A good tweeter to match 5" SB Acoustics Magnesium Woofers

[djg]

Close.

[Waboo]

Guess xmax's age.

My guess: 15. His grammar is passable. His trolling is good.

15, eh? After reading your " trolling" post, I then must assume that you are 12, 13 maybe?

[djg]

Guess xmax's age.

My guess: 15. His grammar is passable. His trolling is good.

[DDF]

Here's my experience with M/T crossovers on this pair which I would expect to work on similar small midwoofer 2-ways....

You're in an enviable position with the UE. I think your comparison is a bit apples and oranges though
- in your application, you can use a brick wall filter and push the tweeter down very low
- you're willing to accept higher distortion
- tweeter had a waveguide
- midrange is smaller than usual

Given all these, you were able to push the tweeter low to meet up with the woofer off axis. However remove any one of these, and when you have differing off axis dispersion to deal with, IME its still better to use a soft knee and wider overlap.

johnk's web site has a good comparison of differing filter orders and impact of 'power response" but these comparisons (as was Jeffs) are too high level and really need to include some model of driver directivity. Of course any xover that is "in phase' at listening axis will be out of phase at other angles and not sum as strongly, so the greater the overlap, the greater the power response hole. But that's the point, it is 'filled in' by the excess tweeter dispersion near fc. i also agree with gfiandy over at diyaudio that a boost in the low pass on axis right at the point it starts to roll off is very helpful with providing fill in for the woofer's beaming. However, i think its best to use a woofer that has this feature in it's natural response and still use overdamped filters. I have an example design that does this posted over at DIYaudio for my JR149 re-imagining (its one of my favorite speakers, if limited in dynamic range).

[DDF]

The way I deal with some of these issues. This helps avoid a BBC dip on axis.

Here's an example of one of my designs with much heavier absorption treatment and the effects off axis. Reduces first diffraction peak but made speaker sound lifeless in this case, so abandoned it and instead used a strip of felt between woofer and tweeter only. Reflection/diffraction off woofer was a bigger issue than off cabinet edges, but the "cabinet' is a tube and generously rounded over.

[johnnyrichards]

Power response is everything,

No.

[johnnyrichards]

Here's a sim of diffraction response on axis and 30 degrees horizontal off axis for a small box/driver i was playing with. Sim is accurate, verified by my measures.

Eq the difracttion on axis by getting rid of the dip (eg with a high Q high pass) and the 30 degrees response 9and others off axis) suffers significantly. I like tilted baffles because the "on axis" response is closer to the 30 degree cone average and eqing close to flat on axis creates a much more balanced tone in room than when eqing on axis flat for a box with a vertical baffle.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1360100[/ATTACH]

Precisely.

[xmax]

Power response is everything, if other factors are audible but not clearly measurable in regards to strain on the tweeter
that seems like more than enough to me. But measurements will continue anyway.

[DDF]

I do the same thing, although I sometimes refer to it as a "BBC dip". Flat on-axis on so many of my design attempts sounded poor, when I finally disciplined myself to take off-axis measurements, I figured out why.

Here's a sim of diffraction response on axis and 30 degrees horizontal off axis for a small box/driver i was playing with. Sim is accurate, verified by my measures.

Eq the difracttion on axis by getting rid of the dip (eg with a high Q high pass) and the 30 degrees response 9and others off axis) suffers significantly. I like tilted baffles because the "on axis" response is closer to the 30 degree cone average and eqing close to flat on axis creates a much more balanced tone in room than when eqing on axis flat for a box with a vertical baffle.

[dlr]

The only thing I'm looking for is what you believe will prove your point, by specific example, backed up with relevant evidence, i.e. measurements and schematics as a minimum. Not simply a random design by someone else. Surely you have already got one that could be used.

dlr

[xmax]

BTW I Love the Zaph site and the ugly felt pad on your design I am doing almost the exact same thing as we speak
at least temporarily.

[xmax]

Oh I plan on sharing a design but not any of mine that are commercially available. I need to make the time to do so.
Perhaps this Iron Driver Grand Rapids will help.

[dlr]

I know it's not the same but I could see where it's relevant. Are there some speakers you consider great with published xovers?

i haven't purchased speakers since 1991. I'm not looking for analysis of any commercial speakers, I want to see a complete design of yours with the relevant information I mentioned in post 236 above.You can see one of mine here.

dlr

[xmax]

I know it's not the same but I could see where it's relevant. Are there some speakers you consider great with published xovers?

[dlr]

Mixing/mastering is not the same as filters for passive speaker design. Show an example for speakers with the specific drivers, measurements, full crossover and highlight the specifics of your arguments and maybe I'll believe it.

dlr