Box size has no relationship with the ability to control internal reflections. If a box is larger, i.e., it's largest dimension is longer, the standing wave it creates will be at a lower frequency. Therefore, it needs more insulation to absorb the standing wave. As you reduce the longest dimension, you will need proportionally less insulation to absorb the lowest standing wave.
It is also not so much the box size or volume, but the box dimensions. If your 36" tall box has an 8" depth, you will still have a standing wave at 1704 Hz. But 1 inch of insulation along the sides will absorb it.
Also, you can design a box such that the high pass acts like a crossover. For example, if you decide that your crossover is going to be 200 Hz, your box can be small enough that it generates a 12 db/octave slope below 200 Hz. Why not build a small box if you don't plan on getting bass out of the driver?
It is also not so much the box size or volume, but the box dimensions. If your 36" tall box has an 8" depth, you will still have a standing wave at 1704 Hz. But 1 inch of insulation along the sides will absorb it.
Also, you can design a box such that the high pass acts like a crossover. For example, if you decide that your crossover is going to be 200 Hz, your box can be small enough that it generates a 12 db/octave slope below 200 Hz. Why not build a small box if you don't plan on getting bass out of the driver?
Ra7, I still have to disagree with the practicality of what you're saying for my situation. Though technically correct for say a 12" cube vs a 24" cube. A 2L box is hard to stuff especially on a driver with an exposed gap like these. I also would rather push resonances deeper near and into the stop band and where less objectionable. My experience tells me this is a reality.
Using the box high pass is not what I want to happen. I need a 2nd order transfer function and the roll off is already about 12db.
I still don't see the disadvantage to a large box.
Using the box high pass is not what I want to happen. I need a 2nd order transfer function and the roll off is already about 12db.
I still don't see the disadvantage to a large box.
Yes, Vifa made the Jordan JX92S, originally in the EU and then Tymphany switched production to Peerless without notification. The current Jordan Eikona is manufactured by Scanspeak in Denmark.
Last edited:
Did you see the harmonic distortion plots in my link? They are done at 96dB 0.3m which is about 88dB @ 1metre. At that level, non linear distortion is worse than average below about 800Hz. Having a large surround and spider doesn't guarantee linear excursion unfortunately. The spider seems to have some scratchy quality to it which seems to give rise to high order distortion under any decent excursion - this is just my non-scientific observation, but the sweeps show issues regardless.
Tang Band W3-1364SA and Fountek FR88EX are much better if you want to cross at 300Hz.
Last edited:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
To me the plot legend indicates your labeled dipole peak is 60 degrees off axis; and on axis looks to be 6-7dB lower?
Barley, that's correct. Which is part of why the dipole peak is audible and objectionable. If you eq the on axis response flat, the off axis response develops a 'peak' right in the heart of the most important frequency range.
Something I just noticed is I feel like there should be more low frequency losses while moving off axis. I only show about 1db per 30° but should probably be more. It was quick and dirty, so don't take it as gospel. I may have slowly moved the microphone in. I didn't use a jig.
Something I just noticed is I feel like there should be more low frequency losses while moving off axis. I only show about 1db per 30° but should probably be more. It was quick and dirty, so don't take it as gospel. I may have slowly moved the microphone in. I didn't use a jig.
This is from Linkwitz's Models for a dipole loudspeaker design:
Baffle diffraction effects are what gives your driver an extended plateau; and effectively makes the frontal polar pattern much the same as if a chamber enclosed the back of the driver as mounted in your pictures. Side lobes in above picture of circular baffle would be smoothed out and shifted with rectangular baffle.
Baffle diffraction effects are what gives your driver an extended plateau; and effectively makes the frontal polar pattern much the same as if a chamber enclosed the back of the driver as mounted in your pictures. Side lobes in above picture of circular baffle would be smoothed out and shifted with rectangular baffle.
Ya, I think my mic may have been a bit to close for the 60° measurement. But, could also be the insulation soaked up some. Maybe I screwed around with the gain by accident. Who knows, I'm not gonna redo the test. But I think the 60° curve should be down a couple db.
I don't think this driver is that big of a train wreck. Most FR drivers get gnarly above 8khz, even if their frequency response is slightly smoother. This actually isn't that bad. The HD in TMM's measurements isn't that bad either. Most of it will be in the stop band for a 400hz XO, so that seems reasonable. But I'd certainly agree there's nothing here that say "wow, this thing blows away the competition, everyone order a pair right now".
I don't think this driver is that big of a train wreck. Most FR drivers get gnarly above 8khz, even if their frequency response is slightly smoother. This actually isn't that bad. The HD in TMM's measurements isn't that bad either. Most of it will be in the stop band for a 400hz XO, so that seems reasonable. But I'd certainly agree there's nothing here that say "wow, this thing blows away the competition, everyone order a pair right now".
Above 1KHz or so i'd say the non linear distortion is actually pretty good. From 400-800Hz it's not good. I think the HD in that range is audible at least when pushed to high volumes. The breakup at 11KHz needs to be notched out, otherwise the top octave is fine. It would make an excellent midrange used in a 3-way from ~700Hz-3KHz, as a full range driver i think the value isn't too good.
The TG9 has arguably more non linear distortion in the 1-3KHz range but it's midrange (300-1K) is significantly cleaner. Personally I think what makes a midrange driver is that the 1-5KHz range needs to be clean. That means, no significant frequency response issues in that range and low harmonic distortion from 200-1K as all the significant harmonics of those frequencies will land in the 1-5KHz range. I think overall that makes the TG9 a better candidate for a full range speaker. It does have a rising response that needs to be dealt with otherwise it'll sound too forward.
The TG9 has arguably more non linear distortion in the 1-3KHz range but it's midrange (300-1K) is significantly cleaner. Personally I think what makes a midrange driver is that the 1-5KHz range needs to be clean. That means, no significant frequency response issues in that range and low harmonic distortion from 200-1K as all the significant harmonics of those frequencies will land in the 1-5KHz range. I think overall that makes the TG9 a better candidate for a full range speaker. It does have a rising response that needs to be dealt with otherwise it'll sound too forward.
Last edited:
i want to make a 2 way out of these. can you guys help please?
I am planning to build a two way.. ( NE95W-04 + Peerless OX20SC02-04 )
my build plan is
2*NE95W-04 + 1* Peerless OX20SC02-04 per box ( transmission line type )
seperate LM1875 amps for both NE95W-04 ( total 4 amps and 4 NE95W-04 drivers for two channel )
since i check the frequency response curve of NE95W-04.. I saw dips in high frequency range.. so i plan to add a single piece Peerless OX20SC02-04 tweeter per box.
I am not into low frequency range.. so the low frequency dip of the driver is ok for me.. ( no plans to add a sub / woofer for now )
since my main purpose is to use these speakers as monitors for violin ( non bassy type ) and flute.. i am trying to get a good sensitivity at 150 to 8k hz range.
To avoid that high frequency mess, i planned to add that tweeter.
so these are the helps i need from you guys, since i am newbee, i cant design a crossover myself.. ( tried with few softwares.. and i dont know what i am doing!!!)
i want a good 3rd order passive crossover to cut down frequency above 9k for NE95W-04.
also . if you can give me a good speaker enclosure ( 2*NE95W-04 + 1* Peerless OX20SC02-04 per box. ) size, it will be a great help.
looking forward towards any helps you all can give.
( i am choosing a budget build and these drivers are available in a budget from AliExpress , that is why i am choosing those )
I am planning to build a two way.. ( NE95W-04 + Peerless OX20SC02-04 )
my build plan is
2*NE95W-04 + 1* Peerless OX20SC02-04 per box ( transmission line type )
seperate LM1875 amps for both NE95W-04 ( total 4 amps and 4 NE95W-04 drivers for two channel )
since i check the frequency response curve of NE95W-04.. I saw dips in high frequency range.. so i plan to add a single piece Peerless OX20SC02-04 tweeter per box.
I am not into low frequency range.. so the low frequency dip of the driver is ok for me.. ( no plans to add a sub / woofer for now )
since my main purpose is to use these speakers as monitors for violin ( non bassy type ) and flute.. i am trying to get a good sensitivity at 150 to 8k hz range.
To avoid that high frequency mess, i planned to add that tweeter.
so these are the helps i need from you guys, since i am newbee, i cant design a crossover myself.. ( tried with few softwares.. and i dont know what i am doing!!!)
i want a good 3rd order passive crossover to cut down frequency above 9k for NE95W-04.
also . if you can give me a good speaker enclosure ( 2*NE95W-04 + 1* Peerless OX20SC02-04 per box. ) size, it will be a great help.
looking forward towards any helps you all can give.
( i am choosing a budget build and these drivers are available in a budget from AliExpress , that is why i am choosing those )
I have used the 95s, and my suggestion is that you cross over at 3.5 to 4k to the OX20, you will keep more of a single source response as you will probably be fairly close to the speakers.
Keeping the cone breakup far from the crossover point is very important with strong clean notes such as come from a bowed violin.
Give us the baffle size and arrangement, don't be married to a particular crossover name, and I'm sure we can help you make speakers that you will rreally enjoy.
Keeping the cone breakup far from the crossover point is very important with strong clean notes such as come from a bowed violin.
Give us the baffle size and arrangement, don't be married to a particular crossover name, and I'm sure we can help you make speakers that you will rreally enjoy.
Thanks for the great tip.. since i am new , i am still figuring out the baffle setup.. read that the NE95W-04 likes 20 lit box.. so if i do the transmission line setup, the total volume of the transmission line should be 20lits.. right?
I have a slight change if plan now.. since i want the boxes to be light.. i am planning to run it on tripath ta2022 , with 2*NE95W-04 + 1 tweeter per channel.. series connection for speakers... that will give 8 ohms at 50 watts rms .. )
so if i did that.. does the volume of transmission line should be increased to 40 lit ( 2*20 lit ) ? since the tweeter occupies little space and no air movements behind.. i omitted that one.
my speaker arrangement idea is to keep the tweeter in middle and one NE95W-04 up and another one down.. all kept at equal spacings of 3-4 inches apart.
should i change any of the above setup?
MTM is fine, you'll run them in series, the tweeter will be padded down quite a bit, so you will have a decently high impedance all around.
I don't know where you got that volume, but it's crazy big.
Ten liters net for the two together, in a TL tuned to 60hz is as far as I would ever go with these, eight is more like it, of course with a small TL gross volume can be much more than net, those dividers eat volume in a small box.
I don't know where you got that volume, but it's crazy big.
Ten liters net for the two together, in a TL tuned to 60hz is as far as I would ever go with these, eight is more like it, of course with a small TL gross volume can be much more than net, those dividers eat volume in a small box.
i read some reviews somewhere.. dont remb.. thats where i got that number.. so. is there any advantage in having higher volume? like.. 15-20 lit ?
also i read that the driver like 70-80hz tuning.. honestly.. i dont know how to tune that box to that hz range..
can you help me?
i want a 15 lit box, transmission line setup.. ( 2 NE95W-04 + 1 tweeter ) and i want it to be tuned to 70hz . can you help me to find the dimensions?
Ryan,
Did you ever build your speaker?
Also, your driver test is quite different from the one on,
TYMPHANY - VIFA NE65W-04 (Extended-range 2", 4 Ohm, 50 Wmax)
Take care,
David.
Did you ever build your speaker?
Also, your driver test is quite different from the one on,
TYMPHANY - VIFA NE65W-04 (Extended-range 2", 4 Ohm, 50 Wmax)
Take care,
David.
