Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

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

  • #76
    Re: Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

    Actually, I never got around to making the changes. The final position in my mom's setup had them much closer to the rear wall, which tended to bring the bass up a bit relative to everything else. After letting the receiver make it's room adjustments, there was really nothing left to do.

    I'd love to apply this setup to the 831735, but just haven't had the time. Cabinet size is about right already, although it would likely need a bit lower tuning. But the XO is probably really close already, since both their impedance and response plots are very similar.
    Hey Pete - I'm a total greenhorn with PCD, so just wanted some confirmation on my interpretation of the values you posted of your "final simulation." I added a TBD tweeter pad resistor since you said you had padded it ~2dB after some listening with DoubleTap. Your design seems like a great starting point, and just wanted to get your confirmation on my interpretation. I'm a very visual person - does this look right? Or did I misread some fields?

    Thanks in advance for your time and input...
    Attached Files
    SEC DIY 2014 Speaker Show is on! *November 8th*
    Wanna win a set of Newform Research R30 ribbons?!?!
    SEC DIY 2014 Thread

    SEC DIY 2012 Speaker Show
    SEC DIY 2011 Speaker Show

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

      Originally posted by scottq View Post
      Hey Pete - I'm a total greenhorn with PCD, so just wanted some confirmation on my interpretation of the values you posted of your "final simulation." I added a TBD tweeter pad resistor since you said you had padded it ~2dB after some listening with DoubleTap. Your design seems like a great starting point, and just wanted to get your confirmation on my interpretation. I'm a very visual person - does this look right? Or did I misread some fields?

      Thanks in advance for your time and input...
      Looks good, except the mid and tweet are both out of phase from the woofer.

      That's a good spot for any padding on the tweeter, and you might consider adding a single resistor across the mid terminals, starting with something like 25 Ohm, and dropping it to no less than 12 or so, for padding it to taste.

      We actually only padded things with an 18 band EQ. That's how we made the determination on roughly how much padding might be needed if these were out in the room. Even so, the bass was perhaps only slightly lean in reference to the mids and highs. Using the 831735 in place of the 850439 might present a different balance in bass, as the two do differ a bit on the low end more than anywhere else. I have a feeling the 735 may be a tad warmer to start with.
      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
      "Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems.". - Hannes Alfven, Nobel Laureate, Plasma physicist.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

        Pete, Great build, I have learned a lot from it. Seems that you broke the norm for midbass drivers and came out with great results.
        This thread makes me want to go nutz with all my 831735's and do 3way using 3 of them for low end, 1+ a tweeter for highs and mids. Bi-amped.


        The question I have is would be doing 3 of these for the low end be useless as compared to using say 2 8''-10'' woofers. Would I get into the "fake Bass" regions by running all 6.5's for LFE. Perhaps if I did the 3 of them, making it a 3.5 way would be the best with 1-2 of them handling BSC.
        As I end most of my posts-- The more I learn, the less I know.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

          Pardon me if this is stating the obvious, but using 3 for low end doesn't make them play lower, just louder. 1 for BSC should be plenty. They will play to low 30's in an adequately sized box. An MTM in 50 liters will give F3/F10 34/26 w/ 106dB @50 watts. 60 liters will get F3 ~30.


          Originally posted by ROTECH View Post
          Pete, Great build, I have learned a lot from it. Seems that you broke the norm for midbass drivers and came out with great results.
          This thread makes me want to go nutz with all my 831735's and do 3way using 3 of them for low end, 1+ a tweeter for highs and mids. Bi-amped.


          The question I have is would be doing 3 of these for the low end be useless as compared to using say 2 8''-10'' woofers. Would I get into the "fake Bass" regions by running all 6.5's for LFE. Perhaps if I did the 3 of them, making it a 3.5 way would be the best with 1-2 of them handling BSC.
          As I end most of my posts-- The more I learn, the less I know.
          I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now.
          OS MTMs http://techtalk.parts-express.com/sh...d.php?t=220388
          Swope TM http://techtalk.parts-express.com/sh...d.php?t=221818
          Econowave and Audio Nirvana AN10 fullrange http://techtalk.parts-express.com/sh...d.php?t=216841
          Imperial Russian Stouts http://techtalk.parts-express.com/sh...=1#post1840444
          LECBOS. http://techtalk.parts-express.com/sh...ghlight=lecbos

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

            Originally posted by ROTECH View Post
            Pete, Great build, I have learned a lot from it. Seems that you broke the norm for midbass drivers and came out with great results.
            This thread makes me want to go nutz with all my 831735's and do 3way using 3 of them for low end, 1+ a tweeter for highs and mids. Bi-amped.

            The question I have is would be doing 3 of these for the low end be useless as compared to using say 2 8''-10'' woofers. Would I get into the "fake Bass" regions by running all 6.5's for LFE. Perhaps if I did the 3 of them, making it a 3.5 way would be the best with 1-2 of them handling BSC.
            As I end most of my posts-- The more I learn, the less I know.
            I would suggest going with 4, rather than 3. Wire 2 sets of 2 in parallel and the two sets in series with each other for a total of "8ohms." The LP in XO would have to be scaled for the doubled impedance of the woofers in this option. Also, your amplifier will thank you There really aren't any great combinations of wiring 3 8Ohm drivers up.

            As fastbike points out, the 831735's will go pretty darn low... the biggest issue is with total air displacement in comparing to larger woofers. When it comes to displacement... it comes down to the figure known as "Sd" - this is the piston diameter of the cone + a little of the surround that moves to add to the total displacement area.

            Example:
            A very popular Peerless driver, the CSX 10" (850146) had an Sd of 330 cm2.
            The Peerless 830875 HDS driver has an Sd of 139 cm2

            The 850146 has an Xmax of 9mm
            The 830875 has an Xmax of 5.5mm

            1x 850146 displacement = 330 cm2 * 0.9cm Xmax = 297 cm3
            2x 830875 displacement = (139 cm2 *2) * 0.55cm Xmax = 153 cm3
            3x 830875 displacement = (139 cm2 *3) * 0.55cm Xmax = 229 cm3
            4x 830875 displacement = (139 cm2 *4) * 0.55cm Xmax = 305 cm3

            As you can see, Xmax has a big factor in how much air gets moved. If the 850146 only had a 4mm Xmax (pretty common for "standard" commercial speakers), 2 of the 830875's would be pretty similar in low frequency acoustic output (SPL).

            But, it does get more complicated than that. From there you get into things like compression issues and how well the 6.5" suspension and motor is vented compared to he 10". Is the 6.5" cone stiff enough to handle "subwoofer" duty? Is the (or multiple) 6.5" driver capable of the power handling for that kind of abuse?

            For the record, I think the Nomex HDS drivers would be an excellent choice for woofer duty in a design like this. I might stay with a sandwich cone though for midrange... the Nomex cones show a peaky breakup mode around 4.5k that would require a notch filter. On the other hand, the sandwich cones are probably more "veiled" (softer cone material) in the mids, whereas the Nomex probably has more "detail" (stiffer cone). It really depends on your tastes... and what's in your personal warehouse collection of drivers ;)

            Regards,
            Scott
            SEC DIY 2014 Speaker Show is on! *November 8th*
            Wanna win a set of Newform Research R30 ribbons?!?!
            SEC DIY 2014 Thread

            SEC DIY 2012 Speaker Show
            SEC DIY 2011 Speaker Show

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

              Looks good, except the mid and tweet are both out of phase from the woofer.

              That's a good spot for any padding on the tweeter, and you might consider adding a single resistor across the mid terminals, starting with something like 25 Ohm, and dropping it to no less than 12 or so, for padding it to taste.

              We actually only padded things with an 18 band EQ. That's how we made the determination on roughly how much padding might be needed if these were out in the room. Even so, the bass was perhaps only slightly lean in reference to the mids and highs. Using the 831735 in place of the 850439 might present a different balance in bass, as the two do differ a bit on the low end more than anywhere else. I have a feeling the 735 may be a tad warmer to start with.
              Thanks Pete. I only saw the tweeter OOP... I'll correct that and add the pad for the mid per your suggestion, and then repost it for everyone tonight.

              OOC, what filter topology did you shoot for between the woofers & mids? I would have expected them to be in phase with each other with just a 1st order electrical between them...

              Have you experimented much with the Nomex 6.5" cones? Since it's only a 1st order, I would think that a notch on the woofers might be necessary to kill that breakup ~4.2k. I guess @ 3 octaves out (probably ~20dB electrically padded down?), may not be a big deal after all...
              SEC DIY 2014 Speaker Show is on! *November 8th*
              Wanna win a set of Newform Research R30 ribbons?!?!
              SEC DIY 2014 Thread

              SEC DIY 2012 Speaker Show
              SEC DIY 2011 Speaker Show

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

                Originally posted by fastbike1 View Post
                Pardon me if this is stating the obvious, but using 3 for low end doesn't make them play lower, just louder. 1 for BSC should be plenty. They will play to low 30's in an adequately sized box. An MTM in 50 liters will give F3/F10 34/26 w/ 106dB @50 watts. 60 liters will get F3 ~30.
                I will restate the obvious, to the obvious. By adding another woofer, I know it wouldnt get lower. IF I had thought it would, I would not have asked about the comparo to 8'' or 10''. I feel my questions covered the understanding that "wouldn't 3 6.5'' drivers be too much of not enough"? I know I am a mild rookie though I passed those basics a few years back.
                Thank you for the calculations though, they are helpful.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

                  Originally posted by scottq View Post
                  I would suggest going with 4, rather than 3. Wire 2 sets of 2 in parallel and the two sets in series with each other for a total of "8ohms." The LP in XO would have to be scaled for the doubled impedance of the woofers in this option. Also, your amplifier will thank you There really aren't any great combinations of wiring 3 8Ohm drivers up.

                  As fastbike points out, the 831735's will go pretty darn low... the biggest issue is with total air displacement in comparing to larger woofers. When it comes to displacement... it comes down to the figure known as "Sd" - this is the piston diameter of the cone + a little of the surround that moves to add to the total displacement area.

                  Example:
                  A very popular Peerless driver, the CSX 10" (850146) had an Sd of 330 cm2.
                  The Peerless 830875 HDS driver has an Sd of 139 cm2

                  The 850146 has an Xmax of 9mm
                  The 830875 has an Xmax of 5.5mm

                  1x 850146 displacement = 330 cm2 * 0.9cm Xmax = 297 cm3
                  2x 830875 displacement = (139 cm2 *2) * 0.55cm Xmax = 153 cm3
                  3x 830875 displacement = (139 cm2 *3) * 0.55cm Xmax = 229 cm3
                  4x 830875 displacement = (139 cm2 *4) * 0.55cm Xmax = 305 cm3

                  As you can see, Xmax has a big factor in how much air gets moved. If the 850146 only had a 4mm Xmax (pretty common for "standard" commercial speakers), 2 of the 830875's would be pretty similar in low frequency acoustic output (SPL).

                  But, it does get more complicated than that. From there you get into things like compression issues and how well the 6.5" suspension and motor is vented compared to he 10". Is the 6.5" cone stiff enough to handle "subwoofer" duty? Is the (or multiple) 6.5" driver capable of the power handling for that kind of abuse?

                  For the record, I think the Nomex HDS drivers would be an excellent choice for woofer duty in a design like this. I might stay with a sandwich cone though for midrange... the Nomex cones show a peaky breakup mode around 4.5k that would require a notch filter. On the other hand, the sandwich cones are probably more "veiled" (softer cone material) in the mids, whereas the Nomex probably has more "detail" (stiffer cone). It really depends on your tastes... and what's in your personal warehouse collection of drivers ;)

                  Regards,
                  Scott
                  Thank you for the time you took on that writeup. It makes me warm inside knowing 4 is better than 3!!!! Yeah I fully admit that I do many of these posts at work (SHHHHH) while stuck on 3rd shift, and rarely take the time to figure out basic impedence issues before I fire off an open ender. The load present on 3 woofers would be a stretch

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

                    Originally posted by ROTECH View Post
                    "wouldn't 3 6.5'' drivers be too much of not enough"?
                    There are only two woofers working together to generate the extra bass needed to make up for BSC. The woofer functioning as a mid range in theory should play cleaner than if the design were a 2 or 2.5 way because the mid woofer is not having to travel as much since it is not playing all the low range.

                    This thread is what made me want to try building the triple bocks using a different buyout peerless driver.

                    Take it easy
                    Jay
                    "I like Brewski's threads, they always end up being hybrid beer/speaker threads based on the name of his newest creation." - Greywarden

                    Breakfast Stout - HiVi RT2 II/Aurasound NS6
                    Imperial Russian Stout - Vifa DX25/Fountek FW146/(2) Fountek FW168s - Built by Fastbike
                    Ruination 2.5 way - Vifa DX25/Fountek FW168
                    Levitation TM
                    - Vifa BC25SG15/Fountek FW168

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

                      Originally posted by Brewski View Post
                      There are only two woofers working together to generate the extra bass needed to make up for BSC. The woofer functioning as a mid range in theory should play cleaner than if the design were a 2 or 2.5 way because the mid woofer is not having to travel as much since it is not playing all the low range.

                      This thread is what made me want to try building the triple bocks using a different buyout peerless driver.

                      Take it easy
                      Jay
                      I was leaning to the side of 3-4 for woofers and 1 for midrange per cab. More leaning for 3 until ScotQ gave me the DUHHH heads up on impedence. This would make the cabinets be MTWWWW or TMWWWW. I have 8 of the 831735's. So again would this many 6.5's running as woofers (not subwoofers) create all sorts of acoustical dilemmas? Or back to the original question so this thread doesnt get jacked..... would it simply be more acoustically sound to run 1 831735 as a mid, and a larger pair of woofers for low end(bsc) rather than 4 6.5'' and have to deal with possible problems? This leads me to the Stentorians build I guess, and that seems to be a winner.

                      The easy question is- I want to upsize my current towers- WOuld you run dual 8-10'' and TMWW with the 8's-10's as W and 831735 as mid or TMWWWW with 5 831735's for asthetics

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

                        Originally posted by ROTECH View Post
                        I was leaning to the side of 3-4 for woofers and 1 for midrange per cab. More leaning for 3 until ScotQ gave me the DUHHH heads up on impedence. This would make the cabinets be MTWWWW or TMWWWW. I have 8 of the 831735's. So again would this many 6.5's running as woofers (not subwoofers) create all sorts of acoustical dilemmas? Or back to the original question so this thread doesnt get jacked..... would it simply be more acoustically sound to run 1 831735 as a mid, and a larger pair of woofers for low end(bsc) rather than 4 6.5'' and have to deal with possible problems? This leads me to the Stentorians build I guess, and that seems to be a winner.

                        The easy question is- I want to upsize my current towers- WOuld you run dual 8-10'' and TMWW with the 8's-10's as W and 831735 as mid or TMWWWW with 5 831735's for asthetics
                        To me the 831735 models to go low enough that I'd not bother with larger woofers in the design. I'd leave anything lower than what the 831735 models to get to a subwoofer. For the mids I'm looking at 4" and 5" mid options to use with the driver.

                        If you were going to have the speakers in a huge room or needed to play excessively loud then adding extra drivers to the design could be in order but for my purposes two 831735's per side should be enough.

                        The concept of adding woofers for asthetics I'd tend to steer clear of.

                        Take it easy
                        Jay
                        "I like Brewski's threads, they always end up being hybrid beer/speaker threads based on the name of his newest creation." - Greywarden

                        Breakfast Stout - HiVi RT2 II/Aurasound NS6
                        Imperial Russian Stout - Vifa DX25/Fountek FW146/(2) Fountek FW168s - Built by Fastbike
                        Ruination 2.5 way - Vifa DX25/Fountek FW168
                        Levitation TM
                        - Vifa BC25SG15/Fountek FW168

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

                          The asthetic tie in would only be second to desired sound. Yes the room is large and irregular 24x36 14ft ceilings. Subwoofer is already taken care of. A tower done right acoustically with 5 6.5''HDS buyouts would just look great IMO.

                          End of threadjack.
                          Thanks for all the input. I am going to return to thinking things out fully before posting, and as a group here I hope doing these Q&A braindumps arent taking away too much from content. Because they seem to answer questions for a lot more people than those who reply in the post due to the amount of PM's I get hoping for information on the same ideas I present.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

                            Originally posted by ROTECH View Post
                            I was leaning to the side of 3-4 for woofers and 1 for midrange per cab. More leaning for 3 until ScotQ gave me the DUHHH heads up on impedence. This would make the cabinets be MTWWWW or TMWWWW. I have 8 of the 831735's. So again would this many 6.5's running as woofers (not subwoofers) create all sorts of acoustical dilemmas? Or back to the original question so this thread doesnt get jacked..... would it simply be more acoustically sound to run 1 831735 as a mid, and a larger pair of woofers for low end(bsc) rather than 4 6.5'' and have to deal with possible problems? This leads me to the Stentorians build I guess, and that seems to be a winner.

                            The easy question is- I want to upsize my current towers- WOuld you run dual 8-10'' and TMWW with the 8's-10's as W and 831735 as mid or TMWWWW with 5 831735's for asthetics
                            The design featured in the thread hits a low impedance of about 4 Ohm. I used an air core inductor with significant resistance to help keep the impedance up. Overall, the impedance is higher than that, and even the Insignia amp my mom has (Best Buy House brand) drives them without a hiccup.

                            Now, if you wanted to really add those extra woofers to keep the impedance at 8 Ohm, simply double the inductor and halve the capacitor on the woofer XO for the same slope.

                            I'll restate that the two acoustic crossovers are LR2 at 500, and LR4 at 2300. That's why the mid phase is reversed with the woofer, and the tweeter is in phase with the mid.

                            I'd think you'd LOVE a tower using 5 of the woofers. Have a look at my Schumakubin MKII simulation, using 5 DA175.
                            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
                            "Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems.". - Hannes Alfven, Nobel Laureate, Plasma physicist.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

                              Originally posted by scottq View Post
                              Thanks Pete. I only saw the tweeter OOP... I'll correct that and add the pad for the mid per your suggestion, and then repost it for everyone tonight.

                              OOC, what filter topology did you shoot for between the woofers & mids? I would have expected them to be in phase with each other with just a 1st order electrical between them...

                              Have you experimented much with the Nomex 6.5" cones? Since it's only a 1st order, I would think that a notch on the woofers might be necessary to kill that breakup ~4.2k. I guess @ 3 octaves out (probably ~20dB electrically padded down?), may not be a big deal after all...
                              The mid and woofer are LR2. The 2nd order acoustic slope is enabled because of baffle step adding to the 1st order filter slope. Below baffle step, the mid rolls off second order on its own.

                              The breakup of these HDS cones at 4KHz is really less of a problem than you might think. Even with the simple 2nd order filter, the LR4 target was easily hit, and the midrange presentation of the high passed 850439 is quite pleasant, with plenty of detail.

                              The only Nomex cones I've had the chance to play with so far were not from Peerless. I've gotten to hear what the Wavecor 6" Nomex mid can do. It's a stunning little driver. The Nomex material can certainly convey incredible detail, if it's got a good motor and suspension behind it. As good as the sandwich cone version of my HDS is, I have no reason to think that the Nomex version wouldn't be at least the equal of it.

                              I was ecstatic at the resulting sound from these towers with the 850439. Best implementation I've ever heard for that unit, and I've built and heard many variations on a two-way. No doubt the same can be achieved with the 831735, and doing a full 3-way will really knock your socks off, and blow the wax out of your ears.
                              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
                              "Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems.". - Hannes Alfven, Nobel Laureate, Plasma physicist.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Peerless 6 woofer 3-way under way

                                The mid and woofer are LR2. The 2nd order acoustic slope is enabled because of baffle step adding to the 1st order filter slope. Below baffle step, the mid rolls off second order on its own.

                                The breakup of these HDS cones at 4KHz is really less of a problem than you might think. Even with the simple 2nd order filter, the LR4 target was easily hit, and the midrange presentation of the high passed 850439 is quite pleasant, with plenty of detail.

                                The only Nomex cones I've had the chance to play with so far were not from Peerless. I've gotten to hear what the Wavecor 6" Nomex mid can do. It's a stunning little driver. The Nomex material can certainly convey incredible detail, if it's got a good motor and suspension behind it. As good as the sandwich cone version of my HDS is, I have no reason to think that the Nomex version wouldn't be at least the equal of it.

                                I was ecstatic at the resulting sound from these towers with the 850439. Best implementation I've ever heard for that unit, and I've built and heard many variations on a two-way. No doubt the same can be achieved with the 831735, and doing a full 3-way will really knock your socks off, and blow the wax out of your ears.
                                Thanks Pete. To clarify, I was envisioning 830875 or 831735 Nomex on the bottom with 850439 sandwich CSX cone on the mid. I wasn't too worried about the mid's breakup with the sandwich cone, but rather the breakup on the Nomex woofers disrupting the midrange.

                                And thanks for clarifying the XO filters - I apparently missed you posting LR2 and LR4 earlier. Sorry 'bout that.
                                SEC DIY 2014 Speaker Show is on! *November 8th*
                                Wanna win a set of Newform Research R30 ribbons?!?!
                                SEC DIY 2014 Thread

                                SEC DIY 2012 Speaker Show
                                SEC DIY 2011 Speaker Show

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X