I see that my post could come of as being rude, but it wasn't my intention, just me kind of trying to keep the thread somewhat easy to interpret, as too many subjects at the same time is confusing for me.
And yeah, you are right I'm going to have to get tips and ideas on 8' driver further on too.
Did he propose 2x 4 ohm series?I know he proposed 8 ohm mid..
I recommended the 2x 8 ohms in parallel (and in my statement above: parallel) ..and a 4 ohm midrange with impedance compensation.
So then:
2x 4 ohms in series effectively give no net gain (or loss). (Voltage loss of -3db and acoustic gain of +3db = 0.)
Hmm, I see that I've once again have gotten this series/parallel connection possibilities somewhat wrong.
My idea was to use the ~ 6dB gain parallell wiring give to one's benefit.
But, I still don't know if it is a good idea to use the sensitivity, and the above gain from parallel wiring to compensate for the baffle step?
I've been googling about it and have come across it in one or two older threads, but no mention if it is a good idea or not, and what kind of negatives it could bring to the table, and possible positives.
So, Andy, moondog and others, is the configuration mostly used with a 5" midrange mated to 2 x 8" drivers a 4 ohm midrange and 8 ohm woofers? What more, if any benefits does it give?
Almost all drivers I've been looking at are available in 4 ohm, some of them only in 4 ohm and others only in 8 ohm. It doesn't really narrow down the possibilities that much, other than the Audax is out of the game.
Andy and others again,
I have near zero interest in high end commercial speakers as they are way above what I can afford now and coulf anytime in my life, so I have no idea on what kind of brands or models to look at.. And with the limited information provided by these producers, i don't see what I might benefit from spending time googling them and selecting them and then further Google for more information about them.
Could you help me by writing what I'm supposed to look at, in more detail maybe, so I could Google those terms and maybe learn in a faster manner?
Im not asking you to do the work for me, but maybe help me a bit in the right direction. For someone not educated in electronics and without serious experience in speaker/diyaudio building, it sure can feel overwhelming at times.
The feeling I most often get at the end of another day trying to learn these things are severe confusion.
I mean something like - 6dB at around 30hz. 35hz would probably OK too. But usable 30hz is what I'm aiming for.
Volume usable for the woofers is preferably maximum 75-80L but up to 100L is okay if the benefits are substantial.
This is in room response, not anechoic. When it comes to designing subwoofers and woofers I'm inclined to believe in the school of designing with the room in mind.
I do have sealed subwoofers being built as we speak, so I will have that possibility, but the speakers should be built for stand alone use and as such, will be built and designed for stand alone use.
I have one wild idea of trying to design the speaker so that ported and sealed use would be possible, and as such, easy to convert to use with subwoofers. This is an idea only, and I can't see how one would implement this nicely and aestheticly into a speaker with the port on the baffle.
PHL is a interesting company that produces some nice drivers. I read somewhere that the designer of the Aerogel Audax drivers went to work at PHL later on?
If that is true, which of the Phl drivers are the most like the Aerogel drivers in design and build? I couldn't see any Aerogel drivers on PHL's site when I checked it, maybe it is an Audax patent, or maybe the designer found something else or some else way of designing drivers that are superior?
The reason I were, and are, somewhat hooked on the Aerogel is the comments about it sounding so lifelike and dynamic compared to other drivers.
Most mids will be much more sensitive than woofers you will use - even if you use 2 woofers per cabinet.
I am leaning towards 2x8" 8ohm woofers in parallel. This is important for me because i am:
1)working with passive crossovers so the values of components when crossing over low are still achievable and the prices are normal
2)working with passive crossovers so no possibility for raising lower frequencies to compensate for baffle step loss
In my opinion, you first must know what woofers and midrange you will be using. When you know that, you can choose the midrange impedance per your need.
Let me give you an example using 5" midrange that is 8 ohm and 91dB at 2,83V/1m in a cabinet that is 22cm wide. If you would use Scan Speak 22W8534 (an 8 ohm 88dB at 2.83V/1m distance) then 2 x 22W8534 in parallel would give you +6dB output at 2,83V/1m and in regard to that midrange: +3dB for doubling the cone surface and +3dB on lowering the impedance. In a loudspeaker cabinet that is 22cm wide, -6dB point (because of Baffle Step effect) will be somewhere between 200-250Hz. So you are ending up with real 88dB at 2.83V/1m in that region. If you make crossover point between the woofers and midrange at say 200-400Hz (as it should be done to get flat anechoic response down to 200Hz) you will have to attenuate the midrange by only 3dB (depending on crossover points and acoustic slopes of woofers and tweeter, more than 3dB attenuation may be needed).
If you know where you want your crossover points to be, that will lead you to cabinet width and further to woofer size and i think that is the place search should start. Woofers used will determine the highest achievable sensitivity of the finished loudspeaker. When you know what woofers you will use then you know the sensitivity at 2.83V/1m of your loudspeaker. Now you can choose your midrange and it will rarely demand a 4 ohm value (unless it is pretty small in diameter that 5" is most certainly not). My point is that you should bother yourself with nominal impedance of a midrange only when you know what woofers you will be using and boundary reinforcement due to woofers proximity to the floor.
That one has been hiding from me in plain sight. Thanks for pointing me to it.
I am leaning towards 2x8" 8ohm woofers in parallel. This is important for me because i am:
1)working with passive crossovers so the values of components when crossing over low are still achievable and the prices are normal
2)working with passive crossovers so no possibility for raising lower frequencies to compensate for baffle step loss
In my opinion, you first must know what woofers and midrange you will be using. When you know that, you can choose the midrange impedance per your need.
Let me give you an example using 5" midrange that is 8 ohm and 91dB at 2,83V/1m in a cabinet that is 22cm wide. If you would use Scan Speak 22W8534 (an 8 ohm 88dB at 2.83V/1m distance) then 2 x 22W8534 in parallel would give you +6dB output at 2,83V/1m and in regard to that midrange: +3dB for doubling the cone surface and +3dB on lowering the impedance. In a loudspeaker cabinet that is 22cm wide, -6dB point (because of Baffle Step effect) will be somewhere between 200-250Hz. So you are ending up with real 88dB at 2.83V/1m in that region. If you make crossover point between the woofers and midrange at say 200-400Hz (as it should be done to get flat anechoic response down to 200Hz) you will have to attenuate the midrange by only 3dB (depending on crossover points and acoustic slopes of woofers and tweeter, more than 3dB attenuation may be needed).
If you know where you want your crossover points to be, that will lead you to cabinet width and further to woofer size and i think that is the place search should start. Woofers used will determine the highest achievable sensitivity of the finished loudspeaker. When you know what woofers you will use then you know the sensitivity at 2.83V/1m of your loudspeaker. Now you can choose your midrange and it will rarely demand a 4 ohm value (unless it is pretty small in diameter that 5" is most certainly not). My point is that you should bother yourself with nominal impedance of a midrange only when you know what woofers you will be using and boundary reinforcement due to woofers proximity to the floor.
That one has been hiding from me in plain sight. Thanks for pointing me to it.
Last edited:
It should stay hidden given the price and performance at higher spl:
SEAS L26RFX/P (Woofer 10", 8 Ohm, 300 Wmax)
And not to be totally off topic, i'd suggest a midrange for you. Wavecor WF146WA01 or 02 - the difference is only in impedance, not performance in any other way.
WF146WA01_02
It looks like a well balanced driver. Distortion figures are not the greatest in the world but are ahead of most mentioned here that cost more, price is well within your ballpark, size is right, paper cone, you can cross as low as you want. Steel chassis - but i'll always take that look and good performance over a great craftsmanship and lousy performance. I'm not sure it will be much better than this for budget that high.
Other, in my opinion better, option would be ZA14W08 but, as name suggests, it is available only in an 8 ohm version and it is about 86dB at 2.83V/1m. If it would work in your design, i'd take that. If higher sensitivity is needed, then 4 ohm version of mentioned Wavecor will do just fine.
Zaph Audio ZA14W08 | HiFiCompass
WF146WA01_02
It looks like a well balanced driver. Distortion figures are not the greatest in the world but are ahead of most mentioned here that cost more, price is well within your ballpark, size is right, paper cone, you can cross as low as you want. Steel chassis - but i'll always take that look and good performance over a great craftsmanship and lousy performance. I'm not sure it will be much better than this for budget that high.
Other, in my opinion better, option would be ZA14W08 but, as name suggests, it is available only in an 8 ohm version and it is about 86dB at 2.83V/1m. If it would work in your design, i'd take that. If higher sensitivity is needed, then 4 ohm version of mentioned Wavecor will do just fine.
Zaph Audio ZA14W08 | HiFiCompass
Last edited:
I don't actually believe in distortion figures from Dibirama, but it is something that would be worth investigating.
-well it's THD, so it's a composite of 2nd and 3rd. What should be noted though is the "jump" in distortion with higher input levels - and you almost always have a "jump" with higher order distortion at some point that corresponds with what 2nd and 3rd are doing.
The driver is otherwise performing well at lower levels for a midbass solution. (..though not incredibly so given its cost.)
Ironically I'd say that I don't "believe" in distortion figures from other sources that don't raise input levels. You can get rather excellent results at 1 watt/1 meter.. but in a subwoofer/woofer/midbass driver - you are going to be exceeding that on occasion dynamically (..sometimes often).
The driver is otherwise performing well at lower levels for a midbass solution. (..though not incredibly so given its cost.)
Ironically I'd say that I don't "believe" in distortion figures from other sources that don't raise input levels. You can get rather excellent results at 1 watt/1 meter.. but in a subwoofer/woofer/midbass driver - you are going to be exceeding that on occasion dynamically (..sometimes often).
Last edited:
Duly noted, but check these two measurements of distorion for the same woofer:
PEERLESS HDS-P830869 (Woofer 8", 8 Ohm, 120 Wmax)
Peerless 830869 | HiFiCompass
The difference is too big. If measurements at Dibirama are off by 5 or 6% at 40Hz, then it doesn't look that bad - if we calculate that in.
PEERLESS HDS-P830869 (Woofer 8", 8 Ohm, 120 Wmax)
Peerless 830869 | HiFiCompass
The difference is too big. If measurements at Dibirama are off by 5 or 6% at 40Hz, then it doesn't look that bad - if we calculate that in.
Last edited:
That one would be a LOT easier to work with than Zaphs (or even the 5" SB's).
The only thing that's a "red flag" to me is the Mms, which for a midrange is one of my primary selections: I want that as low as possible.
I'd still select the MSH-116/4 at a reasonable price given what the OP is asking for.
IF I was going to spend more money, I'd look to the midbass drivers which will be under a lot more "stress" moving from a pair of SB Acoustics SB20PFC30-8 to a pair of SB Acoustics SB23NBACS45-8.
IF I was spending even more money then I'd shift to the mid. with a Satori MR13P-4 (..despite the modest hit in Mms and a little more work with the crossover).
-I'd really like to see this one that's in-development independently measured:
SB Acoustics :: 4" SB12MNRX2-25-4
Last edited:
It's CLIO THD.. I don't think it's that far off.
I do think that CLIO is a bit higher than reality though, just as I think Soundeasy (from a several generations ago) is bit lower than reality.
I'll take HiFiCompass's measurements any day over Dibirama - not THD, not Clio, while having also having varying level and segmented near-field and far-field results.
Last edited:
I don't really know what is hard to work with. I worked with Seas L15 and it is much worse than ZA14W08. It was not hard for me in any way.
WF146WA01 has Sd=95cm2 while MSH116/4 has Sd=55cm2
Scan Speak 15W/8530 has Mms=13gr for the same Sd as Wavecor mentioned and i never heard anyone complaining on mids - so although i tend to agree that lesser Mms driver would perform better, i don't think that it will be an issue here and for this amount of money.
If we were discussing 4" midranges then i'd say, without a doubt, Tang Band W4-1337SDF. That little fellow has it all aaand it looks good
Last edited:
Hence the Wavecor suggestion... As for low distortion at high driving levels: that amount of money with desired configuration will only take you that far.
EDIT: This Scan is also a monster but i didn't mention it because i wouldn't let it work over 2kHz:
ScanSpeak 15M/4624G00 | HiFiCompass
EDIT: This Scan is also a monster but i didn't mention it because i wouldn't let it work over 2kHz:
ScanSpeak 15M/4624G00 | HiFiCompass
Last edited:
If we were discussing 4" midranges then i'd say, without a doubt, Tang Band W4-1337SDF. That little fellow has it all aaand it looks good
Nice, but considerably less efficient (even given the change in impedance) and 8 ohms nominal.
TB SPEAKERS W4-1337SDF (Full-range 4", 8 Ohm, 50 Wmax)
vs.
MONACOR MSH-116/4 (Mid-range 4", 4 Ohm, 120 Wmax)
We don't know what woofers will be used, so higher efficiency might only mean more attenuation for Monacor mid. Other than that, i'm not too fond of that resonance near 1.6kHz.
..Potential modification of Monacor driver.
Troels latest:
He has it done to the W12CY003 as seen below (shiny area of surround); Red = before treatment, Green = after treatment.
CNO-GRANDE
-use this stuff to apply thin coats (dried before re-applying) to apex of surround as if striping a piece of pottery w/ small fine paint brush (by rotating the driver while applying it). The glue should likely extend down about as far as the height of the surround from cone to apex. Similar look to the W12CY003 treatment.
Aleene’s Original Glues - Aleenes Flexible Stretchable Fabric Glue
Troels latest:
He has it done to the W12CY003 as seen below (shiny area of surround); Red = before treatment, Green = after treatment.
CNO-GRANDE
-use this stuff to apply thin coats (dried before re-applying) to apex of surround as if striping a piece of pottery w/ small fine paint brush (by rotating the driver while applying it). The glue should likely extend down about as far as the height of the surround from cone to apex. Similar look to the W12CY003 treatment.
Aleene’s Original Glues - Aleenes Flexible Stretchable Fabric Glue
Attachments
Last edited: