It depends what you mean by good sound. A reasonable operating range for a well made and appropriately sized driver is a decade. Above this cone resonances become problematic and below it adequate clean output becomes problematic. The latter can be addressed with multiple drivers. The resonances can be addressed to a limited extent with exotic materials and complex crossovers.
A 5 kHz crossover is a 2-3" driver and 120 Hz is a 6.5-8" driver. A tweeter with a ring of 2-3" drivers around would work to an extent though the directivity might need thinking about to get good sound.
Crossing at 120 Hz to a single sub would not generally be considered good sound because it will be locatable. 2 subs under the mains would be fine.
You even could argue that crossing at 5kHz is moot. Pick a wideband that does the job to 20k, those two octaves can’t be hard for a driver that can do 120Hz-5kHz.
Since there are no max SPL requirements, the Scanspeak 10F would do the job just fine, by the way. And quite a few midranges from pro brands like Faital or 18Sound.
Since there are no max SPL requirements, the Scanspeak 10F would do the job just fine, by the way. And quite a few midranges from pro brands like Faital or 18Sound.
Most of how a driver sounds depends on how you use it. It's difficult to follow negative comments when you know that someone may not have used it correctly. If a driver sounds good with little work done, it's not necessarily a sign that it's better.
It's possible, the diameter and Xmax of the driver will determine the output level possible.
Obviously, a larger driver can put out more clean SPL for a given excursion:
A 6" could go a bit more than twice as loud as a 3", but the larger the diameter, the more narrow the dispersion will be ~5kHz.
That said, covering such a wide range, I'd gladly trade some "beaming" ( a narrow HF "window") for the far less
inter modulation distortion of the larger cone.
Something like the 5" B&C 5FG44-8 (~£100/$100) would be a good bet:
It could be used in a sealed cabinet and cover 120-5kHz nicely.
I'm using a B&C 4NDF34 (with no tweeter) as the center speaker in my home theater, it's upper response looks similar (extending 1/3 octave higher), but sounds smooth sitting anywhere on the sofa at 2 meters distance.
Art
You cant have your cake and eat it to. A midrange up to 5khz fine,but you wont get down to 120hz.its called the law of physics.
Of course you can, the aforementioned 10F covers it very well. And does so for moderately loud domestic sound levels. But don’t test drive or party with it.
5kH is really high. The lower the crossover point for the tweeter the better as long as the tweeter is not over driven with output or power, most 1" domes ar safe at 2kH. A lower crossover has so many sonic benefits.
My goodness, you are having a hard time getting a straight answer to your simple question.
Yes, you can run a driver from 120 Hz to 5 kHz. It probably needs to be 5 inches diameter, no more or less.
That’s exactly what this design is:
Thread 'Constant Directivity without Horns or Waveguides'
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/constant-directivity-without-horns-or-waveguides.422090/
The point of the post isn’t really the design of this system, it’s really defraction issues. But in any case Here is the crossover
Post in thread 'Constant Directivity without Horns or Waveguides'
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...thout-horns-or-waveguides.422090/post-7891234
This thread discusses the polar pattern from a different perspective. It shows that up to about 3KHz the 5 inch driver has good dispersion out to about 45° and then beyond that it starts to sag, when far off axis. Pretty good performance, really.
Post in thread 'Experience of using AI programmes for loudspeaker design'
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...es-for-loudspeaker-design.420445/post-7977716
Keep in mind that different 5 inch drivers are going to have different radiation patterns depending on the Cone material and some other variables, so you will need to take a close look at the off axis curves.
Perry,
Something to point out and granted it's driver dependent, but at 5kH, you are probably in the cone break up mode of even a 5", you cannot "EQ" these out. These are stored energy and can be very audible, why go that high? The polar will be better with a lower xo point, the inter driver spacing will be more forgiving hense better vertical polar response, the sound stage will always be bigger ( IMHO) and the tweeter he is using can handle it. There are no benefits to a higher xo frequency, the only benefit I can see is that it might be a tad more simple to make the crossover sum properly.... But that is a maybe, any thoughts?
G.
Something to point out and granted it's driver dependent, but at 5kH, you are probably in the cone break up mode of even a 5", you cannot "EQ" these out. These are stored energy and can be very audible, why go that high? The polar will be better with a lower xo point, the inter driver spacing will be more forgiving hense better vertical polar response, the sound stage will always be bigger ( IMHO) and the tweeter he is using can handle it. There are no benefits to a higher xo frequency, the only benefit I can see is that it might be a tad more simple to make the crossover sum properly.... But that is a maybe, any thoughts?
G.
The Dayton Audio RS100 can play up to 5kHz. Tons of tweeters easily play lower than 5kHz, so maybe the RS125 would go to 4kHz. The Dayton Reference Series are small for their nominal size, so the RS100 is listed as a 4" driver but has the Sd of a typical 3.5" driver. The RS125, listed as a 5" driver, is closer to a 4.5" driver in reality. I made a small bookshelf speaker with the RS100 crossed at 5kHz to Dayton Audio PTMini-6 crossed at 5kHz and an F3 in the mid 60's.
The RS100 will play down to 120Hz easily...just not loudly.
What about an MTM with two RS100's?
Or better yet, an MTM with two RS125-8's running from 120Hz to around 4kHz?
The RS100 will play down to 120Hz easily...just not loudly.
What about an MTM with two RS100's?
Or better yet, an MTM with two RS125-8's running from 120Hz to around 4kHz?
Read all of my three links above very very carefully. The 5 kHz crossover gives a better radiation pattern than a lower one with that particular 8” baffle width. I provide both measurements in simulations to prove it.
The Visaton BG17-8 I bought was made in Germany. The Parts Express woofer I bought was made in *****. Guess which one meets specification more consistently unit to unit? Guess which will be cheaper in tomorrow's economy?
Yes, it will not go well - IME. 120Hz is just way too low if you wish to also have an ok directivity at 5kHz.
I have the RS125 on the shelf, and it plays pretty good bass for its size, and does not break up before 7-8kHz. I crossed it at around 2kHz to an SB26ADC in an Augerpro waveguide - worked great. It could be crossed higher, but I have not tried, but the curves do indicate that it should be possible.... still would only go to maybe 3,5-4Khz.... and you will always have to consider the directivity of the tweeter, which IME almost always become much easier, if you have some kind of waveguide.
Maybe look at BMR drivers or some polycone drivers. Crossing at 5kHz it may be best to use something with damped breakup unless you can use a sharp filter, or you have a special woofer-mid that has a very high breakup frequency (but then that will be $)
Some poly cones have virtually no breakup, others have quite an amount as they are stiffer cones etc
Scanspeak Revelator could be quite good if the budget is higher; lower amount of breakup and plenty of bass capability.
Some poly cones have virtually no breakup, others have quite an amount as they are stiffer cones etc
Scanspeak Revelator could be quite good if the budget is higher; lower amount of breakup and plenty of bass capability.
The Monacor MSH115HQ will handle that range pretty respectably. It's actually a hugely under-rated driver with a lot on offer. put them in a ported box, tuned well, and you should have no issues filling your 120-5K range quite well..
For the 5" 2 way I've been discussing, here is the vertical polar response:
The Reference Series have been around for 20+ years and Dayton Audio and SB Acoustics have a very good reputation for reliable data sheets. But I have no reason to believe Visaton doesn't also have good quality control and accurate specs.
The Visaton is about half the price of the RS125-8. The RS125 has much lower Fs, higher xmax, lower Le. The Reference Series are known to have low distortion. I assume the Visaton will remain much cheaper, it doesn't appear to be in the same league as the RS125 for this particular project (i.e., running 120Hz to 5000hz.)
There are 170 RS125-8s in stock at PE with more expected by May 2nd. Goods "on the water" at the time the tariffs are announced are not subject to the tariff. Unless the OP is planning on making more than 200 pairs or plans on waiting a year or two, I don't see the tariffs (which have been in effect for 2-1/2 days and were significantly exempted this morning) being an issue.
Perry,
Ok, did much more reading, im still trying to wrap my rhead around this, some of the graphs are not marked, tryig to decifer them.
So what im hearing is that by chosing the higher XO point, you are mating the woffer and tweeters directivity at a point that they are equal and hench becomes constant over a wide bandwidth and that the measurment shown are in the vertical axis? Im trying to visulize this, its counter intutive, you should have poor vertical lobig simply because the interdriver spacing is greater than the XO point, not sure how this would ever go away, give me a moment. What do see that concernes me is that your system measurments show that you are clearly pushing the mid up to its break up modes and you added about 3 dB of electrial gain in your XO filter to further push up the woofers sagging top end response in order to sum flat at the XO point. You are adding electrical resonance from the XO and you have resonant enegry coming from the breakup modes them selves, IMHO, this is audible and any constant directivity that you may gain will be degraded by resonance on resonance. Of course, this is my opinion but a waterfall might help clear this up. I always use low Q filters with very steep slopes, this is kind of my thang 🙂
G
Ok, did much more reading, im still trying to wrap my rhead around this, some of the graphs are not marked, tryig to decifer them.
So what im hearing is that by chosing the higher XO point, you are mating the woffer and tweeters directivity at a point that they are equal and hench becomes constant over a wide bandwidth and that the measurment shown are in the vertical axis? Im trying to visulize this, its counter intutive, you should have poor vertical lobig simply because the interdriver spacing is greater than the XO point, not sure how this would ever go away, give me a moment. What do see that concernes me is that your system measurments show that you are clearly pushing the mid up to its break up modes and you added about 3 dB of electrial gain in your XO filter to further push up the woofers sagging top end response in order to sum flat at the XO point. You are adding electrical resonance from the XO and you have resonant enegry coming from the breakup modes them selves, IMHO, this is audible and any constant directivity that you may gain will be degraded by resonance on resonance. Of course, this is my opinion but a waterfall might help clear this up. I always use low Q filters with very steep slopes, this is kind of my thang 🙂
G