So .... Am I correct when thinking, in THIS particular application, the tweeter was factory set. Leaving ONLY capacitor or capacitors, to be added, thus making any speaker you design with it, having to be designed around the tweeter ?
I mean, most tweeters offer flexibility in application, to some extent. With the 64-10, the only thing changeable is the xover frequency. The slope has been set already by the manufacturer's design. Making this tweeter harder to work with, I would assume ?
I mean, most tweeters offer flexibility in application, to some extent. With the 64-10, the only thing changeable is the xover frequency. The slope has been set already by the manufacturer's design. Making this tweeter harder to work with, I would assume ?
Last edited:
Its lowest usable frequency is the only thing limited. If you are ok with that, then there's no problem. I know of few good uses for that tweeter. Something like this:
The Slims Tower
NNAcoustics from Serbia makes desktop monitors for about 500€/pair with this ribbon:
N.N. Acoustics - Xenia
EDIT: I just saw you want to try revs with RAAL. I guess that 3.5KHz is a bit highish for 5.5" but since it is nearfield it might work.
The Slims Tower
NNAcoustics from Serbia makes desktop monitors for about 500€/pair with this ribbon:
N.N. Acoustics - Xenia
EDIT: I just saw you want to try revs with RAAL. I guess that 3.5KHz is a bit highish for 5.5" but since it is nearfield it might work.
Last edited:
There have been several recommendations in this thread, by extremely knowledgeable members. I do not have enough experience to know how any of them will sound ANY different than the other.
So basically, if any of you truly would like to see these RAALs paired with a particular woofer, for your own interest of any kind, I am willing to build.
Not asking outright at all for a design. Just trying to explain just how much speaker specs mean NOTHING to me, when it comes to translating that to their predicted behaviors or sound, related to those specs. I also have very limited listening experience, compared to most of you, if not all of you
I was mistaken then, about the Revs playing that high. I thought I'd read where they were good to nearly 4000. Must have been another speaker someone recommended. I wouldn't want to chance them not working so well, at their asking price. So we can move on to the next possibility. No issues there.
Since this would be your first project i suggest you buy SB12CAC midwoofers and design something with them.
If you buy measuring equipment - you could make your own measurements of tweeter and midwoofer, upload the files here and we can play together
SB Acoustics :: 4” SB12CACS25-4<br><font color="#C70039">SHIPPING</font>
If you buy measuring equipment - you could make your own measurements of tweeter and midwoofer, upload the files here and we can play together
SB Acoustics :: 4” SB12CACS25-4<br><font color="#C70039">SHIPPING</font>
Last edited:
Since this would be your first project i suggest you buy SB12CAC midwoofers and design something with them.
If you buy measuring equipment - you could make your own measurements of tweeter and midwoofer, upload the files here and we can play together
SB Acoustics :: 4” SB12CACS25-4<br><font color="#C70039">SHIPPING</font>
Those are on back order. But I am ALL over this. I will see when they will be available, and order them.
PS; The 5" is available on Madisound
Last edited:
Lowering sensitivity generally changes the sound: negatively.
Yeah, the crossover with baffle diffraction depends on the net result and what your target filter is. (..it's why I mentioned "usually" - it's something that would have to be modeled-out with baffle dimensions to see if it actually was the case with this driver and the desired design filter/baffle/driver etc..)
Was the first graph then RAAL recommended and the second your altered filter? (..it was difficult to tell from the description.) OR are you saying that the 2nd graph was with the RAAL recommended filter (as I assumed), and that you found it wasn't sufficient (for whatever reason), and applied a different filter not shown?
Please explain the "3.5 kHz" (your reasoning).
The "resonance" from about 1.3 to 1.9 kHz, is a surround diaphragm issue (anti-phase alteration, NOT a typical "bell mode" resonance). It's also low in amplitude as it is, more than 20 db at the most substantive ridge (almost a millisecond in) at 1.9 kHz. (..the sonogram is remarkably clean in bandwidth relative to the average.) Practically speaking it's a NON-issue.
We should be looking at linear distortion, but it's a matter of what we are looking for. In particularly we should be concentrating on near time and near average pressure deviance's, and most particularly on deviance's that span a very narrow bandwidth and are above the average *after correction*.
In the Audax's case it's the amplitude change at about 3.8-3.9 kHz, that's most troubling (near average and half a millisecond in spanning a narrow bandwidth). However, the linearity of the driver will be altered and will be suppressed both in amplitude AND time with a good filter and well-summed tweeter.
..btw, I'm not "sold" on the Audax as "THE" solution, rather it's just one that I thought might fit well with the tweeter (in a variety of aspects) with the right design implementation.
Attachments
Last edited:
You have to wonder where that figure was "grabbed" from. 1 kHz? 2 kHz?
If the working average really is that low then the Audax would likely be to efficient with baffle diffraction (narrow baffle) and a more "simplistic" net 4th order LR filter. On the other hand you could squeeze a bit more bandwith out of it on the low-end with a filter that handled a bit more correction from a lower freq. electrical filter.
-I know, moot now for the Audax regardless.
Last edited:
You have to wonder where that figure was "grabbed" from. 1 kHz? 2 kHz?
If the working average really is that low then the Audax would likely be to efficient with baffle diffraction (narrow baffle) and a more "simplistic" net 4th order LR filter. On the other hand you could squeeze a bit more bandwith out of it on the low-end with a filter that handled a bit more correction from a lower freq. electrical filter.
-I know, moot now for the Audax regardless.
Just know this ... I did not choose any forum member's suggestion over the other due to their technical points and counter points in this thread.
Because I couldn't understand ANY of them at all !
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.