For cost / effort no object designs where in-wall design is not possible (or preferred), I would just streamline the enclosure like crazy.
But can it actually be built? is another question.
I must getting old. These days I'd go for a (IMO) well-executed cone tweeter:
--No spider, just mono suspension,
--The vibrations propagate and decay before reaching the surround. Domes where the surround is directly connected in parallel to the VC grates with my physics Feng Shui. It's just WRONG. Everything that reaches the diaphragm is already modulated and loaded down by the lossy suspension at maximum amplitude.
--Old school ribbed surround, probably a continuation of the same (paper?) material to match the impedance as smoothly as possible, and high linearity.
--Oval cone shape for good measure, reducing the coherence of cone edge reflections.
--Most of the remainder would be motor design, source quality and playing with the electrical side of the suspension.
Faithful to the original?……..well that’s a question and a half isn’t it! Lol
Consider the variables………..recording studios across the planet with multiple sets of mixing monitors and varying room acoustics…….and THEN off to the mastering engineers……multiple speaker systems AND multiple masters of the same content mastered for and from different formats………in rooms of varying acoustics. Hey, for giggles let’s throw in the racks of mastering processing gear and then factor in the variable controls functions of each?……that would be fun .
Bottom line?……there’s no reference other than the one you create for yourself. Add to that you are an individual whose subjective enjoyment of anything is personal and sacred to maintain your individuality. Some of the best discoveries in audio have come from good ol listening and voicing……it’s an intimate process that yields results not unlike a taste test…….you either like it or you don’t. Same goes for different tweeter types……your dislike of your Eris tweeters isn‘t likely to have much to do with the fact that it’s a dome or what that dome is made of.
Consider the variables………..recording studios across the planet with multiple sets of mixing monitors and varying room acoustics…….and THEN off to the mastering engineers……multiple speaker systems AND multiple masters of the same content mastered for and from different formats………in rooms of varying acoustics. Hey, for giggles let’s throw in the racks of mastering processing gear and then factor in the variable controls functions of each?……that would be fun .
Bottom line?……there’s no reference other than the one you create for yourself. Add to that you are an individual whose subjective enjoyment of anything is personal and sacred to maintain your individuality. Some of the best discoveries in audio have come from good ol listening and voicing……it’s an intimate process that yields results not unlike a taste test…….you either like it or you don’t. Same goes for different tweeter types……your dislike of your Eris tweeters isn‘t likely to have much to do with the fact that it’s a dome or what that dome is made of.
The most "natural" tweeter I know and my favourite one is Bliesma T25B. The other Beryllium domes sound similar. Not the exxegeration of normal metal domes with lower frequency membrane resonance but lot's of details.
They also do a T25S which is built for a smooth sound - probably the one for you?
I also like ring radiators for their "natural" sound, but they tend to beam narrow at highest frequencies. I used a ZD5 for monitoring long time ago - it always sounded different in nearfield and in the room. Corrected for nearfield it was a little dull in the room.
http://www.zaphaudio.com/ZD5.html
They also do a T25S which is built for a smooth sound - probably the one for you?
I also like ring radiators for their "natural" sound, but they tend to beam narrow at highest frequencies. I used a ZD5 for monitoring long time ago - it always sounded different in nearfield and in the room. Corrected for nearfield it was a little dull in the room.
http://www.zaphaudio.com/ZD5.html
Try an equaliser. If you want you can add the changes back to the crossover from time to time.
A "house curve" is a location specific EQ curve. It could be anything really and not per definition something tilting downwards with a certain slope in the highs which I think it what you assume...?
//
You sound surprised?…….prior to around 1977, before the inception of Thiele/Small parameters into the process, how do you think it was done?
What have T/S parameters to do with EQing an overall response trend? 
I thought that was based on on / off-axis FR and the impedance load. At least, that's how I've always done it -I've never found any particular use for lumped LF values in shaping the FR above the driver's mass corner.
I thought that was based on on / off-axis FR and the impedance load. At least, that's how I've always done it -I've never found any particular use for lumped LF values in shaping the FR above the driver's mass corner.maybe better call it target curve? i havent quite figured out whats the right term since i heared 3-4 terms for it
ah yea, would be nice to try out, but indeed, its hard to make, i hope i come away with "box" for the tweeter with large edge radius all around
Maybe - but whats more important is that you specify what that curve looks like ;-)
//
when you look at both the 25S and 25B response, I wonder how can a rule can be abstracted about smooth sound with so much different response each of these tweeters has.
Time to think the treble reproduction with more science ? Magnitude shape when arriving at ears position off axis, delay, phase, source quality role of phase, filter, passive parts, according the room and psycho acoustic ?
I wonder sometimes if we put words on non understanded behaviors, for instance the said high break-up f metal domes, etc, etc, ?! fabric = silk = smooth (what is it meaning?) sound ? Looks like more language shortcuts pictures !
At the end at the day each fish seller has its opinion about how it should be whatever all the final layout, room, filters, cabinet, listening distance, sources quality, reccording quality, and so on !
Last edited:
My response was for the above on speaker voicing during the development process…….developers didn’t have simulations based on TS values to work with……impedance and crude measurements we’re as good as it gotWhat have T/S parameters to do with EQing an overall response trend?
Historically, 'house'/'target' curve was simply accounting for baffle step and HF absorption loss in 'x' volume room with 'y' quantity of 'audience', so normally only a starting point to work from.
I think James Novak, Leo Beranek, Albert Thuras etc. might disagree, although I take the point that many didn't know about their work, & Thiele in particular moved the LF lumped element model to the next stage.
Yeah, a speaker driver is a solenoid air pump, which at least as early as 1881 (earliest library access I had easy access to) they knew all the necessary math and had the slide rule to design/plot its performance in free air or bounded space.
im talking about "flat frequency response" but sounding "smoother/"silky"" and not "edgy", if there is such a thing
i know AMT`s have usually a early roll off and this will definitely color the result somewhat but for the most part i wanna compare somewhat equally responding tweeters with eachother... of course 1-2db frequency devirations make a difference too
Thats not correct. Proper AMT goes way past your hearing ability.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...-140-that-is-the-question.331686/post-5644667
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...-140-that-is-the-question.331686/post-5644667
a mostly linear slope starting around 500hz going to 20khz, where its down around -3db + a bass boost starting around 100 to 150hz where its up +1,5db around 20-40hz
that are both filters i use:
60Hz, Q 0.55, -1db, 12db slope
4khz, Q 0 0.36, -3db, 12db slope
but i think these are just combatible with equalizerAPO or the VST plugin (Linux Studio Plugins - Parametric Equalizer x32) im using that allow for "APO" filters instead of RLC ones