There's not much to choose between the Audax HM130Z0 & SB15MFC30-8,
Distortion graphs for both (but different scales:-( :
www.audioexcite.com >> SB Acoustics SB15MFC30-4
Audax HM130Z0/Z10? opinions? anything better in a similar vein? (post 17)
I'd choose the SB on local availability & price....
The Audax looks more sexy, slightly more efficient, but more difficult to route for....
This might help:
SB Acoustics SB15MFC30-4 | HiFiCompass
Distortion graphs for both (but different scales:-( :
www.audioexcite.com >> SB Acoustics SB15MFC30-4
Audax HM130Z0/Z10? opinions? anything better in a similar vein? (post 17)
I'd choose the SB on local availability & price....
The Audax looks more sexy, slightly more efficient, but more difficult to route for....
This might help:
SB Acoustics SB15MFC30-4 | HiFiCompass
Last edited:
Yes, I do understand that the 100usd price range and highest standard might not match, but for the price range I want the highest possible standard.
I want the choices I make when it comes to parts of the build has the potential to be just about as good as possible, within a reasonable cost. The last percentages of performance for 3 x the cost, is out of reasonable cost.
This also translates over to the design. If something seems a bit off, tell me so. This is for learning and as such, someone has to teach me.
I want to do it right, or as right as possible from the beginning, and that's why I'm trying to not get myself locked up in a track that's takes me thru more compromises than nessesary.
The reason for 8 ohm is a speaker suitable for most amplifiers, a jack of all trades type of thing, but I can't find the right English word at the moment. I'm most probably going to build an amplifier later on, so I'm trying to be prepared for that before it happens.
But 4 ohm isn't completely out, it is a possibility. Talk me thru it and convince me it is as good an idea as 8 ohm and it might change. Drivers available for this midrange duty seems more available in 4 ohms. Why is it so? What is it I am missing right now?
The Monacor brand has been a choice, as I'm somewhat locked on 5" I looked mostly at that size, but what's makes me a bit off with them and Visaton also, is their lousy information regarding FR plot and such. Seems very smoothed and no off axis info. Sure, measurements are needed for this, but it still seems like a good idea to go with a brand that's shows as much info as possible from the start. Kinda gets me thinking if they don't show that info, what are they trying to hide?
When it comes to the LP for the mid, the 3khz is a guess, somewhere where it seems to be a good compromise between the different choices and compromises but it isn't written in stone, like everything else, talk me thru it an convince me and I'll change the goal. It would be variable with regard to getting the drivers to match up fine anyway, så 400 hz here or there aren't so important as long as the tweeter handles it clean and nicely.
As mentioned in the beginning I do want drivers that overload gracefully, I have owned speakers that didn't, and it is something I want to avoid as they might get used at unusually high spl levels. Well, it ain't a PA system but you get the idea.
The idea of using what is often called PA or Pro drivers aren't out the question. I'm not particularly hooked on just "hifi" drivers, performance goes before looks but still, looks are somewhat important. I'm at the moment trying to check what's available on the pro market for midrange and 8" woofer duty, A LOT more to sift thru. It seems that either break up and FR is more severe in those types of drivers or the manufacturers are more honest. It's a pity it ain't no hard rules against these things, making all brands mandatory to show performance in a set kind of way. IEC should be mandatory. With distortion, waterfall and such graphs.
When I'm at it, does anyone know of a site, or maybe a book, that gives very detailed info on the world of crossovers? Passive ones?
That is exhausting and very comprehensive. It seems it is possible to get a little bit here a little bit there on the net, but I can't find a site that is very detailed. Like giving one an idea of the way professionals is going thru the design of an passive XO, showing a good way to break it down and what to try/chsck at different stages.
As it is know, good crossover design is like black arts, impossible to find good info on. I've been eyingg it out, designing an XO from scratch, learning a bit here and there but now I'm stuck and don't know what more to Google.
For someone who's not overly confident in these things it would be a really nice and valuable source.
If you know of a book, please tip me. It seems like one place in this hobby where it might be very well spent money.
I want the choices I make when it comes to parts of the build has the potential to be just about as good as possible, within a reasonable cost. The last percentages of performance for 3 x the cost, is out of reasonable cost.
This also translates over to the design. If something seems a bit off, tell me so. This is for learning and as such, someone has to teach me.
I want to do it right, or as right as possible from the beginning, and that's why I'm trying to not get myself locked up in a track that's takes me thru more compromises than nessesary.
The reason for 8 ohm is a speaker suitable for most amplifiers, a jack of all trades type of thing, but I can't find the right English word at the moment. I'm most probably going to build an amplifier later on, so I'm trying to be prepared for that before it happens.
But 4 ohm isn't completely out, it is a possibility. Talk me thru it and convince me it is as good an idea as 8 ohm and it might change. Drivers available for this midrange duty seems more available in 4 ohms. Why is it so? What is it I am missing right now?
The Monacor brand has been a choice, as I'm somewhat locked on 5" I looked mostly at that size, but what's makes me a bit off with them and Visaton also, is their lousy information regarding FR plot and such. Seems very smoothed and no off axis info. Sure, measurements are needed for this, but it still seems like a good idea to go with a brand that's shows as much info as possible from the start. Kinda gets me thinking if they don't show that info, what are they trying to hide?
When it comes to the LP for the mid, the 3khz is a guess, somewhere where it seems to be a good compromise between the different choices and compromises but it isn't written in stone, like everything else, talk me thru it an convince me and I'll change the goal. It would be variable with regard to getting the drivers to match up fine anyway, så 400 hz here or there aren't so important as long as the tweeter handles it clean and nicely.
As mentioned in the beginning I do want drivers that overload gracefully, I have owned speakers that didn't, and it is something I want to avoid as they might get used at unusually high spl levels. Well, it ain't a PA system but you get the idea.
The idea of using what is often called PA or Pro drivers aren't out the question. I'm not particularly hooked on just "hifi" drivers, performance goes before looks but still, looks are somewhat important. I'm at the moment trying to check what's available on the pro market for midrange and 8" woofer duty, A LOT more to sift thru. It seems that either break up and FR is more severe in those types of drivers or the manufacturers are more honest. It's a pity it ain't no hard rules against these things, making all brands mandatory to show performance in a set kind of way. IEC should be mandatory. With distortion, waterfall and such graphs.
When I'm at it, does anyone know of a site, or maybe a book, that gives very detailed info on the world of crossovers? Passive ones?
That is exhausting and very comprehensive. It seems it is possible to get a little bit here a little bit there on the net, but I can't find a site that is very detailed. Like giving one an idea of the way professionals is going thru the design of an passive XO, showing a good way to break it down and what to try/chsck at different stages.
As it is know, good crossover design is like black arts, impossible to find good info on. I've been eyingg it out, designing an XO from scratch, learning a bit here and there but now I'm stuck and don't know what more to Google.
For someone who's not overly confident in these things it would be a really nice and valuable source.
If you know of a book, please tip me. It seems like one place in this hobby where it might be very well spent money.
Pete,
Hmm.. On those graphs it looks like the SB outclassed the Adax grossly.
Am I reading it right?
This SB driver where on the No 1 place for a long time before I found the Audax, and what it looked not a single negative comment on it and easy implementation with its nicely behaved roll of.
But, the SB15MFC30 seems to be used in a couple of different builds, and it should be easier for me to implement in a build than a more obscure and unused driver. The ability to be used in a 2-way does make it a very nice choice. Versatility is a parameter on my list of things that makes it a plus.
Hmm, I'm not really feeling I'm getting closer to a decision.. It almost feels like and looks like there are these top tier drivers for this range that all seems like a good choice, but each a bit different.
Are there anyone on here that's has tried some of these different drivers in a similar build? I'm think the MCA15, SB15, Satori MR and hopefully Audax?
Or that has tried anyone of them, and found a downside or something it doesn't do so well? Negatives might make it an easier choice.
Going for the plusses only seems like it might send me in a catch 22 never ending loop.
Hmm.. On those graphs it looks like the SB outclassed the Adax grossly.
Am I reading it right?
This SB driver where on the No 1 place for a long time before I found the Audax, and what it looked not a single negative comment on it and easy implementation with its nicely behaved roll of.
But, the SB15MFC30 seems to be used in a couple of different builds, and it should be easier for me to implement in a build than a more obscure and unused driver. The ability to be used in a 2-way does make it a very nice choice. Versatility is a parameter on my list of things that makes it a plus.
Hmm, I'm not really feeling I'm getting closer to a decision.. It almost feels like and looks like there are these top tier drivers for this range that all seems like a good choice, but each a bit different.
Are there anyone on here that's has tried some of these different drivers in a similar build? I'm think the MCA15, SB15, Satori MR and hopefully Audax?
Or that has tried anyone of them, and found a downside or something it doesn't do so well? Negatives might make it an easier choice.
Going for the plusses only seems like it might send me in a catch 22 never ending loop.
Hey guys,
This might noy be the right thread to put this, but it has to do with my question of extensive information about crossover design.
What are the normal way to work around the baffle diffraction and step? From what I can gather on the net, the compensation circuit seems to be the norm. Or 0.5 way.
Are there any other ways to tackle it? From what I seem to be able to find, this is what's mentioned.
I'm not educated in electronics so I might not know the right terms to Google for but these two ways are what I'm coming up with. A 0.5 with the baffle width that seems reasonable, don't make sense. The step seems to appear around 350-420hz, and it doesn't make sense with regard to HP of the mid.
Isn't it possible to work around it using the sensitivity of the woofers against the mid, and put the woofer/mid crossover at the step as is done somewhat similar with 0.5 solution? With a 30cm baffle and the usual Re of drivers at around 3,2 or 6,2 it is at 380 hz.
Almost everything that I'm able to find in crossover design information are about 2 way crossovers. Probably for a good reason thou.. But, still, a comprehensive link, guide or site about the usual steps taken when designing a crossover for a 3 way should be a good read.
This might noy be the right thread to put this, but it has to do with my question of extensive information about crossover design.
What are the normal way to work around the baffle diffraction and step? From what I can gather on the net, the compensation circuit seems to be the norm. Or 0.5 way.
Are there any other ways to tackle it? From what I seem to be able to find, this is what's mentioned.
I'm not educated in electronics so I might not know the right terms to Google for but these two ways are what I'm coming up with. A 0.5 with the baffle width that seems reasonable, don't make sense. The step seems to appear around 350-420hz, and it doesn't make sense with regard to HP of the mid.
Isn't it possible to work around it using the sensitivity of the woofers against the mid, and put the woofer/mid crossover at the step as is done somewhat similar with 0.5 solution? With a 30cm baffle and the usual Re of drivers at around 3,2 or 6,2 it is at 380 hz.
Almost everything that I'm able to find in crossover design information are about 2 way crossovers. Probably for a good reason thou.. But, still, a comprehensive link, guide or site about the usual steps taken when designing a crossover for a 3 way should be a good read.
I've got a pair of Rogers DB101s which use a flavour of the 5" Audax aerogel driver and I also have a pair of speakers I've built for my daughter's time at Uni using 5" Faital 5FE120s.
Both speakers are small 2ways of very similar size, F3 and crossover point.
I always liked the aerogel Audax but that cheap Faital is to my ears clearly the better driver.
That said I have no measurements and at least part of the Faitals superiority is due to a much better low end which makes it hard to take a side when used as a midrange.
With around £100 to spend on each in a midrange application I'd pick the BMS 5S117 I linked to earlier.
Here is a link to some midrange tests including the BMS:Robsan-DIY | Motus UH130PW1 and BMS 5S117-8 Tests Uploaded
Both speakers are small 2ways of very similar size, F3 and crossover point.
I always liked the aerogel Audax but that cheap Faital is to my ears clearly the better driver.
That said I have no measurements and at least part of the Faitals superiority is due to a much better low end which makes it hard to take a side when used as a midrange.
With around £100 to spend on each in a midrange application I'd pick the BMS 5S117 I linked to earlier.
Here is a link to some midrange tests including the BMS:Robsan-DIY | Motus UH130PW1 and BMS 5S117-8 Tests Uploaded
I would suggest you settle on a speaker configuration first before looking for drivers that might be suitable. For example, if you settle on 2 x 8" woofers, 5" midrange and 1" tweeter in a tower then the sensitivity requirements for the midrange are likely to eliminate a number of the midrange/midwoofers you are currently spending time examining.
The price for those FaitalPro's seems really superb for the price, and they do look quite good too. I might have to buy a pair just because they are so cheap. And they are even unbeliavble cheap from a store in Sweden.
Andy,
Well, then it have to be a 2x8"-5"-1" setup. That's what seems most sane to my inexperienced eyes. Manageable baffle width and pleasing to the eye.
Andy,
Well, then it have to be a 2x8"-5"-1" setup. That's what seems most sane to my inexperienced eyes. Manageable baffle width and pleasing to the eye.
Yeah, the Faitals seems to be better than I remember.. Are there measurements available on them? The price on them, at least here in Europe is really really good, I could get 4 for the price of a pair of the cheapest SB drivers, SB15MFC ones here in Sweden, and then I guess that's not the cheapest place either.
I've read a lot of positive comments about the smaller siblings when I was more focused on a Line Array. I think I'm going to buy a pair of them regardless of what driver would be used in this speaker.
I've read a lot of positive comments about the smaller siblings when I was more focused on a Line Array. I think I'm going to buy a pair of them regardless of what driver would be used in this speaker.
BMS seems to get ignored quite often on this forum. Most of their products are second to none in all product categories.
Yeah, the BMS looks quite good. Only thing thats sticking out is the break up.
I went thru my notes on drivers and came across the Aurum Cantus AC-130F1. It fits what I want pretty good. Reasonably flat and extended FR. Distortion seems good to.
Anyone used this driver with any others in the group of considered drivers?
Funny, I felt that when I started this thread that the options fore med were somewhat limited at 5" and lots of options in 4" & 6,5". Not quite so. Some seriously good recommendations you guys have given me, thanks!
And please, let the recommendations continue
Well, lets say it will be a 2x8"-5"-1" speaker, or I decide it should be like this.
Then, for simplicitys sake, let's say 'll choose an 90db@8ohm driver as mid, then I'm going to need to look at 8" drivers that are at 87db@4ohm, as they would be connected series, and the resistance would be 8ohm for the pair and the sensitivity would be 90db, also for the pair? Right?
The 5" 8ohm@90db and 8" 4ohm@87db are only to make it easy for me to understand and is an example.
I really really should know this by now, but I always get it wrong, or feel like I'm getting it wrong at least.
This is anyway how I've been thinking it should be, and is a part of why I would like to have sensitive mid range driver.
It might be good for me to get this right here and now before I delve too far into the game of finding suitable drivers for a 1x5" mid to 2x8" woofers.
I went thru my notes on drivers and came across the Aurum Cantus AC-130F1. It fits what I want pretty good. Reasonably flat and extended FR. Distortion seems good to.
Anyone used this driver with any others in the group of considered drivers?
Funny, I felt that when I started this thread that the options fore med were somewhat limited at 5" and lots of options in 4" & 6,5". Not quite so. Some seriously good recommendations you guys have given me, thanks!
And please, let the recommendations continue
Well, lets say it will be a 2x8"-5"-1" speaker, or I decide it should be like this.
Then, for simplicitys sake, let's say 'll choose an 90db@8ohm driver as mid, then I'm going to need to look at 8" drivers that are at 87db@4ohm, as they would be connected series, and the resistance would be 8ohm for the pair and the sensitivity would be 90db, also for the pair? Right?
The 5" 8ohm@90db and 8" 4ohm@87db are only to make it easy for me to understand and is an example.
I really really should know this by now, but I always get it wrong, or feel like I'm getting it wrong at least.
This is anyway how I've been thinking it should be, and is a part of why I would like to have sensitive mid range driver.
It might be good for me to get this right here and now before I delve too far into the game of finding suitable drivers for a 1x5" mid to 2x8" woofers.
The laws of physics lead to a configuration like 2 x 8" woofers, 5" mid and 1" tweeter becoming what is required for clean high fidelity sound at standard listening levels in medium sized rooms in the home. There are variations if, for example, subs are in use but it is pretty much the datum/reference/starting point configuration for good high fidelity in the home. As a consequence it has become probably the most common configuration for top of the range commercial home high fidelity speakers from the larger manufacturers. If you look at these designs and measurements of these designs in magazines it will provide some guidance on what competent designs from experienced engineers looks like. You may find the odd design from enthusiastic DIY folk along the lines you suggest but I doubt you will find many, if any, from competent engineers for commercial use.
There are curiously few well sorted and documented DIY designs using this configuration with standard range drivers despite it almost certainly being a popular configuration for the relatively inexperienced. Not as popular as a small 2 way 6.5" midwoofer with 1" tweeter obviously but one of the most popular when stepping up a level in sound quality, size and price. I suggested this configuration when people were discussing possible options for an open source design exercise but although it picked up some support groups formed around a huge speaker and an expensive speaker which I doubt many will be interested in building for themselves. If you are committed to building the speakers then you may find others on the forum interested in becoming involved in details of the design. It would make it a different sort of project but it might be worth considering if you are interested and comfortable with it becoming less of your own design.
I have nothing against a collaboration project if interest in it exists. The important part in this for me is the learning curve. I need to do this to be able to understand audio and speakers in a bigger context.
Are anyone able to answer on the question if it is possible to correct the baffle step in the crossover between woofer and mid by using more sensitive woofers against the mid?
If it is possible, and a good thing to do, the sensitivity of the mid should be lower than the range I've primarily have been looking at.
I do t really see why it couldn't be corrected that way.. Seems like a more reasonable option than padding down everything above the baffle step. But, I'm not an experienced builder, definately not.
If the baffle is around 30cm wide, there is room inside for 8" driver, the step appears to be at around 390hz, and that seems as good as any other crossover in the region.
It is far from easy to find information on how to do this, what I find when searching are the same two ways of doing it, either compensate or 0.5.
0.5 at that frequency makes no sense, and a 0,5 is more or less what I've asking, but another way of doing it, right?
Instead of adding a 0.5 just use higher sensitivity woofers and lower sensitivity mid, just skip the 0.5 thing and cross the woofers over to the mid at the frequency.
I'll start with this question, got some others I might need help getting right, that might be good to answer before any more serious choice on drivers should be made.
Are anyone able to answer on the question if it is possible to correct the baffle step in the crossover between woofer and mid by using more sensitive woofers against the mid?
If it is possible, and a good thing to do, the sensitivity of the mid should be lower than the range I've primarily have been looking at.
I do t really see why it couldn't be corrected that way.. Seems like a more reasonable option than padding down everything above the baffle step. But, I'm not an experienced builder, definately not.
If the baffle is around 30cm wide, there is room inside for 8" driver, the step appears to be at around 390hz, and that seems as good as any other crossover in the region.
It is far from easy to find information on how to do this, what I find when searching are the same two ways of doing it, either compensate or 0.5.
0.5 at that frequency makes no sense, and a 0,5 is more or less what I've asking, but another way of doing it, right?
Instead of adding a 0.5 just use higher sensitivity woofers and lower sensitivity mid, just skip the 0.5 thing and cross the woofers over to the mid at the frequency.
I'll start with this question, got some others I might need help getting right, that might be good to answer before any more serious choice on drivers should be made.
I dislike throwing away efficiency by padding down the midrange but somebody did point out to me that resistors are both cheap and innocuous. Personally I prefer to add an extra woofer or two and use a .5 but as noted the cost of a good inductor at the baffle step frequency might be an obstacle.
Amplifiers and electronic crossovers or DSP might be a better way to do things; especially now that plate amps are so much more refined and so much cheaper per watt than they have ever been
Amplifiers and electronic crossovers or DSP might be a better way to do things; especially now that plate amps are so much more refined and so much cheaper per watt than they have ever been
-but they aren't "innocuous".
Really, if you need to do some padding, find your losses from sources other than commercial resistors.
:cough: :inductors:
Hmm, are you saying the way I thought of doing it, is a bad idea or not?
I don't really see the difference between using an extra 0.5 woofer against say for simplicity sake a a mid at 87db and woofer/s at the appropriate efficiency which at the usual(?) bafflestep at 6db would be at 93 dB and just cross over at the baffle step?
Using 2 x lower sensitivity woofers against one higher sensitivity woofer or 1 and a 0.5 shouldn't matter, or am I getting it wrong at some place?
Going active, in this project of mine kind of goes against the whole thing of learning the things I want to learn. But I do see the benefits in doing it. But still, not this time.
I don't really see the difference between using an extra 0.5 woofer against say for simplicity sake a a mid at 87db and woofer/s at the appropriate efficiency which at the usual(?) bafflestep at 6db would be at 93 dB and just cross over at the baffle step?
Using 2 x lower sensitivity woofers against one higher sensitivity woofer or 1 and a 0.5 shouldn't matter, or am I getting it wrong at some place?
Going active, in this project of mine kind of goes against the whole thing of learning the things I want to learn. But I do see the benefits in doing it. But still, not this time.