Okay its fine
Have a nice day
What people are trying to tell you, but you don't want to hear, is that beginning a first project with a 4-way IS a bad idea. diyiggy has made this exact point, but you choose to ignore his advice.
You have already decided that you are smart enough to skip the basic learning phases of first designing and perfecting a simple 2-way speaker, and then perhaps building a more advanced 3-way, before attempting a very complex 4-way.
But you have already read a lot on the Internet and think that that book knowledge is am ample substitute for experience and you are clever enough to fill in the gaps as you go.
So despite the warnings of much more experienced people who have already gone through the rather demanding learning curve you continue to think you can do what they already know can’t be done. Good luck.
To actually answer your questions from a couple of pages back, 2 x 18W4531 (in series) would work with the 12MU but I wouldn't suggest the 12MU with 2 of the 22W's. Two of the 22W's with an 18W as the mid would work although I think I would use a 15W for the mid instead in that situation. Look for the Sony SS-AR1 speaker for more info.
I forgot to mention another advantage of going active with the LF is that you can go sealed and then use the DSP to boost the lowest frequencies to get your desired response. I'd consider going with 2 side firing woofers if the xo frequency is low enough too (ie. so the center to center spacing between mid and woofers is within about 1/2 the wavelength of the xo frequency). There are some nice vibration canceling effects in doing so. Two of them sealed have enough xmax to hit about 104dB at 40Hz and about 100dB at 30Hz both at 1 m. Have a look at this thread for more info - Small active 3-way floor stander with a punch.
Nothing wrong with an MTWW design or MidBassTMW(W) for that matter either (have a look at the Magico Q7 for eg). Note that if your ears are a couple of inches above or below the tweeter, it's not the end of the world. Considering your interest in the mid bass punch, I would be more concerned that your arrangement of drivers on the baffle didn't result in a floor or ceiling bounce suck out in that region or for that matter a suck out within the operating region of any of your drivers, especially if you are talking 4-way. SBIR calculator
Physical time alignment is nice, it can make the xo simpler, but it's usually not that difficult either for the xo to electronically adjust for timing/phase differences without stepped or slanted baffles. Usually combining 2nd order and 3rd order electrical filters and reversing the polarity of 1 of the drivers will solve that problem.
I would also suggest getting over your reluctance to go 4ohm nominal. It's not based on facts. Nothing wrong with 4ohm loads if the amplifiers are build to handle them which most are today.
I forgot to mention another advantage of going active with the LF is that you can go sealed and then use the DSP to boost the lowest frequencies to get your desired response. I'd consider going with 2 side firing woofers if the xo frequency is low enough too (ie. so the center to center spacing between mid and woofers is within about 1/2 the wavelength of the xo frequency). There are some nice vibration canceling effects in doing so. Two of them sealed have enough xmax to hit about 104dB at 40Hz and about 100dB at 30Hz both at 1 m. Have a look at this thread for more info - Small active 3-way floor stander with a punch.
Nothing wrong with an MTWW design or MidBassTMW(W) for that matter either (have a look at the Magico Q7 for eg). Note that if your ears are a couple of inches above or below the tweeter, it's not the end of the world. Considering your interest in the mid bass punch, I would be more concerned that your arrangement of drivers on the baffle didn't result in a floor or ceiling bounce suck out in that region or for that matter a suck out within the operating region of any of your drivers, especially if you are talking 4-way. SBIR calculator
Physical time alignment is nice, it can make the xo simpler, but it's usually not that difficult either for the xo to electronically adjust for timing/phase differences without stepped or slanted baffles. Usually combining 2nd order and 3rd order electrical filters and reversing the polarity of 1 of the drivers will solve that problem.
I would also suggest getting over your reluctance to go 4ohm nominal. It's not based on facts. Nothing wrong with 4ohm loads if the amplifiers are build to handle them which most are today.
In the sticky thread "System pictures and descriptions", you will find a few posts from first time builders who successfully made something quite impressive. Some of these builds would have been impressive coming from from very experienced people, and it is amazing to have it come from a first time builder. Having said that, it is rare. No one posts pictures of their mistakes or brags about their regrets. For every "Oh Wow!" first time build, there are dozens, maybe hundreds of half-completed builds which were too ambitious for the person to tackle. If you want your first build to be challenging, and potentially spectacular, we are here to help. There is a huge amount of experience and knowledge on this site, and you can benefit from it.
jReave is giving solid advice in post 43. There is no reason to avoid a 4 Ohm nominal impedance. If you want dual woofers, your are almost forced into a 4 Ohm system. Your choice of 12 to 16 ohm woofers is limited.
I especially want to agree with his advice on going active for the woofer. A passive crossover in the 200 to 400 Hz range is going to require large expensive components. Check out the prices for a 10 mH low DCR inductor for example. For a small increase in cost, you can use a high quality digital DSP crossover running at 24 bit 192 kHz and then drive your woofers with a 150 to 250 W class D amp. An IcePower Amp is ~ $USD 120 (a very good sounding amp BTW), and a second channel can be added for about $70.
jReave is giving solid advice in post 43. There is no reason to avoid a 4 Ohm nominal impedance. If you want dual woofers, your are almost forced into a 4 Ohm system. Your choice of 12 to 16 ohm woofers is limited.
I especially want to agree with his advice on going active for the woofer. A passive crossover in the 200 to 400 Hz range is going to require large expensive components. Check out the prices for a 10 mH low DCR inductor for example. For a small increase in cost, you can use a high quality digital DSP crossover running at 24 bit 192 kHz and then drive your woofers with a 150 to 250 W class D amp. An IcePower Amp is ~ $USD 120 (a very good sounding amp BTW), and a second channel can be added for about $70.
Was it that young danish guy, can't remember ? The speaker was also beautifull, surely some hability with wood works : but no one checked for real the sound of it. That's why I adverted the op about strong bias...and else's checking.
The little PureHifi amp plate seems not so expensive in 3 ways related to the quality and price of the drivers planed in the op project... and sounds better that the oldest Hypexs that are too much dry and damped without some tricks...
The little PureHifi amp plate seems not so expensive in 3 ways related to the quality and price of the drivers planed in the op project... and sounds better that the oldest Hypexs that are too much dry and damped without some tricks...
Last edited:
A couple of clarifications.
The big advantage to going sealed on the woofers is of course that you need a much smaller chamber to do so. Forgot to mention that. Better transients isn't a disadvantage either.
Also I was thinking more of active for the woofers in your original 4-way design, so it becomes more like a 3-way plus a powered and dsp's sub. A slightly less daunting task. But it can work in a 3-way too.
The big advantage to going sealed on the woofers is of course that you need a much smaller chamber to do so. Forgot to mention that. Better transients isn't a disadvantage either.
Also I was thinking more of active for the woofers in your original 4-way design, so it becomes more like a 3-way plus a powered and dsp's sub. A slightly less daunting task. But it can work in a 3-way too.
Hi There, interested to know of this for a future project, can you give a link please, couldn't find any myself........thanks
If u have read through the thread, Ive much decided not to go for the 4way - so please dont say that I do not listen to anyone and ignore your guys advices, quite insulting comment.
Hi, thanks for lots of for lots of insightful comments, Yes I was worried that the 22ws wouldnt really hit a 4,5 that good.. I'm going with the 18ws although I am thinking of running them in parallel with 8ohms(so endresult 4ohms), just because it seems to be ALOT simpler to implement it in paralell rather than series, done a few tries on series in sims but that's a whole new struggle to really microadjust.
I guess going active on a 6,5inch woofer setup isnt necessary? with estimated portfr of 35hz for now.
I mistaked : I was thinking about the smallest Fusion Amp in 3 ways, as the one you have in your T G loudspeaker but for all the drivers :Hypex-FA123. one needed per way, seems good regarding the drivers selection and permits a safer work by changing the filters and DSP as much as you want...
The Purifi is priced imo as a classic high power stereo amp : EVAL1 - PURIFI and this is not I had in mind... my bad !
Hi! Ive actually got Ice in my subwoofers right now they are pretty good
I dont know if ive been unclear, im not sure how to deal with the fact that my project has changed from the time of the start of the thread(As I quite expected) from your guy's suggestions, but im more or less going to roll 3,5way with 4ohms. And I have a slight idea on building a 2way with the tweeter and one of the woofers from the 3way as preperation. All up for grabs at this point. But ill surely come back when **** hits the fan
Going active on 6.5" woofers isn't necessary unless perhaps you wanted to have access to dsp in the LF region.
I'm not sure I'd go the extra complication of 3.5-way. Just make it a 3-way with 2 woofers.
My problem I guess with where you are now is that you don't have any specific way to manipulate the midbass region, say around 150-300Hz which was one of your original design concerns. Your 1st design did. Or to put it another way - you are unhappy with the midbass presence with your current 2-way with a 6.5" driver so to solve it you are going with a 3-way with 2 more 6.5" drivers. Doesn't quite make sense to me. Dynamics will be improved, though not as much as with bigger drivers, but I don't think the overall balance is likely to change that much.
To my way of thinking, what you want is a design that gives you control and flexibility over the region you are concerned with. Without some kind of eq, your basic 3-way doesn't.
I'm not sure I'd go the extra complication of 3.5-way. Just make it a 3-way with 2 woofers.
My problem I guess with where you are now is that you don't have any specific way to manipulate the midbass region, say around 150-300Hz which was one of your original design concerns. Your 1st design did. Or to put it another way - you are unhappy with the midbass presence with your current 2-way with a 6.5" driver so to solve it you are going with a 3-way with 2 more 6.5" drivers. Doesn't quite make sense to me. Dynamics will be improved, though not as much as with bigger drivers, but I don't think the overall balance is likely to change that much.
To my way of thinking, what you want is a design that gives you control and flexibility over the region you are concerned with. Without some kind of eq, your basic 3-way doesn't.
Thanks for the response, yes, that's a pity, i was very impressed with the use of DSP in the bass area and would seriously consider multi amping with DSP with perhaps an OB project in the future, but having just spent (for me) quite a lot on speakers i consider very good, its more for interest or a smaller room project so was listening out for amps at a better price level, if any come to your attention it would be interesting!
Just to add content on topic, it seems to me the more i have done and the more i read that Troels always does a massive amount of detail work and trial and error on his designs and a lot doesn't get out there, so using his work exactly (as i did) is a pretty good start!
Keep in mind that im coming from bower and wilkins and a bookshelf so my perspective what's good mid-bass may vary from yours - anyway about bigger drivers - I really cant justify a huge speaker in my listening area, just dont fit.
*edited*
You dont think um It's possible to get decent midbass without a somewhat visible fr bump in that region? Perhaps i need a new amp if that's the case, since i rather do not design something too exotic with just "one" specific purpose. I might feel free to make it abit warmer, but nothing extreme.
Anyway, to keep a design within reason, u could propose something like a 12", 6", Tweeter configuration? If I could manage it in sizeconstraints and not have to make it huge, that could be an intressting idea lemme think about it.
And about the adjustable midbass eq - im not sure about that, sounds quite complicated to me, and I rather not add extra components which can degrade the audiochain as for now(and it would add unneccesary complexity as a first time diy perhaps).
Last edited:
I think your current thinking puts you on a path to success.
You could put a 10 or even a 12 in a fairly small sealed box, and use DSP EQ to get the equivalent of a much larger box. This technique is called a Linkwitz Transform, and people on this site can help you with it. You could also use dual 8's.
A 10 or 12 inch, crossed at 250 - 350 to a 5 or 6 inch, crossed at 1.8 k - 3 k to a good dome tweeter... this is very doable.
You could put a 10 or even a 12 in a fairly small sealed box, and use DSP EQ to get the equivalent of a much larger box. This technique is called a Linkwitz Transform, and people on this site can help you with it. You could also use dual 8's.
A 10 or 12 inch, crossed at 250 - 350 to a 5 or 6 inch, crossed at 1.8 k - 3 k to a good dome tweeter... this is very doable.
@Mike56,
if you're talking a bout a simple stereo amp, I would go second-hand, tons of good choices, people often want to change, all is about the choice related to the country where your live for the second market. Or the first price in Crown amps if new for such a project and if watts are needed.
On the diy side if the question is also about active and dsp for cheaper: try the Sure units for active & dsp setups + tpa3251d2 amp chips, everybody consider as sounding good for a low price if a two channels or bass module, there are less powerfull tpaxxxx chips for the mid/treble if an amp per driver project (full active)
I'm on the process to go active road trhat way or a DBX already racked perhaps ! If I had monney I will go for Lab Gruppen but for a main, not a second system. The Sure combo boards are maybe good enough for a bass system. Can be used to find the good XO for the mid + tweeter and be swapped for quality caps/coils and classic amp if you have a good classic amp & dac or fond of LPs (as T. gravsen) for the two upper ways. Of course the bass if active should have gain control to match the gain of the classic amp...
Which I find attrative with Hypex Fusion while not cheap is it's using AK chips for both adc/dac operations... for people going for a new project and having no amp, no dac, no passive parts or a filter, I believe it worths to consider... Maybe MiniDSP in the high end range or the littliest for the bass only... (noise floor?)
if you're talking a bout a simple stereo amp, I would go second-hand, tons of good choices, people often want to change, all is about the choice related to the country where your live for the second market. Or the first price in Crown amps if new for such a project and if watts are needed.
On the diy side if the question is also about active and dsp for cheaper: try the Sure units for active & dsp setups + tpa3251d2 amp chips, everybody consider as sounding good for a low price if a two channels or bass module, there are less powerfull tpaxxxx chips for the mid/treble if an amp per driver project (full active)
I'm on the process to go active road trhat way or a DBX already racked perhaps ! If I had monney I will go for Lab Gruppen but for a main, not a second system. The Sure combo boards are maybe good enough for a bass system. Can be used to find the good XO for the mid + tweeter and be swapped for quality caps/coils and classic amp if you have a good classic amp & dac or fond of LPs (as T. gravsen) for the two upper ways. Of course the bass if active should have gain control to match the gain of the classic amp...
Which I find attrative with Hypex Fusion while not cheap is it's using AK chips for both adc/dac operations... for people going for a new project and having no amp, no dac, no passive parts or a filter, I believe it worths to consider... Maybe MiniDSP in the high end range or the littliest for the bass only... (noise floor?)
Last edited:
Here is a combination which I know will work quite well:
SB Acoustics SB34NRX75-6 12" Woofer in a 70 liter sealed box. The ideal box is about 110 liter, but with a mild Linkwitz transform, you get the same response out of 70 liters.
SB17CAC35-5 4 ohm 6" ceramic woofer
SB26CDC-C004 1" ceramic tweeter
For crossover/amps, the expensive option is Hypex Fusion FA253. This 3 channel amp with built in DSP will drive all three drivers. I found 200 Hz and 2 kHz worked very well. Option 1 is expensive, but the results are impressive. New active 3-Way, Hypex and SB
If you already have an amp you want to use on the higher side, you could make a semi-active hybrid system. Use a mini-DSP HD 4 channel DSP box. Use this to set the 200 Hz crossover and any other DSP EQ you may need. Send the LF to an ICE power 200 W amp to drive the woofer. Send the HF channel (which has been high pass filtered at 200 Hz) to your existing amp. Now you design a 2 way passive crossover between the mid driver and the tweeter. This option is about $400 to $500 cheaper than option 1. In my opinion, designing a passive crossover in the 2 kHz region is a lot less challenging than doing one at 200 to 300 Hz. This option gives you most of the advantages of an active system, with lower cost...
So you asked for some options... there ya go !
So I thought it might be useful to look at some measurements for your current speakers. Attached below is what I found from a Soundstage review.
As chris661 said previously, boom-tizz indeed, except sort of without the boom. F3 doesn't look to be much higher than about 75Hz depending on what other frequency you are comparing it to. And the rise in response from about 300Hz to 100Hz makes me think that the lack of bass presence that you think you lack is actually just a lack of bass. Or maybe midrange too. But it doesn't look like you are currently missing out on anything centered around 200Hz. Maybe 400-500 is the culprit?
You mention that you have sub(s). Have you tried these speakers with subs filling in the bottom end?
The measurements also make me think that if you listen to something with an actually flat response, it's going to sound dull and somewhat uninteresting to start. Might take a while for your ears to adjust in other words.
As chris661 said previously, boom-tizz indeed, except sort of without the boom. F3 doesn't look to be much higher than about 75Hz depending on what other frequency you are comparing it to. And the rise in response from about 300Hz to 100Hz makes me think that the lack of bass presence that you think you lack is actually just a lack of bass. Or maybe midrange too. But it doesn't look like you are currently missing out on anything centered around 200Hz. Maybe 400-500 is the culprit?
You mention that you have sub(s). Have you tried these speakers with subs filling in the bottom end?
The measurements also make me think that if you listen to something with an actually flat response, it's going to sound dull and somewhat uninteresting to start. Might take a while for your ears to adjust in other words.
Attachments
Hi , I have two pairs, yes. Subs makes a difference, just not as nice as when I tried a full 3way, I think ive mentioned that it might not all be the low-mids can be middle mids, for more definition , thanks havent seen the s2 review going to look further into it
Edit, still will check it out since thats a quite intressting fr curve
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.