Discussing large midwoofer here and its beaming is out of the topic. At least for what i was discussing. Each speaker should only be used in the range it was designed for.
Do not forget large difference in Fs for one large midwoofer in comparison to Fs of small 3-4" fullrange.
Essentially the op is proposing to drive 4" fullrange way below its Fs.
Not wise.
Do not forget large difference in Fs for one large midwoofer in comparison to Fs of small 3-4" fullrange.
Essentially the op is proposing to drive 4" fullrange way below its Fs.
Not wise.
But heey, do not stop experimenting. Feel free to do as you plan. I am just saying i have tried it, did not like the results.
Peace out.
Peace out.
In the right box some 4s go fairly low, but not as low (usually) as a dedictaed woofer, but then we are talking WAW.
You are missing the point (as is often seems the case) often dropping into the FR forum and just spending time baskhing the entire concept.
dave
I've used two full range drivers together and liked the results, why I've done it three times and plan on doing it again, and why I think going to four drivers would also be worth trying, hence the second post on this thread.
I checked out the peerless PLS-P830987
Likely a OK driver to experiment.
Did notice it was around 82 dB and PE shows it is back ordered.
Been wanting to check out the Dayton PC68-8
Actually a smaller driver 2.5" and 85 dB
As far as wanting to experiment in computer land
It is easy to experiment with filters and simulate diffraction/ full space
with Dayton drivers for a quick start since they provide Frd , Zma files
Visaton has done something similar with larger fullrange drivers.
With the PentatonBB
Using 5 fullrange drivers series/parallel , and they gradually lowpass
the drivers in a line array. And offers some time alignment with
6 and 12 degree baffles. Also increases separate enclosure volumes
for the more bass oriented drivers.
Similar smaller design could be done with smaller speakers
Figure you could also use a tall triangle
Based on the Golden Ratio
Or a Golden Triangle
Just assuming the low passed drivers
might benefit slightly from the wider area of the triangle
far as baffle step.
and likely slight time alignment since the
baffle would also be at a angle
Based on the Golden Ratio
Or a Golden Triangle
Just assuming the low passed drivers
might benefit slightly from the wider area of the triangle
far as baffle step.
and likely slight time alignment since the
baffle would also be at a angle
After more research I actually like even more than the Peerless the bigger Dayton brother PC83-08. The spec looks quite nice but it uses a poly cone that seems to be quite uncommon nowadays. A good 10 years back I made a speaker on a poly mid and quite liked it but these cones might have higher distortions on average than paper or alu ?
I'll now someting about it in a week or two... 🙂
4pcs of 4" post #7: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/hornflower-2-way-point-source.386363/#post-7024353
By all means check out #1 for context...
//
4pcs of 4" post #7: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/hornflower-2-way-point-source.386363/#post-7024353
By all means check out #1 for context...
//