In about a month I will have a new, much larger, office. I currently use a two way on my desk and I think the new office dictates some new 3-ways. This is my justification anyways....
Intended Budget: under $300
I'm calling these the thumpers because I want the to hit low. If I use silicone pads I can keep most of the vibrations from shaking my mouse when I do CAD work.
To use this Dayton woofer they will need to be 0.4-0.5 cubic feet. I think that is feasible on my desk which is a giant slab of wood.
Anyways, let me know your thoughts on my driver selection. This will be the first time using a dome midrange. I'm pretty excited about that. Its not the best one in the world but I think its worth trying out. PE has minimum order of 1000 but digikey has them for $22
All data is just traced data so I can see if everything "should" work together. I'll take all the measurements and redo the crossover when the actually drivers get here.
Intended Budget: under $300
I'm calling these the thumpers because I want the to hit low. If I use silicone pads I can keep most of the vibrations from shaking my mouse when I do CAD work.
To use this Dayton woofer they will need to be 0.4-0.5 cubic feet. I think that is feasible on my desk which is a giant slab of wood.
Anyways, let me know your thoughts on my driver selection. This will be the first time using a dome midrange. I'm pretty excited about that. Its not the best one in the world but I think its worth trying out. PE has minimum order of 1000 but digikey has them for $22
All data is just traced data so I can see if everything "should" work together. I'll take all the measurements and redo the crossover when the actually drivers get here.
Attachments
Last edited:
Wolf,
You have any idea of that time frame? The only other domes available blow my budget way out.
You have any idea of that time frame? The only other domes available blow my budget way out.
The Peerless dome looks good to me. Personally, I trust the data (no offense wolf). Plus, who knows when the epique dome will come out, what it will cost or what it looks like on paper.
If this was my project, I would try to get it working with first order crossovers because the drive units are so close in size. This will pretty much guarantee good directivity without making more sophisticated measurements. Back in the day I used to think why would anyone use lower order crossovers? Now I know better.
If this was my project, I would try to get it working with first order crossovers because the drive units are so close in size. This will pretty much guarantee good directivity without making more sophisticated measurements. Back in the day I used to think why would anyone use lower order crossovers? Now I know better.
I would use first orders but there is a nasty cone breakup on that Dayton sub. I won't match odd and even order crossovers. This leaves me with 2nd orders for the low end of the FR.
Pic of the horrendous breakup around and after 1k
Attachments
The picture I showed you shows the nulls. Look again. The dark Grey line is the total system FR
It looks like a little bulge around 225 Hz. I wonder if you pushed the wf / mid cross up a bit if you could make it go away? But it may all change with drivers in the box.
Fine for a "will it work" first effort, but when you re-do with your own measurements try to get a good reverse null, sez I. I was working with a DSP setup (easy to listen to different XOs and A/B) that had poor addition / reverse-null. When I noticed it and changed things around the whole things sounded much more in-focus.
Fine for a "will it work" first effort, but when you re-do with your own measurements try to get a good reverse null, sez I. I was working with a DSP setup (easy to listen to different XOs and A/B) that had poor addition / reverse-null. When I noticed it and changed things around the whole things sounded much more in-focus.
This is a near field speaker…..directivity shouldn’t be a design parameter. On axis behavior along with low distortion and phase quadrature rule the day…..a very analytic performance for monitoring. IME, not a lot of fun after half an hour or so as it reveals so many flaws in your favorite music.
You could also use two (smaller?) woofers in force cancelling configuration.
That would be my solution for a desktop speaker. The peerless "dome" (it's rather just like big dustcap covering the entire cone) goes low enough for the woofers to be omnidirectional.
The bulge is due to the sensitivity difference. The woofer is actually more sensitive than the mid. I don't want to mess around padding down a woofer and dissapating that amount of wattage.
This is something I have begun to notice with my other builds. You can tell if its a bad recording with a really good build.
STV,
I have not heard of this dual woofer force cancelation. Could you explain or link to something that explains?
I have not heard of this dual woofer force cancelation. Could you explain or link to something that explains?
Have a look at this posting (and the whole thread):
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...l-force-canceling-speaker.174616/post-2319915
STV,
I see. Easiest way I see of doing this is just to take 3 pieces of scrap rebar and weld them to the magnet housing of the drivers. I see people are trying to use bracing that won't actually work.
This might make them difficult to implement with current DIY testing methods. Getting the full FR without the reflections screwing it up seems like the biggest challenge of this design feature
I see. Easiest way I see of doing this is just to take 3 pieces of scrap rebar and weld them to the magnet housing of the drivers. I see people are trying to use bracing that won't actually work.
This might make them difficult to implement with current DIY testing methods. Getting the full FR without the reflections screwing it up seems like the biggest challenge of this design feature