Has anyone tried crossing over this driver above 2000Hz? I have noticed that in their kits, SB Acoustics cross this driver as well as the SB17MFC at 3000Hz. Most other designs I have seen with this driver have crossover points between 1600 and 2000Hz.
I built my first speaker 48 years ago. I have never really enjoyed a speaker crossed over below 3000Hz for any length of time, always itching to change something that bothers me. My last build included a Vifa P13WH mid crossed over to a Scan 9500 tweeter at 3200Hz.
Has anyone listened to the SB Ranjani kit?
I built my first speaker 48 years ago. I have never really enjoyed a speaker crossed over below 3000Hz for any length of time, always itching to change something that bothers me. My last build included a Vifa P13WH mid crossed over to a Scan 9500 tweeter at 3200Hz.
Has anyone listened to the SB Ranjani kit?
Why don't you try both? I've wondered about this and tried two well designed crossovers for two identical pairs of speakers. The speakers used an Usher 9950 tweeter and an Usher 8948 7" midwoofer. One pair were crossed at about 2700hz the other at about 1700hz, unfortunately the measurements and details are long gone, this was about 6 years ago. I do however remember being surprised how similar they sounded and even measured, maybe I was expecting too much.
It's seems the Diy-ers like to push the crossover as low as possible for more even power response while the manufacturers seem more conservative and maybe worry about burning up tweeters.
It's seems the Diy-ers like to push the crossover as low as possible for more even power response while the manufacturers seem more conservative and maybe worry about burning up tweeters.
Most popular USA MW16P-8 designs follow the MATRA of controlled directivity and use ~1.7kHz crossovers to avoid significant cone beaming. A 10" or 12" woofer is often used in a 3-way to match the MW16P-8 efficiency. Crossovers under 1.7kHz are more difficult for our ears to detect changes in directivity, SPL, phase, and timbre.
Because of the modest change in polar pattern measured at 3kHz, the 5” SATORI MR13P-4 looks like a good choice for popular 2nd LR2 or 3rd order BW3 to attenuate hi-freq cone breakup.
3-way designs using a 1” dome + 5” midrange + 8” woofer produce good musical balance.
** A 2.5-3kHz crossover allows use of high detail tweeters from 0.75” – 1”
** Most 5” midrange have low Le motors, and articulate light cones with very little beaming up to 2.5kHz
** Modest Mms 8” woofers match 5” sound at 200-300Hz crossover and can also produce <30Hz bass in ported 2.5-3cuft cabinet
Because of the modest change in polar pattern measured at 3kHz, the 5” SATORI MR13P-4 looks like a good choice for popular 2nd LR2 or 3rd order BW3 to attenuate hi-freq cone breakup.
3-way designs using a 1” dome + 5” midrange + 8” woofer produce good musical balance.
** A 2.5-3kHz crossover allows use of high detail tweeters from 0.75” – 1”
** Most 5” midrange have low Le motors, and articulate light cones with very little beaming up to 2.5kHz
** Modest Mms 8” woofers match 5” sound at 200-300Hz crossover and can also produce <30Hz bass in ported 2.5-3cuft cabinet
Attachments
As a degreed engineer I find it amusing when people define engineering as an exact science based on formulas and calculations. The best definition I have seen by far is "the art of determining which parameters can be safely ignored". By converse that also means finding out what is actually important.
I can understand the concept of not taking a driver into a zone of increasing directivity and why it is a good idea theoretically to take the tweeter crossover as low as possible. But then I ask myself why over my 48 years in this hobby many of the commercial speakers renowned for their clear and holographic midrange, such as Spendor BC1 and D7, Harbeth, B&W 800 series, involved taking an 8" woofer or 6" or large 5 (LS3/5a) mid above 3KHz (sometimes 4KHz like B&W). Maybe these guys found out that directivity can be compromised for some other benefit that is more important in how we perceive sound.
When I built speakers with lower crossovers, regardless of how good they sounded, I never got that urge to fire them up the minute I got home and try an unheard recording. This included LR4 active crossover designs where the tweeter response was compensated for resonance and Q using a Linkwitz transform to create a true acoustic transfer function. That kind sonic lust was limited to speakers where one driver covered the entire span from 400-3000Hz.
What I am basically after, is that driver that will give me an LR2 between those limits. The mid enclosure will be a closed but aperiodic design, if not an open baffle. Over the years the closest to the ideal was the Vifa P13WH. However, its own natural roll-off that made it perfect for an LR4, makes it a difficult design for an LR2. (I use LspCad) Also, it is getting difficult to find samples without hardening surrounds. My own are 18 years old and the fs has increased from 68 to 112Hz. Also, the increased RMS has curtailed overall dynamics, something that already was not one of the virtues of the driver. It seems that improving driver technology should be getting us there.
I can understand the concept of not taking a driver into a zone of increasing directivity and why it is a good idea theoretically to take the tweeter crossover as low as possible. But then I ask myself why over my 48 years in this hobby many of the commercial speakers renowned for their clear and holographic midrange, such as Spendor BC1 and D7, Harbeth, B&W 800 series, involved taking an 8" woofer or 6" or large 5 (LS3/5a) mid above 3KHz (sometimes 4KHz like B&W). Maybe these guys found out that directivity can be compromised for some other benefit that is more important in how we perceive sound.
When I built speakers with lower crossovers, regardless of how good they sounded, I never got that urge to fire them up the minute I got home and try an unheard recording. This included LR4 active crossover designs where the tweeter response was compensated for resonance and Q using a Linkwitz transform to create a true acoustic transfer function. That kind sonic lust was limited to speakers where one driver covered the entire span from 400-3000Hz.
What I am basically after, is that driver that will give me an LR2 between those limits. The mid enclosure will be a closed but aperiodic design, if not an open baffle. Over the years the closest to the ideal was the Vifa P13WH. However, its own natural roll-off that made it perfect for an LR4, makes it a difficult design for an LR2. (I use LspCad) Also, it is getting difficult to find samples without hardening surrounds. My own are 18 years old and the fs has increased from 68 to 112Hz. Also, the increased RMS has curtailed overall dynamics, something that already was not one of the virtues of the driver. It seems that improving driver technology should be getting us there.
The MW16Ps are not a cheap investment. I am looking for a reasonable probability of success with the high crossover.
To me, the lack of satisfaction with the low crossover is not something you notice immediately. It is something that makes you want to start changing in weeks or months because it just does not hit the spot. It is something that makes you want to go sit at the computer or watch TV rather than fire up the system.
Maybe I'm not as picky as you because I can't recall having any speakers so bad I did not want to fire them up. I ended up changing the crossover in the above mentioned speakers to a acoustic 2nd order at about 2300hz if I recall correctly and this ended up being my favorite. I listened to all of these speakers for several months and could have lived with any of them happily.
I have listened to the Kairos and thought they sounded great, but it was a limited audition.
Obviously you have a lot of time. It takes me a few days to know whether the sound is right or not.
Greetings from the other side of North Carolina. Above 2K is possible and I've done that with more than one design using the MW16. I think you'll find the midrange quality a good step up from the P13 (first time I've heard one mentioned in several years!).
Rick, I would hope they would be a good step up. As smooth as those drivers were, they were heavily mechanically damped and not the most dynamic even when new. Age did not treat the P13 elastomers well. They sounded beautifully when I lived in New Jersey but after a half year in storage while I moved south the deterioration started.
Would you suggest the Satori 5" over the 6" as a midrange? Have you had any experience with the SB 5" polypropylene version?
Would you suggest the Satori 5" over the 6" as a midrange? Have you had any experience with the SB 5" polypropylene version?
The February 2017 edition of Voice Coil magazine has measurements on the MR13P midrange, and TW29BN tweeter.
SB Acoustics Satori MR13P-4. A New Home Audio 5.25” Midrange Driver
Why not... fire up LspCad and model a sealed box 5” SATORI MR13P-4 plus the 1" SB26STC-C000-4 dome tweeter with LR2 and BW3 crossovers? The Satori datasheet measurements should be usable down to 400Hz baffle step, and you can use Baffle Edge Diffraction Simulator By Jeff Bagby Version 1.20 to estimate the shape of the ~2db SPL boost from edge diffraction between 600-1,500Hz. Some designs can get good physical-offset time delay compensation from phase differences in BW3-tweet and LR2-mid, or inverted_BW3-tweet and BW3-mid.
Sometimes increased beaming at high frequencies compensates for a listener's hearing curve. If the speakers are placed away from the walls, the soundstage changes due to beaming will get combined with short delay wall reflections and are less noticable. Headphones are sometimes used to identify room interactions.
What are your plans for bass frequencies? The Sony engineers won awards for the SS-AR1. Two SB23NRX45-8 can match the efficiency of the MR13P-4.
SB Acoustics Satori MR13P-4. A New Home Audio 5.25” Midrange Driver
Why not... fire up LspCad and model a sealed box 5” SATORI MR13P-4 plus the 1" SB26STC-C000-4 dome tweeter with LR2 and BW3 crossovers? The Satori datasheet measurements should be usable down to 400Hz baffle step, and you can use Baffle Edge Diffraction Simulator By Jeff Bagby Version 1.20 to estimate the shape of the ~2db SPL boost from edge diffraction between 600-1,500Hz. Some designs can get good physical-offset time delay compensation from phase differences in BW3-tweet and LR2-mid, or inverted_BW3-tweet and BW3-mid.
Sometimes increased beaming at high frequencies compensates for a listener's hearing curve. If the speakers are placed away from the walls, the soundstage changes due to beaming will get combined with short delay wall reflections and are less noticable. Headphones are sometimes used to identify room interactions.
What are your plans for bass frequencies? The Sony engineers won awards for the SS-AR1. Two SB23NRX45-8 can match the efficiency of the MR13P-4.
Attachments
If I remember correctly that Usher tweeter was very similar in design to the Scan Speak 9500. Did it have the same double hump at resonance with the resulting wiggle between 1-2 KHz?
There is a little bump and dip but nothing to hard to deal with. I liked them, although at this point I think I prefer the satori tweeter, it's pretty nice!
Linesource, my current plans for the LF is to build a sub with my existing 10" vifa hard paper woofers. However, this is for later. I have to say though that the SB23 is the nicest modeling 8" woofer I have seen. Reasonable volume with good lf extension. I do plan to mount the tweeter (SB29RDC) in its own baffle acoustically aligned above the enclosure. I have been doing that successfully for a long time. My dilemma was whether to employ the MW16 from bass right up to the tweeter at a high crossover, or employ some help at the upper mids. The enclosures are 34 by 8 inch towers. I have to say that the thought of ditching the subs and just doing a standard 3 way with Satori mids with a side firing SB23 had crossed my mind.
A stepped baffle will yield a shorter center-to-center distance between the midrange and tweeter than two separate cabinets. Less lobbing.
If you have studied Troel's website you understand his opinion on "sonic differences" from TM crossovers designed to address the issue of time-alignment, and why a physically stepped baffle is Troel's current favorite. When I cannot use DSP tech, I'm happy with a flat baffle and phase differences in BW3-tweet and LR2-mid, or inverted_BW3-tweet and BW3-mid. Give them a try in LspCad. Even a stepped TM baffle is only time coherent over a narrow listening distance and angle.
Troels: There are several engineering ways to "overcome" the Mid-Tweet time-alignment problem:
#1. Machine a 2-height stepped baffle which physically time-aligns the tweeter to the midrange at the LR2/LR2 crossover frequency.
#2. Use an asymmetrical crossover usually consisting of 2nd order to the bass and 3rd order to the tweeter to make "proper" phase integration.
#3. Use 4th order filters to both drivers, e.g. LR4, and due to the large phase shift, the lack of alignment is negligible - although I really feel it isn't.
#4. Tilt the front panel so that with a listening height somewhere between the bass and tweeter we more or less compensate for the time difference.
#5. Place the tweeter below the midbass. Having the midbass at ear height, the tweeter will - to some extent - be better aligned with the midbass driver.
#6. Use an all-pass filter to delay tweeter response.
#7. Ignore the problem and implement a simple 2nd order filter which produces a decent linear frequency response.
#8. DSP, unless you are in the passive components business.
If you have studied Troel's website you understand his opinion on "sonic differences" from TM crossovers designed to address the issue of time-alignment, and why a physically stepped baffle is Troel's current favorite. When I cannot use DSP tech, I'm happy with a flat baffle and phase differences in BW3-tweet and LR2-mid, or inverted_BW3-tweet and BW3-mid. Give them a try in LspCad. Even a stepped TM baffle is only time coherent over a narrow listening distance and angle.
Troels: There are several engineering ways to "overcome" the Mid-Tweet time-alignment problem:
#1. Machine a 2-height stepped baffle which physically time-aligns the tweeter to the midrange at the LR2/LR2 crossover frequency.
#2. Use an asymmetrical crossover usually consisting of 2nd order to the bass and 3rd order to the tweeter to make "proper" phase integration.
#3. Use 4th order filters to both drivers, e.g. LR4, and due to the large phase shift, the lack of alignment is negligible - although I really feel it isn't.
#4. Tilt the front panel so that with a listening height somewhere between the bass and tweeter we more or less compensate for the time difference.
#5. Place the tweeter below the midbass. Having the midbass at ear height, the tweeter will - to some extent - be better aligned with the midbass driver.
#6. Use an all-pass filter to delay tweeter response.
#7. Ignore the problem and implement a simple 2nd order filter which produces a decent linear frequency response.
#8. DSP, unless you are in the passive components business.
Attachments
I made two 2-ways with MW16P-4. Identical cabinets, just different tweeters, TW29RN and SS6600. Slopped baffles with LR2 crossovers. Full measurements are here, so you can see what horizontal polars you can expect.
Ghibli :: Pkaudio
JurKo :: Pkaudio
Ghibli :: Pkaudio
JurKo :: Pkaudio
In answer to your many pointsA stepped baffle will yield a shorter center-to-center distance between the midrange and tweeter than two separate cabinets. Less lobbing.
If you have studied Troel's website you understand his opinion on "sonic differences" from TM crossovers designed to address the issue of time-alignment, and why a physically stepped baffle is Troel's current favorite. When I cannot use DSP tech, I'm happy with a flat baffle and phase differences in BW3-tweet and LR2-mid, or inverted_BW3-tweet and BW3-mid. Give them a try in LspCad. Even a stepped TM baffle is only time coherent over a narrow listening distance and angle.
Troels: There are several engineering ways to "overcome" the Mid-Tweet time-alignment problem:
#1. Machine a 2-height stepped baffle which physically time-aligns the tweeter to the midrange at the LR2/LR2 crossover frequency.
#2. Use an asymmetrical crossover usually consisting of 2nd order to the bass and 3rd order to the tweeter to make "proper" phase integration.
#3. Use 4th order filters to both drivers, e.g. LR4, and due to the large phase shift, the lack of alignment is negligible - although I really feel it isn't.
#4. Tilt the front panel so that with a listening height somewhere between the bass and tweeter we more or less compensate for the time difference.
#5. Place the tweeter below the midbass. Having the midbass at ear height, the tweeter will - to some extent - be better aligned with the midbass driver.
#6. Use an all-pass filter to delay tweeter response.
#7. Ignore the problem and implement a simple 2nd order filter which produces a decent linear frequency response.
#8. DSP, unless you are in the passive components business.
- I prefer my method of a separate baffle over theexisting enclosure. I can get thespacing to an absolute minimum, the same as a one piece stepped baffle. It is also adjustable.
- I have built asymmetrical crossovers before. Imuch prefer the integration of aligned drivers with LR4 or LR2.
- I have been using LR4s passive and active for 30yrs. I want to see what the hoopla isfor LR2. If I don’t like it I can alwaysreturn to LR4.
- I have spent countless hours figuring out thetilt angle to make this work. Unfortunately there is a tradeoff between driver separation and tiltangle. The closer the drivers aretogether the greater the angle needed. The MW16P is also a rather deep driver requiring significantoffset. There is a paper in the SB Acousticssite giving the offsets required for many of their drivers including theMW16P/TW29R combination.
- Placing the tweeter below the mid helps as wellas not recessing the mid. For the MW16Pthat is not nearly enough. It would work with a shallow mid such as a ScanSpeak 10F/8414. I have considered a combination of SS 18W/8434 with 10F/8414 instead of one MW16P.
- I have used a two stage op amp all pass when Iwas tri-amping with an electronic crossover. It is magical. I published thatdesign in an issue of Speaker builder around 1990. I considered a passive version this time butwas not ready for the complication and all the extra in line capacitors. I also used an all pass between the mids andthe side mounted Woofers on my last design because of the huge offset caused bythe side firing location.
- I don’t want to go back from where I have beenfor the last 30 years. I can’t really ignore it. After reading SiegfriedLinkwitz’s articles in the mid 80s and listening to the KEF 105s I got hookedon proper crossover design.
- I have a 4 channel Adcom power amp these days. Iintend to do passive at the top and active for the subs. I am not ready for theexpense of DSP although I will probably get there eventually.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.