Im pleased to read that Scott might model the Shadow with the M12 woofer
In a 50 liter standard BR it shows quite spectacular behaviour, goes very deep and rolls of very smooth - almost straight down to 30hz(-3db)/ 25hz(-6db) at maybe 94db
I think we are in fore something very special
A Shadow with a fullrange on top
In a 50 liter standard BR it shows quite spectacular behaviour, goes very deep and rolls of very smooth - almost straight down to 30hz(-3db)/ 25hz(-6db) at maybe 94db
I think we are in fore something very special
A Shadow with a fullrange on top
If you felt of a mind, and this is sufficient LF extension for you, you could always double the width of Shadow, and run two of these drivers, magnet to magnet a la the original Extremis Shadow design (BTW -there's a double mouth version of Shadow with 4 of the Extremis units too).
If twin 15in units is a bit extreme (not exactly a narrow cabinet), & you just want to go lower, then this is the specific Shadow variation for the M12. Basically, it's Shadow, with width increased to 300mm, internal to get the target Vb. Woofer displacement for both cabinets, BTW, remains below 1mm. F10 = 19Hz. Like this:
If twin 15in units is a bit extreme (not exactly a narrow cabinet), & you just want to go lower, then this is the specific Shadow variation for the M12. Basically, it's Shadow, with width increased to 300mm, internal to get the target Vb. Woofer displacement for both cabinets, BTW, remains below 1mm. F10 = 19Hz. Like this:
Attachments
Hi Scott, it looks good, thanks
BUT, is there any reason why the M12 seem to perform better in BR - I would have thought/hoped it to be the other way round
ALSO I would prefer to have woofer on front baffle - reason is, I think it would be better with a higher xo point when combined with a fullrange in closed or apperiodic
BUT, is there any reason why the M12 seem to perform better in BR - I would have thought/hoped it to be the other way round
ALSO I would prefer to have woofer on front baffle - reason is, I think it would be better with a higher xo point when combined with a fullrange in closed or apperiodic
tinitus,
we are getting on thin ice there if you try a single sub instead of integrating one per box. Anything above ~80Hz CAN be located, and your brain has to do a lot of clever things to reintegrate it into your music. You don't need that - your brain already has a full day's work to scrub off all the c**p it has to digest from five minutes of watching TV.
Pit
we are getting on thin ice there if you try a single sub instead of integrating one per box. Anything above ~80Hz CAN be located, and your brain has to do a lot of clever things to reintegrate it into your music. You don't need that - your brain already has a full day's work to scrub off all the c**p it has to digest from five minutes of watching TV.
PitHi Pit, I would NEVER use a single sub ever, and not sure how you got that idea
my point is not to use it as a sub at all, but incorporate it in a bigger system, with woofers playing up to around 500hz - no need for plateamps with odd and steep xo, only just plain simple "small" passive xo components
but, yes I know, its not the goal fore the horn enthusiasts - a single sub with horns... are you playing with the devil here
my point is not to use it as a sub at all, but incorporate it in a bigger system, with woofers playing up to around 500hz - no need for plateamps with odd and steep xo, only just plain simple "small" passive xo components
but, yes I know, its not the goal fore the horn enthusiasts - a single sub with horns... are you playing with the devil here
How do you mean 'better'? (genuine question here BTW -no umbridge taken. ) I assume you mean FR shape or extension, or similar, right?
Just to explain the above slightly: the FR is shaped to be in step with room-gain. You typically get about 12db of that (assuming the room is big enough to support it) below about 50Hz, which makes us flat 92db 1/w 1/m sensitivity to the indicated 1/2 space F10 in the graph, plus coupled to a far larger quantity of air than a small-vent or sealed box, so it'll sound somewhat 'bigger'. In room final cut-off, again, assuming you've a big space, will probably be around 10Hz.
The 19Hz is deliberate: it's ~0.707Fs, which is as far below Fs as I'm willing to tune. It's not really an issue with these drivers, but it's a personal rule that I stick to. I also wanted to keep excursion way down -shorter the travel, the more linear the performance. I reckon people worry a bit too much about this to be honest when it comes to sub-bass, but if it's possible to achieve it within the other design parameters, it's worth doing.
Re mounting it on the front, you can do that easily enough, as there's plenty of space. Personally, I'd go mad, and screw it to something like the Cain & Cain podular baffle, which should make it look suitably spectacular -bit like the Single BEN with a 12in woofer. But we're starting to get into individually tailored design here though, like the original Calhoun / Shadow.
) I assume you mean FR shape or extension, or similar, right?Just to explain the above slightly: the FR is shaped to be in step with room-gain. You typically get about 12db of that (assuming the room is big enough to support it) below about 50Hz, which makes us flat 92db 1/w 1/m sensitivity to the indicated 1/2 space F10 in the graph, plus coupled to a far larger quantity of air than a small-vent or sealed box, so it'll sound somewhat 'bigger'.
In room final cut-off, again, assuming you've a big space, will probably be around 10Hz. The 19Hz is deliberate: it's ~0.707Fs, which is as far below Fs as I'm willing to tune. It's not really an issue with these drivers, but it's a personal rule that I stick to. I also wanted to keep excursion way down -shorter the travel, the more linear the performance. I reckon people worry a bit too much about this to be honest when it comes to sub-bass, but if it's possible to achieve it within the other design parameters, it's worth doing.
Re mounting it on the front, you can do that easily enough, as there's plenty of space. Personally, I'd go mad, and screw it to something like the Cain & Cain podular baffle, which should make it look suitably spectacular -bit like the Single BEN with a 12in woofer.
But we're starting to get into individually tailored design here though, like the original Calhoun / Shadow.
Being freaks or not - I really dont know if I should agree or dissagree - sounds like a "judge and judges" thing to me 
or like you say in english, "its all in the eye of the beholder"
Scott, I think I understand the need fore optimum impulse behaviour, to match your horns
BUT, as a respectable man around here discouvered, its also about getting lowend rolloff out of the audible FR passband, to avoid phase problems allways a difficult task to make the right compromise
Another of my "teachers" believe it to very important that all rolloff slopes in the entire system should be exactly alike, meaning equal phase behaviour
or like you say in english, "its all in the eye of the beholder"Scott, I think I understand the need fore optimum impulse behaviour, to match your horns
BUT, as a respectable man around here discouvered, its also about getting lowend rolloff out of the audible FR passband, to avoid phase problems
allways a difficult task to make the right compromiseAnother of my "teachers" believe it to very important that all rolloff slopes in the entire system should be exactly alike, meaning equal phase behaviour
I've pretty much settled into the idea that I'm going to build a pair of speakers that are a blend of the Calhoun's and the Shadow's to form a pair of 3 ways.
Please feel free to voice any and all of your opinions on the idea?
I've given it some thought and there are a few ways that come to mind.
One is to make a version where the Calhoun section is missing the lower waveguide and built on top of the shadow section. It would basically look like a Calhoun except it would increase in width as it went down. The upper wave guide would be fed from the 125's as normal and the lower would be feed by the 12's as per normal. From the outside it would appear to be one contiguous form/shape. I think you can easily envision what I'm thinking.
What do you think removing the bottom wave guide of the Calhoun will do to it sonically? I could make a compartment in the bottom of the Shadow for sand or lead. I'd be using 12's.
The other idea is to build the full Calhoun and basically build the Shadow around its lower section. The lower wave guide of the Calhoun would be centered in the mouth of the Shadow. There are a couple of ways to do that.
One is to mount the Calhoun fairly high in the Shadow so the lower wave guide looks suspended in the mouth of the Shadow.
The other is to build it so that both wave guides share the same bottom lip and the Shadow would literal wrap around the Calhoun. In order to do that though it would seem the width of the Shadow should to be increased or would it?
Does one of these ideas appeal to you more then the other? Do you think they are both weak? What do you think?
Sorry if you would rather that I started new thread for this. If so I'm sure we could get the mods to spring it off but it seemed like it should be posted here.
Please feel free to voice any and all of your opinions on the idea?
I've given it some thought and there are a few ways that come to mind.
One is to make a version where the Calhoun section is missing the lower waveguide and built on top of the shadow section. It would basically look like a Calhoun except it would increase in width as it went down. The upper wave guide would be fed from the 125's as normal and the lower would be feed by the 12's as per normal. From the outside it would appear to be one contiguous form/shape. I think you can easily envision what I'm thinking.
What do you think removing the bottom wave guide of the Calhoun will do to it sonically? I could make a compartment in the bottom of the Shadow for sand or lead. I'd be using 12's.
The other idea is to build the full Calhoun and basically build the Shadow around its lower section. The lower wave guide of the Calhoun would be centered in the mouth of the Shadow. There are a couple of ways to do that.
One is to mount the Calhoun fairly high in the Shadow so the lower wave guide looks suspended in the mouth of the Shadow.
The other is to build it so that both wave guides share the same bottom lip and the Shadow would literal wrap around the Calhoun. In order to do that though it would seem the width of the Shadow should to be increased or would it?
Does one of these ideas appeal to you more then the other? Do you think they are both weak? What do you think?
Sorry if you would rather that I started new thread for this. If so I'm sure we could get the mods to spring it off but it seemed like it should be posted here.
If you are going to build Shadow then the FR125(s) don't need to go all that low (Cal just had the drivers kicking around). With no bottom needed the 4.5 litre aperiodic box is the best i've heard the 125 in. You could easily increase Shadows main box enuff ro accomodate an aperiodic wedge on the top front... in the 4 driver version of the Shadow (unnamed as yet) i was going to purposely make room for such a sub-enclosure (for FR125/FE127/3" Aura, JX6 etc)
dave
dave
To be honest - I think what you really want and expect is done with a big woofer and maybe a Hemp 8"
very simple and effective
you might ad a ribbon too, if you know how to
Scroll down, and dont mind the field coil driver
http://www.aer-loudspeakers.com/eng/mdx-e.htm
Sorry Dave
very simple and effective
you might ad a ribbon too, if you know how to
Scroll down, and dont mind the field coil driver
http://www.aer-loudspeakers.com/eng/mdx-e.htm
Sorry Dave
Any concerns with using this with the FR driver instead of a tweet in conjunction with a front firing WR?
What kind of filtering if any is happening on the 2nd woofer?
Also, when putting binding posts on the back (side won't work for me) is there any concerns as to if the binding posts will affect the throat performance? Just covering a base.
Thank you.
What kind of filtering if any is happening on the 2nd woofer?
Also, when putting binding posts on the back (side won't work for me) is there any concerns as to if the binding posts will affect the throat performance? Just covering a base.
Thank you.
It may be preferable to use the two FR's. I happen to have the WR's on hand. I am using no other filtering on the WR's but the option is always there to run a low pass on the second. I didn't bother because with the second one side firing, it didn't seem to need it. I also appreciate the imaging by running it full.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.