Dan:
The design I posted (with notes) is the final design. My current recommendation is to go with the 1.8mH inductor on the woofer and a slightly higher value resistor on the tweeter - between 1.0 and 1.1 since the increase in midrange output will also require a bit more from the tweeter. Using the 2.0 mH inductor just makes the midrange too laid back. Also, please note the error in the x-over layout - both tweeter and woofer must be wired in phase.
Andrew
The design I posted (with notes) is the final design. My current recommendation is to go with the 1.8mH inductor on the woofer and a slightly higher value resistor on the tweeter - between 1.0 and 1.1 since the increase in midrange output will also require a bit more from the tweeter. Using the 2.0 mH inductor just makes the midrange too laid back. Also, please note the error in the x-over layout - both tweeter and woofer must be wired in phase.
Andrew
With all the threads on these things I'm starting to think I want a new project. What I want to know is how good are these things? Not so much as a full range but more as a mid- woofer. Maybe I should phrase it like this, which midbass drivers would you choose over the XBLs?
Are they "wow those are good for their size" or just plain "wow"?
Are they "wow those are good for their size" or just plain "wow"?
flaevor said:
The Fostex FE108ES does mids better (but is more expensive and would need a helper woofer to get close in the bass, ie more expense yet). Note that the FE108ES does mids better than almost anything else. But to get even a modicom of bottom you really need a horn, which certianly isn't as easy to build as most boxes for the CSS.
I've not personaly heard anything else that betters them, but have not been exposed to things like recent Lowthers, SupraVox, Fertins, Exact, etc. But then the sales tax on many of those, would get you a pair of FR125s.
dave
For anyone considering the design I posted, I am now recommending a slight change to the design. Please substitute a 1.8mH inductor on the woofer instead of the 2.0mH originally specified. The 1.8mH should be a Madisound Sidewinder "Low Resistance" 16 gauge air core. If you already purchased the 2.0mH parts (as I did), you can simply unwind them a total of 18 complete turns to get them down to the 1.8mH value. Please note that the parts I received from Madisound were actually rated a little too high to start - coming in around 2.17. If you wish to try variations between 1.8 and 2.0 you may do so and I have determined that an approximate adjustment for each turn unwound is .02mH (please realize that in reality this value will change as the diameter of the coil itself is changed with each turn as it is unwound . . .)
How much BSC do you think
How much baffle step did you include? Reason I ask is cause I was now think about building the speaker with a smaller minimum diffraction baffle. Actually, I was thinking to use an egg shaped baffle like the Waveform Mach speakers and add a woofer crossed over active at around 125hz.
I would build the egg out of MDF laminations rather than aluminum like the Mach.
http://www.audio-ideas.com/reviews/loudspeakers/waveform_mach_solo.html
john
How much baffle step did you include? Reason I ask is cause I was now think about building the speaker with a smaller minimum diffraction baffle. Actually, I was thinking to use an egg shaped baffle like the Waveform Mach speakers and add a woofer crossed over active at around 125hz.
I would build the egg out of MDF laminations rather than aluminum like the Mach.
http://www.audio-ideas.com/reviews/loudspeakers/waveform_mach_solo.html
john
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.