I still encourage you to look at a different tweeter, there will be a problem - and this applies to most designs - when you try to mix a high quality part(s) with a lower quality one. You could swap or tweak parts for ages and you still would have that as a problem and the Morels aren't cheap.
If you use an existing project which uses the DC160 such as Paul's Classix designs, you will save money and swear word output, and you won't curse us if you don't like the sound. And you won't need to buy measuring equipment unless you really want to.
The DC160 is best regarded as a woofer, its mid-range is not the best unless it's handled well in the XO. In the right cabinet it will go quite low. I don't think the existing XO will do that well.
Again, if you push the DC160 (please tell us how large is your room and what do you listen to) it will run out of puff. Two of the DC160-8s in parallel will give you more headroom.
The Polk cabinets are roughly the same size as the Classix 2.5 cabinet, but it uses a 3"x 8.5" port, while the Polk uses passive radiators. So I would ask on this Forum how the two radiators would compare with the port in terms of output.
That size of cabinet is too large for a single DC160, I think. As an alternative, you could look at one of Peerless' 6.5" woofers such as the SDS160F (will post the PE link after I log out) which does require a large cabinet. Also, its Xmax is almost twice that of the Dayton and it has a better mid range. And it surface mounts! A drawback is that there aren't as many proved DIY projects for it but I can link some if you want to explore that as a possibility. It's a little dearer than the DC160 but I think it sounds good.
Finally, please don't rush into this, it's your hard-earned and you want to be happy with what you build. We're here to help!
Geoff
If you use an existing project which uses the DC160 such as Paul's Classix designs, you will save money and swear word output, and you won't curse us if you don't like the sound. And you won't need to buy measuring equipment unless you really want to.
The DC160 is best regarded as a woofer, its mid-range is not the best unless it's handled well in the XO. In the right cabinet it will go quite low. I don't think the existing XO will do that well.
Again, if you push the DC160 (please tell us how large is your room and what do you listen to) it will run out of puff. Two of the DC160-8s in parallel will give you more headroom.
The Polk cabinets are roughly the same size as the Classix 2.5 cabinet, but it uses a 3"x 8.5" port, while the Polk uses passive radiators. So I would ask on this Forum how the two radiators would compare with the port in terms of output.
That size of cabinet is too large for a single DC160, I think. As an alternative, you could look at one of Peerless' 6.5" woofers such as the SDS160F (will post the PE link after I log out) which does require a large cabinet. Also, its Xmax is almost twice that of the Dayton and it has a better mid range. And it surface mounts! A drawback is that there aren't as many proved DIY projects for it but I can link some if you want to explore that as a possibility. It's a little dearer than the DC160 but I think it sounds good.
Finally, please don't rush into this, it's your hard-earned and you want to be happy with what you build. We're here to help!
Geoff
Ok guys I am so appreciative of your help. So if I went with the surface mount peerless which of the 2 morels would be best. My Room dimensions are 11' x 26' with 10' ceiling. placement is in a Hall configuration with main seating 13' from speakers and TV. What I tried to ask and probably asked wrong was...I see on the various crossover calculators no resistors used and just was thinking if I am modding this crossover less components in the path is better. And the resistors are just attenuation, is that correct or in a passive crossver do those contribute to the frequency break? I did read up on passive radiators and learned some generic parameters, such as the radiators should be about twice the driver. So in this case that is exactly what polk did. Adding a second woofer really would be lots of modding beyond what I want to do with these. Since I have subwoofer system I will not push these passive much as the job they do is mostly 100hz and below. ?
Crossover calculators are rubbish, for all sorts of reasons. The resistors in your crossover are there to pad the tweeter (the 4 ohm resistor in the tweeter circuit) and help contour the woofer response (the 2 ohm resistor in the woofer circuit). And don't worry about signal path issues, there are as many views on that as there are speaker drivers....
Resistors can be used for other important reasons but that's getting rather technical and I'm not the person to explain it.
Here is the link to the Peerless:
Peerless by Tymphany SDS-160F25PR01-08 6-1/2" Paper Cone Woofer Speaker
I used this in a two way with the same VIFA tweeter as the Classix (the BC25TG). I adapted the crossover from a commercial design which I found too bright. It sounded OK but not great, as I don't know enough about crossovers - probably the most important aspect of speaker design - and don't have measuring equipment. Cabinet size was similar to yours.
While I think it is a better driver then the Dayton, when handled well in the crossover, I still think the Morels will still be a mis-match in terms of quality. I assume you like them because they will fit the existing cabinet? If so, may I suggest that is not the best way to select a tweeter.
Before you settle on the Peerless, please check the frame dimensions to see how they would fit in your cabinets: they are a different shape to most woofers and you don't want any gaps where air can get out. The woofers being surface mounted, I made a gasket out of cardboard to seal the join with the cabinet.
Please note that whatever drivers you choose, you will need a new crossover, I can't stress that enough: I simmed the Peerless using the Polk crossover and the results were not good.
I'll hunt up some projects and link them for you.
Geoff
Resistors can be used for other important reasons but that's getting rather technical and I'm not the person to explain it.
Here is the link to the Peerless:
Peerless by Tymphany SDS-160F25PR01-08 6-1/2" Paper Cone Woofer Speaker
I used this in a two way with the same VIFA tweeter as the Classix (the BC25TG). I adapted the crossover from a commercial design which I found too bright. It sounded OK but not great, as I don't know enough about crossovers - probably the most important aspect of speaker design - and don't have measuring equipment. Cabinet size was similar to yours.
While I think it is a better driver then the Dayton, when handled well in the crossover, I still think the Morels will still be a mis-match in terms of quality. I assume you like them because they will fit the existing cabinet? If so, may I suggest that is not the best way to select a tweeter.
Before you settle on the Peerless, please check the frame dimensions to see how they would fit in your cabinets: they are a different shape to most woofers and you don't want any gaps where air can get out. The woofers being surface mounted, I made a gasket out of cardboard to seal the join with the cabinet.
Please note that whatever drivers you choose, you will need a new crossover, I can't stress that enough: I simmed the Peerless using the Polk crossover and the results were not good.
I'll hunt up some projects and link them for you.
Geoff
Last edited:
The reason the calculators show no resistors is because you are supposed to add the resistors yourself. It's OK to add components that are helpful. You almost always need to adjust the levels and you almost always have a resistor somewhere in your crossover. Yes, they are not frequency dependent but they can change the frequency where a filter cuts off.
So I am learning and reading. This is fun and I have never dealt with passive radiators. I do have experience with the ported subs I built years ago. I have tweaked these into some very decent sounding subs. Are the Audiophile level probably not. I found an excellent article about passive radiators and feel more confident now since I am crossing to subwoofer system below anything that is effected by the PR and am not trying to make these full range down low.
Passive radiator speaker design - Box calculation example
So now Im leaning towards the Dayton
Dayton Audio DS175-8 6-1/2" Designer Series Woofer Speaker
In that article one important thing to consider in a passive radiator design is that the driver have a Qts lower than .5 these are well below.
to compliment the Morel MDT29 and not looking at the Morel 378 as much. With that combo I am closer in DB matching. I would have a decent crossover at 2.5k to 3k. I would move up in power handling and spl. I would be light years ahead of the original Polk tweeters
Passive radiator speaker design - Box calculation example
So now Im leaning towards the Dayton
Dayton Audio DS175-8 6-1/2" Designer Series Woofer Speaker
In that article one important thing to consider in a passive radiator design is that the driver have a Qts lower than .5 these are well below.
to compliment the Morel MDT29 and not looking at the Morel 378 as much. With that combo I am closer in DB matching. I would have a decent crossover at 2.5k to 3k. I would move up in power handling and spl. I would be light years ahead of the original Polk tweeters
Geoff I did look at the Peerless drivers you suggested but the dimensions will not work. 6.9 is about the limit on OD without some major changes. So the drivers above are the best compromise so far all things considered. I even went back to thinking about a 3 way with closing off the 1 6.5 driver section. But all that defeats the purpose of trying to use these to a higher degree but not spend too much. Much cost above this and I could just build from scratch. I now want to understand flush vs recessed mount as the drivers above could be flush mounted like you suggested on the peerless.
The Morel MDT29 is sold by Madisound as a replacement for some KEF and Infinity models, I can't find any DIY projects which use it. I haven't used and don't know anything about the DS175, and can only find one project which uses it, a small bookshelf with a VIFA DX25 tweeter. No good for your purposes.
You seem set on the Morels, but they are expensive compared to many other good quality tweeters; I love my CAT378s, but here they're A$120 each, compared to the VIFA BC25TG at A$30 or the Scan Speak DX25 at $55! That would buy a lot of crossover parts or a better woofer.
All other things aside, whatever your driver choice you will need a new crossover or it won't sound right, it might even sound bleah. But if you can find a design which someone else has already done and is proved, you can adapt that to your project. That's what I do, and it's still fun.
I think what you're really after is a proved, 6-6.5" two way speaker whose woofer will work with your cabinet, in terms of working with a PR and the box volume, plus of course fitting your cut-outs with no major surgery. It's a pain, but 6.5" woofers from different brands will have different mounting dimensions. As you've found out, just because Polk's woofer is 6.5", other nominal 6.5" woofers like the Peerless won't fit. I think Parts Express has a woofer selection guide which lists drivers and mounting dimensions, perhaps check that out if you haven't already? Then after you've found one, or some, do a search for projects which use it/them.
Tweeters need to be flush mounted - there are heaps of articles on this - but is less critical with woofers, although it looks better if you do.
Geoff
You seem set on the Morels, but they are expensive compared to many other good quality tweeters; I love my CAT378s, but here they're A$120 each, compared to the VIFA BC25TG at A$30 or the Scan Speak DX25 at $55! That would buy a lot of crossover parts or a better woofer.
All other things aside, whatever your driver choice you will need a new crossover or it won't sound right, it might even sound bleah. But if you can find a design which someone else has already done and is proved, you can adapt that to your project. That's what I do, and it's still fun.
I think what you're really after is a proved, 6-6.5" two way speaker whose woofer will work with your cabinet, in terms of working with a PR and the box volume, plus of course fitting your cut-outs with no major surgery. It's a pain, but 6.5" woofers from different brands will have different mounting dimensions. As you've found out, just because Polk's woofer is 6.5", other nominal 6.5" woofers like the Peerless won't fit. I think Parts Express has a woofer selection guide which lists drivers and mounting dimensions, perhaps check that out if you haven't already? Then after you've found one, or some, do a search for projects which use it/them.
Tweeters need to be flush mounted - there are heaps of articles on this - but is less critical with woofers, although it looks better if you do.
Geoff
Last edited:
Geoff not at all stuck on the Morels but I have to make decisions based upon real estate. If the woofer takes up even slightly more space then there is no room for a larger tweeter. So far the morels are it as to what fits right in the existing cutout. I just have very little wiggle room. What you said about mounting of tweeters and woofers helps a lot, I needed to learn that. And it makes the Morels an even better choice. I really like the idea of a high resolving and fast tweeter. Those Dayton designer series are closer in parameters to what you were suggesting and will fit flush without mods. The Qts, frq range, power handling and other parameters are in the ballpark. They seem the best choice so far. Im not in a hurry and still researching. I do want to stick to a 2 way and the more I think about this enclosure and my use of a subwoofer the passive radiators are not an issue. The Morel MDT29 is only 51.90 and the other Morel was in the 70ish range.
Could the DSA175 work for you?
It's the aluminum version of the DS and reportedly sounds better, but I've never used it of course. It has a much smoother FR than the DS - so it will be much easier to cross over well - and the specs are a little better in terms of cabinet volume. It's also a DB louder, if that helps. The DS175 gets harsh rather quickly over about 2700 Hz (refer the FR graph), that will provide some challenges if crossed at 2500. Same frame dimensions I think and the DSA seems to get more love from DIY speaker designers on the Parts Express chat forum.
I could trace the Morel if I can find the FR and impedance graphs. If I can do that, I could sim a possible crossover for you to serve as a rough starting point from which you can do measurements, then adjust parts etc. Without measurements with drivers in place, it won't be right.
According to Dayton the DS series has good 'Xmax' (5.3mm) so will be less likely to run out of puff bass-wise, compared to the DC160 (3.5mm).
I wasn't aware of your baffle real estate limitations.
Geoff
It's the aluminum version of the DS and reportedly sounds better, but I've never used it of course. It has a much smoother FR than the DS - so it will be much easier to cross over well - and the specs are a little better in terms of cabinet volume. It's also a DB louder, if that helps. The DS175 gets harsh rather quickly over about 2700 Hz (refer the FR graph), that will provide some challenges if crossed at 2500. Same frame dimensions I think and the DSA seems to get more love from DIY speaker designers on the Parts Express chat forum.
I could trace the Morel if I can find the FR and impedance graphs. If I can do that, I could sim a possible crossover for you to serve as a rough starting point from which you can do measurements, then adjust parts etc. Without measurements with drivers in place, it won't be right.
According to Dayton the DS series has good 'Xmax' (5.3mm) so will be less likely to run out of puff bass-wise, compared to the DC160 (3.5mm).
I wasn't aware of your baffle real estate limitations.
Geoff
Last edited:
Very interesting and I have looked at that aluminum one. I guess I was trying to stay all soft dome and treated paper as my 15 inch woofers are treated paper and I really dislike metallic tweeters. So to my mind I would be inserting a different tonal flavor with an aluminum cone. I did find a GlassFiber woofer that would work possibly.
I did also see the Xmax was better and that was a deciding factor. You are making me smarter Thank You!
Here is the spec sheet for the Morel
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/277-010--morel-mdt-29-spec-sheet.pdf
I did also see the Xmax was better and that was a deciding factor. You are making me smarter Thank You!
Here is the spec sheet for the Morel
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/277-010--morel-mdt-29-spec-sheet.pdf
Hmm this little project is making me learn more and more. I think now after reading about cone materials that you are very right Geoff. My thinking above applies much more so to tweeters and the Aluminum cone Dayton could be faster and more accurate and I could crossover a little higher giving the tweeter less work. Does that sound right? Now I see what you're saying and that may just be the better choice.
Please take the attached as just IMHO, I'm only a beginner at this and what I don't know about crossovers would fill a book. I've made a simulation for you, and that's all it is, to give you an example of the sort of circuit which MIGHT work for you. DSA175 and Morel MDT29. This simulation does not take into account the acoustic response of the drivers when mounted in the baffle.
I'll have a bit of a play with the woofer inductor value (2.5 or 3.0mH might be better) and post a revised XO if it looks better: a higher value will provide more Baffle Step Compensation, which is less important if the speakers will be placed on/near your wall.
Your project really needs someone with much more expertise than I to work out a crossover, I can't stress that enough. This might be a start and should sound better than what you have already or something from a crossover calculator.
I wouldn't get too hung up about driver materials: yes, they will have a different sound, but any quality driver, made of anything, will sound poor if not handled properly in the crossover. There are many views about this, but. Many successful projects mix paper, metal or composite drivers with no problems.
Good luck!
Geoff
I'll have a bit of a play with the woofer inductor value (2.5 or 3.0mH might be better) and post a revised XO if it looks better: a higher value will provide more Baffle Step Compensation, which is less important if the speakers will be placed on/near your wall.
Your project really needs someone with much more expertise than I to work out a crossover, I can't stress that enough. This might be a start and should sound better than what you have already or something from a crossover calculator.
I wouldn't get too hung up about driver materials: yes, they will have a different sound, but any quality driver, made of anything, will sound poor if not handled properly in the crossover. There are many views about this, but. Many successful projects mix paper, metal or composite drivers with no problems.
Good luck!
Geoff
Last edited:
More learning LoL
Passive radiator tower project | Parts Express Project Gallery
The T50 is similar to this with 1 inch less width and less depth. So an intersting later project could have mid(s) & woofer(s) front loaded and either Passive radiator rear or make another enclosure that turns these into a Rear or Bottom Forward Horn. Then they could get a;; pretty with some contrasting wood work and get a little fatter looking. I could see that being a fun way to go. Definetly some versatility and tons of these have most likely been abused.
Passive radiator tower project | Parts Express Project Gallery
The T50 is similar to this with 1 inch less width and less depth. So an intersting later project could have mid(s) & woofer(s) front loaded and either Passive radiator rear or make another enclosure that turns these into a Rear or Bottom Forward Horn. Then they could get a;; pretty with some contrasting wood work and get a little fatter looking. I could see that being a fun way to go. Definetly some versatility and tons of these have most likely been abused.
The concept of being 'faster' is somewhat of a baseless claim, I can only presume where people might get ideas like that.
With regard to crossing higher, paper cones are usually the safe bet when crossing high. Aluminium may support some challenging breakup modes. Besides, at this point a woofer loses touch with the directivity of a dome tweeter.. there is only so high you can go before that is a problem.