Why didn't you just download and use my DXO file then open the graphs from the menu at the top of the main window and set up the curves from the menus on each sub-window? I do wish XSim would store it's screen configuration with the project data... but it doesn't.
You might want to tinker with the part values just a bit, to be sure it's fully optimised for your drivers.
Glitch (my avatar) would say ... "KISS ... Keep It Stupid Simple".
Glad I could help.
Last edited:
Just some things to note:
- all the proposed xo's to date including mine are flawed because they fail to use the best approximations of baffle diffraction and baffle step loss if you are going to put the unit up against the wall.
- if the TCP115-4's specs are close to correct, all the driver needs for a vented alignment is 2L. 2.5L or maybe even 3L is probably workable but I wouldn't go any larger than that. I figure you'll have about 4L plus or minus in the new cabinet design.
- since a new xo needs to be designed now that we have a more or less established baffle configuration designed, it's not really that much more work to do it with the old drivers or some new drivers.
- I have the Dayton ND105-4 in mind as an alternative along with something from SB Acoustics but I don't know what drivers you have easily available to you where you are.
- just for the best simulation accuracy, can you give me the measurements from 1) the bottom of the unit to the bottom of the left window opening and 2) from the left side of the unit to the left window opening.
- all the proposed xo's to date including mine are flawed because they fail to use the best approximations of baffle diffraction and baffle step loss if you are going to put the unit up against the wall.
- if the TCP115-4's specs are close to correct, all the driver needs for a vented alignment is 2L. 2.5L or maybe even 3L is probably workable but I wouldn't go any larger than that. I figure you'll have about 4L plus or minus in the new cabinet design.
- since a new xo needs to be designed now that we have a more or less established baffle configuration designed, it's not really that much more work to do it with the old drivers or some new drivers.
- I have the Dayton ND105-4 in mind as an alternative along with something from SB Acoustics but I don't know what drivers you have easily available to you where you are.
- just for the best simulation accuracy, can you give me the measurements from 1) the bottom of the unit to the bottom of the left window opening and 2) from the left side of the unit to the left window opening.
Honestly, i didnt realise i could rofl. That sounds alot easier. Thanks for the tip
How do we go about doing that?
I figure i can tweak the volume of the speaker cabinet by changing the depth of the speaker boxes. If i take them from 160mm deep to 120mm then it comes out at 2.5L (image 1). I know you have reccomended that the radio be placed flush to the wall, does having a gap between the speaker box and the back of the radio shell compromise this?
I guess seeing as how i havnt bought any parts yet, and I have some extra wriggle room depthwise, it cant hurt to look at other drivers. I guess, having seen how tight the space at the front of the box is, im a bit nervous about going larger drivers. However, i recall you mentioning going tweers with no faceplates which would open some room for a larger woofer. Also, now that i know ports can be bent, i have some more options in terms of position for those.
Ill give them a look, and have a look at other drivers in the size range you mentioned.
Please see image 2 for clarification on where these measurments apply to:
1) 65mm (bottom of the unit to the bottom of the left window opening)
2) 12mm (from the left side of the unit to the left window opening)
3) 30mm (top of the unit to the top of the left window opening)
4) 12mm (width of pillar between windows)
5) 24mm (bottom of the unit to the bottom of the middle window opening)
6) 24mm (top of the unit to the top of the middle window opening)
Attachments
You said cheap and simple. I looked for the optimum blend of simple and doing it properly, and ended up with three components per driver.
In the first image the target (pink) includes consideration for the baffle size. The peak in the red circle is a part of the response that needs to be cut down, and here it is down at least 12dB.
There is a dip at 3kHz, this is probably not a bad thing.
In the first image the target (pink) includes consideration for the baffle size. The peak in the red circle is a part of the response that needs to be cut down, and here it is down at least 12dB.
There is a dip at 3kHz, this is probably not a bad thing.
Attachments
Ok, having taken a look at the 5" woofers, these are the ones that have grabbed my attention:
1. Dayton Audio RS125P-4 5" Reference Paper Woofer 4 Ohm
This one has the highest sensitivity of this range, meaning it should be easier to pair with a tweeter (most of the ones i looked at were ~90db). It also seems to stay more stable further into the low end, and is 125mm total diameter, so I should be able to fit it.
2. https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/295-426--dayton-audio-ds135-8-specifications.pdf
This guy seems to have the most stable high end of the three, particualry at different angles. Given that i have no set listening angle, this seems like a good thing.
3. Dayton Audio DSA135-8 5" Designer Series Aluminum Cone Woofer
Also seemed like a strong contender.
I guess my biggest worry about all three of these is that they look like they will want a XO at ~1K? Thats lower than the TCP115. Is it feasible?
1. Dayton Audio RS125P-4 5" Reference Paper Woofer 4 Ohm
This one has the highest sensitivity of this range, meaning it should be easier to pair with a tweeter (most of the ones i looked at were ~90db). It also seems to stay more stable further into the low end, and is 125mm total diameter, so I should be able to fit it.
2. https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/295-426--dayton-audio-ds135-8-specifications.pdf
This guy seems to have the most stable high end of the three, particualry at different angles. Given that i have no set listening angle, this seems like a good thing.
3. Dayton Audio DSA135-8 5" Designer Series Aluminum Cone Woofer
Also seemed like a strong contender.
I guess my biggest worry about all three of these is that they look like they will want a XO at ~1K? Thats lower than the TCP115. Is it feasible?
Having the unit up against a wall gives it some extra boost in the LF region. I don't think it will matter to you at all if it's several inches away from the wall or not.
Getting better frd files is simply a matter of running the sims with the right dimensions and driver locations on the baffle and then manipulating the response to account for less than the full 6dB loss of baffle step. That's why I asked for those new unit dimensions. Thanks.
That's a nice job by Allen showing 1 of the issues with the TCP115. He didn't point it out but he has also likewise attenuated the nastiest part of the tweeter response, its resonance frequency at about 1200Hz, so that it too is way down in SPL. Go back now and look at the xo sim, image 2, in your post #80 to see how both of these things are not taken care of. Not so good. But I don't think that sim was intended as anything other than an example to show current consumption effects. I'm just guessing there as it wasn't mine.
It looks to me like if you go with a bigger driver you must go with a smaller faceplate tweeter. Maybe let me know what driver vender you have access to or where you are so I know what tweeters I can recommend.
As you are looking at drivers, I'm hoping that you are putting them into a box modeling program, like Unibox (but requires Excel) or WinISD, and looking at box volume, f3, xmax and max SPL, wattage required and port requirements. Attached below shows you what I am talking about. Some drivers need bigger boxes, some go lower than others, some will play louder and some need more power to do so. I've listed everything except the port info. All of them are at their reasonable max SPL before xmax is exceeded above 50Hz and the voice coil starts traveling outside of the magnetic gap and distortion and compression start to increase. (The DS135 and the DSA135 have virtually identical responses btw so the lines overlap and can't be seen individually.)
Looking at the FR's, only the DSA135 looks to me like it will be slightly problematic for a higher xo point. The rest look fine to me although that's without doing the sims.
Getting better frd files is simply a matter of running the sims with the right dimensions and driver locations on the baffle and then manipulating the response to account for less than the full 6dB loss of baffle step. That's why I asked for those new unit dimensions. Thanks.
That's a nice job by Allen showing 1 of the issues with the TCP115. He didn't point it out but he has also likewise attenuated the nastiest part of the tweeter response, its resonance frequency at about 1200Hz, so that it too is way down in SPL. Go back now and look at the xo sim, image 2, in your post #80 to see how both of these things are not taken care of. Not so good. But I don't think that sim was intended as anything other than an example to show current consumption effects. I'm just guessing there as it wasn't mine.
It looks to me like if you go with a bigger driver you must go with a smaller faceplate tweeter. Maybe let me know what driver vender you have access to or where you are so I know what tweeters I can recommend.
As you are looking at drivers, I'm hoping that you are putting them into a box modeling program, like Unibox (but requires Excel) or WinISD, and looking at box volume, f3, xmax and max SPL, wattage required and port requirements. Attached below shows you what I am talking about. Some drivers need bigger boxes, some go lower than others, some will play louder and some need more power to do so. I've listed everything except the port info. All of them are at their reasonable max SPL before xmax is exceeded above 50Hz and the voice coil starts traveling outside of the magnetic gap and distortion and compression start to increase. (The DS135 and the DSA135 have virtually identical responses btw so the lines overlap and can't be seen individually.)
Looking at the FR's, only the DSA135 looks to me like it will be slightly problematic for a higher xo point. The rest look fine to me although that's without doing the sims.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.