• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Differences between tweeter designs?

JustIntonation

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
480
Likes
293
I've decided to build my own speakers and am orienting myself as to the best design for my specific needs.
Am hoping some here are already well read into the science behind different tweeter designs and can point me in the right direction :)

I'll be treating a part of my room with enough absorption to turn it into a nearly semi-anechoical space. (have experience doing this)
In it I'll be listening nearfield at a distance of 1 to 1.5m (roughly 4 feet) without any reflections in the highs, only small reflections from the very thick fluffy wool carpet in the mids, and the reflections in the lows besides the floor will be mostly from the sidewalls through 15cm of glasswool absorption but the speakers will be placed against the side walls (so no destructive interference, I'll eq the "constructive interference" flat and use it to my advantage). No real modes in the bass from the side walls as one sidewall is only 2.50m high and the ceiling 4.20m leading to a much bigger room, no modes front-back either and no modes floor ceiling either (all absorbed with 30cm+ glasswool and big enough distances / total room size).

So in this room I will not need to worry about radiation from the speaker at all. So no need for waveguides, and no need for a more even radiation from the tweeter. I'll be listening only to the direct on-axis sound from the tweeter.
I think I would like to start with a 2 way system and later add a sub. A 2 way because it will be easier to build with a small front baffle for nearfield listening.
So for this is would be helpful if the tweeter can support a low crossover point (for instance 1600Hz 24dB/oct?) to get any mid-woofer breakup totally out of the picture (not only the breakup mode itself but preferably the third harmonic down from the breakup mode well reduced in volume as well as it can still excite the breakup mode if I'm reading things correctly).
I also do not need a lot of volume from the tweeter in the highs as I'll be listening so close, though if the tweeter is crossed over so low I may need the volume I can get at close to the crossover frequency.

So what are the differences in tweeter design?
For for instance roughly around $100 per tweeter. What are my best options?
Dynamic dome tweeter? Treated paper or metal? I see there are differences in breakup modes, does metal have lower distortion? Can I use either crossed over at a lower point? Any suggestions here? (I know there are a lot of specific things to pay attention to, but I mean general differences at this price point for paper vs metal)
Ribbon tweeters. Can these offer any advantage at roughly this price point?
I know there are other tweeters, AMT, or even electrostats etc. Right now not looking at them deeply but for my specific application any reason to think I may do good to look at alternatives?

I'm looking of course for the best overall solution for my application at roughly this price point for tweeters for the most flat low distortion transparant sound.
Any help/suggestions from experienced people appreciated! :) (I know that in the end for a specific tweeter I'll have to look at CSD's etc)

Btw, I haven't decided yet how I'll handle the crossover. Passive, active and bi-amping or perhaps do the crossover in DSP or even one the computer then to DAC for each driver then to amp for each driver. I would like to make the speakers impulse / phase correct and I have too little knowledge of passive crossovers now to know how I'll achieve this so it'll probably become either active or DSP (or I'd have to not use a flat baffle but slanted.. least attractive option for me now I think)
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
I'd recommend the Peerless 810921 aka ScanSpeak Discovery D2608/9130 as it has the lowest low-treble distortion of any 1" dome tweeter I've seen measured, has no apparent flaws, and is a crazy bargain at just $75.

Although you might not need horns to control directivity, loading the dome with a horn/waveguide will also result in significantly lower distortion in the low treble, so might be something to consider.

Something like this will load the tweeter down to a bit below 2000Hz if my estimations are correct.

I don't have much experience with AMTs, ribbons, electrostats etc, but my feeling is that if $100 is the budget, you won't find anything very high quality in that direction...

What is your max SPL requirement?
 
OP
JustIntonation

JustIntonation

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
480
Likes
293
I'd recommend the Peerless 810921 aka ScanSpeak Discovery D2608/9130 as it has the lowest low-treble distortion of any 1" dome tweeter I've seen measured, has no apparent flaws, and is a crazy bargain at just $75.

Although you might not need horns to control directivity, loading the dome with a horn/waveguide will also result in significantly lower distortion in the low treble, so might be something to consider.

Something like this will load the tweeter down to a bit below 2000Hz if my estimations are correct.

I don't have much experience with AMTs, ribbons, electrostats etc, but my feeling is that if $100 is the budget, you won't find anything very high quality in that direction...

What is your max SPL requirement?
Aah that is interesting. It's a soft dome and I saw a metal dome used this way with low crossover by Amphion https://amphion.fi/create/products-pro-audio/studio-monitors/one18-nearfield-studio-monitor/ . They use I belief a Seas prestige metal dome crossed over at 1600Hz, I thought it's an interesting design. (though way overpriced, as are their Anaview AMS based amps which you can very easily assemble yourself in a few minutes for 1/3 the cost).
Are there no differences between metal domes vs soft domes in this regard (low treble)?
Are there general differences between metal domes vs soft domes other than the seemingly way smoother breakup modes of the soft domes?

Yes I read about the loading of the lower treble with a waveguide to effectively boost the direct sound volume of the lower treble, although I'm hesitant to do this as there's more chance for me to mess up with a waveguide (I don't even know yet the ways I can mess it up by placing it slightly wrong etc or any other potential downsides) and the extra trouble for integrating it into the baffle etc. And since I don't care about radiating pattern 'm thinking I'll be happier with a few dB less clean volume and no hassle but maybe I should consider a waveguide..

Well $100 is not exact. If it has to be $200 per tweeter then so be it..
Electrostat can be more expensive of course since it would take away the cost of the speaker box, the mid driver, the crossover etc. I could spend $1000 on a pair of electrostats or try to build them myself and add a sub. But will they give me a flat response to 20kHz, great CSD (no ringing etc) and low distortion? If so then why aren't more people building them? A dipole isn't a problem in my situation as the rear wave will get absorbed, but for other people why haven't they simply put an electrostat in a box absorbing the rear wave that way and add a sub?
It is something I'm a little bit contemplating.. but very sceptic. Do you pehaps know of any anechoic measurements of electrostats?

And in general, do you know where I can find quality info on driver CSD's and distortion measurements? Is diyaudio.com the place to go? Also looking for a place to find info on the various way to do the crossover in DSP / computer.
Total newbie right now, first time I'm going to build a multi driver speaker :) (or very maybe an electrostat but know way too little about them and how they compare to dynamics right now)
 
OP
JustIntonation

JustIntonation

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
480
Likes
293
Oh and one more thing. I was wondering if there's any place that does intermodulation distortion tests with drivers. I've never seen such a test for drivers and would be very interested to see if there are any differences in the results for metal vs soft domes.
One crazy thing is that I personally only have bad experiences with metal dome tweeters.. but this could very well be implementation.
I can tell from experience though that if there's any harshness / stored energy in the tweeter that in a near anechoic listening situation I'm going to hear it like crazy.. Treble is really the achilles heal for such a situation, I want it to be as "transparent" and fast as possible and will probably still have to tune it down a little..
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
And in general, do you know where I can find quality info on driver CSD's and distortion measurements? Is diyaudio.com the place to go? Also looking for a place to find info on the various way to do the crossover in DSP / computer.

My two preferred sources of quality driver measurements are Zaphaudio and Voice Coil magazine (which you need to subscribe to but which is free).

Are there no differences between metal domes vs soft domes in this regard (low treble)?

In general, metal domes break up higher in frequency but harder than soft domes. Other than that, differences depend on many factors other than the material. Generally I don't go into a design with a preconceived idea about what diaphragm material to use - the measurements basically tell the story better than any specific detail of the driver design.

...there's more chance for me to mess up with a waveguide

This is true :) I assume you're using active DSP for the crossovers? That makes it a lot easier, but without much experience you should do what you're comfortable with.

Electrostat can be more expensive of course since it would take away the cost of the speaker box, the mid driver, the crossover etc. I could spend $1000 on a pair of electrostats or try to build them myself and add a sub. But will they give me a flat response to 20kHz, great CSD (no ringing etc) and low distortion? If so then why aren't more people building them? A dipole isn't a problem in my situation as the rear wave will get absorbed, but for other people why haven't they simply put an electrostat in a box absorbing the rear wave that way and add a sub?
It is something I'm a little bit contemplating.. but very sceptic. Do you pehaps know of any anechoic measurements of electrostats?

Don't have any experience with electrostats unfortunately... Don't know of any measurements either.

I'd suggest for a first design to stick to cones and domes personally, but someone with a lot of experience with other formats may be able to help get you over the line with a more exotic design.

Oh and one more thing. I was wondering if there's any place that does intermodulation distortion tests with drivers.

There are some IM tests of various drivers here. It's a PA driver focused site though. Not aware of much in terms of home audio...
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,201
Likes
16,982
Location
Riverview FL
I'm going to build a multi driver speaker :) (or very maybe an electrostat but know way too little about them and how they compare to dynamics right now)

I have MartinLogan reQuest, 15x48 panel, crossing to sealed 12" woofer at 180Hz.

They have a high voltage power supply - maybe 2500V.

They have a step-up transformer, maybe 1:100 to convert the amplifier voltage to drive the stators to wiggle the statically charged membrane, and some crossover, actually a low pass and separate highpass. Image below.

They're low distortion.

They'll cleanly play louder than I can listen in this room. I've measured 116.9dB on a brief drum track (calibrated recording and playback experiment). Sounded "right" but also sounded dangerously loud.

My initial demo for 'stats was a pair of SL3 at one end of a large (real large - maybe 30x45x16) back room (their high-end stuff) at a Sound Advice store, with 500W/4Ohm amp attached. The salesman got paged, handed me the remote and left.

I just kept cranking them up. That was in 1994, I think. I liked them, bought them, later bought the next size up (reQuest), have had them for 20 years now. The SL3 are in the bedroom.

They show up on ebay from time to time for $1000~2000/pair.

Folks who like 'stats like them, folks who don't, don't. What else is new?

1536571937099.png
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
Possibly out of price range but I like this AMT.

https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c.../mundorf-amt23cm1.1-c-air-motion-tweeter-amt/

Problem is that once you start looking in detail into this you cant help come to the conclusion that 2 ways are always going to be a compromise, and that passive crossovers are always going to be a hugely limiting factor.

If interested please take a look at my journey which ended up as an active 3 way dsp XO with acourate software and 4 subs.

https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/3-way-dsp-xo.991/post-43649
 
Last edited:
OP
JustIntonation

JustIntonation

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
480
Likes
293
Thanks for the suggestions!

I've been doing a lot of reading..
Still pretty much completely undecided on what to build.

One train of thought leads me to something in the direction of the Amphion One18 https://amphion.fi/create/products-pro-audio/studio-monitors/one18-nearfield-studio-monitor/ passive crossover 2-way with possibly a waveguide or else at least the treble placed back a bit on a stepped baffle to allign it in phase/impulse with the midwoofer without having to use a "phase filter" (don't know what it's called), with the possibility to later add a sub.
I have an Anaview AMS0100 amp here right now which I can use for a while, it's 50wpc but plenty for now for nearfield use.
This is the cheaper and tried and tested method and with the right selection of drivers, probably Seas like the One18, will likely work well enough.
I can then also keep my Anedio D2 DAC which I'm very happy with.

Another train of thought is to go with a Hypex Fusion plate amp with built in DSP. May as well make it a 3 way then and was thinking something like this is an interesting design: http://barefootsound.com/footprint01/
I can use a simple flat front baffle like the barefoot and time allign the drivers with a delay with the DSP. Can experiment with crossovers and EQ-ing all I want with the DSP. And can use two 8" drivers on the sides and closed box without porting time alligned and EQ-ed to go low with the DSP.
However.. I have some experience with closed 3 way systems. I've had 3 Klein+Hummel speakers in the past, two older and quite big ones and the O300. There were things to like about them and things I didn't like about them. And if I read the reviews of the Barefoot MM27 I can't help but recognize something which I really disliked about the O300 and was infact a dealbreaker for me. There was a phasy sound and forwardness in the upper mids which was really terrible for transparancy / deep imaging / relaxed feel. It was very hard to get right in that area with placement. I think especially the floor (or alernatively desk) reflection was terrible but I'm not sure if that was the only thing. Am I going to be free enough in my new room to not be bothered by this? My small 1m x 60cm desk will be largely transparent made out of small wooden planks with air inbetween and a wool persian carpet on it and the floor is thick fluffy wool carpet. I can still imagine that a system built like this is indeed very sensitive to having only the direct sound as correct and a small sweetspot. Which is kinda what I wanted but never having achieved this well enough in the past makes me a little bit nervous.
Also this system will be about 1000 euro per speaker to build and I'll have to sell my current DAC for the money and because there's already a (multi channel) DAC inside Hypex DSP. The idea of selling my DAC makes me a bit sad, but well I'd get over it if it turns out correclty. If it doesn't turn out fantastic I'm going to be very sad though.. 2000 euro and a lot of effort spent and my DAC gone. Oh and also have no use for my Anaview AMS0100 amp in this system.

And yet another path would be to go with an AMT tweeter / upper mid. I actually once had a good internet business when young and had too much money and got a pair of very expensive speaker which had the original AMT Heil tweeters (Omicron Coherence Stage). I wasn't very experienced back then and have to go by sound memory from 16 or so years ago but they did sound great and with the right music a very transparent deep soundstage. I drove them with a Manely tube amp back then and in this combination they were a bit too sweetening for my current taste but this could very well have been the amp.
I already saw that the AMT tweeters measure well, have to look at it in a bit more detail compared to dome tweeters and ribbons.
350 euro/dollar is indeed a bit expensive, same price goes for the original big AMT Heil transformer which can still be bought from ESS I saw (and btw Elac also makes an AMT tweeter the Jet 5). But if it is truly useful low enough and all one has to do is add an 6.5"or 7" and the sound is fantastic it may be worth it? Have to look at it in more detail.

And an electrostat. Well I don't need the crazy volume levels so a smaller pannel would likely be enough. Have to also look into this more including measurements which I still haven't seen anywhere.
There's a recording engineer who I like, Onno Scholtze, who ended up for his personal monitoring set listening to a set of Quads nearfield in near semi-anechoic conditions. Now this is an experienced man with fantastic ears and if he ends up monitoring like this that says something (after all he was there doing the recordings himself with simple pure 2 omni setup (ONNO mic setup bares his name) so who better to say how to hear the recording as real as being there). On top of that I will also be listening near-semi anechoic. So while I don't want to go down the path of electrostats for convenience etc, it's not out of my mind yet. One other thing is that I've been reading up a lot about HRTF for headphones and basically will stop using headphones altogether it's just a too flawed concept currently. Monitors are far more natural, but what perhaps monitors don't do completely natural is the point source thing. The ear will give a very specific and sharp "EQ" for a specific direction, but electrostats spread out direction and may give smoother listening / HRTF when listening near-anechoic (in reverberant rooms sound will still come from all angles even with point source speakers)
Pff now that I'm writing this I'm beginning to think that perhaps I should not be too afraid and at least try electrostats once my room is finished..

Thanks for the suggestions and help!
Oh and those AMT selfbuilt 3 way speakers look very very nice! :) Will read up on the crossover/DSP software used as well! Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
[snip...]

And an electrostat. Well I don't need the crazy volume levels so a smaller pannel would likely be enough. Have to also look into this more including measurements which I still haven't seen anywhere.
There's a recording engineer who I like, Onno Scholtze, who ended up for his personal monitoring set listening to a set of Quads nearfield in near semi-anechoic conditions. Now this is an experienced man with fantastic ears and if he ends up monitoring like this that says something. On top of that I will also be listening near-semi anechoic. So while I don't want to go down the path of electrostats for convenience etc, it's not out of my mind yet. One other thing is that I've been reading up a lot about HRTF for headphones and basically will stop using headphones altogether it's just a too flawed concept currently. Monitors are far more natural, but what perhaps monitors don't do completely natural is the point source thing. The ear will give a very specific and sharp "EQ" for a specific direction, but electrostats spread out direction and may give smoother imaging when listening near-anechoic, in reverberant rooms sound will still come from all angles..
Pff now that I'm writing this I'm beginning to think that perhaps I should not be too afraid and at least try electrostats once my room is finished..

You would be wise to cross DIY electrostats totally off your list. Using off the shelf dynamic drivers is challenging enough. But, with electrostats, there is a world of exotic materials, very tight tolerances, trial and (potentially catastrophic) error and sheer technical know how involved with electrostats. Yes, there are kits and DIY instructions if you don’t mind taking a crap shoot on how they will sound until it is too late after buying and paying for them.

Like Ray, I have Martin Logan ‘stat hybrids. Love ‘em. But, I see man-years of design and development involved in getting any and all electrostat prototypes working adequately. And, even early generations of commercially released Martin Logan’s weren’t so hot. It took many more years of development and refinement to make them worth owning. Early designs also had many panel failures. I did on my early CLS’s, which went through many design iterations in the field - I to Ia to II to IIa to IIz, and I probably skipped a few which occurred over 10-15 years on a basically inefficient, very dynamically limiting speaker with no bass. Hybrids with cone woofers are better, but it took ML a while to get that sorted out and working adequately.

Wiki says the Quad 63 design was begun in 1963, but the speaker did not appear commercially until 1981!. This for a company already having major ‘stat design expertise from the Quad 57, which, though legendary, was quite flawed.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
If you're planning to design the speakers yourself too, I'd strongly recommend the Hypex DSP plate amps or something else similar for your first project.

Passive crossovers take a lot more work, each trial and error involves extra expense, and unless you're willing to do (and pay for) a large number of iterations, you won't achieve the same sound quality as with an easily reconfigurable DSP (all I've said doesn't apply to an off-the-shelf DIY speaker of course, which has a pre-designed crossover already).

Keep us posted and good luck :)
 
OP
JustIntonation

JustIntonation

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
480
Likes
293
Thanks for the suggestions and help! :)
I've decided on my path for now.
I'm first going to finish treating my room. Then I'm going to demo a refurbished pair of Quad ESL 63 in my room on stands at nearfield listening distance of between 1 to 1.5m (roughly 4 feet) with my 50wpc Anaview AMS0100 amp and Anedio D2 DAC. I'll also have a measurement mic then and will measure the result.
If that doesn't bring me audio nirvana I'll build my own speakers. (I know the quads won't give me more than 90dB for bassy music at 1m but that's enough if the quality is fantastic)
So I'll report back in a month or so whether the Quads worked for me or if I'm in for more work :) (likely indeed with a multi channel Hypex Fusion plate amp with built in DSP)
 

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
2,527
Likes
3,308
Location
Midwest, USA
This thread is making me want to build a giant pair of 3 or 4 way towers that I have absolutely no room for....
 

dc655321

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2018
Messages
1,597
Likes
2,235
I have not heard these, but the Seas DXT "lens" tweeter looks good to me.
Measures well too.

EDIT: I believe this is the tweeter used in the Kii Three. Or, at least the DXT housing is used (coupled to a different driver).
 
Last edited:

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,201
Likes
16,982
Location
Riverview FL
I'm beginning to think that perhaps I should not be too afraid and at least try electrostats once my room is finished..

It's not that hard to get a taste. Don't know where you are, but...

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fr...=martin+logan+electrostatic+speakers&_sacat=0

The cross frequency to the woofer varies with different models, so look them up.

Here you go, this is what I'd buy:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Martin-Log...929662?hash=item520fa721be:g:YfIAAOSwv3lbiojU

Or maybe this. Old top of the line (except for the insane models)

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Martin-Log...441747?hash=item520febfb13:g:-tcAAOSw4aha9OSv
 

Furio

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2018
Messages
15
Likes
14
Location
Turin, ITALY
This is something I am really interested in.
I built during last 30 years some loudspeakers for myself and friends, usually bookshelves, two ways, simple and cheap.
I learnt how much a "bad" tweeter can damage a good project: I hate resonances in high frequencies close to audio range.
I remember 80's Focal units, reverse dome, titanium, expensive, fast, extended range, but for me absolutely not sustainable, high listening fatigue.
Then a famous Peerless (the moustache tweeter, model KO-10DT), cheap, not extended range, but acceptable to my ears.
I found a good compromise with Dynaudio units (D28, D260 esotec, T-330 esotar): nearly perfect but deadly expensive.
I used a lot of Dynaudio tweeters, never found a Scanspeak that was sounding something better.

But the real jump would have been an AMT: I remember the original first device used in ESS Transar systems.
Wonderful: very fast, no distortion, deeply sweet, no resonance.
So good that it was nearly impossible to find a good matching mid-woofer.
Dipole emission, dipersion, speed, everything was so wildly good that a noraml piston cone sounded Neanderthal.

Now all these Mundorf AMTs: are they really good?
Maybe expensive, I never dared to try two units for a nerw project.
I never had a chance to listen to a DYI project using them in a good way: do you think it is worth a test?
Which one do you suggest? The AMT29, which is marked as the best?

Thanks for any suggestion...
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
Ah, yes, the Heil Air Motion Transformers. Pretty clever, I thought. And, good sounding. Good to see them make a comeback. A number of brands have embraced them as tweeters with good results.

At an audio demo decades ago, an audiophile spoke up and said horn speakers sounded better than others on trumpet music, obviously as they must because of their similarities in shape. I said, maybe, but if you really like accordion music, you gotta get a speaker with an AMT.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,201
Likes
16,982
Location
Riverview FL
OP
JustIntonation

JustIntonation

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
480
Likes
293
Well I've come to my senses regarding electrostatics for nearfield monitoring for my situation.
For a bordeline affordable refurbished Quad ESL 63: they're big, prone to problems with expensive repairs, not studio level flat in frequency response, sloping high treble, low in level, not well tested for nearfield monitoring in near anechoic conditions (only know of one person), if the bass is eq-ed flat and deep they have very low level, can't afford a sub to go with them coming time, measurements show some minor resonances, not sure of the physics regarding how the waves from the pannels combine etc especially for semi-anechoic nearfield monitoring, don't know much about the panel delays to mimic a point source implemented in the ESL 63, hard to place them on stands and angle them it seems to me, don't like that they are dipoles as it messes up my plans for my room treatment where I leave the space behind the speakers the least treated. Etc.

So I then decided to build my own speakers after all. And I find I really like learning how to do this so I'm already enjoying myself :)
What I already learned is what a mess crossovers are most of the time!! Wow. I didn't know it was this bad.
Getting to know the math behind filters and their phase behavior, very interesting.
I then set up a few crossovers with EQ plugins and played music through them listening to the results mostly on my headphones. In this ideal situation while simulating on-axis response crossovers sounded all just perfect, no problems. But slight deviations from the ideal axis revealed their nature.. wow. I heard so many bad speakers come by! Set the simulated crossovers to various slopes from 12dB to 96dB and various crossover points from 200Hz to 4000Hz and listened to the off axis responses. The worst are 12dB crossover regarding phasing and 96dB regarding ringing. The best compromise for me was around 36dB crossover I think, good balance between phasing and ringing (note there is of course no phasing and no ringing with any of these on-axis). This was all with minimal phase filters which have the exact same phase response as real analogue filters. I didn't test it in depth but the sound of linear phase was slightly different but couldn't yet tell you if it was worse, perhaps equally bad at its best quality setting, but it has a long delay which isn't good for me for music making.
What also surpised me is that I couldn't really hear the difference with a smooth phase shift. You know the bad impusle wave you see with loudspeakers. Couldn't really tell the difference on headphones between the perfect impulse and the classic "smeared impulse" resulting from a 24dB Linkwitz-Riley crossover. (so again why go linear phase for crossovers which has only downsides otherwise).
I then did the math regarding vertical listening angle for crossover frequencies and driver distances. And the way I've been using speakers it's BAD. For instance when I had my K+H O300 it has a 3300Hz crossover between treble and mid driver which were spaced not particularly close. And I think they may have used a crossover set so that on axis it is flat and that all angles combined are flat as well, so some angles off-axis produce a dip and phasing and some angles produce a bump and phasing. And I often ended up sitting in either one of these to some degree! I hated those sounds very very much, and I can now simulate them as I described above (and there were other problems as well with the speaker). It's just a bad design in my opinion for at least nearfield use where the head is not in exactly one vertical position all the time (at least not me when using the computer and keyboard etc, sitting forward at times backward at other times, sometimes upright sometimes more slumped etc). And I've had this with other speakers as well.
So what I think now is that for me a crossover should be as low as possible and is a compromise with volume and distortion in the lower treble, and that the treble should be as close to the mid/midwoofer as possible. In fact I think I want a three-way because of this, one can take a small 4inch mid driver and place it close to the treble. Less than 10cm and with a crossover of for instance 1600Hz and a Linkwitz-Riley crossover then the off-axis dipp falls 90 degrees or more relative to on-axis. So it will be more like a coaxial driver combo.
I think now this is a very important aspect of a good sounding speaker and knowing this now I feel confident enough to start designing my own speaker (after some more learning of course) and be sure enough I'll like the results :)
Anyhow I can really recomend setting up virtual crossovers and listening to their off-axis responses for those of you who haven't done this yet!
 
Top Bottom