CharlieLaub,
A small 3 way, to me is something like 8", 4", 2" ribbon. Or 10", 5", 2" ribbon.
I havent worked long or hard enough yet to have living quarters that would accommodate 12, 15 or 18". Mores the pity 🙂
Thanks, another insightful poster mentioned these Morel TweeMids, and i agree that they solve the c2c distance issues for most DIYers. I'd probably give them a try IF I wasnt planning on using Fountek ribbons which I have held on to for years!
Allen,
My only concern with the Audax (both HM100Z0 and AP130ZO) is that in both cases the break up seems to be accompanied with a large broad 10dB hump.
It seems that this will coincide with the mids LPF, meaning I'll either need to move the LPF lower to attentuate the peak, leaving the ribbon to fill in - Or, it will require a notch or asymmetric filter slopes.
That in itself isn't an issue, BUT, the ribbon will be HPF'd at a minimum 2nd order - referring to your 1/2 Oct, at 4.5k. Possibly lower XO at higher order, 3rd to 4th.
Then it would also be likely the mid will need at least 2nd order, assuming flat FR - in reality the mid LPF may easily end up needed to be 4th order itself.
How I think (minds eye) it will turn out:
Woofer: 2nd order LPF to mid
Mid: 2nd order HPF, 4th order LPF
Ribbon: 3rd/4th LPF (with series R to lower Q to curve match)
A small 3 way, to me is something like 8", 4", 2" ribbon. Or 10", 5", 2" ribbon.
I havent worked long or hard enough yet to have living quarters that would accommodate 12, 15 or 18". Mores the pity 🙂
Thanks, another insightful poster mentioned these Morel TweeMids, and i agree that they solve the c2c distance issues for most DIYers. I'd probably give them a try IF I wasnt planning on using Fountek ribbons which I have held on to for years!
Allen,
My only concern with the Audax (both HM100Z0 and AP130ZO) is that in both cases the break up seems to be accompanied with a large broad 10dB hump.
It seems that this will coincide with the mids LPF, meaning I'll either need to move the LPF lower to attentuate the peak, leaving the ribbon to fill in - Or, it will require a notch or asymmetric filter slopes.
That in itself isn't an issue, BUT, the ribbon will be HPF'd at a minimum 2nd order - referring to your 1/2 Oct, at 4.5k. Possibly lower XO at higher order, 3rd to 4th.
Then it would also be likely the mid will need at least 2nd order, assuming flat FR - in reality the mid LPF may easily end up needed to be 4th order itself.
How I think (minds eye) it will turn out:
Woofer: 2nd order LPF to mid
Mid: 2nd order HPF, 4th order LPF
Ribbon: 3rd/4th LPF (with series R to lower Q to curve match)
Last edited:
I made a tentative suggestion to use 1/2 octave overlap each way. I'm not sure I've explained myself properly?
Hang on.
Yes, I think I misunderstood a bit
Of course it is helpful suggesting, even tentatively, 1/2 octave each side of XO for drivers.
And the idiot in me has realised the Y axis scaling on Audax data is 5dB/div not 10dB. So the bump at 6k is perhaps 3dB and not 6 (or 10dB).
So the Audax dont look bad at all (other than the LF extension, which is less an issue anyway)
Now to see if I can still buy the Audax drivers - Tout Le Haut Parleur seems to have them on special order, so perhaps I should make some enquiries before assuming I can get these drivers!
Yes, I think I misunderstood a bit
Of course it is helpful suggesting, even tentatively, 1/2 octave each side of XO for drivers.
And the idiot in me has realised the Y axis scaling on Audax data is 5dB/div not 10dB. So the bump at 6k is perhaps 3dB and not 6 (or 10dB).
So the Audax dont look bad at all (other than the LF extension, which is less an issue anyway)
Now to see if I can still buy the Audax drivers - Tout Le Haut Parleur seems to have them on special order, so perhaps I should make some enquiries before assuming I can get these drivers!
Here is my measurement of HM100Z0, horizontal plane 0-90deg, measured in cabinet with width 150mm (10mm chamfering), this cabinet was on the top of woofer section with 8" woofer. Also shown how it looked in the system, definetely not easy to cross over.
Mondogenerator - hopefully it will help you to decide on midrange and to see what you can expect.
Mondogenerator - hopefully it will help you to decide on midrange and to see what you can expect.
Attachments
Last edited:
Wouldn't that largely depend on the size of cab a woofer needs more so than the actual diameter of it?
Something like the BMS 12S330 digs quite deep in a relatively small cab (35Hz from 44L). I've seen many 8" woofers which need more volume than that.
It also realistically does 89-90dB/1W but certainly NOT the 96dB the manufacturer states.
My 15" JBL K140 or 2225H fit in a 40x40x50 +/- a few cm cabinet. They do 70-450 Hz just fine, with a bit eq at 400-600Hz.
If you are looking for a design to copy/modify then the Speaker Design Works Statement Monitor and Statement Mini use the Fountek Neo CD3.0 with a 4" mid and woofers in a modest size cabinet. The CD3.5H looks like the CD 3.0 with a wave guide added so may be a good starting point.
Statement monitor uses a Tang Band W4-1337SD and a Dayton RS180.
Statements_Monitor
Statement Mini is a tower version with two Dayton RS180's.
MiniStatements
The Statement is a larger woofer, Dayton 225 plus a Vifa NE149W plus a tweeter in a stand mount that is another way to go.
Speaker Design Works
Statement monitor uses a Tang Band W4-1337SD and a Dayton RS180.
Statements_Monitor
Statement Mini is a tower version with two Dayton RS180's.
MiniStatements
The Statement is a larger woofer, Dayton 225 plus a Vifa NE149W plus a tweeter in a stand mount that is another way to go.
Speaker Design Works
Wow
Pida,
thank you! That information is very helpful indeed! I agree, at least from my point of view (before trying any), that the Audax doesnt look all that easy to cross to a tweeter with a conventional Fs of 1k5 to 2k. Your results look pretty good though!
Charles,
I guess woofer size is less important than actual box volume, and being as I havent looked too hard for a woofer yet, you may well be right - or rather a 12" may fit into a smaller cab than a 10" and match sensitivity better (say 93dB/W) to allow some BSC.
So guessing WRT potential space for cabinets, if I guess at HxWxD of 40"x 15" x 12", then 7200 cu.in., or 4 cu.ft um...around 100 litres in new money.
I'll have to see what fits when I can get to my laptop
Pida,
thank you! That information is very helpful indeed! I agree, at least from my point of view (before trying any), that the Audax doesnt look all that easy to cross to a tweeter with a conventional Fs of 1k5 to 2k. Your results look pretty good though!
Charles,
I guess woofer size is less important than actual box volume, and being as I havent looked too hard for a woofer yet, you may well be right - or rather a 12" may fit into a smaller cab than a 10" and match sensitivity better (say 93dB/W) to allow some BSC.
So guessing WRT potential space for cabinets, if I guess at HxWxD of 40"x 15" x 12", then 7200 cu.in., or 4 cu.ft um...around 100 litres in new money.
I'll have to see what fits when I can get to my laptop
Ugg,
I'm not looking to copy per se, but being a first 3 way project, I'm learning that the mid range driver is possibly the hardest one to choose, or the one to make or break to design.
I've seen the Statements before, and they looked OK.
I know theres a Jim Griffin design using the Jordan and a Fountek ribbon, though I dont recall which model.
The 3.5H is a little different in that its horn loaded and drops sharply below 1kHz (attached FR) although I've seen other measures which show a slightly different FR.
I'm not looking to copy per se, but being a first 3 way project, I'm learning that the mid range driver is possibly the hardest one to choose, or the one to make or break to design.
I've seen the Statements before, and they looked OK.
I know theres a Jim Griffin design using the Jordan and a Fountek ribbon, though I dont recall which model.
The 3.5H is a little different in that its horn loaded and drops sharply below 1kHz (attached FR) although I've seen other measures which show a slightly different FR.
Attachments
It is, but H and V are a little different. Not necessarily to worry, if you can reduce your speakers' exposure to early reflections then you might consider an average of H and V.
It is still possible that a driver of the right size can make a reasonably good match all up.
At 3k5, horizontal has some narrowing and vertical is out on the baffle (wide). If you wanted to get technical you could average these two dimensions and compare to a single round driver. Also note that in each case they are getting narrower with increasing frequency.
It is still possible that a driver of the right size can make a reasonably good match all up.
-you could lower-freq. limit the mid. design to accommodate the ribbon.. (and use a notch for the bell-mode resonance.)
Dayton RS52AN-8:
from Tim's website: Timothy Feleppa's Pages: Speaker Measurements - Midrange/Fullrange Speakers 4" and smaller
Attachments
It has been mentioned briefly already..........the Monacor MSH-115 is perfectly described by your requirements, except it is flat right up to 10k! And very easily sourced in the UK. I have found them as good as the manufacturer's spec.
🙄
I happened upon it whilst looking at the suggested MSH 116-4 as I'd prefer 8 Ohm.
It's close with the Faital above too.
On closer look the Monacor SP4/60 has a slight shelving in the upper mids (or a slight dip 1-3k), depending on how you look at it. Still not bad for a cheap PA driver!
As for the Dayton, I see your point Scott, but well...
I considered that I might prefer all metal drivers, maybe they would acoustically mesh better? Maybe it's just aesthetics? At 52mm I reckon I'd want at least a pair of them.
Dayton are a pain to source in the UK (as far as I know) which probably makes that a non starter, and the TB W4 mentioned in the Statements etc is probably not quite sensitive enough.
I can pad the ribbon down to whatever driver I like within reason, but in this design (just to make my life harder) I'm trying to at least achieve 90dB/W.
Even so, the level of BSC needed, and the woofer efficiency, will make this hard enough!
Last edited:
Dayton's all over Europe, and they even have a distributor in the UK but don't have the metal version in-stock (or even listed). Still, the fabric design isn't to shabby either (as seen below).
Dayton Audio RS52FN-8 - Wall of Sound
-really depends on the kind of baffle, woofer design, and crossover you are willing to compromise with. ..and everything is a compromise. 😱
Honestly, if you are struggling with a single driver for the midrange then you should consider 2 DIFFERENT drivers for the midrange: one that's 1 kHz up with extended treble response for an easier time with the tweeter, and one that fill's that gap between the midbass and upper midrange. (..typically makes for an easier and cheaper crossover as well, while allowing you to lower non-linear effects.)
Dayton Audio RS52FN-8 - Wall of Sound
-really depends on the kind of baffle, woofer design, and crossover you are willing to compromise with. ..and everything is a compromise. 😱
Honestly, if you are struggling with a single driver for the midrange then you should consider 2 DIFFERENT drivers for the midrange: one that's 1 kHz up with extended treble response for an easier time with the tweeter, and one that fill's that gap between the midbass and upper midrange. (..typically makes for an easier and cheaper crossover as well, while allowing you to lower non-linear effects.)
Attachments
Attachments
I'm not struggling to find a driver particularly, only for additional options besides the Monacor SP4/60 pro or HM100Z0.
However, Midrange is correct, picking the wheat from the chaff, the Monacor MSH 115 looks to be a perfect fit.
Where the SP4/60 pro is slightly hot in the upper mids, the MSH115 is controlled all the way out to 10k.
Ok so I wont be crossing at 10k or even 8k but it gives a nice predictable roll off to work with. It is double the price of the SP4/60.
So I'm pretty much decided and settled on the MSH 115, unless I find something better behaved for less than 60 Euro
SURPRISINGLY, Monacor SP40, which is cheap as chips, isn't all that bad either, albeit at much lower efficiency, and would make a reasonable bargain basement mid.
However, Midrange is correct, picking the wheat from the chaff, the Monacor MSH 115 looks to be a perfect fit.
Where the SP4/60 pro is slightly hot in the upper mids, the MSH115 is controlled all the way out to 10k.
Ok so I wont be crossing at 10k or even 8k but it gives a nice predictable roll off to work with. It is double the price of the SP4/60.
So I'm pretty much decided and settled on the MSH 115, unless I find something better behaved for less than 60 Euro
SURPRISINGLY, Monacor SP40, which is cheap as chips, isn't all that bad either, albeit at much lower efficiency, and would make a reasonable bargain basement mid.
Last edited:
Looking at these this way can't be helpful. In the first case, resonance in the passband can be fixable, and not necessarily a sign of a bad driver.
In the second case, smoothness through the breakup region is not necessarily an indicator of control.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.