A good tweeter to match 5" SB Acoustics Magnesium Woofers

[dcibel]

Thanks for quoting my first post in this thread again, I'm glad people get to read it again.

Yep, page 175 of the Loudspeaker Design Cookbook, 7th edition.

[xmax]

"The distortion measurements shown are inaccurate and flawed.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1359314[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1359315[/ATTACH]

dlr[/QUOTE]

Obviously these tests are not standardized only to show the distortion can be higher with a series resistor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cuDsOfwsWo

[xmax]

[QUOTE=dcibel;n1357373]

What a lol train. Please xmax stop embarrassing yourself, go back to the LCD Cookbook and learn the basics, driver attenuation start around page 175. Distortion is not affected by a series resistor

[PWR RYD]

I bet if PETT still had the tag fuction there would be some doozies in this thread

[xmax]

Amazing what a 2 ohm shunt can do. But yeah you are right it is too low for my taste
even with a serious impedance "swamp".

[dcibel]

This might clarify
http://www.zaphaudio.com/ZMV5.html

A crossover of 2kHz where the tweeter Fs is 1350Hz, doesn't that go against everything you believe in? The tweeter is only ~12dB down at Fs, yikes!

The SE filter optimizer sure knows how to pick the right values ;)

[xmax]

This might clarify

http://www.zaphaudio.com/ZMV5.html

[xmax]

Yes, please do show us. Seriously I'd like to see it.

This is a 8.2uF cap with .35uH followed by a 6 and .33 ohm resistor because it was what I had laying
around. (I did not have a 6.2 but please trust me the .13 ohms will not make a difference)
Yes the choke is unwound to .35 don't make me prove it, please.

If you think this test is flawed that is fine tell me how you would like me to change it
or do it yourself.

I was really hoping I was wrong but I knew what I was hearing when I have tried to
do similar designs in the past. We are here to learn aren't we?

Note the distortion is a little higher when I am speaking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cuDsOfwsWo

[dlr]

I've never seen a comparison of the a model of a driver's directivity (usually the model assumes a rigid piston and not a cone or dome) vs the actual directivity of a rigid driver before breakup, so I don' know how useful a model would be. Is there data in the public domain making some comparisons?

It's good for generalizations, especially for crossover comparisons, but can't go beyond that for any of the software I've used which admittedly is limited. Maybe SoundEasy can do a better job since it has built-in diffraction options. I don't know if Bohdan added driver directionality into it.

dlr

[xmax]

That's quite the word salad you put together there. I haven't the energy to try and understand what you're on about this time, life's too short.

If we can come back to reality with our underwear on, have you tried the Scan 10F in your list of "all sorts of high end cone mids"?

ATC 3":
[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1361117[/ATTACH]

Scan 10F:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1361118[/ATTACH]

A scan glass fiber mid, not that one though, looks nice. The Volt is a whole different animal the wave guide is quite different
from the ATC. you would have to hear it.

[DDF]

Once you implement a crossover that utilizes drivers in their passbands rather than breakup region, I think the power response generated by taking an average off-axis of many points is actually rather close to reality.

I've never seen a comparison of the a model of a driver's directivity (usually the model assumes a rigid piston and not a cone or dome) vs the actual directivity of a rigid driver before breakup, so I don' know how useful a model would be. Is there data in the public domain making some comparisons?

[dcibel]

You're not gonna get that from any driver modeler because the break up behaviour affects the off axis response so much. You'd need a FEM package similar to what driver designers use to even get close. You're better off taking off axis measurements.

Once you implement a crossover that utilizes drivers in their passbands rather than breakup region, I think the power response generated by taking an average off-axis of many points is actually rather close to reality.

[dcibel]

Power response is kinda everything, otherwise I would not be laying down the insane cake for the Volt 3" domes, I tried getting it
right with all sorts of high end cone mids and it' not the same, that said the Volt mid is a handful to get right too, but I think I am there
with a combination passive and active filters they are starting to drop panties and give goose bumps.

That's quite the word salad you put together there. I haven't the energy to try and understand what you're on about this time, life's too short.

If we can come back to reality with our underwear on, have you tried the Scan 10F in your list of "all sorts of high end cone mids"?

ATC 3":


Scan 10F:

[DDF]

I kinda think power response is the limit for accurate simulations, that's where the hard work comes in.

You're not gonna get that from any driver modeler because the break up behaviour affects the off axis response so much. You'd need a FEM package similar to what driver designers use to even get close. You're better off taking off axis measurements.

[xmax]

Xsim just has no off-axis capabilities which is a big part of my design process, and I believe xmax as well as I recall "power response is everything".

As unintuitive as the UI of SoundEasy is, I'm not disappointed in it, it does everything I want and more all in one software package.

Power response is kinda everything, otherwise I would not be laying down the insane cake for the Volt 3" domes, I tried getting it
right with all sorts of high end cone mids and it' not the same, that said the Volt mid is a handful to get right too, but I think I am there
with a combination passive and active filters they are starting to drop panties and give goose bumps.