I don't have experience with hi end full-ranges, but my impression is high fq part sound not so clear, and bass is almost diaster. only voice is perfect
Wrong. There is no such thing as universal crossover.
Crossover depends on the behaviour of the driver you selected.
The notion that fullrange will be better than dedicated midrange is wrong too. Fullrange was optimized differently, and during the design, goals were completely different than design of dedicated midrange driver.
Universal crossover is nonsense.
Hammer can be considered universal tool, but it does not mean you can do everything with it.
You may be far better of selecting already optimized speakers.
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Diy_Loudspeaker_Projects.htm
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Diy_Loudspeaker_Projects.htm
Questions makes perfect sense to me, even Im not very knowledgeable. Of course it depends on the drivers. I think they are more general "ballpark" questions. Getting consistent good results of course takes much deeper knowledge, which takes a looot of reading, trials and surfing diyaudio 😊
Cheers!
Cheers!
yes!
@adason thanks for the links, always interesting to see new designs but i feel like i should really start making own speakers and at some point i need to start... i dont feel like kits will let me learn things
Have you looked into the GR Research LGK posted earlier? It appears to be very well behaved above 200 Hz, better than my Jordans by a long shot. Crossed over in that region to a bass driver or separate 'mid-bass sub' the design parameters simplify predominantly to box alignment and baffle step, still plenty to learn.
The vertical lobing of crossing a full range at 5 kHz complicates things dramatically.
The vertical lobing of crossing a full range at 5 kHz complicates things dramatically.
Danny is kinda anal on on-axis FR. It looks quite interesting. I always question a phase plug in such a small driver.
One i would like to hear.
The Jordans i found quite rough up top, Eikona was better than JX92, I don’t think i could live with the top in either.
Often trying to integrate a tweeter makes things worse.
dave
One i would like to hear.
The Jordans i found quite rough up top, Eikona was better than JX92, I don’t think i could live with the top in either.
Often trying to integrate a tweeter makes things worse.
dave
I think he would take that as a compliment.
The polite way of saying brutal. Hope to finish wiring up the contour network tonight and giving them another spin.
yea i looked a bit at gr research stuff recently... the m165 woofers look also interesting, but i havent seen much reviews but danny seems like he know what he is doing
i was actually wondering the same, but on paper the dayton full ranges dont look that impressive
Skip the GR kool aid……there’s way more to a speaker than flat response. Measurements are a great starting point…..but remember……they’re created with a tone sweep…..a speaker behaves infinitely different with complex harmonic content
The room is at least 50% of the performance factor……different alignments and locations will favor one acoustic environment over another except where outdoors are concerned
There is NO reference amongst recorded content……one system may sound fantastic with one album, and quite aweful with another….and vice versa.
You’re starting to suffer from information overload. Think about fundamentals and then sort out the nonsense. It also sounds like designing a passive network is intimidating you…..and well it should. You’re at a PC station……get a 4 channel DSP model and 4 channels of amplification. Experiment in the digital domain where you have infinite possibilities.
You had the right idea for a fullrange in the near field. Find the smallest diameter driver you can that will handle the SPL you require at the frequency where beaming begins. Optimize an enclosure (or none) Mount the driver to the smallest baffle possible countersunk with 1/8” of the driver frame above the plane. Experiment with baffle shapes and cardboard…..measure and listen at the location you intend.
The room is at least 50% of the performance factor……different alignments and locations will favor one acoustic environment over another except where outdoors are concerned
There is NO reference amongst recorded content……one system may sound fantastic with one album, and quite aweful with another….and vice versa.
You’re starting to suffer from information overload. Think about fundamentals and then sort out the nonsense. It also sounds like designing a passive network is intimidating you…..and well it should. You’re at a PC station……get a 4 channel DSP model and 4 channels of amplification. Experiment in the digital domain where you have infinite possibilities.
You had the right idea for a fullrange in the near field. Find the smallest diameter driver you can that will handle the SPL you require at the frequency where beaming begins. Optimize an enclosure (or none) Mount the driver to the smallest baffle possible countersunk with 1/8” of the driver frame above the plane. Experiment with baffle shapes and cardboard…..measure and listen at the location you intend.
i dont think he is just about that but imo a flat frequency response is probably already half of it
well a little, i could actually use my stereo dac for one channel 2way active with camillaDSP, atleast to experiment with crossover but if i stick to first order crossover things are not as hard i think, i have of course to do a little reading or ask questions here 🙂
you are right, but these are seperate to speaker building i think (of course the whole system matters in the end but...)
and to atleast start off i think i will stick to WAW, but im definitely curious of tweeter types etc...
i was even thinking that i still could add always a (super)tweeter later if i want to, specially with my probably individual box design for woofer and fullrange
----
i somewhere saw measurements of the mark audio alpair 7ms vs pluvia 7.2 hd
the pluvia frequency response looked a bit smoother (tho both are fairly flat), so currently im kinda leaning towards the pluvia... i also liked this demo of it really much compared to quite a few others tho im not sure how much youtube sound translates to reality
first i think i just have to settle with a woofer and fullrange driver to start experimenting with a crossover...
enclosure are not a big problem... if i do seperate boxes i can time align them as i go
While the response of the Pluvia is smoother up top, there’s an 8db dip at 1.8khz that’s going to be audible.….if it were a 3-5db peak or dip, I wouldn’t be concerned but 8?…….and right in the middle of the most precious part of the frequency range?
Both the Alpair and Pluvia will begin to beam sound at around 3300hz and that’s part of why Mark Audio doesn’t publish off axis measurements. It’s actually ok or even preferable to have some beaming in the nearfield…….but not that low in the response. This will be noticeable with even slight shifts of your listening position within a stereo triangle. The 2” NE 65 I linked earlier doesn’t begin beaming to above 7khz making it’s off axis response on par with most 1” dome tweeters And is often referred to as a ‘mid tweeter’.
Those Mark Audio drivers are nice…..boutique sounds with individual flavor…..but they are better suited to a wide field listening triangle at 3-4m listening distance slightly off axis……which isn‘t your situation. I’d again strongly suggest you limit yourself to drivers with a radiating diameter of 3” or less…..less being better. These little drivers can still easily play down to 500hz or lower at 90db and not conform to power compression or distortion with a second order filter. The little Peerless driver is also half the cost of the Pluvia and a third that of the Alpair……..providing more budget to shift towards and active DSP solution.
Both the Alpair and Pluvia will begin to beam sound at around 3300hz and that’s part of why Mark Audio doesn’t publish off axis measurements. It’s actually ok or even preferable to have some beaming in the nearfield…….but not that low in the response. This will be noticeable with even slight shifts of your listening position within a stereo triangle. The 2” NE 65 I linked earlier doesn’t begin beaming to above 7khz making it’s off axis response on par with most 1” dome tweeters And is often referred to as a ‘mid tweeter’.
Those Mark Audio drivers are nice…..boutique sounds with individual flavor…..but they are better suited to a wide field listening triangle at 3-4m listening distance slightly off axis……which isn‘t your situation. I’d again strongly suggest you limit yourself to drivers with a radiating diameter of 3” or less…..less being better. These little drivers can still easily play down to 500hz or lower at 90db and not conform to power compression or distortion with a second order filter. The little Peerless driver is also half the cost of the Pluvia and a third that of the Alpair……..providing more budget to shift towards and active DSP solution.
imo the pluvia is overall smoother and even the peak up top is better suited for being notched out, i think this ends up in a fairly smooth response beside the 1,5khz dip, way smoother than the other mark audio drivers i think
reason i go with a larger fullrange is that i still need some bass output of the fullrange driver for a first order crossover, it also feels strange going from a 8inch woofer to a 2" fullrange handling 500hz
i also found this woofer: https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/295-530--dayton-audio-DSA215-8-specifications.pdf
looks fairly good, probably one of the best 8" drivers i found so far, it breaks up a little above 2,5khz but way less than others, also dispersion looks pretty good till 3khz, im just not sure how the designer series compares to reference series
if i can i will try to make the crossover point 200-300hz
maybe its also possible to combine bsc and the right crossover point, so i just need a low pass instead of lowpass+bsc
It's funny because I saw that 8 driver comparison and I could hear the characteristic metallic sibilance from diffraction off the square baffles. So it seems like the speakers with the widest dispersion had the most 'boost' from that, while the cones with narrower dispersion sounded a bit duller. The microphones were in a fixed position, so we only got a certain on-axis 'flavour'.
