Not really, sort of 'been there, done that' in UL/CSA 1000+ MCM cable, bus bar short circuit connections testing, just needs to be carrying enough power, though ATM can't think of any audio system requiring such.
Glad I found this thread. Interested in building my first speakers using these in a TQWT box to replace my current EPI 100. I'm looking for a bit more sensitivity as my amp is an Aleph 30 and I do play at lower volumes often, which the ~87db efficient EPI really are lacking at low volumes. My system is 2.0 channel only, no sub.
I'm thinking the DDVP-20 cabinet would be the easy button for good SQ and ease of construction, my goal is a decent 50hrz for bass, and these seem to be able to achieve this reasonably for a FR speaker.
I have read this entire thread, some of it was over my head, but from what I gathered this seems to be the way to go.
I'm thinking the DDVP-20 cabinet would be the easy button for good SQ and ease of construction, my goal is a decent 50hrz for bass, and these seem to be able to achieve this reasonably for a FR speaker.
I have read this entire thread, some of it was over my head, but from what I gathered this seems to be the way to go.
Received my pair from TLHP.
Should I build the ddvp-20?
What would be a recommended box size (and port) for vented?
Should I build the ddvp-20?
What would be a recommended box size (and port) for vented?
Does anyone think it's a good idea to cut off the whizzer and use it only as midwoofer?
Or waste of money?
Or waste of money?
I have had a pair of them for a few days now and have been wondering the same thing.
It could work but without a measurement setup it would be a shot in the dark.
From what I found the main issue that can arise from removing whizzer is imbalances in the response, typically a huge peak(s).
Examples I've seen were drivers without phase plugs, so who knows how this will respond, is the phase plug designed for the whizzer or will it function about the same?
Also whizzer will be adding some level of stiffness and strength to the main cone, high distortion could arise.
If a fairly balanced response was maintained and no other problems I think removing whizzer and reducing mms could potentially make a very dynamic and snappy sounding midwoofer.
It would probably be a better sounding FR driver too, accepting there may be treble roll off and/or intensified beaming. They are a bit hot on top (I was expecting a lot worse from an 8" FR) treble roll off might work in it's favour while lower Mms may add some refinement at the same time.
Seeing as it's a relatively low cost driver hopefully we will someone xperiment with this eventually.
It could work but without a measurement setup it would be a shot in the dark.
From what I found the main issue that can arise from removing whizzer is imbalances in the response, typically a huge peak(s).
Examples I've seen were drivers without phase plugs, so who knows how this will respond, is the phase plug designed for the whizzer or will it function about the same?
Also whizzer will be adding some level of stiffness and strength to the main cone, high distortion could arise.
If a fairly balanced response was maintained and no other problems I think removing whizzer and reducing mms could potentially make a very dynamic and snappy sounding midwoofer.
It would probably be a better sounding FR driver too, accepting there may be treble roll off and/or intensified beaming. They are a bit hot on top (I was expecting a lot worse from an 8" FR) treble roll off might work in it's favour while lower Mms may add some refinement at the same time.
Seeing as it's a relatively low cost driver hopefully we will someone xperiment with this eventually.
Last edited:
it's early days but so far I think the quality of the highs are acceptable, they are bit too bright near axis but no nasty peaks so simple high shelf filter is pretty effective if needed, usually I dont like adding bass boosting filters but for an FR these handle power pretty well up to a point...
but I would gladly trade some bandwidth and dispersion for a bit more smoothness and refinement in the highs if it were possible.
... maybe better imaging too? these do not have the detailed, pinpoint image of the smaller FRs I've used, dont know is that cos of the whizzer specifically or the size of the driver (or maybe the width of the baffle?)
but I would gladly trade some bandwidth and dispersion for a bit more smoothness and refinement in the highs if it were possible.
... maybe better imaging too? these do not have the detailed, pinpoint image of the smaller FRs I've used, dont know is that cos of the whizzer specifically or the size of the driver (or maybe the width of the baffle?)
Last edited:
Isn’t there a version of this speaker without the wizzer being sold as a woofer already?
I thought these were basically the same? I could be very wrong.
https://www.wagneronline.com.au/sb-...udio-speakers-pa/sb20pfc30-8-71531/991359/pd/
I thought these were basically the same? I could be very wrong.
https://www.wagneronline.com.au/sb-...udio-speakers-pa/sb20pfc30-8-71531/991359/pd/
The fullrange should theoretically be better for midrange:
Foam surround
Lower Le (copper cap)
Lower Mms
Higher Qms
Foam surround
Lower Le (copper cap)
Lower Mms
Higher Qms
The whizzer is covering the ~ 3.5 - 9 kHz BW, so not a good plan to remove it and since it's glued to the VC it doesn't add any stiffness, just causes a higher Q peaking at the joint as shown around ~3.5 kHz.
FWIW, I almost ~always kneaded the whizzer by hand to literally get the starch out of it and if it got too soft, etc., sounding would use either super cheap lacquer hairspray or airbrush however many mist sprays of Dammar/whatever to suit.
Hi,
I'm listening double dose of these drivers for a few months now. They are mounted in sealed test box of 55 liters. This volume is a little bit too low (boom box), F3 is somewhere under 70 Hz, so no real bass in big room. I think that around 80 liters would be optimum for depth and precision of the bass. I wanted to try sealed box because plan is to do high sensitivity 2.5 way (I'm not fullrange religius) which will not go too low - loudspeaker that could stand closer to the wall in average EU room and not to excite all room modes and also be adequate for smaller Alephs and tube amps...
I tried it in big room with more than 50 m2, 20 m2 room and in small 15 m2 room...
Driver has really nice sound, full bodied and has great resolution. In big room 4 of these drivers could easily fill the space with music and big soundstage. And they can go really loud. Imaging and spaciousnes is great, All stereo details are sharp and transients are very fast. Vocals were big and natural with scale. Very dynamic and fast, but of course lacking drama of missing bass frequencies. I tried also 6 dB baffle step correction, but that was too much with drivers close to the floor, even far away from walls. Sound was dull and I continued without any filtering for now...I don't have other values to try smaller BSC...
On axis sound is too much forward, very of axis it lost presence and higher tones, sweet spot is about 10 degrees of axis. Even driven loud on axis drivers don't have any hiss, or iritating sibilance or grainy highs. Just would needs small RLC to bring prominent middle down a little bit.
In small room, sound changed completely, bass is there, very controlled and precise, drums, strings of double bass and piano sound very realistic and live. Again it needs some filtering, it has too much energy in middle, especially when you go louder. But it is amazing difference between bas reflex bookshelf and this sealed box with big cones. Everything is more clear and room modes are not excited, no muddyness and bloom...With this sensitivity you get concert level with pot on 8:30 h and cones didn't even start to move visibly yet.
In rooms under 20 m2 I guess it could go only with minimum BSC and to maintain high sensitivity. four of these have more than 100 dbwm in room without any filtering.
I compared it to Troels' SBA 16 MTM and with Eka Ceramic bookshelf with SB CAC drivers. Yes I know, house full of SB units. 🙂
Conventonal tweeters will have more air and a little bit more extended treble. Decays and fast transients are better with dome tweeters and Satoris are from another world so comparison is not really fair. Also price comparison is way on fullranger side...
I will try to make 2.5 way in 80 liters sealed box with waveguide tweeter (old Monacor DT300 93 dB is on stock) with maybe 1st order cross between mid and tweet and 0.5 bass close to the floor...And real 92-94 dbwm on 4 ohms....Maybe I cut whizzer and make measurement on one unit, but this will not be in next few days...
I'm listening double dose of these drivers for a few months now. They are mounted in sealed test box of 55 liters. This volume is a little bit too low (boom box), F3 is somewhere under 70 Hz, so no real bass in big room. I think that around 80 liters would be optimum for depth and precision of the bass. I wanted to try sealed box because plan is to do high sensitivity 2.5 way (I'm not fullrange religius) which will not go too low - loudspeaker that could stand closer to the wall in average EU room and not to excite all room modes and also be adequate for smaller Alephs and tube amps...
I tried it in big room with more than 50 m2, 20 m2 room and in small 15 m2 room...
Driver has really nice sound, full bodied and has great resolution. In big room 4 of these drivers could easily fill the space with music and big soundstage. And they can go really loud. Imaging and spaciousnes is great, All stereo details are sharp and transients are very fast. Vocals were big and natural with scale. Very dynamic and fast, but of course lacking drama of missing bass frequencies. I tried also 6 dB baffle step correction, but that was too much with drivers close to the floor, even far away from walls. Sound was dull and I continued without any filtering for now...I don't have other values to try smaller BSC...
On axis sound is too much forward, very of axis it lost presence and higher tones, sweet spot is about 10 degrees of axis. Even driven loud on axis drivers don't have any hiss, or iritating sibilance or grainy highs. Just would needs small RLC to bring prominent middle down a little bit.
In small room, sound changed completely, bass is there, very controlled and precise, drums, strings of double bass and piano sound very realistic and live. Again it needs some filtering, it has too much energy in middle, especially when you go louder. But it is amazing difference between bas reflex bookshelf and this sealed box with big cones. Everything is more clear and room modes are not excited, no muddyness and bloom...With this sensitivity you get concert level with pot on 8:30 h and cones didn't even start to move visibly yet.
In rooms under 20 m2 I guess it could go only with minimum BSC and to maintain high sensitivity. four of these have more than 100 dbwm in room without any filtering.
I compared it to Troels' SBA 16 MTM and with Eka Ceramic bookshelf with SB CAC drivers. Yes I know, house full of SB units. 🙂
Conventonal tweeters will have more air and a little bit more extended treble. Decays and fast transients are better with dome tweeters and Satoris are from another world so comparison is not really fair. Also price comparison is way on fullranger side...
I will try to make 2.5 way in 80 liters sealed box with waveguide tweeter (old Monacor DT300 93 dB is on stock) with maybe 1st order cross between mid and tweet and 0.5 bass close to the floor...And real 92-94 dbwm on 4 ohms....Maybe I cut whizzer and make measurement on one unit, but this will not be in next few days...
Attachments
I use it in an OB as a fullrange with whizzer cone still in place and I'm really satisfied with the highs too.
Clear recommendation not to cut the whizzer.
Clear recommendation not to cut the whizzer.
If the Q is to high there is a way of lowering the Q by adding a serial capacitor, it only works in a narrow Q range.
There is also resistive vents that can be used to lower the Q mechanically.
I have my drivers in a quarter wave pipe with a wide baffle and asymetric placement on the baffle, sounds great without any tuning network, just straigth up🙂
There is also resistive vents that can be used to lower the Q mechanically.
I have my drivers in a quarter wave pipe with a wide baffle and asymetric placement on the baffle, sounds great without any tuning network, just straigth up🙂
Well, I finaly got around to connecting my newly arrived units and I gotta say the highs are satisfying
No rush to add a tweeter
No rush to add a tweeter
I have tried adding a little Sica LP35x50.18/N5 assist tweeter, despite the roughness of SB treble it has an ease and lack of compression that makes it preferable to the dome. This was with digital XO, the complications and compromises of implementing the XO had yet to come into it.
A high XO point away from the midrange was the aim but it sounded best in a the standard range of 2-3kHz... because of directivity matching? because there is not a lot of important musical information to gain or lose beyond this point?
Probably wasn't the best choice of tweeter for this, a paper cone tweeter feels more appropiate now, keeping with low cost.
A high XO point away from the midrange was the aim but it sounded best in a the standard range of 2-3kHz... because of directivity matching? because there is not a lot of important musical information to gain or lose beyond this point?
Probably wasn't the best choice of tweeter for this, a paper cone tweeter feels more appropiate now, keeping with low cost.
Last edited: