Hz and 500 Hz. Not sure why Tux is having trouble, but there is no reason to think that it's not doable.
Zaph spoke to the full-range-ability of the Aurasound NS3 The Madisound Speaker Store
The 3" diameter limits high frequency beaming and it's 10mm xmax mean it can still put out lows. I have yet to buy these but I've been itching to for quite a while.
I'm sure there are better ones if your purpose is home theater where the off axis response isn't critical.
-Matt
Oh and welcome to the forum! =D
The 3" diameter limits high frequency beaming and it's 10mm xmax mean it can still put out lows. I have yet to buy these but I've been itching to for quite a while.
I'm sure there are better ones if your purpose is home theater where the off axis response isn't critical.
-Matt
Oh and welcome to the forum! =D
"Shouldn't" being the operative word here.
You haven't forgotten "WAF", have you?
Of course not! 🙂
I was alluding, not so cleverly apparently, to potential differences in tonality / texture / "dynamic speed", radiation patterns, whatever other buzzwords you like, that could call attention to themselves. This is not necessarily an issue only with drivers of such varied vintage.
bingo to that
with the availability of decent enough sounding digital amps that can cost less than the larger value components required for such passive XOs, active with PLLXO makes more sense than ever
I second that kit, the little FRS5X is a cheap and wonderful 2inch driver. Cross at 500hz or higher and its good, limited SPL but THE best value small fullranger ive found yet.
You have a point.
FYI the stand is a modified Ikea table.
They wanted to make something that vaguely looked like 1970s monitor speakers.
I read in the K+T forum that it could also work well as a floorstander, just imagine the box lengthened, keeping the width. The bass would sound different of course, I didn't check with WinISD yet. Such a floor stander would already look a lot more reasonably proportioned (but big!).
In any case, when looking at the measurements, it seems like a really convincing speaker for the reasonable price.
Last edited:
I'm not having trouble, I've done it plenty of times. I'm saying the added difficulty, the cost of components, the impedance issues all add up to active being the better route. I don't understand the big deal, usually I have agreement on this issue. I've pointed out the pitfalls numerous times on these boards, here's a thread in particular: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/227834-cross-over-design-woofer-choices-fast.html
I show in that thread the trouble of woofer impedance. In other threads I've shown why a 2nd order or LCR is necessary on the full ranger because of the impedance peak causing a peak in the response. Also the difficulty of inductance in the woofer. On and on. It gets expensive. You can see from that thread I've done it before and I've done it numerous times since, but the times I've done it actively it's alway worked out smoother, easier, less hassle, and cheaper. To get the same performance out of the passive I'd need over a hundred bucks worth of cross over components and thats for basic stuff.
To the OP, at 250hz, I recommend active. I've been there and done it and that's my recommendation.
Last edited:
And all I'm saying is that your's is one perspective and then there are others. For someone starting out new, the expense and complication of adding an active crossover and a second amp, matching levels and so on, might be too much to digest. If you look at John Bsuch's crossover for the Manzanita, it is a simple affair that gets the job done in an open baffle design no less, where there are more complicated response issues to deal with. It can be done, it need not be complex or expensive.
I am Pico! Well, when I have a Waveguide I will. Its an idea I really want to try and will, I think, work rather well.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.