Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hardest driver you've work with?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by craigk View Post

    talk about pointless post, since when did you become moderator as to what is pointless or not when it comes to speaker building/design. pretty arrogant response.

    Craig, Maybe I didn't expain it very well and re-reading, it might sound a little confrontational. . I'm not saying the exercise of designing the speaker is pointless. Like I said, it's a great way to showcase the benefits of DSP. But when he says he wants the next challenge and asks for difficult drivers to work with, pretty much everyone is going to give him drivers that are difficult to work with in a passive crossover. Once DSP is involved, these drivers aren't really difficult to work with anymore. Maybe that is the point, but he said he wanted a challenge, and based on his previous build, I figured he might be looking for something more difficult than this. I'm not trying to come off as an arrogant know it all. I just thought his question is not going to lead to the challenge he was looking for. An in the end, it's only my opinion, and there have been plenty of times I've ignored other people's on this board and done something which a large group thought was stupid ;)
    -Kerry

    www.pursuitofperfectsound.com

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by bcodemz View Post
      After I finish my current speaker, I will want another challenge. This time, I'm thinking of using a normally challenging driver, and get it working well with DSP.

      So I'm curious, what are the hardest drivers you've know or worked with, and why?

      EDIT: OK maybe not necessarily the hardest, but simply tough drivers to work with, and if they sound fantastic only after their problems are dealt with, even better!
      Dunno man,

      Every driver has caveats. Use a driver ourside its normal bandwidth and it will always be hard.

      There are drivers that offer low distortion and amazing sound when you combo them right, but there are no hard to work with drivers...

      Break-up issues? Notch em'
      Passband issues? They will NEVER sound good despite beating them flat.
      Use a woofer in a tiny cab? Better have a hell of an xmech to handle the EQ.

      So on, and on and on.

      IMVHO The real wheat from chaff seperation between a good sounding design and a great one is the careful combiniation and concideration of ALL elements.

      Really, you have to admit that anyone can easily contour a troublesome driver with DSP.

      Not many, even expirenced at times, can pair it properly with the rest of the elements involved to make them truly great.

      So if you are looking for a challange, why not turn in, not out? Find drivers that appeal to YOU or YOU want to work with for your own reasons and challange yourself to make it work. What would you do if this forum was not here. An Apoclypse speaker if you will.

      Share the journey, let the congress help, but make it your own for your own reasons. It will be much more fun that way and what you learn as a designer will be invalueable.

      Not the best direct answer, but some of my designs that have been well liked did not use "mass approved" drivers but suprised people as to how good they can be.

      Unfortunately, not all turn out winners.........
      .

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ontariomaximus View Post

        Did you happen to listen to the 1611SA as a full-ranger? Lots of glorious reviews at parts express.
        I did. Like most full-rangers, it substituted a "controlled" breakup for treble response. Which, like most full-rangers, sounds neat for a few minutes, but then starts to feel shrill after a while.

        In the final design I did for someone was a 2-way. It worked, but it wasn't easy.
        Isn't it about time we started answering rhetorical questions?

        Paul Carmody's DIY Audio Projects
        Twitter: @undefinition1

        Comment


        • #19
          Interesting thread.

          I just got done beating a B&C 12CL64 and DE38 into submission with DSP. I'm still not convinced I'm done yet. BTW that bottom graph does not have accurate sensitivity.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	fetch?photoid=1320872.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	43.2 KB
ID:	1320876

          Click image for larger version

Name:	fetch?photoid=1320873.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	44.2 KB
ID:	1320877
          Your results may vary.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Paul Carmody View Post

            I did. Like most full-rangers, it substituted a "controlled" breakup for treble response. Which, like most full-rangers, sounds neat for a few minutes, but then starts to feel shrill after a while.

            In the final design I did for someone was a 2-way. It worked, but it wasn't easy.
            Oh I know, Jim and I built a pair, never really thrilled with it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Paul Carmody View Post

              This is a good suggestion. In my experience, this was due to a hump around 800-1000 Hz. You can create a gentle notch filter to deal with this, but on such a cheap driver, you usually end up spending more on the parts for the filter than the driver itself.
              ​Is that the cause? I saw a very slight hump and it never occurred to me that this was the cause of the lack of resolution. It seemed so slight. Uuugh.. Now on the flip side, these little 5" can belt out some bass! I'm tempted to do a 3 way with a seas dome, vifa 5" for mid and a pair of the silverflutes to handle 250 and down

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by mattp View Post
                Interesting thread.

                I just got done beating a B&C 12CL64 and DE38 into submission with DSP. I'm still not convinced I'm done yet. BTW that bottom graph does not have accurate sensitivity.
                Just a suggestion, but based on the final response, the entire range above 250Hz should be pushed down closer to the 86dB level.
                R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio

                Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51


                95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Wolf View Post
                  The woofer breakup kept it from playing high with it's metal cone breakup, and the XT25 couldn't play low with its rising HD and undamped resonance. Seriously- it's been discussed more than once.

                  Come on, 'active-boy', I wanna see you do it!

                  Later,
                  Wolf
                  Haha, I don't have the skills to do a good passive crossover, so I hide behind a DSP and a bunch of amps!

                  Originally posted by Navy Guy View Post


                  No offense, but I find this question a little pointless given that you are going to be using DSP, since most here are using passive crossovers. It's kind of like asking what is the hardest material to cut with a hand saw and then saying, OK thanks, I have this enourmous power saw with diamond cutting wheels. Not really a challenge anymore at that point and definitely won't be comparable to your last endevour.

                  Now with that said, I do think this is a great way to showcase some of the major benefits of DSP. Drivers that have linear distortion issues can greatly benefit from the flexibility in minute level adjustments you can make to shape the frequency reponse and would make an otherwise unwieldy driver easy to tame. It can also open up possibilities to use drivers in ways that weren't possible before due to response issues requiring a crossover at a certain point or an enourmous amount of crossover parts to make work.
                  You have a perfectly valid point, and I think your analysis is spot on. Part of it is indeed to demonstrate the benefits of DSP.

                  After taking on an enormously challenging and complicated cost no object project, I want to use some very low cost drivers and see how much performance I can possibly squeeze out of low cost drivers with advanced DSP and how close in performance I can get to that cost no object speaker. I'm looking for drivers that might be fantastic but overlooked due to the cost and complexity to build a crossover to get the best out of them. The real challenge is to make a low cost speaker sound great.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by bcodemz View Post

                    The real challenge is to make a low cost speaker sound great.
                    There is no magic. It is very easy to make a low cost speaker sound great. Many times close to a CNO. Look at the distortion and response of the Tenacious 3 in the project gallery. They measure as good through the midrange and lower treble as the Eton mids... It is on par with that of drivers costing 10X the $11 the mid costs and $10 the tweeter costs. There are many other designs by others, too, without the complexity of DSP or many amps.

                    I cannot think of one driver I shy away from because "if only" it did not have this one flaw. I am unsure you are hunting down the right foxhole. I would use the DSP maybe to make an awesome multi-way (3+way) using dirt-cheap drivers, that, as a whole would really take full advantage of what DSP can do and make drivers that may not have the widest bands or best responses play well together.

                    Just $0.02 here...
                    .

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by mzisserson View Post

                      There is no magic. It is very easy to make a low cost speaker sound great. Many times close to a CNO. Look at the distortion and response of the Tenacious 3 in the project gallery. They measure as good through the midrange and lower treble as the Eton mids... It is on par with that of drivers costing 10X the $11 the mid costs and $10 the tweeter costs. There are many other designs by others, too, without the complexity of DSP or many amps.

                      I cannot think of one driver I shy away from because "if only" it did not have this one flaw. I am unsure you are hunting down the right foxhole. I would use the DSP maybe to make an awesome multi-way (3+way) using dirt-cheap drivers, that, as a whole would really take full advantage of what DSP can do and make drivers that may not have the widest bands or best responses play well together.

                      Just $0.02 here...
                      Oh it'll most likely be a 3 way for sure. There are some bandwidth issues that DSP won't solve that can only be solved by multi-way. It seems there are many low cost drivers can perform very well within its narrow bandwidth, but falls apart outside of that (ahem XT25)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by bcodemz View Post

                        (ahem XT25)
                        Ok, that made me chuckle...

                        Goldwood dribers have always sounded great and measured suprisingly well. A Pair of 8028's in a good size cab would make some good bass.

                        Why not a standard sealed back cone mid?

                        Lastly, the 3" cone tweeter GT-25 is very fun and sounds exceptional. DSP would help its breakup whike taking advantage of a cone tweeters inherent directivity.
                        .

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by mzisserson View Post

                          Ok, that made me chuckle...

                          Goldwood dribers have always sounded great and measured suprisingly well. A Pair of 8028's in a good size cab would make some good bass.

                          Why not a standard sealed back cone mid?

                          Lastly, the 3" cone tweeter GT-25 is very fun and sounds exceptional. DSP would help its breakup whike taking advantage of a cone tweeters inherent directivity.

                          I smell a 70's to 80's monkey coffin in the making. I'd pass on the 8028's and go with a 12" or 15" Goldwood. The GW12PC-4 only needs a couple cu ft vented. The 15" needs a much bigger enclosure. Going a little more extreme... Instead of a single 12", going with two of those 12's would be pretty bad azz and 4 cu ft isn't too big for a tower. It would still be smaller than the single 15" enclosure.

                          Another thought would be some of those PE square frame woofers, maybe the white ones that look like old fishers... heh. With DSP you could make the best sounding coffins around.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            So a $2 piezo tweeter is in contention? Seriously though the DSP is not going to fix distortion issues so why not do something that makes sense wrt to the cost of the DSP?
                            John H

                            SLS-85, BMR-3L, Mini-TL, BR-2, Titan OB, B452, Udique, Vultus, Latus1, Seriatim, Aperivox,Pencil Tower

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by jhollander View Post
                              So a $2 piezo tweeter is in contention? Seriously though the DSP is not going to fix distortion issues so why not do something that makes sense wrt to the cost of the DSP?

                              A little 2nd order HD is ok and is preferred by some... Otherwise the audio gods wouldn't still give us tube amps...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by make_some_noise View Post


                                I smell a 70's to 80's monkey coffin in the making. I'd pass on the 8028's and go with a 12" or 15" Goldwood. The GW12PC-4 only needs a couple cu ft vented. The 15" needs a much bigger enclosure. Going a little more extreme... Instead of a single 12", going with two of those 12's would be pretty bad azz and 4 cu ft isn't too big for a tower. It would still be smaller than the single 15" enclosure.

                                Another thought would be some of those PE square frame woofers, maybe the white ones that look like old fishers... heh. With DSP you could make the best sounding coffins around.
                                No need for giant speakers. A lot of "rules" don't apply when you have DSP! I can simply shape the bass response to flat. I can easily get away with a 1 cu ft enclosure or smaller instead of 4 cu ft., tune it deep, boost it flat, and get *more* bass extension and the same output as a much larger cabinet. These woofers don't have enough Xmax for power handling to be an issue from DSP bass boost.

                                Originally posted by jhollander View Post
                                So a $2 piezo tweeter is in contention? Seriously though the DSP is not going to fix distortion issues so why not do something that makes sense wrt to the cost of the DSP?
                                I already have the DSP's, its not an extra cost. I can easily just load a different setting and use the same DSP for multiple speakers. In fact, I sort of have spare DSP's. I need *four* miniDSP 2x4 HD's to do some fancy stuff for the current speaker I'm working on.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X