what do You think about combining the Satori TW 29 D-B (4 OHM) with the Satori MW19 P -4 A good Match Or would you go with a 3 Way ? Both on sale so kind of interesting Thanks PS ON Hand Satori Mr 13 - 4 & Satori TW 29D-B
Last edited:
I think the above would make a better 2 way combination. The MW19 looks like it lacks proper bottom octave frequency extension (F3 only 41Hz ported if you trust the madisound page tuning suggestion). For a 3 way - I would go with a 6.5 / 5 / 4" midwoofer / midrange rather than use the MW19 as a mid (if that is what you are meaning). The sensitivity match of the 2 drivers is good. After bafflestep, you'd end up with ~ 87-88dB sensitive 2 way with this combo (not bad).
Thank you - If I am hearing you then A 2 Way- with the drivers mentioned would work - Sounds like Fun - I guess I would have to accept (less deep) base that is well - Limited - that being said - are there virtues to the Combination?
The more I think about it, the more the traditional monkey coffin made sense. 10-3-1 crossed 300, 3K. Look carefully at the models for excursion and distortion.
Matching a mid to woofer is hard due to what Dave is saying. To make it harder, published specs can be off by more than 3 dB. I find actual to be closer to what WinISD calculates than what is published.
Matching a mid to woofer is hard due to what Dave is saying. To make it harder, published specs can be off by more than 3 dB. I find actual to be closer to what WinISD calculates than what is published.
IF specs are not to be trusted - Well that's a problem - I certainly do not have the equipment to Measure actual speaker performance - How Close is close Enough for a enjoyable listening experience - Is a two way speaker with the drivers mentioned - The Satori ones - likely to be - Nice, or a disappointment ?
The woodshop capability often sets the design direction.
You will get the best performance if you can build a good 3-way TMW or TMWW cabinet. examples: SP1, Compas, Kronos
--Hearing research explains why a T-M crossover around 1,700-2,00Hz is a good choice.
--A sealed box midrange sounds better than a ported midrange.
sealed MR16P-4 -F3 ~90Hz
sealed MW16P-4 -F3 ~78Hz
--You need woofer(s) to get good bass with a 6" midrange.
You will get the best performance if you can build a good 3-way TMW or TMWW cabinet. examples: SP1, Compas, Kronos
--Hearing research explains why a T-M crossover around 1,700-2,00Hz is a good choice.
--A sealed box midrange sounds better than a ported midrange.
sealed MR16P-4 -F3 ~90Hz
sealed MW16P-4 -F3 ~78Hz
--You need woofer(s) to get good bass with a 6" midrange.
Attachments
woodworking is not a problem 50 years as a wood guy- and have a full shop- As for what to build - that's another story -Also the Woofer I was asking about is the MW19P-4 not the Satori 16
Last edited:
You should consider a kit and use your woodworking skills to add large round-overs to any box you build.
Here's a good selection.
DIY-Loudspeakers
Here's a good selection.
DIY-Loudspeakers
I saw a guy built a 2-way monitor with MW19P and TW29RN-B.
MW19P-8
Well, although I don't like the look of the cabinet,( I prefer a slimmer front baffle), but I think it's ok to just copy his crossover parameters since you don't have the equipment to deal with measurements and stuff.
I agree with ErnieM, Satori actually has an official kit called "Rinjani", it's a 2-way setup, and combines 2xMW16P and a TW29R. Crossover parameters and cabinet drawings can be found here Rinjani – Sbacoustics
This Rinjani looks quite handsome, and you can't go wrong since it's an official kit and SB Acoustics have already done all the math for us.
MW19P-8
Well, although I don't like the look of the cabinet,( I prefer a slimmer front baffle), but I think it's ok to just copy his crossover parameters since you don't have the equipment to deal with measurements and stuff.
I agree with ErnieM, Satori actually has an official kit called "Rinjani", it's a 2-way setup, and combines 2xMW16P and a TW29R. Crossover parameters and cabinet drawings can be found here Rinjani – Sbacoustics
This Rinjani looks quite handsome, and you can't go wrong since it's an official kit and SB Acoustics have already done all the math for us.
Probably the correct thing WAS to do a kit - but I got impatient and bought the drivers i mentioned including the Mw19p-4 - so Moving on to the next step - finding a design that uses at least some of what i bought - The two way approach seems doable , as I mentioned I have the Satori TW29D-B ( 4 ohm )and the in the mail the Mw19p-4
I will put aside the Satori mr13-4 for another project - any thoughts on what i have ???
I will put aside the Satori mr13-4 for another project - any thoughts on what i have ???
I have factory satori driver measurements so don't mind modeling a 2 way crossover for you as a starting point. I'd make this tuneable for tweeter level to provide shaping optionsm I am assuming you aren't intending to measure and design yourself. I do need to know your baffle shape and driver placement offsets from top and sides to do this.also whether you want maximally flat ported bass or plan to go sealed and augmented with subwoofer
Well that's a very kind offer - Thank you Dave - and as i have not the means nor knowledge to design the Crossover - I would be Grateful for any help - As for the Baffle shape I am all ears -Or should I say Eyes - I do not care for the Troles gravesen boxes that were recommended earlier though I do understand The reason for the stepped Baffle - Looking for the good there I am wondering if the displacement of his box, would also work for the 4 OHM version(mine) of the Satori 19 ?
As for the shape of the Baffle - it looks like many shapes -Correct me if I am Wrong - are driven by looks - and the desire to deal with edge diffraction in a builder friendly manner.
Finally Perhaps to Address the Compounding of various problem frequency's through a Asymmetrical approach- either through the offsets or other means -Is this correct ?
As for the shape of the Baffle - it looks like many shapes -Correct me if I am Wrong - are driven by looks - and the desire to deal with edge diffraction in a builder friendly manner.
Finally Perhaps to Address the Compounding of various problem frequency's through a Asymmetrical approach- either through the offsets or other means -Is this correct ?
Stepped or sloped baffles aren't required. We can allow for time-alignment differences between tweeter and woofer in the crossover (asymmetric slopes). There's a ton of debate on the internet whether this can be "heard". The bulk of DIY designs go for a flat (non stepped / non sloped) baffle. A flat baffle is also an easier enclosure build. Flat is what I'd propose here.
Offsetting the tweeter (horizontally) off centre is smoothes baffle diffraction ripple. However one notable designer told me this (in his opinion) sacrifices imaging. I'd recommend keeping drivers centered.
Baffle shape - there's a few images floating around showing effect of driver placement and edge treatment (curvature, rounding, faceting etc...) to smooth ripple / effects. The best is probably large facets (lookup Avalon speakers). Roundovers have to be large to have any material effect. Some roundover is better than none typically. Still there are many very expensive and successful commercial speakers with almost square edged baffles.
I'd remodel the enclosure volume. If Fs, Vas and Qts are different between 4 and 8 ohm versions (or any 2 drivers you pick) - then the enclosure will be different.
Do you want a ported or sealed enclosure? The major consideration here is frequency extension (whether you want these playing with without a subwoofer).
In terms of baffle width - the trend tends to be narrow as possible for the woofer. More bafflestep compensation is required. Some argue wider baffles provide a better soundstage and might sacrifice imaging... but I'm not sure. In anycase - I'd recommend we choose a baffle width an inch or so larger each side of the MW19 - allowing for wall thickness and any wall lining material you may want to use. I'll lookup some similar designs with the MW19 (Troels for example if he has one).
Offsetting the tweeter (horizontally) off centre is smoothes baffle diffraction ripple. However one notable designer told me this (in his opinion) sacrifices imaging. I'd recommend keeping drivers centered.
Baffle shape - there's a few images floating around showing effect of driver placement and edge treatment (curvature, rounding, faceting etc...) to smooth ripple / effects. The best is probably large facets (lookup Avalon speakers). Roundovers have to be large to have any material effect. Some roundover is better than none typically. Still there are many very expensive and successful commercial speakers with almost square edged baffles.
I'd remodel the enclosure volume. If Fs, Vas and Qts are different between 4 and 8 ohm versions (or any 2 drivers you pick) - then the enclosure will be different.
Do you want a ported or sealed enclosure? The major consideration here is frequency extension (whether you want these playing with without a subwoofer).
In terms of baffle width - the trend tends to be narrow as possible for the woofer. More bafflestep compensation is required. Some argue wider baffles provide a better soundstage and might sacrifice imaging... but I'm not sure. In anycase - I'd recommend we choose a baffle width an inch or so larger each side of the MW19 - allowing for wall thickness and any wall lining material you may want to use. I'll lookup some similar designs with the MW19 (Troels for example if he has one).
Last edited:
Hey Dave - Mahalo For you interest in,y project - As for the baffle shape and volume I am ready to Yield - I see expertise here - What is common here is 23 mm ply - The MW 19p-4 is aprox 7.5 in wide - so lets say 11 in wide x ? what do you think? - I can also extend the box to the floor if there is a advantage to that - and of course rounding or square are easy - you lose quite a bit of material if Faceted - again though not hard to do- again willing to yield -PS I think Ported- Steve from Hawaii
Last edited:
A quick simulation of the ported cabinet for MW19P-4 shows a different cabinet design was needed because of different T/S parameters comparing to MW19P-8. MW19P-4 only needs around 17-liters of volume and the tuning frequency is 48Hz. So Troles Gravesen's MW19P-8 box is a bit larger than what MW19P-4 actually needs, shrink the baffle width if you want to keep his design, 8.5-inch baffle width will do just fine. But I don't think that's the real problem. The real problem is how to get a proper crossover design? The resistance difference between the drivers changes the crossover point so that a "ruler-flat" frequency response is not going to happen if simply implement the crossover parameter designed for the MW19P-8.
Even if someone provides a crossover design out of factory measurement, it won't be perfect because your cabinet is not "factory". Baffle diffraction and stuff will affect the frequency response and this kind guy does not know how the woofer and the tweeter will behave on this very cabinet and your mileage may vary. I don't want to be mean, I just want you to know that it is really hard to build your own speakers without measuring equipment.
I remember -I read that factories use a generic -Standard box to do there measuring - as well as a anechoic chamber -neither of these represent real world environments -certainly not my room ,so yes I understand that - My mileage will vary - it seems at the very least tweaking - (tuning would help develop the design ) ala Andrew Jones. -
I guess the point here is that you need to start somewhere, is it a compromise sure - But I dont see how how using microphones and analysis software is going to greatly improve the situation - emphasis on greatly-
If you measure in you house - then aren't you tuning to your Room -At least to some degree ? = less than perfect -
I came to mind that Sennheiser (the microphone company) Tried to mimic the human ear - the microphone was so delicate that just blowing on the membrane would destroy it, it seems we have a long way to go in this respect, - certainly far from perfect.
Ill concede that Software and measuring tools are a good start - equal to ? a pure Math solution I dont know - But it seems to me that both are Just that A START.
Am I the one who can Fill in the Gaps to Bring the project to the next level- to a really great speaker, Probably Not But it seem Fun to As the English Say to, = GIVE IT A GO -
I guess the point here is that you need to start somewhere, is it a compromise sure - But I dont see how how using microphones and analysis software is going to greatly improve the situation - emphasis on greatly-
If you measure in you house - then aren't you tuning to your Room -At least to some degree ? = less than perfect -
I came to mind that Sennheiser (the microphone company) Tried to mimic the human ear - the microphone was so delicate that just blowing on the membrane would destroy it, it seems we have a long way to go in this respect, - certainly far from perfect.
Ill concede that Software and measuring tools are a good start - equal to ? a pure Math solution I dont know - But it seems to me that both are Just that A START.
Am I the one who can Fill in the Gaps to Bring the project to the next level- to a really great speaker, Probably Not But it seem Fun to As the English Say to, = GIVE IT A GO -
I wanted to Pass on the Published some published data -ON the Satori 19 Generally the difference is- small ? -The 8 ohm has a FS of 32.5 hz Total Q of 0.33 and A VAS of 48 liters
The 4 OHM version is similar A FS of 32 hz Total Q of .28 and a exact Vas of 48 liters
The question is will these differences Necessitate a different box Volume ?
The 4 OHM version is similar A FS of 32 hz Total Q of .28 and a exact Vas of 48 liters
The question is will these differences Necessitate a different box Volume ?
You can get very close to actual measurements - as long as you have good source data and know its conditions and are methodical.
Seas use in box measurements - but SBA use IEC baffles.
My method is as follows:
1. Take factory curves and understand measurement conditions. I have IEC "baffle step gain" and IEC baffle diffraction responses for various driver sizes.
2. Model the baffle step and diffraction signature of the intended enclosure (target BDS)
3. Model the target woofer enclosure response (target woofer)
4. Subtract source conditions and add in target conditions (aka Sum the responses together) for each driver. I use various tools for this.
5. Extract minimum phase
6. Load target curves into crossover simulator and apply voice coil (Z) and mic (Y) offsets
The above provides a very good starting point. An optimal position is to measure, but I've found the above to be very very close.
If measurements are not possible, then the most important aspects to get right are:
1. Bafflestep compensation
2. on and off-axis behaviour around Fc (crossover point)
3. Treble (tweeter) level
I try and "fix in" points #1 and #2. As these require often a redesign of the crossover. So I do my best to get these right.
3. Really boils down to personal preference but especially room treatment. If you are in a hard surfaced / highly reflective room, then you want to pad down the tweeter.
I therefore usually simulate various tweeter padding options for #3 - as buying some spare resistors to tweak tweeter level is cheap compared to the other parts at the time you order the xo.
Seas use in box measurements - but SBA use IEC baffles.
My method is as follows:
1. Take factory curves and understand measurement conditions. I have IEC "baffle step gain" and IEC baffle diffraction responses for various driver sizes.
2. Model the baffle step and diffraction signature of the intended enclosure (target BDS)
3. Model the target woofer enclosure response (target woofer)
4. Subtract source conditions and add in target conditions (aka Sum the responses together) for each driver. I use various tools for this.
5. Extract minimum phase
6. Load target curves into crossover simulator and apply voice coil (Z) and mic (Y) offsets
The above provides a very good starting point. An optimal position is to measure, but I've found the above to be very very close.
If measurements are not possible, then the most important aspects to get right are:
1. Bafflestep compensation
2. on and off-axis behaviour around Fc (crossover point)
3. Treble (tweeter) level
I try and "fix in" points #1 and #2. As these require often a redesign of the crossover. So I do my best to get these right.
3. Really boils down to personal preference but especially room treatment. If you are in a hard surfaced / highly reflective room, then you want to pad down the tweeter.
I therefore usually simulate various tweeter padding options for #3 - as buying some spare resistors to tweak tweeter level is cheap compared to the other parts at the time you order the xo.