I seem to know poorsound better than you do and know that to design an xo is not in the cards
poorsound, as you say yourself... minus the lowpass, AND only the upper half of th box with the two 6" and tweeter with wedge/waveguide ... YES
You may only need to make a closed box, maybe with variovent on the back
poorsound, as you say yourself... minus the lowpass, AND only the upper half of th box with the two 6" and tweeter with wedge/waveguide ... YES
You may only need to make a closed box, maybe with variovent on the back
I think I have to disagree.
Just doing the double 6.5" with part of the existing cross-over is not guaranteed to work. If fact I would say it is probably guaranteed not to work. I depends on how the drivers were meant to work together in the original design. Things like baffle step etc will also now need to be taken into account. Not a good idea for someone who doesn't do x-os !!
Using the existing x-o design but with the 5" in the MMTMM could possibly have a better chance !!
Just doing the double 6.5" with part of the existing cross-over is not guaranteed to work. If fact I would say it is probably guaranteed not to work. I depends on how the drivers were meant to work together in the original design. Things like baffle step etc will also now need to be taken into account. Not a good idea for someone who doesn't do x-os !!
Using the existing x-o design but with the 5" in the MMTMM could possibly have a better chance !!
If baffle dimensions from the design where the crossover etc can be pinched, then the 2x6.5in drivers might still be a good option, simply because 5in HDS drivers are not much, if at all cheaper than their 6.5in cousins, so there is a cost disadvantage associated with their use. The best option would be to build a third speaker, identical to your mains, and put it behind a projector screen or whatever.
Andy, it sounds like you dont know the original xo of the elsinore ... its an 2.5way, so to use part of the xo, simply means to leave out the single inductor related to the two lower 2x6," which are left out too
Its true, there will be no BSC then, but who says its needed at all in a center speaker ... I could easily imagine it to be an advantage with no BSC ... that will be handled by the mains and subs ... a center with additional BSC I imagine could be a bit messy
But it surprices me that you suggest to use the original xo with smaller and different drivers ... although same cone material, they are different drivers with different FR and impedanse
To get some BSC you could consider to make the box a bit wider, but it will affect upper FR too, but maybe insignificant
Its true, there will be no BSC then, but who says its needed at all in a center speaker ... I could easily imagine it to be an advantage with no BSC ... that will be handled by the mains and subs ... a center with additional BSC I imagine could be a bit messy
But it surprices me that you suggest to use the original xo with smaller and different drivers ... although same cone material, they are different drivers with different FR and impedanse
To get some BSC you could consider to make the box a bit wider, but it will affect upper FR too, but maybe insignificant
I did actually look at the curves for the poly and nomex 5" and 6.5", They are quite similar except for the peak at 4k(ish) on both 6.5" drivers.
I think you would be surprised how well the Elsinor 2.5 crossover might work with an MMtMM 5" design, the outer M's being the .5. Sure it would be better to re-design the x-o, but that doesn't sound like its an option.
The benefit is the size of the speaker can be reduced., particularly in the vertical direction. Also the use of 5" allows you to push the CTC spacing down from the rather large CTC used on the Elsinor, thus helping with off axis response of the MTM section, so long as you keep the upper x-o point low, (which I assume it must be in the Elsinor).
I think you would be surprised how well the Elsinor 2.5 crossover might work with an MMtMM 5" design, the outer M's being the .5. Sure it would be better to re-design the x-o, but that doesn't sound like its an option.
The benefit is the size of the speaker can be reduced., particularly in the vertical direction. Also the use of 5" allows you to push the CTC spacing down from the rather large CTC used on the Elsinor, thus helping with off axis response of the MTM section, so long as you keep the upper x-o point low, (which I assume it must be in the Elsinor).
You could be right, and I misunderstood so that I thought you suggested a plain 2way
A 2.5way with the 5.5" ... then I think I like the idea ... it should work ok with original xo, which is as simple as it gets
But I suppose you will leave out the LCR on midrange peak, which the 5.5" doesnt have
Still, I suppose that a closed design with variovents will be better
A 2.5way with the 5.5" ... then I think I like the idea ... it should work ok with original xo, which is as simple as it gets
But I suppose you will leave out the LCR on midrange peak, which the 5.5" doesnt have
Still, I suppose that a closed design with variovents will be better
Andy Graddon said:wonder if we can persuade PS to build one of each, see which one works better
LOL...That'd defeat the purpose of keeping costs down! haha
You guys are both very knowledgeable by the sounds of things so your opinions mean a lot.
So what's the consensus? 5" Peerless HDS PPB in a MTM design with the same crossover as the elsinores?
Well, I suppose that IF it would be possible to make a 2.5way MMTMM with the 5.5" and using the original Elsie xo, according to Andy
THEN if a 2way MTM is possible too with the 6.5", just leaving out the bass section ... THEN it should be possible to use the smaller 5.5" in this 2way MTM configuration ... might be a good choise with 5.5"
It will also be important how you will position the center in your setup
THEN if a 2way MTM is possible too with the 6.5", just leaving out the bass section ... THEN it should be possible to use the smaller 5.5" in this 2way MTM configuration ... might be a good choise with 5.5"
It will also be important how you will position the center in your setup
Just remember that this set-up will be fairly directional. you will need to be right in front to get the full benefits. Off to the sides you will have a loss of mids. MTM centres are ok in a room where most people are pretty much in front, but suffer if the room is wide and people may be viewing from more than about 10-15 degrees off axis.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.