Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

3 Way Design - First Timer

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

  • mortron
    replied
    It would be like 9cubic feet or something... just throwing a number there. Dunno if that's right, but it's probably in that neighborhood.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dave Bullet
    replied
    Originally posted by rpb View Post
    You do realize how huge the box needs to be, right?
    He's going to cut a hole in the floor and use the subspace (or apartment beneath) as the enclosure volume. dyna-bolted down will also reduce vibration (or couple the speaker to the floor to literally "floor load" the response).

    Of course I could be imagining things

    Leave a comment:


  • rpb
    replied
    You do realize how huge the box needs to be, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • mortron
    replied
    So I am leaning towards four 830869 woofers per side.

    Most of my thinking is towards an MTM in the middle and am wondering about how best to employ four 8" woofers. Part of my reason for buoldinga speaker like this is to get something a little narrower than my usual builds.

    Would you be inclined to pursue a WWMTMWW arrangement or a Push-Push woofer below an MTM? Getting them out from the rear wall is not an issue.

    One aspect of the WWMTMWW I like is that if I make all cabinets seperate I will have some flexibility and can try different things.

    Ultimately testing should be the decider, but am curious if there are any caveats that jump out at the planning/brainstorming stage that I've overlooked.

    Leave a comment:


  • mortron
    replied
    830991 seems like a wise choice in the mids. The build looks good and specs well on paper and based on other people's use of it and their level of satisfaction... I think I will go with them.

    As for the bass... I am wondering about whether to go WWMTMWW or just placing the MTM on top of a dual or quad woofer setup. Obviously for height reasons the latter would require an opposed quad sub box if I went with four. Naturally this would likely result in needing to keep it further off the back wall tho... no?

    I feel like the HDS although smaller would sound better than the SLS 10 especially quad 8's vs dual 10's which kind of close the SD gap a bit between the two driver sizes.

    The way I look at it, if this all fails, I'll have some quality drivers to further experiment and learn with. That said, I'd still like to make thought out purchasing decisions.

    Leave a comment:


  • rpb
    replied
    Originally posted by mortron View Post
    Thanks Wolf, I get the 3 woofer problem, but figured I'd ask. As for the plastic comment I was meaning to attribute that to the SB drivers. My apologies for making it unclear. I actually like that the HDS8 has the cast metal basket as opposed to the stamped of the SLS - not that the basket would be the trsonrto choose one over the other.

    If 3 HDS8s won't work, I'd have to go to 4 to get more than 2... I bet that would sound clean. That's only a little bit more... Gotta see what else is around that price range for comparison I guess, although 2 could suffice. But it sounds boring lol.

    RPB - In regards to the BSC on the upper portion, I am not 100% on what I will do, but at present my active XO has no EQ. I am considering DSP products for variety of rrasons, but I'd like to be able to use the tools that most of you have created or been using and develop a passive crossover. There are some links on the top of main page that walk through simulation and modeling so I will try that out and build a crossover and tweak it through listening I guess. I had considered a TMM 2.5 way to get the BSC I needed. But not sure, my assumption either way is that I would ullucky to have 87-90db efficiency. If baffle loss is ~6db, which is what the increase in output from two drivers in parallel... Either way I think i'm losing/not gaining much efficiency if I'm not actively crossing the MT.

    Sealed box is a big like for a mid, but not necessarily a need. The driver will obviously have an influence too. And the crossover I presume? Like say I go 3 way, if I have 300hz and 3000hz or so crossovers, could the 830991 manage sealed use? I like the sound of sealed mids in my experience and don't mind my Infinity sealed 12s (even tho it's without EQ).

    For the HDS8s, I think they are best suited to a ported enclosure based on QTS (open baffle habits I need to break - I always look at QTS first then FS lol). I will model them and see. Part of me wonders about sealed and Linkwitz Transform... Not a ton of Xmax but lots of woofers. If I get into the 30s sealed I'd be happy. Dunno tho... This is where experience and legwork will come in handy.
    Sealed for the 830991 is ideal. I wasn't sure if you were planning OB mids. There is no problem passively handling the BSC. Just treat it like a 2-way, then actively cross it to the woofers. The woofer might benefit from a small amount of passive filtering to make things blend correctly.

    Leave a comment:


  • rpb
    replied
    This driver could work (I think) in a 3 woofer 3-way. The wiring could be series parallel for 12 ohms.


    https://www.parts-express.com/dayton...oofer--295-484

    Leave a comment:


  • mortron
    replied
    Thanks Wolf, I get the 3 woofer problem, but figured I'd ask. As for the plastic comment I was meaning to attribute that to the SB drivers. My apologies for making it unclear. I actually like that the HDS8 has the cast metal basket as opposed to the stamped of the SLS - not that the basket would be the trsonrto choose one over the other.

    If 3 HDS8s won't work, I'd have to go to 4 to get more than 2... I bet that would sound clean. That's only a little bit more... Gotta see what else is around that price range for comparison I guess, although 2 could suffice. But it sounds boring lol.

    RPB - In regards to the BSC on the upper portion, I am not 100% on what I will do, but at present my active XO has no EQ. I am considering DSP products for variety of rrasons, but I'd like to be able to use the tools that most of you have created or been using and develop a passive crossover. There are some links on the top of main page that walk through simulation and modeling so I will try that out and build a crossover and tweak it through listening I guess. I had considered a TMM 2.5 way to get the BSC I needed. But not sure, my assumption either way is that I would ullucky to have 87-90db efficiency. If baffle loss is ~6db, which is what the increase in output from two drivers in parallel... Either way I think i'm losing/not gaining much efficiency if I'm not actively crossing the MT.

    Sealed box is a big like for a mid, but not necessarily a need. The driver will obviously have an influence too. And the crossover I presume? Like say I go 3 way, if I have 300hz and 3000hz or so crossovers, could the 830991 manage sealed use? I like the sound of sealed mids in my experience and don't mind my Infinity sealed 12s (even tho it's without EQ).

    For the HDS8s, I think they are best suited to a ported enclosure based on QTS (open baffle habits I need to break - I always look at QTS first then FS lol). I will model them and see. Part of me wonders about sealed and Linkwitz Transform... Not a ton of Xmax but lots of woofers. If I get into the 30s sealed I'd be happy. Dunno tho... This is where experience and legwork will come in handy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by mortron View Post
    Low distortion. I like that.

    Wolf - when you said the HDS 8, which one? The nomex or aluminum? Would 3 of the HDS Nomex be better than two SLS 10s? Can I do a mix of series and parallel to get good imoedance with 3 woofers?
    The HDS8 you linked initially. I believe it's a Nomex. You had the SLS12, SLS10 and HDS8 linked in your first post. 3 drivers present other issues to get around or balance out, so pairs are likely better here.

    And no- all HDS drivers have cast aluminum frames. They are not plastic.

    Later,
    Wolff

    Leave a comment:


  • rpb
    replied
    Do you plan to build in BSC into the MT passive x-over, or will that be done active? Sealed box for the MT section?

    Leave a comment:


  • mortron
    replied
    Low distortion. I like that.

    Wolf - when you said the HDS 8, which one? The nomex or aluminum? Would 3 of the HDS Nomex be better than two SLS 10s? Can I do a mix of series and parallel to get good imoedance with 3 woofers?

    Leave a comment:


  • PWR RYD
    replied
    I designed and build a MTM project with the SB16PFC woofers and a pair of RS28F tweeters. In my experience the SB16PFC are nice sounding woofers but they won't play high enough to meet the Neo3's. I had to cross them at 2000 Hz with LR4 acoustic slopes.

    Scott Shelin used the Iron Driver SB13PFC woofers in his Iowa project this year and those woofers, and his project, sounded good.

    I'm currently working on a MTM tower that uses the 830991 Peerless woofers. They sound great​​​​​​ to me. Much better than their price would suggest. Their smooth frequency response and low distortion make them fun to work with. I still have a lot of work to do on this project though.

    Leave a comment:


  • mortron
    replied
    Thanks for the replies.

    The room is about 20x40 or so... It's definitely that long.

    At present I run a pair of JBL L5 and a pair of Goodwood 1858 Hframe open baffles.

    Got a mix of pro amps. No shortage of power. 3 way Active XO. Usually try to keep it to two channels, mainly subs/OB Bass.

    My biggest concern with the bigger SB unit is the crossover. I have seen a few designs in the past few days that use drivers like the ones I am considering so have some idea of their abilities. Troels G has an OB design where he crossed the Neo3 around 3k, uses a simple mount and has a filter to smooth it out, so I have something to compare to my simulations etc before building XO's. I believe there is a design using the 830991 with a similar XO point so I don't think using it up high will be a big issue.

    I also feel like the 830991 may be a fairly better built driver and better suited to mid duty than the SB offerings. They also have plastic baskets. Correct me if I am wrong.

    In regards to the bass... I haven't decided on anything in particular. I'm basing my options on budget. My goal is to learn something, so if the drivers work out I'm good otherwise they'll just end up part of another project.

    My budget was about $250 total for bass. That can buy me:

    2 x 830669 - 12's
    2 x 830668 - 10's
    6 x 830669 - 8's

    I will read up on the other mentioned drivers and see what other options there are for me. Also willing to consider putting these into a seperate enclosure that is like a sub tower if that helps. I see the 830991 plays down alright so maybe can get away with this.

    Thanks so far everyone. I'm off to eat and read about woofers ;)


    Leave a comment:


  • Geoff Millar
    replied
    I don't know about the other drivers, but I'm mucking around with the SB16PFC and really like the sound. Frame is a weird shape, but.

    I hooked it up to a crossover/cabinet for another speaker and it sounded pretty good, so with a proper crossover and cabinet (courtesy of Paul K) it should sound very good, especially for the $$$. I'm doing a two way, not a three way.

    Geoff

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolf
    replied
    I've heard the 8" Exclusive, the 8" SLS x2, and the 10" SLS in the actual Tarkus, as well as higher end offerings from Peerless like Magico and others use in duality.
    Your best bet from above is likely the dual 10" SLS from an Sd/SPL standpoint. Your box will be considerably large though. Something like the HDS8 or even the SDF or XLS/XXLS might get you considerably cleaner performance.

    The 830991 has a reputation to knock out a lot of more costly midranges in terms of HD and response profile. It's a good sounding unit too!

    The BG Neo3 is a bit of a mixed bag, IMO. You can use it as low as 1.8k, but the response is difficult with tradeoffs being either sibilant or dull sound. If you are using the chambered unit, and it's just the flat-cap, glue some mass-damping to the rear of it. If you are making your own chamber, go the size of the element, 4" deep, and use either fiberglass, Ultratouch, or wool damping.

    Later,
    Wolf

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X