• 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!

Small midrange in 3 way system

OP
D

Digital_Thor

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
381
Likes
330
Location
Denmark
So... trying to pick up all the lose ends :)
Zvu has a point about the 10F. I can afford it and it measures really well. But Headshake has a good point too. It's very small and even though the low mass and good measurements are close to ideal, then my SB23 will suffer a bit, because of distortion - If it has to be clean, let it be clean.
I'm willing to change woofers too. Out with the paper SB and in with some Dayton RS225's or maybe a single Satori WO24.
MrPeabody could be right about the CTC - but the 10F is very small and if I went for the Bliesma T25 - which is even smaller - like Zvu mentioned - , then they would all be even closer. But here the T25 surprises me a bit - that off-axis looks super smooth.... what about the front baffle?

Keith Conroy has mentioned some details about drivers - that kinda all points to a Textreme - like the 5" 13TX that I started out with in my questions. But what I mostly see, is drivers having higher mass, for them to play lower in a 2 way design - not the best midrange right?
My current RS125's cone weighs around 5gr. The 10F weighs 3 gr - better I guess - and smaller too. Physics seems to rule here.

It would be nice for them not to have a really annoying shape, so I need some weird cut-out and end up with a speaker that is also not that nice to look at...... looks is nice - after all.

I mostly use 4'th order LR filters. It seems like a good compromise between all the hard choices in filtering a speaker - at least between midrange and tweeter that is. The software I use, can pin-point exactly the gain and Q that would fit a given EQ best. So if I have a pump in the response. Then I can actually simulate the change in the response - as I change the response in the DSP.
I run 3 x 200W in 8 ohms for the mains and has 800W class H amplifier for the subwoofers. The system is really quiet and refined, which makes it awesome to listen to the depth of recordings and enjoying the accurate position of voices and instrument in the sound image.
The reason I go for a well behaved dispersion/directivity. Is because I always liked speakers with this type of behavior. Building my speaker with the same criteria - seem to make me relax when listening to music and simply makes me want more.
Wavecor is interesting, since they have a very high Qms - which should be good.... even though it has a rather high weight of the cone. Maybe this helps with damping?
I've tried many drivers. SB15NRX, Illuminator 5", Accuton C82-T8 and now the RS125. Paper seems to damped.... lacking detail - whereas the Accuton kept me happy for years.... also played it really loud with a Seas Magnum tweeter - after I disliked the Morel Supreme. Since then hard cones/domes was my way to go.
Paper drivers seems to breakup already around 1kHz.... smoothly but clearly. Maybe this is what gives them a slightly less detailed sound - because the breaking up, dampens the sound, when the drivers lose it's pistonic movement and flexes(in a "nice" way).
I did try to dampen the breakup on my Accuton - which in return lowered the low order harminics too. But the RS125 seemed to make all this easier, by pushing the break-up further up.
I did try the BMS 6C150 - which I fell for at a show with a set of Geuine Audio Neo. Again at home... it seems to lack detail in the upper midrange - even though I do think that it plays fine..... but still "PA" not refined like HIFI - in the lack of a better description.
The RS125 is a surprising little thing... that plays cleanly and open.... pretty loud too. But if there was something a bit more awesome..... then why not?
Purifi is paper... it breaks up too... just lower in frequency.... just smoother. Again... is this what makes them lack detail? Can it be too detailed? Or do people just usally prefer a "warmer" sound.... which also makes it easier for passive filters?
Hipper is spot on. Building a fully active system with great power and control, to get the bass perfect. This helped tons on midrange/tweeter clarity - no doubt about it. I have preaching multi-subs and bass-EQ for years now, because of this.
Peerless NE series could be a nice choice too. It's a paper cone, but It sure measures nicely. No off-axis on hifi-compass though.

Did I miss anyone?
 

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,518
Likes
7,028
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
mu10 is fine. low mms is a key point to better midrange.

I concur that they are fine. They are about half the price of the scan speak and the compromise is mainly sensitivity.
That matters less in active speaker. :cool:
 

Zvu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 1, 2020
Messages
830
Likes
1,416
Location
Serbia
Well, they are quite less linear in frequency domain than Scan 10f - look at dips forming between 1-2kHz on and off axis. Frankly, i can not see any advantage of Seas mu10 over Peerless TC9 (which measures better and sounds great).
 

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,518
Likes
7,028
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
Well, they are quite less linear in frequency domain than Scan 10f - look at dips forming between 1-2kHz on and off axis. Frankly, i can not see any advantage of Seas mu10 over Peerless TC9 (which measures better and sounds great).

Might have a point on the TC9, but not seeing all the measurements comparatively. Not much for truncated frames unless you like building jigs or have a CNC though.

It was a while ago that he did his analysis, but Linkwitz is no slouch engineer, so pretty sure the mu10 is better than you suspect. I will share more when I test it. :cool:

If the OP wants to spend for the 10f, fine by me. Am about value and it is not twice the driver for the price.
 

Zvu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 1, 2020
Messages
830
Likes
1,416
Location
Serbia
I don't have measurements for Seas MU10, there are measurements for Seas FU10 though. Peerless TC9 measured in the same conditions so they are comparable.

FU10_FreqResp.pngTC9_FreqResp.png
FU10_RelHarm.pngTC9_RelHarm.png

Maybe Linkwitz did something special to Seas MU10 so i'm eager to see the measurements. I've bought 8 pieces of Peerless TC9 if Tymphany ever decided to discontinue them. Any decent house should have at least one pair of those :)

If anybody has HobbyHiFi 3/2015 - Seas MU10 is measured there.
 
Last edited:
OP
D

Digital_Thor

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
381
Likes
330
Location
Denmark
This is how it looks now. Only valid from around 750hz and above - because of gating. I don't have exact angles, but simply tried to see if things worked liked I hoped.

Directivity DXT RS.jpg
 
OP
D

Digital_Thor

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
381
Likes
330
Location
Denmark
Yes - it does look very nice. But I've heard so much about having a high Qms is great. The Zaph driver seems to have a low Qms just like the Dayton.
Like I have found many places on the internet..... A Satori with a hard cone - maybe metal - would be nice. Even the Textreme does not seem to have exactly that ability as the metal drivers - like dispersion.
When looking into details... I could simply chose the Dayton RS150 - 4 ohms. It'll give me 91,8dB.
 
OP
D

Digital_Thor

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
381
Likes
330
Location
Denmark
Others midranges mentioned are excellent at some aspects but mediocre at others. 10f4424/10f8424 is so well ballanced that only thing i could say is that it misses some sensitivity but it has only 36cm2 of cone area. One is good, two are better. For ultimate regular loudspeaker (not ultimate concept of course - what is that???) i'd use some 8"-10"alu cone woofer/s, two 10f's in mtm and Bliesma T25B-6 tweeter.
So.... what makes the other midranges mediocre? I know you wrote that none of them are bad.... but the word 'mediocre' caught my attention ;)
 
Last edited:
OP
D

Digital_Thor

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
381
Likes
330
Location
Denmark
SB12MNRX2-25-4 4" This one looks like a close candidate to 10F.... with a bit more Sd.
 

Keith Conroy

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
79
Likes
115
So... trying to pick up all the lose ends :)
Zvu has a point about the 10F. I can afford it and it measures really well. But Headshake has a good point too. It's very small and even though the low mass and good measurements are close to ideal, then my SB23 will suffer a bit, because of distortion - If it has to be clean, let it be clean.
I'm willing to change woofers too. Out with the paper SB and in with some Dayton RS225's or maybe a single Satori WO24.
MrPeabody could be right about the CTC - but the 10F is very small and if I went for the Bliesma T25 - which is even smaller - like Zvu mentioned - , then they would all be even closer. But here the T25 surprises me a bit - that off-axis looks super smooth.... what about the front baffle?

Keith Conroy has mentioned some details about drivers - that kinda all points to a Textreme - like the 5" 13TX that I started out with in my questions. But what I mostly see, is drivers having higher mass, for them to play lower in a 2 way design - not the best midrange right?
My current RS125's cone weighs around 5gr. The 10F weighs 3 gr - better I guess - and smaller too. Physics seems to rule here.

It would be nice for them not to have a really annoying shape, so I need some weird cut-out and end up with a speaker that is also not that nice to look at...... looks is nice - after all.

I mostly use 4'th order LR filters. It seems like a good compromise between all the hard choices in filtering a speaker - at least between midrange and tweeter that is. The software I use, can pin-point exactly the gain and Q that would fit a given EQ best. So if I have a pump in the response. Then I can actually simulate the change in the response - as I change the response in the DSP.
I run 3 x 200W in 8 ohms for the mains and has 800W class H amplifier for the subwoofers. The system is really quiet and refined, which makes it awesome to listen to the depth of recordings and enjoying the accurate position of voices and instrument in the sound image.
The reason I go for a well behaved dispersion/directivity. Is because I always liked speakers with this type of behavior. Building my speaker with the same criteria - seem to make me relax when listening to music and simply makes me want more.
Wavecor is interesting, since they have a very high Qms - which should be good.... even though it has a rather high weight of the cone. Maybe this helps with damping?
I've tried many drivers. SB15NRX, Illuminator 5", Accuton C82-T8 and now the RS125. Paper seems to damped.... lacking detail - whereas the Accuton kept me happy for years.... also played it really loud with a Seas Magnum tweeter - after I disliked the Morel Supreme. Since then hard cones/domes was my way to go.
Paper drivers seems to breakup already around 1kHz.... smoothly but clearly. Maybe this is what gives them a slightly less detailed sound - because the breaking up, dampens the sound, when the drivers lose it's pistonic movement and flexes(in a "nice" way).
I did try to dampen the breakup on my Accuton - which in return lowered the low order harminics too. But the RS125 seemed to make all this easier, by pushing the break-up further up.
I did try the BMS 6C150 - which I fell for at a show with a set of Geuine Audio Neo. Again at home... it seems to lack detail in the upper midrange - even though I do think that it plays fine..... but still "PA" not refined like HIFI - in the lack of a better description.
The RS125 is a surprising little thing... that plays cleanly and open.... pretty loud too. But if there was something a bit more awesome..... then why not?
Purifi is paper... it breaks up too... just lower in frequency.... just smoother. Again... is this what makes them lack detail? Can it be too detailed? Or do people just usally prefer a "warmer" sound.... which also makes it easier for passive filters?
Hipper is spot on. Building a fully active system with great power and control, to get the bass perfect. This helped tons on midrange/tweeter clarity - no doubt about it. I have preaching multi-subs and bass-EQ for years now, because of this.
Peerless NE series could be a nice choice too. It's a paper cone, but It sure measures nicely. No off-axis on hifi-compass though.

Did I miss anyone?
I read the above write up. I will make a couple more comments for clarification & then just read comments and stay out of the reply side. I don't know the weight of TeXtreme per square inch or per square centimeter. This could be looked up. On the total moving mass other parts of the moving system add weight. The length of the coil wind is a big deal. This along with other suspension parts factor in on total mass. Also the force available to drive this moving mass is a big deal. This is why I tried to give you a true force/mass ratio to look at this. I tried to point out your crossover point & slope is a big factor in your ultimate selection. Do you need a long coil. Using a coil with too long of wind could be a disadvantage in your selection. Then sensitivity needed is a big deal. This is based on the needs of the rest of the system. If the mid is straining all the low distortion numbers will go out the window. Rather then pick a specific model I tried to give you some scientific criteria to evaluate different brands and models. Again I would select your crossover points & your SPL needs for the system 1st. Then have someone model the mids in a simulation program. What size box are you using. Whats the stuffing. How does it model. This should give some idea of excursion needed. It should allow you to zero in on sensitivity needs. I can't remember if you spoke about your cabinet for the mid-range. Is it open back.........Aperiotic..........sealed??? Anyway you have a ton of solid choices. The best choice might be about truly understanding your system midrange needs in great detail? Best of luck in your final selection!!!
 

Zvu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 1, 2020
Messages
830
Likes
1,416
Location
Serbia
So.... what makes the other midranges mediocre? I know you wrote that none of them are bad.... but the word 'mediocre' caught my attention ;)

When i recommend something, i always look from passive crossover design perspective - even if it will be active. If something is easy to work with when designing passive crossover, it will be easier in active too. Breakups, frequency response linearity, resonances in the passband (due to cone/suspension termination, dome resonances etc.), sensitivity and harmonic distortion are all in consideration when i look at the driver. It would be ideal if Klippel data was available, but other than Kartesian, i know of no other brand providing that data.

For TS parameters, on the other hand, i'm almost uninterested. I look at it in woofers for passive ported and closed designs. If i would be doing active closed woofer, then i'd be interested in sensitivity, Fs and Xmax/Xlim. I did look at TS before and by looking only one parameter, there wasn't any correlation with what i hear.

I used high Qms midwoofer (SB17NRXC35-8) and mids were dull. I used low Qms midwoofer (Seas L15RLY) and mids are great. What @Keith Conroy wrote to you about motor strength is what counts in the end - if you're going to look at TS.
 
Last edited:

headshake

Active Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2019
Messages
297
Likes
238
I attached an image from my tinkering with vcad before I picked drivers. I was trying to see the max SPL's of each with an XO in place. So this is a TS param curve with the eq needed to get a baffle sim + SPL trace flat. I find it is helpful to see if you break the xmax with the filters used in the sim. This is me trying to pimp using vcad to sim before you buy.

One downside of having a small tweeter and mid super close seems to be some bounce off the mid at certain freq.. I am seeing this in my speaker.

edit: I forgot to mention, the 10f was something I looked at before I went with something else. Since you are using DSP you could have a second mode where you turn off your tweeter and listen through the 10f full-range. It would be like having 2 speakers in one.
 

Attachments

  • Scan-Speak 10F vs mr13 vs 12cac.png
    Scan-Speak 10F vs mr13 vs 12cac.png
    71.7 KB · Views: 106
OP
D

Digital_Thor

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
381
Likes
330
Location
Denmark
Thanks a lot to Keith Conroy and Zvu :)
Low moving mass does make sense. As an analogy -putting more horsepower in a heavier car, does not make it drive like a lighter one - without some kind of compromise at least.
I agree on the soft vs hard cones.... Always comes back to the hard ones, because of clarity and detail.
 

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,523
Likes
3,745
Location
Princeton, Texas
... since I've focused on horizontal dispersion, by crossing at 2kHz with a waveguided tweeter...

I don't have a specific midrange recommendation but in the spirit of applying Toole's findings you might consider giving priority to pattern-matching in the crossover region, which implies not being locked into 2 kHz as your crossover frequency, as the DXT's pattern control is not very good that low.
 
OP
D

Digital_Thor

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
381
Likes
330
Location
Denmark
I don't have a specific midrange recommendation but in the spirit of applying Toole's findings you might consider giving priority to pattern-matching in the crossover region, which implies not being locked into 2 kHz as your crossover frequency, as the DXT's pattern control is not very good that low.
Oh... So I should use a bigger waveguide or a smaller midrange - right? I can hear that my current combination works better than my last one.... so it does work - even though it's not perfect. And when is enough - enough?
 

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,523
Likes
3,745
Location
Princeton, Texas
Oh... So I should use a bigger waveguide or a smaller midrange - right? I can hear that my current combination works better than my last one.... so it does work - even though it's not perfect. And when is enough - enough?

I'm just saying, you might look at matching up the radiation patterns in the crossover region (or at least coming pretty close) as a priority, as what's happening off-axis seems to be something that differentiates the good speakers from the bad ones, moreso than cone materials or crossover slopes or other exotica. You are obviously ALREADY thinking along these lines by choosing a waveguided tweeter. Imo getting the frequency response right is a big part of "getting the basics right", and getting the off-axis response right is an oft-overlooked aspect of "getting the frequency response right". As Amir's measurements reveal, relatively few speakers actually "get the basics right".

(My background is in DIY, ime there are a ton of DIY projects out there which are variations on "combining the best woofer with the best midrange and the best tweeter using the best crossover and in the best enclosure", and imo intelligent system design makes more of a difference. Toole tells us where the goal posts are for intelligent system design.)
 
Top Bottom