what would be better (simpler, straightforward, easy to adust) woofer + tweeter crossing over at, say -12dB, + a filler driver to achieve a correct power response, or a midrange driver that covers most of the midbass to the lower treble, and then, a refinishing tweeter, and a woofer crossed very low ?
As Adason suggests, if you have an existing 2-way that "only needs help" at the bottom, high passing it and adding powered subs might be all you need.
If designing an all new system, it's very helpful to know the application / venue, etc before making any specific recommendations. You'll probably have read/heard this before, but there's more to it than just picking drivers from a catalog that appear to have complementary and benign FR / sensitivity specs, and using on-line calculators for XO and enclosure volume/design.
These forums and several personal websites by folks like Troels Gravesen, John Krutke (Zaph) already contain numerous very well engineered and documented projects, so unless you're looking forward to the rather steep learning curve, you could do far worse than perusing them for something that would suit your needs / budget.
If designing an all new system, it's very helpful to know the application / venue, etc before making any specific recommendations. You'll probably have read/heard this before, but there's more to it than just picking drivers from a catalog that appear to have complementary and benign FR / sensitivity specs, and using on-line calculators for XO and enclosure volume/design.
These forums and several personal websites by folks like Troels Gravesen, John Krutke (Zaph) already contain numerous very well engineered and documented projects, so unless you're looking forward to the rather steep learning curve, you could do far worse than perusing them for something that would suit your needs / budget.
No, there is not any pre existing two way speaker, I was asking opinions about these two different design approachs to make a three way loudspeaker system.
Again my error, I assumed was implicit the home hi fi use, since there is another specific forum for "PA Systems"in this very site
there are a lost of ways to make a three way, for sure, but I was asking for these specific two. "best" is always relative, so I quickly cleared "what would be better (simpler, straightforward, easy to adjust)"
Again my error, I assumed was implicit the home hi fi use, since there is another specific forum for "PA Systems"in this very site
there are a lost of ways to make a three way, for sure, but I was asking for these specific two. "best" is always relative, so I quickly cleared "what would be better (simpler, straightforward, easy to adjust)"
Last edited:
Both ways are easy, simple and straightforward.
By assessing the situations (driver conditions etc.) we can usually see which one is more suitable, feasible or has more potential. When one way is not possible, the answer is easy. When both ways are feasible, there is usually no way we will know which one is better without building and hearing both.
If the question is "simpler for beginners", the second approach is simpler.
Mosquito, I actually get what you're trying to ask here. If I were designing a 3-way system today my personal preference would be to use a midrange driver that covers as much of the human vocal range as possible in order to avoid dips or bumps in the crossover points. Opinions vary on what exactly constitutes the "human vocal range" but 100 Hz to 6 kHz is generally acceptable. That's certainly a pretty wide range. While there are many drivers manufactured for the midrange a good full range driver will most likely accomplish this task better. You could then supplement that driver above and below if you are intent on a 3-way design as that would relieve upper and lower stress on the mid/full range driver.
Just my personal opinion, I'm sure others will chime in with their own opinions as there is no shortage of them in the fora.
You can try an odd order Butterworth (in concept) to achieve this. It shouldn't be necessary to add a driver to make this kind of change (broadly speaking).
Easier would be W+filler driver+Tw.
Reasonably higher XO frequency between W and Mid would
call for less expensive passive filter with no need to compensate
for the impedance rise at lower frequencies. Power handling would
also benefit in the sense that woofer would probably be much more
potent to take the heat than the midrange crossed very low.
Thanks fellows, for a moment I was afraid the TD will deviate to a semantic-sardonic discussion instead of a technical one.
Well, in fact, to satisfy my curiosity both options must be constructed, so, until I get a very good fullrange driver to accomplish option "a" I will start to build the more cheaper option "b" out of a 10" woofer (argentine famous national brand from the past), an Audax classic tweeter, and a paper cone "filler driver" still to be chosen.
CraigSu, DJK, and Lojzek nailed my thinking, (Lojzek I am always under the impression that you are a professional, not just a hobbist)
Well, in fact, to satisfy my curiosity both options must be constructed, so, until I get a very good fullrange driver to accomplish option "a" I will start to build the more cheaper option "b" out of a 10" woofer (argentine famous national brand from the past), an Audax classic tweeter, and a paper cone "filler driver" still to be chosen.
CraigSu, DJK, and Lojzek nailed my thinking, (Lojzek I am always under the impression that you are a professional, not just a hobbist)
Last edited:
Depending on where you select your crossover points, you might end up being too thrifty with the "filler" driver - i.e. operating in the critical midrange band. Two-ways with small fullrange drivers is my current favorite approach- some of those 3-4" units have exceptional high frequency performance - and if building a three-way, I'd still be inclined to concentrate my $ there.
But that's what makes this hobby fun - there is no single absolutely right way to achieve most goals.
But that's what makes this hobby fun - there is no single absolutely right way to achieve most goals.
If power response is looked at as a single quantity at each frequency (the amount of sound power available), it is something that can be simply equalised. Therefore power response can easily be made flat.
This means that discussion of power by itself is meaningless without looking at the pressures that go with it. One aspect of this is the spatial distribution of that power, which can (or may not) complicate matters.
Crossover lobing is just one example, woofers lobe at the top end, diffraction can produce varying responses with location etc.
This means that discussion of power by itself is meaningless without looking at the pressures that go with it. One aspect of this is the spatial distribution of that power, which can (or may not) complicate matters.
Crossover lobing is just one example, woofers lobe at the top end, diffraction can produce varying responses with location etc.
Comb filtering is the frequency response variation caused by sources that have a time delay between them. Lobing is the variation of response at a given frequency caused by a differing delay seen at different angles.
You mentioned critical word there ("cheaper").
Yes, option "b" is suitable for cheap project, where midrange quality is not important. But don't forget that for many people midrange is the most important.
It is not easy at all to find a midrange driver that sound good. And when you find one it is usually a wideband driver (often a midwoofer!). And when you find/get the wideband driver, you will not want to sacrifice the quality of it's low end extension by using "local/cheap" woofer crossed high!
Look at the Gravesen's Classic 3way case. 10F midrange is a wideband midrange. It is more or less used as a "filler" BUT with relatively expensive woofer at the low end... XRK uses Dayton RS woofer with the 10F and he seems to prefer to cross the good midrange lower too (to not waste the 10F quality).
Ok, there will be a passive crossover and no eq other than what can be achieved tweaking the crossover itself. At the crossing freq, response of woof and tweet will be 12 dB down the reference level, the gap filled with the filler driver, the filter being a second order LP and HP, plus 1st. order bandpass for the filler, or at least I will try the final acoustic responses to follow these theoretical behaviour
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.