Hi John,
Glad they're working out. These were designed for a pretty specific application, and what you're hearing matches that:
- restricted low frequencies: These are meant for bedroom use and evening listening without keeping the family awake. I mate them with a sub that I turn off at night. Best to set the sub low pass so its 6 db down at 70Hz.
- on wall mounting. They sound good out in room but won't "boom" against a wall. Most other designs with this driver are ported but won't work against a wall
- really small footprint. This is the smallest W4-1720 design out there that I've found
- tonally neutral voicing as you found. To make this hold up in a small lively room (its intended application at my place):
- I chose a tweeter that was very directional so that in a small reflective room, it doesn't result in high frequency splatter and image wander. Seems to have paid off
- I purposely didn't optimize it for flat on any one axis, but I voiced it for tonal neutrality in a small lively room.
One thing I didn't expect out of this was how revealing it is of source changes upstream: what you feed it is what you get. I think this is an artifact of the low distortion tweeter, and the woofer was much better in this area than I thought it would be. So if you feed it bad sources, it'll give you that back. However, its not overly bright, "crisp" or lower treble bloomy like allot of overly "analytical" (ya, right) metal driver systems are. Far from it, its never strident. If I think it has any fault, its overly "dry" which I think is due to the tight dispersion. I also think the real sense of detail (not hyped, no tilted top end or mid here) is because it doesn't throw as much sound into the room at higher frequencies
Dave
Glad they're working out. These were designed for a pretty specific application, and what you're hearing matches that:
- restricted low frequencies: These are meant for bedroom use and evening listening without keeping the family awake. I mate them with a sub that I turn off at night. Best to set the sub low pass so its 6 db down at 70Hz.
- on wall mounting. They sound good out in room but won't "boom" against a wall. Most other designs with this driver are ported but won't work against a wall
- really small footprint. This is the smallest W4-1720 design out there that I've found
- tonally neutral voicing as you found. To make this hold up in a small lively room (its intended application at my place):
- I chose a tweeter that was very directional so that in a small reflective room, it doesn't result in high frequency splatter and image wander. Seems to have paid off
- I purposely didn't optimize it for flat on any one axis, but I voiced it for tonal neutrality in a small lively room.
One thing I didn't expect out of this was how revealing it is of source changes upstream: what you feed it is what you get. I think this is an artifact of the low distortion tweeter, and the woofer was much better in this area than I thought it would be. So if you feed it bad sources, it'll give you that back. However, its not overly bright, "crisp" or lower treble bloomy like allot of overly "analytical" (ya, right) metal driver systems are. Far from it, its never strident. If I think it has any fault, its overly "dry" which I think is due to the tight dispersion. I also think the real sense of detail (not hyped, no tilted top end or mid here) is because it doesn't throw as much sound into the room at higher frequencies
Dave
Design Improvement
Hi All,
I made a design improvement to the Napoleons that I think is worth sharing. The crossover was revised to add more BDC, reduce the woofer break up a further 5 dB, reduce upper mid range and lower treble by 1 to 2 dB and provide a better balance between on and off axis. In my system, the result is a more open and relaxed sound that I think is a solid improvement. This is the configuration that I prefer.
Update is attached.
Dave
Hi All,
I made a design improvement to the Napoleons that I think is worth sharing. The crossover was revised to add more BDC, reduce the woofer break up a further 5 dB, reduce upper mid range and lower treble by 1 to 2 dB and provide a better balance between on and off axis. In my system, the result is a more open and relaxed sound that I think is a solid improvement. This is the configuration that I prefer.
Update is attached.
Dave
Last edited:
Thanks for mentioning (at yesterday's Ottawa DIY get-together) that you'd published/updated your other x-over versions. I hadn't subscribed to this or any thread, so I probably need to change my ways. My old computer was on its "death-bed" for a while, so I guess I minimized my reliance on it.
As we discussed, my pair (when built) will probably not go in a small room... so I should probably try #1 first, since I have those parts, & maybe see about trying #3 in future.
Thanks a lot (again), Dave.
- Ron
As we discussed, my pair (when built) will probably not go in a small room... so I should probably try #1 first, since I have those parts, & maybe see about trying #3 in future.
Thanks a lot (again), Dave.
- Ron
Hi Ron,
I agree when used in a bigger room to not roll the top end off too much. OTOH, the design I brought to the DIY had a variable tweeter pad I just forgot about given we were in a bit of a time crunch. It would have been interesting to tip the high end back up a bit and give a listen.
Hope you enjoy it!
Dave
I remember John's pair was played first. They were the very first version and had the lower xover point and a very flat on axis response (Appendix I xover; they were the first draft and played at the DIY event a few years ago as my first listen as well). The second speakers played were the last version of the xover and my daily pair: higher xover, double trap on woofer to allow the higher xover, great off axis and a slight tip up on axis that results in much better off axis response (if anything I usually tip on axis down slightly but this tweeter is very directional in the very top end). I listen 15 degree off axis. At low power either is OK but the second pair takes significant power without complaint, so I agree with Mark (did I just say that in public?)
Yes, second pair with higher X-O. That's the one, cleaner low highs, most likely past the borderline x-o point where distortions might show up. Or you hit the sweet point where everything just lines up. Is this the x-o version with RLC trap - unpublished one. I have Marks XBL tweeters in the car - very clean, but I will try lower X-O as the Fs is around 500Hz due to aperiodic venting, for now x-o around 3k. Playing with SB17NRX - not easy on crossover options - the rising response makes things kind of difficult to make it play above 2k and control slope and phase. lf I won't like it for home, it may go to my junk mobile. Mark complained, that the motor is weak on it - I have to agree after seeing his creations - it's budget product with soft suspension, rather small spider for 6.5", and my samples vary in T/S.
Your aluminum enclosure spkrs - I take those over the biger Vifas anytime - very easy on ears.
Your aluminum enclosure spkrs - I take those over the biger Vifas anytime - very easy on ears.
Last edited:
Dave, sorry - I can see the latest x-o, didn't notice, because I didn't read V4 part 1 pdf, just like in the presentation you gave during the DIY meeting. Interesting. Also they seem to play louder than the 80ish dB efficiency would imply.
The T/S high voltage level measurement - was there much difference compared to 0.5-1V RMS between the two, if you still have these around.
The T/S high voltage level measurement - was there much difference compared to 0.5-1V RMS between the two, if you still have these around.
Pawel, sorry, traveling and don’t have access to the files. I have seen other drivers show large differences but this one should be better than average. I specifically chose that driver and a sealed Alignment as that combination could take allot if power. Often these small drivers are put in portef boxes with high fc’s and the run out of travel early.
The extra power handling made the tweeters job that much harder, requiring the crossover point to push up. It’s not easy asking a micro speaker to fill a large room with satisfying level!
Dave question, so I build the SB based 2way, but I do have problem. They are not as great Mark says, they are OK. One of tweeters is sounding quite bright comparing to other, they are within 1dB of each other with x-o installed. I rewired the x-o to pull up the dull tweeter by about 1.5dB at the top to compensate but it doesn't cut it. So my question is if distortions contribute to problem and which tweeter bright or dull would be affected - they aren't cheap so maybe I should Solen or SB if they can replace one with defective one. X-O was pain, propably could do better but with drivers that don't sound the same it's almost impossible at this point.
As for the Napoleons when you played them with revised x-o, and the sub at DIY meeting everything sounded OK, not much to complain for miniature this size - can't have everything, certainly not loudness and deep low end.
As for the Napoleons when you played them with revised x-o, and the sub at DIY meeting everything sounded OK, not much to complain for miniature this size - can't have everything, certainly not loudness and deep low end.
Last edited:
Hey Pawel, what no deep bass from a 3L box? The crime in it! I could have cranked up the sub and made them bass heads. I'm pairing the Napoleons with brighter and more forward electronics (irdac and Bryston amp) and they're sounding really really good. I designed them for and use in a 10x8 room, not 20x30 
I damaged a D26 once just with amp power, and it showed up in the impedance plot (demagnetized the neo). Maybe one of your tweeters is faulty? Measure the tweeter impedances again, if they differ significantly, or differ from spec, I'd say you're SOL.
I'm less than impressed with the drivers I bought from Solen. Way off spec or mismatched too many times and could never get tweeters to match with the xover. Imaging remained very fuzzy.
I hope you get it sorted, really looking forward to hearing your creations at DIY Ottawa. You have a good ear which is half the battle! If you want to talk, shoot me a PM
I damaged a D26 once just with amp power, and it showed up in the impedance plot (demagnetized the neo). Maybe one of your tweeters is faulty? Measure the tweeter impedances again, if they differ significantly, or differ from spec, I'd say you're SOL.
I'm less than impressed with the drivers I bought from Solen. Way off spec or mismatched too many times and could never get tweeters to match with the xover. Imaging remained very fuzzy.
I hope you get it sorted, really looking forward to hearing your creations at DIY Ottawa. You have a good ear which is half the battle! If you want to talk, shoot me a PM
I've been listening to the Napoleon's for a few years now and they are a solid design. I've gotten alot of enjoyment, but have also replaced the tweeter a couple times due to inappropriate volumes.
I recently heard the speedsters at a local record shop Denovo Audio Speedster Kit
and they were impressive. Same tang band woofer, but slightly larger enclosure with the fountek ribbon. I built a pair and did the pepsi challenge (Sonus amp, same room and location) and am now going full speedster. Can't say one is "better" or not, but the ribbon definitely added some more midrange force, and the larger enclosure offered a little more punch. The other thing for me was that I'm using the Napoleon's as an outdoor speaker on my patio, and they lacked volume at parties (granted, not their intended purpose). The Speedster's definitely play louder and clearer at volume, if you're into that.
I recently heard the speedsters at a local record shop Denovo Audio Speedster Kit
and they were impressive. Same tang band woofer, but slightly larger enclosure with the fountek ribbon. I built a pair and did the pepsi challenge (Sonus amp, same room and location) and am now going full speedster. Can't say one is "better" or not, but the ribbon definitely added some more midrange force, and the larger enclosure offered a little more punch. The other thing for me was that I'm using the Napoleon's as an outdoor speaker on my patio, and they lacked volume at parties (granted, not their intended purpose). The Speedster's definitely play louder and clearer at volume, if you're into that.
Glad they worked out Ok for you. I'm a bit surprised because they were specifically designed for the exact opposite use to outdoors: a small lively room (why I chose a tight directivity tweeter, back before waveguides were generally available), near field listening, tiny box, and use with a sub (purposely limited the bass).
The Speedsters would definitely be better for outdoor use, or a large room: wider dispersion tweeter, much bigger ported box that digs deeper. The Fountek is probably a better tweeter but I needed tight dispersion.
If you still have the Nap's, the last xover gives it better power handling and ability to play very loud.
To give the Nap's some credit, in my testing I found they have a better low pass crossover for critical near field listening. They do a bit better job getting rid of a W4-1720 peak just over 1k (it's not diffraction, its in the driver) and notch out the chaotic behaviour around 10 kHz better. This really improved clarity in my testing (I tried a crossover similar to the Speedsters).
I think the Nap's low pass with a wide dispersion high quality tweeter would be an interesting speaker. Hmm, maybe time to design an MLTL for the 1720?
The Speedsters would definitely be better for outdoor use, or a large room: wider dispersion tweeter, much bigger ported box that digs deeper. The Fountek is probably a better tweeter but I needed tight dispersion.
If you still have the Nap's, the last xover gives it better power handling and ability to play very loud.
To give the Nap's some credit, in my testing I found they have a better low pass crossover for critical near field listening. They do a bit better job getting rid of a W4-1720 peak just over 1k (it's not diffraction, its in the driver) and notch out the chaotic behaviour around 10 kHz better. This really improved clarity in my testing (I tried a crossover similar to the Speedsters).
I think the Nap's low pass with a wide dispersion high quality tweeter would be an interesting speaker. Hmm, maybe time to design an MLTL for the 1720?
Attachments
"I think the Nap's low pass with a wide dispersion high quality tweeter would be an interesting speaker. Hmm, maybe time to design an MLTL for the 1720?"
I wasnt trying to start a throwdown, but i like where you're going. I think eeking out some more performance from the TB/enclosure and going with a wider dispersion lower XO tweeter to cover bigger rooms and more dB is a worthy challenge. Call them Waterloo
I wasnt trying to start a throwdown, but i like where you're going. I think eeking out some more performance from the TB/enclosure and going with a wider dispersion lower XO tweeter to cover bigger rooms and more dB is a worthy challenge. Call them Waterloo
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.