That's true with the 2nd, 3rd and 4rd crossovers, but not with the 1st order, according to V. Dickason's "Loudspeaker CookBook". And my Serial-// planned crossover belongs to that category, at least by its calculations :
T
Sorry if hit a nerve.
Geddes doesn’t claim to be an expert but his experience and expertise makes him a respected expert in his work. That is well documented. His scientific research is based on studies. Not theories.
There are unfortunately a number of Hifi myths which simply come about from misunderstandings that end up being recirculated on forums and blogs. Then people start to digest it as fact.
For clarity in the podcast link below John Darko interviews respected UK HiFi expert Peter Comeau on HiFi myths. It’s quite interesting.
Comeau is a HiFi expert as explained by Darko in the introduction.
https://darko.audio/2023/10/podcast-10-hi-fi-myths-busted-w-peter-comeau/
Most HiFi enthusiasts imho have different preferences because of their selection of equipment, their listening room and their journey in the hobby. Also their tastes in music.
But Comeau explains that more often than not different masters of the exact some recordings often account for differences in opinion.
People literally focus on specific aspects of sound reproduction when stimulated by a new purchase equipment or an accessory like a loudspeaker cable. This is because their brain focuses on specific sounds and up goes the sensory perceptions. You mix that in with runaway marketing speak as Comeau points out and they believe it.
In other myths Comeau points out that while DACs have improved there are clear differences in the subjective performance of streamers.
I find his factual reasoning quite compelling.
If there were more like him it wouldn’t be the merry go round that people find themselves in.
Geddes doesn’t claim to be an expert but his experience and expertise makes him a respected expert in his work. That is well documented. His scientific research is based on studies. Not theories.
There are unfortunately a number of Hifi myths which simply come about from misunderstandings that end up being recirculated on forums and blogs. Then people start to digest it as fact.
For clarity in the podcast link below John Darko interviews respected UK HiFi expert Peter Comeau on HiFi myths. It’s quite interesting.
Comeau is a HiFi expert as explained by Darko in the introduction.
https://darko.audio/2023/10/podcast-10-hi-fi-myths-busted-w-peter-comeau/
Most HiFi enthusiasts imho have different preferences because of their selection of equipment, their listening room and their journey in the hobby. Also their tastes in music.
But Comeau explains that more often than not different masters of the exact some recordings often account for differences in opinion.
People literally focus on specific aspects of sound reproduction when stimulated by a new purchase equipment or an accessory like a loudspeaker cable. This is because their brain focuses on specific sounds and up goes the sensory perceptions. You mix that in with runaway marketing speak as Comeau points out and they believe it.
In other myths Comeau points out that while DACs have improved there are clear differences in the subjective performance of streamers.
I find his factual reasoning quite compelling.
If there were more like him it wouldn’t be the merry go round that people find themselves in.
Here's something nostalgic in the 'dome midrange space'.
I have a pair and think I might use them in my next medium quality speaker project.
I have a pair and think I might use them in my next medium quality speaker project.
@macka You didn't really hit a nerve here. My answer is based on the fact studies can be flawed from the start. Thats based on the selected participants with their preconceived tastes in music, existing bias (base knowledge of said study), analytic hearing abilities, musical maturity, etc guiding (or skewing) the study's outcome. You can select from a wide variety of participants with greatly varying backgrounds, education levels and analytical hearing ability, all which can and will greatly skew the results.
Hearing psychology or psychoacoustics is a delicate topic. Large companies will request specific types of data for the purpose of designing mass produced audio equipment and tailor it to suit the tastes of the gross majority of their potential customers. While these blind studies are conducted in an attempt to generate repeatable, reliable results by removing non-impacting variables, biases, psychological factors, etc, they fail to select from the appropriate variety of people that will generate the most honest spread of conclusive and unbiased results. Just the preference in music type alone will generate greatly differing results.
While the Harman EQ curve is touted as a gold standard by alot of people on here (specifically the home theater and pro audio crowd), it doesn't reflect everyone's taste. I'm one of those people. EQ curve preference will always vary by volume level. Over the last 30+ years I derived my own set of master EQ curves for differing playback levels of prerecorded music. The Harman curve doesn't sound right in many instances, specifically from 1k on up. This is based on the reproduction of live music with acoustic instruments, not the typical pre recorded, over processed and produced modern music. Just observe how different current day pop music sounds compared to the 70s and 80s. It just gets worse as the decades go by. This is why music was tailored to sound a specific way played back using various formats and to different target audiences. It was mainly done that way to get attention, not to sound as transparent and accurate as possible. You wouldn't mix or produce musid the same way for AM radio as you would for CD playback. That's an extreme comparison but it proves the point.
I have nothing against the bulk of information spread by the so called experts on here. I do become vocal when people make gross general black and white remarks about how various forms and mechanisms of distortion affect people the same way. Its also not correct to state everyone as a whole dislikes or even prefers one type of distortion over another with the exception of 2nd order harmonics. Yes, a customer walking into a vast sea of consumer electronics will have specific predictable preferences as to how they listen and what they prefer. For the rest of us who are more musically mature and sufficiently educated to listen for accuracy and fidelity rather than ear candy, we aren't properly represented or served by the performance of mass produced average quality consumer audio gear. This is why i build my own speakers, as the gross majority actually don't live up to my expectations.
Hearing psychology or psychoacoustics is a delicate topic. Large companies will request specific types of data for the purpose of designing mass produced audio equipment and tailor it to suit the tastes of the gross majority of their potential customers. While these blind studies are conducted in an attempt to generate repeatable, reliable results by removing non-impacting variables, biases, psychological factors, etc, they fail to select from the appropriate variety of people that will generate the most honest spread of conclusive and unbiased results. Just the preference in music type alone will generate greatly differing results.
While the Harman EQ curve is touted as a gold standard by alot of people on here (specifically the home theater and pro audio crowd), it doesn't reflect everyone's taste. I'm one of those people. EQ curve preference will always vary by volume level. Over the last 30+ years I derived my own set of master EQ curves for differing playback levels of prerecorded music. The Harman curve doesn't sound right in many instances, specifically from 1k on up. This is based on the reproduction of live music with acoustic instruments, not the typical pre recorded, over processed and produced modern music. Just observe how different current day pop music sounds compared to the 70s and 80s. It just gets worse as the decades go by. This is why music was tailored to sound a specific way played back using various formats and to different target audiences. It was mainly done that way to get attention, not to sound as transparent and accurate as possible. You wouldn't mix or produce musid the same way for AM radio as you would for CD playback. That's an extreme comparison but it proves the point.
I have nothing against the bulk of information spread by the so called experts on here. I do become vocal when people make gross general black and white remarks about how various forms and mechanisms of distortion affect people the same way. Its also not correct to state everyone as a whole dislikes or even prefers one type of distortion over another with the exception of 2nd order harmonics. Yes, a customer walking into a vast sea of consumer electronics will have specific predictable preferences as to how they listen and what they prefer. For the rest of us who are more musically mature and sufficiently educated to listen for accuracy and fidelity rather than ear candy, we aren't properly represented or served by the performance of mass produced average quality consumer audio gear. This is why i build my own speakers, as the gross majority actually don't live up to my expectations.
The series-series is generally referred to as a "LINKED" series 3way, and the series-parallel is referred to as "CASCADED", however, yours is the first I've seen where the midrange cap goes straight to ground instead of the bridge line between the mid and woofer.
@Mister Audio The Philips mid domes are very good. The ITT models were similar. They sounded very detailed and capable of higher end performance used by some well known companies.
I have a pair of 4 ohm Philips felt domes and a pair of the AD Philips tweeters. I plan on an OLD 3way at some point...
I love those old Philips mid domes. Somewhere l have the Philips book on their drivers and how to build loudspeakers
I call it 612SP - why not ? 😉 - hence 6dB to 12dB/Oct. Serie-Parallel. There's not much accessible litterature on such crossovers, though... I know several, well-documented but written in French, and this one, very interesting, in English : https://sound-au.com/parallel-series.htm
T
On the gain of pass band filters l not noticed this when simulating a commercial network in Leap with actual drivers.
It took me by surprise because once you bi amp a system with a midrange driver that was connected to a passive bandpass filter you loose the passive voltage gain.
This throws out the tonal balance with the tweeter and its level needs to be re set.
It took me by surprise because once you bi amp a system with a midrange driver that was connected to a passive bandpass filter you loose the passive voltage gain.
This throws out the tonal balance with the tweeter and its level needs to be re set.
The dust cap is often a little larger than the voice coil so you would have to keep some of the cone.
Also the outer surround does alot of the work of keeping the voice coil aligned. You would have to add a smaller surround and keep the voice coil straight.
If you wanted to go that route with some old speakers, you may be able to glue a new dust cap to a voice coil in some cases.
Now the next catch is a dome midrange will typically use an underhung voice coil while a woofer would use an overhung coil. Underhung gives you lower power handling but also lower moving mass.
Also the outer surround does alot of the work of keeping the voice coil aligned. You would have to add a smaller surround and keep the voice coil straight.
If you wanted to go that route with some old speakers, you may be able to glue a new dust cap to a voice coil in some cases.
Now the next catch is a dome midrange will typically use an underhung voice coil while a woofer would use an overhung coil. Underhung gives you lower power handling but also lower moving mass.
I’m looking for the dome midrange drivers that could work well under 600Hz. The desired corner frequency (-3dB point) for the high-pass section is intended at 550Hz with approximately 12dB/octave natural roll-off, it will be combined with the 12dB/octave electrical slope to make the acoustical slope to be about 24dB/octave. BTW, I’d like to use these mid-domes in place of the 4” cone midranges. So, what qualifications are required for achieving that goal, i.e., Fs should be lower than … Hz, Re should be in the range of … Ohms, etc.? Please advice and thank you in advance.
Did you mean "the spider"?
You probably would need to replace the big, resonant, spider with a narrow surround.
I'm embarrassed to admit, I did not read the majority of this thread. In the 80s I've built speakers with Heco 25mm supronyl tweeters, these were detailed, easy to cross over (no ugly peaks and ridges) and pleasant to listen to. I haven't used their midrange drivers but I was always wondering if that wasn't a thing I should try. So.... what do you think about the Heco and Quad (very likely actually Heco manufactured) supronyl midrange drivers? Or similar non-fabric/non-metal soft dome mid drivers of the range of 35-50mm VC from the 80s/90s? I'm not a great friend of ferrofluid mid drivers though.
Attachments
