Re: Which tweeter on the L15?
I used the 27TDFC from the beginning but also included the (optional) high pass response shaping network that was really only needed for the 27TFFC. The combination of the 27TDFC and the response shaping network created a very laid back sound with no sparkle on the highs. Bass was good and midrange was excellent but the highs seemed muted. It was a quick change to the crossover to remove this portion and it made all the difference. After removing it they sounded great.
On the alignment please see my previous response.
Even with my alignment process there was still a need for sanding. There was excess glue to sand off and there were small variations (1-2mm) in the layers. I used a orbital sander starting with 50, 80, 180, 220 and then after applying the oil coating I hand sanded the boxes with a 400.
I would say it was about an hour of sanding with my orbital sander per box. Then about 15-20min with the 400 by hand. The oil seemed to expand the wood slightly and created a very fine hair like grain. A quick pass with 400 sand paper took it right off. I would have used the orbital here but could not find anything over 220 for my orbital at the local shops.
weinstro said:
I used the 27TDFC from the beginning but also included the (optional) high pass response shaping network that was really only needed for the 27TFFC. The combination of the 27TDFC and the response shaping network created a very laid back sound with no sparkle on the highs. Bass was good and midrange was excellent but the highs seemed muted. It was a quick change to the crossover to remove this portion and it made all the difference. After removing it they sounded great.
On the alignment please see my previous response.
Even with my alignment process there was still a need for sanding. There was excess glue to sand off and there were small variations (1-2mm) in the layers. I used a orbital sander starting with 50, 80, 180, 220 and then after applying the oil coating I hand sanded the boxes with a 400.
I would say it was about an hour of sanding with my orbital sander per box. Then about 15-20min with the 400 by hand. The oil seemed to expand the wood slightly and created a very fine hair like grain. A quick pass with 400 sand paper took it right off. I would have used the orbital here but could not find anything over 220 for my orbital at the local shops.
With such massive crossover fitted inside, should not that be compensated by increased box volume?
Those look great! I love my Zaph L18's.
I really, really wish he would design an all metal Seas 3-way floorstander to compliment the L15/18 designs. I would be all over that! I guess something similar to Troels' design.
I really, really wish he would design an all metal Seas 3-way floorstander to compliment the L15/18 designs. I would be all over that! I guess something similar to Troels' design.
So do I... I am attempting a project right now using an L26 with an L15 and either a 27TBFC/G or 27TDFC/G. I chose the L15 as it gives me the flexibility to cross lower to the L26 with it's healthy xmax (5.5mm). However - you can't go above 2KHz due to the harmonic distortion products. hence you need a low Fs tweeter.
One thing I've always wanted to ask experienced designers... is why they don't offer 3 way designs? It seems they either say "use a sub with active xo". I want a true "full range" speaker with stereo bass (ie. locational above 100Hz) from drivers that can sweep enough volume in a larger room that will take a 150w+ amplifier, in a passive crossover solution.
I intend to leverage off Zaph's work and Dan Wesnor who has also used a L15 in a morel/seas design (due credit to them of course!).
I've started a thread here which I will add to:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106791
David.
Dave Bullet said:
From the looks of Zaph's designs and him actually stating it on his own site, he aims for high value designs. Or if you prefer lots of bang for the buck invested.
If I'm not mistaken one sub with an active x-over is allot less expensive then two 10" drivers with two passive x-over. The passive x-over for a 10" woofer would requires a big inductor which also costs more money.
Yes, true - Zaph states this by why not more designers? I presume this is because the active solution is better (cheaper) for low xo points.
I recall Zaph was doing a WWMTM with Dayton RS drivers but stuffed up the baffles and went onto other projects. That would have been expensive (relatively speaking to his other projects).
David.
zdr said:
The crossovers are mounted in the extra space at the bottom of the tower so it does not impact the volume.
I switched from 3/4 to 1 inch mdf so the the enclosure had to be extend farther down to compensate so it did not leave as much extra space. it was a tight fit with both the foam and the two crossovers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.