Hi there, have you any experiences with that type of midbass, or suggest for a 2way stand mount speaker for a BR enclosure with about 1-1.2 cu ft volume.
Do like aluminium woofers look and sound, saw Zaphs good reference of this driver, but havent seen any DIY 2W project...
Thanks for any answer
Do like aluminium woofers look and sound, saw Zaphs good reference of this driver, but havent seen any DIY 2W project...
Thanks for any answer
no idea of a 2way with AL200 but it performs beautifully in my OBs 😀.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/123512-ultimate-baffle-gallery-260.html#post5670164
p.s. If I was doing a 2-way with it I would use it at the bottom of an LXMini-like speaker. Just a bigger diameter pipe and a little shorter to get a 360deg dispersion out of a slightly deeper cone than the original 6 incher. No box comes even close to the imaging of the SL speakers. And the 10F4424g I use might do even better than the original Seas. Such a build would also be a valuable contribution on this forum.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/123512-ultimate-baffle-gallery-260.html#post5670164
p.s. If I was doing a 2-way with it I would use it at the bottom of an LXMini-like speaker. Just a bigger diameter pipe and a little shorter to get a 360deg dispersion out of a slightly deeper cone than the original 6 incher. No box comes even close to the imaging of the SL speakers. And the 10F4424g I use might do even better than the original Seas. Such a build would also be a valuable contribution on this forum.
Last edited:
if you are just looking for a fully baked standard design you can go to Troels Gravesen's site or any Jeff Bagby designs, P Carmody etc. (or even to a store). or look for a B&W DM302 monitor on ebay (if large enough for your listening space and later add a sub to it). Many years and $$s later if you revisit my previous post you may have a different appreciation of it. good luck
I"m not lookin at a design of MT enclosures, i did ask at this thread If any of you have an experience with Visaton AL 200....and thats it
Hi
Hard coned speakers may pose some design challenges, particularly based on behaviour around the so-called 'break-up' region.
For a start, consider a notch filter around 2kHz, or wherever the exact peak is.
Consider a system with active filters and 4 amplifier channels (assuming 2-channel stereo). For me, designing and building active filters has been more fun than messing around with clunky passives, but ymmv.
Your speakers will probably sound much cleaner, tighter, and just plain better in an active system (and by active, I also include digital and PC-based crossovers in that category) but again, ymmv. One reason is based on how most amplifiers interact with speakers. Most amplifiers are designed as strong voltage regulators with low output impedance. The fewer opportunities they have for mixing different frequency bands, the less IM distortion you'll have to endure.
Recap what actually happens when a speaker is driven. A voltage is applied, and a current builds up inside the VC, that creates a magnetic field which exerts a force pushing against the magnet. The cone begins to move, and it has to overcome some forces such as its own inertia, speaker suspension, box air suspension, cone flexing, etc. As a transducer, it also works backwards, as a microphone, attempting to generate voltages.
Think about non-linearities. The VC is not just a coil, it's also a transformer: the conductive pole piece of the magnet forms the secondary side (it partly explains how those tiny coils can miraculously dissipate >100W without glowing red hot, but I digress). Eddy currents in the pole piece short-circuit this transformer, producing friction. However, the air gap between primary and secondary varies, depending on the audio signal, especially bass which creates a lot of displacement.
A low Qes parameter implies high friction and strong damping of low-frequency resonances, but it also implies a strong tendency to reflect energy. For example, say the VC emits a fast mechanical pulse. The pulse travels to the edge of the cone, gets partly absorbed by the soft rubber surround, and the remainder gets reflected back towards the coil. But what happens then? The amplifier short-circuits the coil and causes it to act like a brick-wall reflecting surface. If the frequencies are high enough, the result is cone break-up, the bane of speaker of designers everywhere.
Consider what happens when the speaker is attached to an enclosure. Similar to the way the cone is like a transmission line that absorbs energy from the coil, and reflects part of it back after a delay, speaker boxes can also be thought of as transmission lines. Most 'recommended' box sizes are far too small to accommodate 1/4-wave absorption techniques, and strong standing waves start to accumulate as they push back against the speaker cone but have nowhere to dissipate their energy. Designers are sometimes pushed to add bracing to strengthen their boxes! The steam-punky elders of yesteryear had a point when the trend was to build big, delicate paper speakers, and attach them to giant boxes. It's a trade-off between harsh ringing which is a struggle to 'contain' versus softer colourations that readily escape.
OB designers also have a point in that most of the box problems are taken out of the equation. They still have to deal with edge resonances, though, and the need for a bass boost filter and/or subwoofers.
It's really up to you. If you want to proceed with a box, firstly, a sealed box would probably make for more 'accurate' tight bass, compared to the exciting thuds that a port is likely to produce. OTOH a resistive vent could really help to tame the box, at the cost of dialling back the bass even further.
On the amplifier side, a high damping factor is probably your enemy too.
Hard coned speakers may pose some design challenges, particularly based on behaviour around the so-called 'break-up' region.
For a start, consider a notch filter around 2kHz, or wherever the exact peak is.
Consider a system with active filters and 4 amplifier channels (assuming 2-channel stereo). For me, designing and building active filters has been more fun than messing around with clunky passives, but ymmv.
Your speakers will probably sound much cleaner, tighter, and just plain better in an active system (and by active, I also include digital and PC-based crossovers in that category) but again, ymmv. One reason is based on how most amplifiers interact with speakers. Most amplifiers are designed as strong voltage regulators with low output impedance. The fewer opportunities they have for mixing different frequency bands, the less IM distortion you'll have to endure.
Recap what actually happens when a speaker is driven. A voltage is applied, and a current builds up inside the VC, that creates a magnetic field which exerts a force pushing against the magnet. The cone begins to move, and it has to overcome some forces such as its own inertia, speaker suspension, box air suspension, cone flexing, etc. As a transducer, it also works backwards, as a microphone, attempting to generate voltages.
Think about non-linearities. The VC is not just a coil, it's also a transformer: the conductive pole piece of the magnet forms the secondary side (it partly explains how those tiny coils can miraculously dissipate >100W without glowing red hot, but I digress). Eddy currents in the pole piece short-circuit this transformer, producing friction. However, the air gap between primary and secondary varies, depending on the audio signal, especially bass which creates a lot of displacement.
A low Qes parameter implies high friction and strong damping of low-frequency resonances, but it also implies a strong tendency to reflect energy. For example, say the VC emits a fast mechanical pulse. The pulse travels to the edge of the cone, gets partly absorbed by the soft rubber surround, and the remainder gets reflected back towards the coil. But what happens then? The amplifier short-circuits the coil and causes it to act like a brick-wall reflecting surface. If the frequencies are high enough, the result is cone break-up, the bane of speaker of designers everywhere.
Consider what happens when the speaker is attached to an enclosure. Similar to the way the cone is like a transmission line that absorbs energy from the coil, and reflects part of it back after a delay, speaker boxes can also be thought of as transmission lines. Most 'recommended' box sizes are far too small to accommodate 1/4-wave absorption techniques, and strong standing waves start to accumulate as they push back against the speaker cone but have nowhere to dissipate their energy. Designers are sometimes pushed to add bracing to strengthen their boxes! The steam-punky elders of yesteryear had a point when the trend was to build big, delicate paper speakers, and attach them to giant boxes. It's a trade-off between harsh ringing which is a struggle to 'contain' versus softer colourations that readily escape.
OB designers also have a point in that most of the box problems are taken out of the equation. They still have to deal with edge resonances, though, and the need for a bass boost filter and/or subwoofers.
It's really up to you. If you want to proceed with a box, firstly, a sealed box would probably make for more 'accurate' tight bass, compared to the exciting thuds that a port is likely to produce. OTOH a resistive vent could really help to tame the box, at the cost of dialling back the bass even further.
On the amplifier side, a high damping factor is probably your enemy too.
Hi, do prefer sealed enclosures, my room is db Gainer so no need bassreflex.....
Passive xover only, max net box volume 1-1.2 cu ft (30-35liter)
F3 40-45 will be enough for my listening raste od music (rock,metal,jazz sometimes)
AL200 wouldnt do that as I can see tech.specs....
Passive xover only, max net box volume 1-1.2 cu ft (30-35liter)
F3 40-45 will be enough for my listening raste od music (rock,metal,jazz sometimes)
AL200 wouldnt do that as I can see tech.specs....
Hi, ,saw that project, my room is over 30m², so lookin for 8"mw to go with it....
Prefer sealed boxes....
Box shape: a big frontal area can help make the low-midrange 200~1000Hz sound richer due to baffle step. A solid 35cm+ width will produce much better horn loading (on the outside, and less compression inside) than a minimalist 22cm that is just wide enough to squeeze in the woofer.
Dont need louder low-midrange due near side wall, own magnat All ribbon 6 closed boxes, with excelent sound, just some low bass missing to me...Can you tell me approx F3 with that driver tech.specs...???
MC-247 | Magnat HiFi MuseuM
All Ribbon 6PII | Magnat HiFi MuseuM
Cabinet volume is +- 35l with cca 25% stuffing...
you should have probably started the thread with some of that information so people understand your agenda. if you need more bass add a subwoofer and figure out the best placement based on your room resonances.
Dayton Audio RSS210HF-4 does all of that.
Crossed at 500Hz or so with Scan Speak 10F (as Koja suggested) could be just the thing you are looking for.
I'm Visaton fan, not objective at all.. but if you want two way speaker with Al midbas, which is btw very good choice, AL170-AL200 are not for that.. Dayton RS180-4 is excellent as midbas, there is no other small driver with 1% THD on 50Hz.. if you still want Visaton pair of AL130 is very good solution..
a simple review of visaton /or klang und ton diy speaker designs will reveal that AL200 is really meant for a 3 way design, and if at the bottom it needs help from a BR box. I really think AL200 for upper bass/lower mid duty w/ a 4inch extended range (to16kHz) driver on top, and with a bass dedicated unit (of your choice) at the bottom is a winning combination. the only two way which I see excelling I already mentioned before and it would take some development. I actually already did some testing with that concept and I know that it would work great. I just do not need it right now.
No such thing..
Every 8” driver is woofer..
Using them over 800Hz-1kHz is not very clever..
- Status
- Not open for further replies.