Suggestion: during your wait - learn VituixCAD.
This is the forum's thread on it:
VituixCAD
..and some video's:
vituixcad - Google Search
Last edited:
The Lom165vPA is not for sale at the moment, quite the buzz kill. Trying to see if I can get 3 samples but not holding my breath.
The Lom165 vPA H is available but sensitivity is a bit lower and so is the xo. The Beyma here is a better match sensitivity wise.
502 Bad Gateway
The Lom165 vPA H is available but sensitivity is a bit lower and so is the xo. The Beyma here is a better match sensitivity wise.
502 Bad Gateway
The Beyma looks good to about 450 Hz, and you don't have to worry about loading for that considering it's a "closed-back" design. On the other hand you won't be able to adjust the loading with a closed-back design. (..I like (rear) vented midrange designs where the vent is about 2 octaves below the high-pass filter. This isn't done for extension, but rather for the resulting sound that typically sounds a little more "free" that tend's to play-back low-level detail a bit better.)
Still, I'd want the Lom165vPA.. I mean they did say they were eager to work with DIY'ers.
Still, I'd want the Lom165vPA.. I mean they did say they were eager to work with DIY'ers.
I noticed they have an array config at the bottom of the page with the Lom165 and Cmp35_vPA. Not sure if its his design or what but could be why they don't list it.
I'll let you know Ernie, maybe a group buy would push it through.
I'll let you know Ernie, maybe a group buy would push it through.
Kartesian response to my inquiry below.
Thank you for your message.
The Lom165_vPA has been bought with exclusivity term and it should be removed from our website very soon.
We would suggest Lom165_vPA-H instead.
All products available for passionate, are distributed by TLHP.
Best regards,
Mme Ning Zhang
Contact & Communication
Thank you for your message.
The Lom165_vPA has been bought with exclusivity term and it should be removed from our website very soon.
We would suggest Lom165_vPA-H instead.
All products available for passionate, are distributed by TLHP.
Best regards,
Mme Ning Zhang
Contact & Communication
-well that sucks. Not a great start for working eagerly with the DIY community!
Ok then, less sophisticated diaphragm:
6MD38 LF Drivers - B&C Speakers
Measurements seen here:
Zaph|Audio
IF you don't need quite as much low freq. extension then the Faital Pro might be a better option:
FaitalPRO | LF Loudspeakers | M5N8-80 (8Ω)
-it likely is the better option as far as easier integration with the ribbon particularly with respect to off-axis results (..but more difficult as far as integration with the midbass due to pressure loss below 400 Hz).
Ok then, less sophisticated diaphragm:
6MD38 LF Drivers - B&C Speakers
Measurements seen here:
Zaph|Audio
IF you don't need quite as much low freq. extension then the Faital Pro might be a better option:
FaitalPRO | LF Loudspeakers | M5N8-80 (8Ω)
-it likely is the better option as far as easier integration with the ribbon particularly with respect to off-axis results (..but more difficult as far as integration with the midbass due to pressure loss below 400 Hz).
Last edited:
-you could get a bit more efficiency to compensate for the lower freq. loss of the M5N8 with the 12 ohm version x2 in parallel for a net 6 ohm average.
FaitalPRO | LF Loudspeakers | M5N8-80 (12Ω)
Speaking of multiple drivers.. another possibility with a more sophisticated diaphragm (even more than the Lom165_vPA) is a small vertical array x4 (series parallel connected - 8 ohm average) of these:
AUDAX HM100Z0 (Mid-range 4", 8 Ohm, 80Wmax)
FaitalPRO | LF Loudspeakers | M5N8-80 (12Ω)
Speaking of multiple drivers.. another possibility with a more sophisticated diaphragm (even more than the Lom165_vPA) is a small vertical array x4 (series parallel connected - 8 ohm average) of these:
AUDAX HM100Z0 (Mid-range 4", 8 Ohm, 80Wmax)
Last edited:
I have below 100hz covered with 4x24” subs. Audax are nice, an array like that may get too complex for me. I’ll give both the Faital and Audax a run in virtuixcad once I have a better handle on it.
I got ahold of RumoH and they said Audax won’t pick up the phone or respond to emails for the last 2 months.I contacted 1 other store but It doesn’t look good if they have gone silent. I may cross them off the list
Also, if I remember correctly you have 3 speakers to build. You should probably start thinking about how that will be (physically) with center speaker. For instance an 18 inch array of mid.s sticking up above a tweeter might not be the best choice for a center speaker. (..though perhaps an MMTMM might work.)
..and another to consider if you sufficiently crossover above 400 Hz:
SB Audience :: NERO-6MRN150D
-btw, I'm partial to graphite coated paper and flat-damped surrounds for mid.s myself. Chonky neo-magnet motor is also a plus.
The NERO-6MRN150D Midrange Woofer from SB Audience | audioXpress
2nd order and resulting THD is higher, but third is well down in level. Decay is excellent. It's an objectively good (dynamic) driver that's this efficient IMO.
You might need to notch-out that 3.8-4 kHz "bump".
SB Audience :: NERO-6MRN150D
-btw, I'm partial to graphite coated paper and flat-damped surrounds for mid.s myself. Chonky neo-magnet motor is also a plus.
The NERO-6MRN150D Midrange Woofer from SB Audience | audioXpress
2nd order and resulting THD is higher, but third is well down in level. Decay is excellent. It's an objectively good (dynamic) driver that's this efficient IMO.
You might need to notch-out that 3.8-4 kHz "bump".
Last edited:
No response about Audax so I’ve moved on. I’ve been able to achieve a reasonably flat response with the tweet and mid and impedance looks ok but introduction of the woofer is a shite show so far. I’m not deterred but it’s now clear the complexity a 3way presents.
In theory are there instances where some speakers aren’t a good match ie can’t be xo smoothly etc.
If I can get them finished by the end of the year I’d be happy, get them to not sound like garbage wil be a plus.
In theory are there instances where some speakers aren’t a good match ie can’t be xo smoothly etc.
If I can get them finished by the end of the year I’d be happy, get them to not sound like garbage wil be a plus.
Usually the problems with woofers (3-way or more) are:
1. not having enough "gain" (and having to "pad-down" the rest of the drivers to match)
2. getting a good baffle-step result in-room.
3. nasty break-up resonance that needs to be notched-out.
4. getting a good cabinet relative to *standing-waves and getting good **coupling of the drivers to a good baffle.
*this is typically more easily seen when looking at impedance in the 70-800 Hz range (..it's more difficult to measure with respect to freq. response).
**the more rigid the baffle - the better clarity/"tighter"-sound the result. You can improve on this further with a good coupling to the floor.
What I'm not including in the above is basic volume (and potentially port) construction - which is something that's not that difficult to achieve (with something as simple as WinISD) and assuming you know what sort of lower freq. (roll-off) characteristic you want to achieve.
1. not having enough "gain" (and having to "pad-down" the rest of the drivers to match)
2. getting a good baffle-step result in-room.
3. nasty break-up resonance that needs to be notched-out.
4. getting a good cabinet relative to *standing-waves and getting good **coupling of the drivers to a good baffle.
*this is typically more easily seen when looking at impedance in the 70-800 Hz range (..it's more difficult to measure with respect to freq. response).
**the more rigid the baffle - the better clarity/"tighter"-sound the result. You can improve on this further with a good coupling to the floor.
What I'm not including in the above is basic volume (and potentially port) construction - which is something that's not that difficult to achieve (with something as simple as WinISD) and assuming you know what sort of lower freq. (roll-off) characteristic you want to achieve.
Thanks for the input Scott. I have confidence in building a solid cabs, trial and error in sub builds over time has helped me there.
The 3800hz res you mentioned is where it is showing it’s ***. I faired better using a active filters. It has given me pause on using passive. I have a 3 way amp on sub duty they I may use for the test baffle, and if it goes well I may just go active. I’m more in my comfort zone with dsp.
I’m also considering the Faital 15PR 400, use 1 per cab. Help save some cash to put towards amps.
The 3800hz res you mentioned is where it is showing it’s ***. I faired better using a active filters. It has given me pause on using passive. I have a 3 way amp on sub duty they I may use for the test baffle, and if it goes well I may just go active. I’m more in my comfort zone with dsp.
I’m also considering the Faital 15PR 400, use 1 per cab. Help save some cash to put towards amps.
VituixCAD should have you covered for all aspects of the crossover design.
Here is a simple parallel notch filter calculator:
Calculate Parallel Notch Filtern
Here is a simple parallel notch filter calculator:
Calculate Parallel Notch Filtern
If you do this then you won't have the gain neccesary for a design that's 95-96db.
That would however allow you to use a lower efficiency midrange (..presumably with a net result around 91-92 db).
In an active system, you could put a delayed tweeter in front of the mid(s).
That would make C-to-C spacing ~irrelevant.
If you use a horn on the mid, you could tweak the horn's radiation pattern to get a better match between the mid and HF.
