I see. There might be some beauty in covering the most active range with both drivers in sync, this is why we run them in serial chain with summing the impedance of both. It will take me few days to try. I am actively listening with tweeter high-passed with capacitor, I need to get used to this sound. Then I can try to overlap them...
Any opinion on adding an ambient rear firing tweeter like here?
https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/adding-a-tweeter-to-back-of-speakers.602465/
https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/adding-a-tweeter-to-back-of-speakers.602465/
@wolf_teeth any particular reason you chose W4 driver over W6? From this forum I've got the impression the largest drawback of the W6 & W8 is that with drive excursion over 0.5 mm the tweeter waveguide is essentially distorting it. Must not be a problem with W4.
However I'm thinking that even though I'm still building the W6 pair it should give me a clear upgrade path - one day I'll build a reaction cancelling sub and then I'll high pass W6 at 200 Hz.
I think for apple-to-apples, if W6 is high passed at W4 rolloff it will sound superior to W4 because it needs smaller excursion for identical volume above that frequency.
However I'm thinking that even though I'm still building the W6 pair it should give me a clear upgrade path - one day I'll build a reaction cancelling sub and then I'll high pass W6 at 200 Hz.
I think for apple-to-apples, if W6 is high passed at W4 rolloff it will sound superior to W4 because it needs smaller excursion for identical volume above that frequency.
I didn't choose it, TB sent them to me.
Anyway, I highpassed them at 400Hz to a woofer, so there is not much distortion of the waveguiding midrange due to excursion. It just doesn't move much. If the others were highpassed, they wouldn't move much either.
The W4 does better off axis due to being a smaller drive unit and using a 3/4" tweeter. There is no contest compared to the other 2 in that regard alone. It also has relatively miniscule breakup modes, and the others have more of a problem there to start with.
You can't compare apples to apples because of the differences.
Anyway, I highpassed them at 400Hz to a woofer, so there is not much distortion of the waveguiding midrange due to excursion. It just doesn't move much. If the others were highpassed, they wouldn't move much either.
The W4 does better off axis due to being a smaller drive unit and using a 3/4" tweeter. There is no contest compared to the other 2 in that regard alone. It also has relatively miniscule breakup modes, and the others have more of a problem there to start with.
You can't compare apples to apples because of the differences.
I don't think you understand me. The Dire tivity index involves a power response measurement, which shows how the response fades as you move off axis. A 4" and 22mm will always have better off axis than a 6" and 25mm. I was not speaking as to the best listening angle, in fact, I have the W4 toed in to face me.
I've measured that in my prototype box w W6 the tweeter gives the most smooth response at 10 degrees. On axis there are big deeps at 8k and 14k. At 8 degrees they pretty much disappear but 10 degrees is even smoother. 11 degrees is also good but what's the point going even more off axis. So 8 to 11 if you need a range.
Anyone tried, has similar or different results?
Anyone tried, has similar or different results?
I thought I got better sound facing me than toed out. FR looked a little wobbly, but still good with no major dips.
@wolf_teeth fair. I found that spectral decay is the best on axis (essentially has no bumps) but increases off axis. And your tweeter is different, so it may not even have the dip at 10k. So it's the tradeoff between spectral decay and tweeter diffraction on edges with woofer.
This is waterfall on axis. This W6 speaker is really good.
And this is 8 degrees, you can see it gets worse but not much. It gets a bit worse with every step beyond 8, so perhaps 8 degrees area is the compromise with diffraction.
This is waterfall on axis. This W6 speaker is really good.
And this is 8 degrees, you can see it gets worse but not much. It gets a bit worse with every step beyond 8, so perhaps 8 degrees area is the compromise with diffraction.
This is fresh W4 testbench analysis: https://audioxpress.com/article/test-bench-w4-2315-home-audio-4-5-coaxial-driver-from-tb-speaker
Frankly I don't have sufficient knowledge to assess how this stacks against similar drivers, if you have any comments would love to hear. Pity W6 review is not there.
Frankly I don't have sufficient knowledge to assess how this stacks against similar drivers, if you have any comments would love to hear. Pity W6 review is not there.
Vance did review the W8 HERE. The W8, both woofer and tweeter, measure (IMO) much better than the W4. Both the W6 and W8 use a 25 mm tweeter while the W4 uses a 19 tweeter. So hopefully the W6 tweeter mirrors the W8 tweeter's measurements.
Mine measured HD of -35dB for the woofer and -40dB or better on my W4. The HD bump at 900 was not near as bad as he measured. Neither was the tweeter.
https://diy.midwestaudio.club/discussion/2155/project-monoculus/p1
More data... shows the mfr plots for it, including HD, off axis, FR from a Klippel. Shows very similar to what I got, with the exception of the mid breakup being more benign in my case.
More data... shows the mfr plots for it, including HD, off axis, FR from a Klippel. Shows very similar to what I got, with the exception of the mid breakup being more benign in my case.
@wolf_teeth However you've [likely] gained a lot of quality by high passing the mid at 500 Hz, compared to W6 playing the lows because of the Doppler effect on highs when the cone is moved by lows. I have no idea if this can be even measured with REW because it requires playing some low frequency (like 100 Hz) and high (like 1 kHz) at once, measuring how much the high one is distorted.
Intermodulation Distortion link.
I would also guess that firing the powerful sub right in the face is not optimal in the nearfield. I might be wrong, but another guess that high-passing W6 at 200 Hz and building a floor sub could be more comfortable in the nearfield than face level 50-500 Hz sub. At normal room distance that could be opposite, this is no more than a guess.
Intermodulation Distortion link.
I would also guess that firing the powerful sub right in the face is not optimal in the nearfield. I might be wrong, but another guess that high-passing W6 at 200 Hz and building a floor sub could be more comfortable in the nearfield than face level 50-500 Hz sub. At normal room distance that could be opposite, this is no more than a guess.
It's probably extremely hard to measure IMD. But I definitely hear some distortion on my W6 in low saxophone notes, as well as trumpets and trombones on the lows. However the distortions at exactly the same notes from my Dynaudio Emits that I listen for years is much, much worse. And they distort exactly the same notes, being absolutely different speakers. Almost like it's coming from the Aegir amp, except it must be better than that. I believe the notes are around 450 Hz, but the distortion must be the second harmonics, so around 800 Hz - 1.1 kHz. Can it be IMD?
But my W6 speaker from #442 is a big mess exactly in 900-1.1 range, most likely because of the internal resonance. I definitely hear a very audible distortion right there, so that's why I am building a new crazy box that must cure all resonances but obviously cannot cure the cone IMD. We shall see soon...
But my W6 speaker from #442 is a big mess exactly in 900-1.1 range, most likely because of the internal resonance. I definitely hear a very audible distortion right there, so that's why I am building a new crazy box that must cure all resonances but obviously cannot cure the cone IMD. We shall see soon...