|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
137.145.235.19
In Reply to: RE: esotar m560d should be able to do 600hz without mods posted by Presto on June 01, 2012 at 17:07:38
They have demonstrated ability to take lots of power, BUT since not only were esotars expensive when they were available, and even rarer then hens' teeth now days, I would stay steep rather than shallow.
Follow Ups:
Edp and Presto, thank you very much for the reply. My question was, has anyone ever built one of these enclosures? (I'm sure they have, but for whatever reason they aren't reading my post.)
I do realize what you are saying. My intent isn't necessarily to try to lower Fs, but rather to increase output (even by 1 dB) in the range from 600 to 1000 Hz (besides lowering harmonic distortion slightly)...precisely so I would NOT need a contouring or overlapping curve in the crossover filter. I should have mentioned that I would indeed want to make the x-over at least 12dB/octave electrical, but possibly even 24dB/octave electrical, my bad. With the woofers in an MTM arrangement, but spaced apart a bit...ideally 12 dB/octave electrical for both low and high pass might have the smoothest transition between widely spaced drivers. For this, the acoustic crossover point would likely not fall below 750 Hz.
As for the power handling, I'm not sure it would be affected that much. Certainly the only way the midrange would receive more than 150 watts rms or so, is if the woofers are getting maybe 600 watts rms into 8 ohms. The woofers I am considering using, are only rated for about 100 watts rms (this will be a pair of 8 ohm woofers in parallel)...so I don't see the midrange dome ever getting more than maybe 80 watts rms, on music or effects material laden with very dynamic or loud midrange signal (and this would likely only be if I actively crossed over the speaker to subwoofers, which I won't always be doing).
More typical would be 20 to 30 watts rms to the midrange (when running this system full range with an amp up to 300 watts rms)...and certainly when I use the speaker with lower powered tube amps, power handling will obviously be even less of an issue. And this is if the midranges don't need to be padded down any...but they likely will need at least 1 to 2 dB. So again, this isn't an FOH concert system or active studio monitor in a theater or concert-hall-sized mixing suite...I really don't see power handling being an issue.
I know Dynaudio Acoustics has used this dome in their biggest studio systems which claim peak spl of nearly 130 dB...but they also actively cross over the M560D to about 3 kHz, and the Esotar tweeter at 5 or 6 kHz, in order to achieve this. So in that system, the midrange gets almost no bandwidth to itself, and is crossed over as if it were a tweeter.
In Dynaudio's home systems, such as the previous-generation Confidence 5 (from the 1990's to early 2000's), the M560D was crossed over at a much lower 1 kHz, with only a 6 dB passive filter. And this is, I assume, with the standard rear cup installed. The interior volume would be large if this were a 1 inch tweeter...but I think a 2 inch midrange deserves more volume, especially this one.
I feel confident my idea of the larger rear enclosure (perhaps a tapered transmission line made of layered MDF) will work well. I just would like to learn how to go about designing the shape and size. And especially, how to go about dissolving the glue that holds the small metal rear cup on, to remove it...without melting the speaker!
You should probably SHRINK the rear cup rather than enlarge, if this is your intent. I don't know that I'd mod 'em, since they're valuable, I'd sell and get something more suitable (read- bigger). But shrinking the cup will get you a steeper cutoff and a fr bump in the range you're concerned with, in all likelihood, though it'll take some careful tuning.
Bass is supposed to sound big. 6.5" is not a woofer size.
badman, interesting suggestion. However, I already don't like the idea of all that midrange noise being stored in the cavity they already have, let alone making it smaller. I suppose you could be correct though...that increasing the volume might lower the output in the 700 to 900 Hz range. Then again, that seems like it only means that the internal resonances are contributing to the output (via being delayed and re-radiated out through the dome), which is definitely not what I want.
I've run into seemingly the same problem with the Morel MDM 55 I planned on using in a less costly center channel speaker project. The chamber on the MDM is very thin metal and plastic, and vibrates terribly with only maybe 10 watts peak...so it seems like making a larger, layered MDF wood chamber might alleviate or lessen the loud echo in the chamber.
Your idea about selling the Esotars doesn't really appeal to me. You're suggesting I buy something larger...like what, a cone midrange? Or are you referring to a 3 inch dome midrange?
I already have many other speaker projects I have yet to build, all of them using a cone midrange or midwoofer as the midrange. So selling the Esotar 2 inch domes, definitely does not make sense. I like their sound quality too much. I mean, if I could get a few million for them, then maybe...but otherwise, no...haha.
I do thank you very much for your input, though! By the way, what sort of crossover design equipment do you use?
I'd take a Hi-Vi or maybe a NOS vifa and try your theory before ripping apart a hard to replace Dynaudio.
I don't actually think you will get a significant increase in output in the 600 hz to 1000 hz range by drastically changing the rear enclosure.
But I'm real certain you are not gonna get many folks, if any, who have done what you ask to their Dynaudio Esotar Dome Midranges. So most likely you will be first and probably last person to implement that approach.
Good luck.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: