That would solve the UMM problem for sure!
By removing the mid/treble units and the whole crossover, abandoning the 4! WOofers and substitute them with One 6" unit.
Usually car MWs are 4 Ohm, so no big changes to the crossover.(I'd halve C value from 100 to 47 or even try without...)
All the units should be close to each One, tweeter at ear level and back wave of the cone driver must be covered somehow tò limit acoustic short.
Last edited:
Yes, for sure, go buy electronic crossover!
The remaining 4! WOofers in boxes (now braced and with mid/tw holes covered)
Can be used for the OOMPH section
Ok, I have checked the existing parts.
The coils available are:
1) Iron core 3.5mH AWG15
2) Air core 0.47mH AWG20
In order to form the 4.0mH inductors, can I use these two inductors connected in series?
They're different size (AWG) and type (Air vs. Iron core) though, will it cause problem?
The coils available are:
1) Iron core 3.5mH AWG15
2) Air core 0.47mH AWG20
In order to form the 4.0mH inductors, can I use these two inductors connected in series?
They're different size (AWG) and type (Air vs. Iron core) though, will it cause problem?
Attachments
Last edited:
It depends on how you are planning to operate...if in experimental mode or...?
Still you haven't responded on how you think the midrange would cover the part ( yes, it's like a partiture) left 'unplayed' by the woofer(s) due to different F cut
And stop putting LIKE...
I think I give good advice but you seem to ignore full paragraphs.
Still you haven't responded on how you think the midrange would cover the part ( yes, it's like a partiture) left 'unplayed' by the woofer(s) due to different F cut
And stop putting LIKE...
I think I give good advice but you seem to ignore full paragraphs.
It would be great if I could operate in the professional mode. 😀
I'm quite sure that the midranges wouldn't be the cause of problem because of their physical, the two-inch dome, and they have high-pass filters whose corner frequencies are about 540 Hz with 12dB/octave slope.
So since you're talking about phisical dimensions, what about the midwoofer you have mentioned in other threads?
Does it exist phisically or it's just an entity?
Does it exist phisically or it's just an entity?
The beauty of DIY is that you are the committant and the client, alltogether!
In this thread, I'm talking about modifying the commercial speakers; here are the ADS L1590/2s, which have no mid-woofers equipped. Perhaps you are confused with the other threads.
Some one talked about cabinet construction, some one talked about slopes & values.
I talk about driver integration in your environment
Everything's implied and as some one advised, you're making confusion, well at least, initially, but if you are fond in making perfect speakers from those ADS you're welcome and go on...we'll see...
I talk about driver integration in your environment
Everything's implied and as some one advised, you're making confusion, well at least, initially, but if you are fond in making perfect speakers from those ADS you're welcome and go on...we'll see...
I'd start from reducing the number of the voices. 1 instead of two woofers.
Also reduce the size of the woofer. You said you had available a pair of car MWs.
Try those without changing anything, except the so-called box which purpose is to stop the back emission of a speaker.
Same in other threads ( opened by you) you had to face the conflicting problems of housing some speakers and make them produce
something in order to listen to some music.
NOW, if you're into house/electronic music it would be advisable to follow Mountain Bob's advice to study electronic crossovers and their appliances, like subwoofers, which involves LP for the sub and HP for the 'satellites'.
4 x 10" should make it, together with an extra amplifier.
If you're not interested in studying electronic crossovers, well, you have to study the passive ones.
But before you have to get the full picture.
Also reduce the size of the woofer. You said you had available a pair of car MWs.
Try those without changing anything, except the so-called box which purpose is to stop the back emission of a speaker.
Same in other threads ( opened by you) you had to face the conflicting problems of housing some speakers and make them produce
something in order to listen to some music.
NOW, if you're into house/electronic music it would be advisable to follow Mountain Bob's advice to study electronic crossovers and their appliances, like subwoofers, which involves LP for the sub and HP for the 'satellites'.
4 x 10" should make it, together with an extra amplifier.
If you're not interested in studying electronic crossovers, well, you have to study the passive ones.
But before you have to get the full picture.
Have you played with the box fill at all?
Have been surprised at how that can make a difference. Also have seen seemingly poor or lack of fill and it was optimal.
Have been surprised at how that can make a difference. Also have seen seemingly poor or lack of fill and it was optimal.
When combining two to make one, you can stack them. Sometimes this increases the inductance without increasing the series resistance. It would be better to measure the result, check the relative polarity, and remember the saturation qualities may be different.
Update! This morning I’ve done the experiment.
I used a 3.5 mH iron core in series with a 0.53 mH iron core and aligned them along side to each other as picture no.3 on the above attached of inductor placement. Placement no.3 gave the inductance the closet to 4.0 mH when measured. The capacitors were formed by a 100uF in parallel with a 33uF. Arranged all the component in simple second-order configuration and connected them to the bi-amp input terminals of the speakers.
Here is the result! The “Umm” sound was reduced by a certain amount, not fully eliminated though. The pro is vocal is more clear and transparent. It felt like the tonal balance moved towards brighter. However, the con is bass was slightly reduced. This might cause by the increase of resistance due to the two series inductors.
In sum, I’m satisfied with this modification. But, I think it would be better if I use a single low-resistance inductor.
I used a 3.5 mH iron core in series with a 0.53 mH iron core and aligned them along side to each other as picture no.3 on the above attached of inductor placement. Placement no.3 gave the inductance the closet to 4.0 mH when measured. The capacitors were formed by a 100uF in parallel with a 33uF. Arranged all the component in simple second-order configuration and connected them to the bi-amp input terminals of the speakers.
Here is the result! The “Umm” sound was reduced by a certain amount, not fully eliminated though. The pro is vocal is more clear and transparent. It felt like the tonal balance moved towards brighter. However, the con is bass was slightly reduced. This might cause by the increase of resistance due to the two series inductors.
In sum, I’m satisfied with this modification. But, I think it would be better if I use a single low-resistance inductor.
Now you know why some of us DIYers (use to) buy in bulk at the local industrial electrical supplier and de-wind as required. 😉
Today I relocated the new passive crossover so that it had more space to try other inductor placements.
I had tried figure no. 8, in which the diagram suggests "Never do this". It allows for two configurations as a coil has two terminals. And here I will call the 0.53 mH a small coil and the 3.5 mH a large coil.
When I connected the inside terminal of the small coil to the large coil, it established a summation of inductance of about 4 mH.
But, when I connected the outside terminal of the small coil to the large coil, it established a summation of inductance of about 6 mH.
I also tried other placements, and they resulted in the same, either 4 mH or 6 mH total.
Therefore, in conclusion, I think the inductor placements, in case we need to increase the inductance in one unit, don't matter.
Do you agree with me? Is there anything wrong with my experiments?
I had tried figure no. 8, in which the diagram suggests "Never do this". It allows for two configurations as a coil has two terminals. And here I will call the 0.53 mH a small coil and the 3.5 mH a large coil.
When I connected the inside terminal of the small coil to the large coil, it established a summation of inductance of about 4 mH.
But, when I connected the outside terminal of the small coil to the large coil, it established a summation of inductance of about 6 mH.
I also tried other placements, and they resulted in the same, either 4 mH or 6 mH total.
Therefore, in conclusion, I think the inductor placements, in case we need to increase the inductance in one unit, don't matter.
Do you agree with me? Is there anything wrong with my experiments?