I have a friend who would like some garage speakers, so I think I'll gift him a pair. I don't like selling anything, so when I find someone who has an interest in DIY speakers, I'm pretty generous. (Actually, I really need to thin my overwhelming speaker building inventory 🙂 and gifting works much better than selling), I'm not a crossover design guy. Would you be willing to share the crossover for this project using the ND25?From the top of my head down the memory lane of this thread few times here and there were mentioned about the high end roll off of TC9 as is usually the case with many wide banders. This too has been my experience. I craved for that high end sharpness.
Then I came across a video of Danny Richie (GR Research) wherein he mentioned something in the line of additional tweeter if needed can be done so facing/pointing upwards. Then started my trials with the limited parts I have on hand.
I'm far from being a crossover expert. For all my crossover works all I did was go about trying and listening after going through Introduction to designing crossovers without measurement by @AllenB
I ended up with a Dayton ND25TA crossed very high using third order. Works for me! for now. The sharp sound of the cymbals which I love/crave for is coming through. I'm loving it!
Has anyone else tried this?
Thanks,
Mike
Crossover design? me neither! 🙂. I probably should mention here that what led me to implementing this was wanting to make use of few leftover parts definitely fueled by the spirit of DIY, and NOT at all because I felt there's something majorly lacking in this OB.I have a friend who would like some garage speakers, so I think I'll gift him a pair. I don't like selling anything, so when I find someone who has an interest in DIY speakers, I'm pretty generous. (Actually, I really need to thin my overwhelming speaker building inventory 🙂 and gifting works much better than selling), I'm not a crossover design guy. Would you be willing to share the crossover for this project using the ND25?
Thanks,
Mike
And since this is in the super tweeter domain I'd say it's easier to test and experiment being crossed very high. And it was fun doing so I have to admit. Hence the premise.
The top end roll off of TC9 is not noticeable in all music/recordings but indeed in some others, as in the last bit of clarity in the top end. For example I don't miss it in vocals/acoustic based music. Hence one's music taste, the source, room, hearing etc are evidently at play here.
With other tweeters I would definitely try a first or second order but with the ND25 there were some issues hence went for third order. Don't ask me how I came about with the values. After going through the earlier mentioned guide I went about 'trying' with the parts I had on hand.
Being upward facing dust WILL eventually settle on the dome and here I prefer metal over the rather sticky soft dome. Also, I rather like the sharpness of titanium dome in the top end.
If you happen to have adjustable LPAD that will make life much more easier.
If I were to introduce a super tweeter in the Manzanita I would definitely put it facing upwards, but cross it very high with just a single capacitor.
That is a 1st order filter with a very gentle slope which will blend better with the unfiltered HF output of TC9.
You may not even need a series resistor to balance the output.
I think Dave, Planet10, was advocating about such approach in other threads about helper tweeters in FR speakers. Search around and you'll find it.
That is a 1st order filter with a very gentle slope which will blend better with the unfiltered HF output of TC9.
You may not even need a series resistor to balance the output.
I think Dave, Planet10, was advocating about such approach in other threads about helper tweeters in FR speakers. Search around and you'll find it.
Last edited:
Received the 3D printed TC9 template. First observation: When I measured it, it only comes out to 113.00mm and not the 113.50mm of the .stl specification... Second observation: I'm not a wood working guy, so I see the 1/4" piece of wood with cutout you made @dgmartin and then you had to glue the template to the wood and that was used for offset positioning and most importantly for router base stability. But for me, I think it would have worked out better if the diameter of the template was much bigger, say 160mm (or maybe a little more?) and then no extra piece of wood and cutting and gluing - just double side tape the bigger template and start routing? What do you think??
That’s unfortunate that it came out smaller than the .STL but not surprising. A 4-7/16 hole is only .011in smaller than your 113mm and will likely fit since the routed holes normally end up slightly oversized. That said I would also measure the template hole to see if it also undersized.
Agree that for a one-off it would be simpler to just print a bigger template and start routing. In this case I think I would make the template square or rectangular for easier alignment. Online 3D printing services can surely print larger, but if I were to generate a square STL I would stay within the common Ender3 envelope to make it usable by other builders. It’s built space is 220x220 but I would make it 200x200mm to be safe.
Just let me know if you’re interested in this solution and I’ll make an STL. Also let me know if you would need more clearance on the TC9 profile to compensate for the smaller build size.
Agree that for a one-off it would be simpler to just print a bigger template and start routing. In this case I think I would make the template square or rectangular for easier alignment. Online 3D printing services can surely print larger, but if I were to generate a square STL I would stay within the common Ender3 envelope to make it usable by other builders. It’s built space is 220x220 but I would make it 200x200mm to be safe.
Just let me know if you’re interested in this solution and I’ll make an STL. Also let me know if you would need more clearance on the TC9 profile to compensate for the smaller build size.
It looks like they got the template hole correct as the TC9 fits with just a tiny amount of play. I measured 98.53mm on my digital caliper hole-to-hole arc edge. The square STL would work much better for me - when you have some spare time to generate one that would again be very much appreciated!
Very cool stuff! Now that I have a 3D printer I could just print a mounting baffle for the Vifa. I have printed mounting flanges for other small driver, but had not thought about doing it for the Manzanita.
Plenty of clever stuff here.
Plenty of clever stuff here.
I've really been wanting to buy a printer as I'm seeing more and more potential uses in the shop.
For something more than a one-off, it may be nice to print a square/rectangle base (that leaves room for clamps) with index marks around the perimeter and allows for inserts that fit a variety of drivers. Then each "driver" insert would be a smaller, faster print job. I really dislike using double sided tape for templates if avoidable. I know others love that technique though
For something more than a one-off, it may be nice to print a square/rectangle base (that leaves room for clamps) with index marks around the perimeter and allows for inserts that fit a variety of drivers. Then each "driver" insert would be a smaller, faster print job. I really dislike using double sided tape for templates if avoidable. I know others love that technique though
Attachments
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Multi-Way
- Fast, fun, Inexpensive OB project