A LOT? I have found only a few. The SB 15NRX are the best candidate. SEAS ER15 is harder to use, but I like the ER18. I have not tired the CA15. I liked the Dayton RS series, but damn hard to control their breakup. Do you have some suggestions? Not a big fan of SS. End performance is great, but hard to use.
Three ways seem to be so hard as the mids are not as efficient as the woofers. So I keep winding up sub and 2 way monitor.
Three ways seem to be so hard as the mids are not as efficient as the woofers. So I keep winding up sub and 2 way monitor.
Crossing a mid to a tweeter means finding the point where directivity mismatch will be a problem, and a 5” driver will handle 2.5KHz. Then there is the problem with breakup induced harmonic distortion, but apart most metal cones, almost any paper/plastic cone 5” driver has harmonic distortion at 2-2.5 KHz not higher than 500-1000 Hz. A notable exception is the SBA SBA15NBAC30 (from hificompass tests), that although metal is able to sustain a 2.5KHz crossover point easily. For Dayton Audio drivers I’d look at the P line (RS150P).
Ralf
Once you factor in some baffle step loss for the woofer then this is not true anymore.
Ralf
@ tvrgeek
this a dedicated room and i love my understanding wife, still married after 26 years
@ giralfino
i need to learn more about phase in Xsim and phase in general. And GD.
I have tested this loudspeaker active crossed over around 2K and despite the shortcomings in the polar response it sounded huge and dynamic
The path difference was measured from 1 m with ARTA with Impulse response
—————
I agree that 8 inch with tweeter is a compromise but i like that punch you get with 8 inch compared with a slim 2x6,5 inch loudspeaker.
this a dedicated room and i love my understanding wife, still married after 26 years
@ giralfino
i need to learn more about phase in Xsim and phase in general. And GD.
I have tested this loudspeaker active crossed over around 2K and despite the shortcomings in the polar response it sounded huge and dynamic
The path difference was measured from 1 m with ARTA with Impulse response
—————
I agree that 8 inch with tweeter is a compromise but i like that punch you get with 8 inch compared with a slim 2x6,5 inch loudspeaker.
I disagree a little as there is a gap between the step and the midrange. Every time I try to model a 3 way. I wind up having to notch the woofer.
I have not used the P line as I have never liked the sound of a poly cone. Just not right to me. I keep winding up with paper. Metal can be slightly lower distortion but the steep crossovers make it harder to deal with phase.
Super,
Active has some big advantages in the crossover working where intended, so you can get away with a bit more. But, it has some challenges as well. Been there, tried it, and went back passive. As the MiniDsp boards get better and better, if I can find a really good matched 5 gang pot, I might try active again.
I use my antique Gold Sound Labs "pulser" to get my alignment. Ought to try Arta and dump one more old box.
I have not used the P line as I have never liked the sound of a poly cone. Just not right to me. I keep winding up with paper. Metal can be slightly lower distortion but the steep crossovers make it harder to deal with phase.
Super,
Active has some big advantages in the crossover working where intended, so you can get away with a bit more. But, it has some challenges as well. Been there, tried it, and went back passive. As the MiniDsp boards get better and better, if I can find a really good matched 5 gang pot, I might try active again.
I use my antique Gold Sound Labs "pulser" to get my alignment. Ought to try Arta and dump one more old box.
tvr-
The Reference Series from Dayton Audio are available in black aluminum, or the composite-coned P-series versions of the RS, and have paper-composites as Ralf stated. There are no poly coned Reference-Series drivers from Dayton Audio.
Yes baffles with radiused edges offer improvements in diffraction, unless the baffle was designed to be that way and the results help the achieved results- which does happen. However- Radiused rear-edges have no bearing on the sound as the waves will not curl around to the rear of the speaker without have rear-firing drivers on the back of the speaker.
1.8kHz is typically fine for a LOT of tweeters in the 1.125" category. Use a parallel resistor or LCR notch to take care of the Fs spike, and a lot of your so called 2-3kHz tweeters will become 1.5-3kHz tweeters. I also would not lowpass a tweeter except minutely for the tilt of the response, meaning less than 0.1mH. If possible, I favor a CR across them for tilt as they are easier to obtain in value. If you have a resonance or ultrasonic problem, then use an ultrasonic notch! The parts values are very small when they get up there, and don't cost much.
I've had MANY 5" midbasses achieve 3kHz easily. You keep talking about having to notch a woofer to make breakup okay. Why wouldn't you do this anyway? If a blemish needs fixed, just fix it. Sometimes I can understand that response makes it harder to do, and eventually, maybe not cost effective. I have done woofer circuits with 3 notches to eliminate the double-resonance they had. This was a total of 4 parts over the circuit that looked 4th order electrical without them. 16 parts in a properly designed 2-way does not mean it is wrong, not that it will not sound good.
The Reference Series from Dayton Audio are available in black aluminum, or the composite-coned P-series versions of the RS, and have paper-composites as Ralf stated. There are no poly coned Reference-Series drivers from Dayton Audio.
Yes baffles with radiused edges offer improvements in diffraction, unless the baffle was designed to be that way and the results help the achieved results- which does happen. However- Radiused rear-edges have no bearing on the sound as the waves will not curl around to the rear of the speaker without have rear-firing drivers on the back of the speaker.
1.8kHz is typically fine for a LOT of tweeters in the 1.125" category. Use a parallel resistor or LCR notch to take care of the Fs spike, and a lot of your so called 2-3kHz tweeters will become 1.5-3kHz tweeters. I also would not lowpass a tweeter except minutely for the tilt of the response, meaning less than 0.1mH. If possible, I favor a CR across them for tilt as they are easier to obtain in value. If you have a resonance or ultrasonic problem, then use an ultrasonic notch! The parts values are very small when they get up there, and don't cost much.
I've had MANY 5" midbasses achieve 3kHz easily. You keep talking about having to notch a woofer to make breakup okay. Why wouldn't you do this anyway? If a blemish needs fixed, just fix it. Sometimes I can understand that response makes it harder to do, and eventually, maybe not cost effective. I have done woofer circuits with 3 notches to eliminate the double-resonance they had. This was a total of 4 parts over the circuit that looked 4th order electrical without them. 16 parts in a properly designed 2-way does not mean it is wrong, not that it will not sound good.
My experience differs from yours.
I did not see a 5 inch PS, only 6 and 3. Not very smooth.
I have no explanation on why the rear edges mattered, but they did. It was a bit of an accident I discovered it.
1.8K will push the excursion, and hence distortion of most 1 inch tweeters. This is why I am looking more to the 1 1/8. Not frequency response and not the Fs problem. Distortion. If you move up where distortion backs off, you can sometimes dispense with the Fs notch and the phase issues it carries with it depending on the filter order.
If you know of "many" midbass that behave well to 3K and do not need steep crossovers and notches, please list them. The SBs I just used seem pretty well behaved to 2K. I like my old 6 inch SEAS ER18's. I am drooling over the new CSS and Purifi drivers. Actually over the CSS tweeter and the Peerless Corundum tweeter. The SB tweeters do well a little lower, so I wonder what the Satori gives?
The LP I advocate on a tweeter is high. 18 or 20K. Sometimes a Zobel will be enough but a secondary LP for the passband can reduce audible distortion. It depends on the tweeter. If your source is magically prefect, then it would not be needed. I don't live in Perfect. And I agree, a very gentle roll off on the top is usually appropriate. I advocate it be selectable so it can adjust to bright or dead rooms a bit.
The more parts you add, the harder managing the phase and group delay becomes. Not that it is not do-able, but it gets harder.
No one ever said the pursuit of "Hi-Fi" was cost effective.
I did not see a 5 inch PS, only 6 and 3. Not very smooth.
I have no explanation on why the rear edges mattered, but they did. It was a bit of an accident I discovered it.
1.8K will push the excursion, and hence distortion of most 1 inch tweeters. This is why I am looking more to the 1 1/8. Not frequency response and not the Fs problem. Distortion. If you move up where distortion backs off, you can sometimes dispense with the Fs notch and the phase issues it carries with it depending on the filter order.
If you know of "many" midbass that behave well to 3K and do not need steep crossovers and notches, please list them. The SBs I just used seem pretty well behaved to 2K. I like my old 6 inch SEAS ER18's. I am drooling over the new CSS and Purifi drivers. Actually over the CSS tweeter and the Peerless Corundum tweeter. The SB tweeters do well a little lower, so I wonder what the Satori gives?
The LP I advocate on a tweeter is high. 18 or 20K. Sometimes a Zobel will be enough but a secondary LP for the passband can reduce audible distortion. It depends on the tweeter. If your source is magically prefect, then it would not be needed. I don't live in Perfect. And I agree, a very gentle roll off on the top is usually appropriate. I advocate it be selectable so it can adjust to bright or dead rooms a bit.
The more parts you add, the harder managing the phase and group delay becomes. Not that it is not do-able, but it gets harder.
No one ever said the pursuit of "Hi-Fi" was cost effective.
RS100P-8/4
RS125P-8/4
RS150P-8/4
RS180P-8/4
RS225P-8/4
RS270P-8/4
See link:
https://www.parts-express.com/searc...&keywords=dayton audio reference series paper
RS125P-8/4
RS150P-8/4
RS180P-8/4
RS225P-8/4
RS270P-8/4
See link:
https://www.parts-express.com/searc...&keywords=dayton audio reference series paper
Bevelling or rounding over the rear edges does have an effect on the shape of the directivity it can be seen quite clearly in simulation. I have seen it on a direct comparison between sharp rear corners and rounded over but the attached images are the best I can find now to show the change in pattern.
Attachments
You need to perform a gated measurement. Your measurement as-is is not really suitable for a crossover simulation.
Then there is that strange 5 dB drop at 10KHz that shouldn't be there, maybe an artifact from the measurement technique?
The measurement with the reversed tweeter shows a relatively poor phase tracking, and a bit too high crossover point.
BTW, in Arta you can save the images, no need to take a photo.
Ralf
Then there is that strange 5 dB drop at 10KHz that shouldn't be there, maybe an artifact from the measurement technique?
The measurement with the reversed tweeter shows a relatively poor phase tracking, and a bit too high crossover point.
BTW, in Arta you can save the images, no need to take a photo.
Ralf