I’m working on a (WW)wmtmw speaker. I used info gleened from
Jon (https://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7644)
Paul (http://www.geocities.com/pnwright3/Test_Mules.html)
Steve (http://www.doddsy.net/steve6_009.htm)
Jim (https://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25932)
SL (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/builtown.htm)
…and many others here and on the other forum.
Presently I’m using yet another neighbours old wardrobes, and am nearing something I Love the sound of. Thought I’d post for comment before I start looking at exact layout. I’ll follow the pictures with a few details of drivers / crossovers I’m using, and why. I'm still astounded at how fantastic these sound despite being very much experimental. Any pointers as to directions I should take the design in would be very welcome – harsh or otherwise Where am I failing most miserably: layout? Crossover?
Note 1: 10” drivers will be below main panel - like Orion/Avro
Note 2: 45 degree side-baffle suggested by Paul. I’m still working on dimensions
Note 3: MTM distance too large: will decrease in later baffles.
Drivers:
Peerless 10” XXLS 830843
Seas Excel W22 (W22EX001 / E0022)
Visaton TI100
Fountek NeoCD 3 (or Seas 29TAF/W / H1322)
I started a project, building some speakers with Seas Prestige drivers,
- both dipole and boxed
- in TMW vs WMTMW designs.
Dipole or enclosed?
Dipoles built with virtually no design plans way outclassed my Quad 22Ls, and various B&W speakers I have auditioned. I was astounded. Dipole route was chosen without further consideration. Had never heard speakers of that type, but various builds on this group encouraged me to try them.
TMW or WMTMW etc
The project started after discovering that a pair of monitors sat on top of my quads (upside down) gave great presence to many instruments and vocals (clearly comb patterns from high frequencies would be causing problems, but possibly also benefits). I hadn’t previously known about MTM type designs, but reading about Paul’s Mules and various other designs on here, I did some experiments with seas L18 drivers leading me to believe the characteristics of two sets of speakers could be harnessed more constructively in speakers with drivers in a similar pattern.
How many drivers?
Paul’s Mules had four different sized drivers. Jon’s avro designs only 3, but employed construction more like the Orions – and I liked the idea of the lowest frequencies from a U frame: speakers are for music use only and I did not want a sub. Paul’s Mules would probably require a sub of more equalisation than I was looking to use.
Given my L18 drivers shifted far to little air, W22’s had to be used: leaving a hole at low frequencies to be filled by big bass drivers, and a huge gap up to where the tweeter could start.
70s speaker designs, including some old wharfdales I have, often seem exciting and ‘real’ to me. I’m sure they’re inaccurate, I know they lack bass, and they employ pretty poor construction by modern standards. I believe much of what makes them untiring and ‘real’ sound is due to use of a mid between woofer and tweeter; something which has fallen out of fashion, with tweeters having to work down to below 2KHz in various designs. I really wanted a mid, so the hole between W22s and tweeters was very much intended. I hoped dipole woofers would be as tireless on the ears as non-ported 70s boxes too.
Cone types?
I have some Leak speakers: some of the earliest using polystyrene cones and aluminium coating: stiff but light. Very light. A really exciting sound, something the wharfdales (paper/plastic for mid) and certainly the Quads (with a Kevlar cone) don’t have. I chose metal cone drivers throughout.
Drivers
Peerless XXLS – Qts 0.44. These newer drivers were chosen over Linkwitz’s XLS selection as his have such a low Q. I know high Q is bad news, but excessively low Q just needs way too much equalisation: and I want to see if I can get away with passive crossovers. I really thought these were the ones for the job but I’ve never bought a 10” speaker in my life so perhaps a little caution; various people agreed these would be a better choice, so I put down my money and can only thank them for their encouragement.
Seas Excel W22: – super speaker: W26s break up too soon, W18s to weedy. Suitable for dipoles.
Visaton TI100. Much harder to find ‘high mid’ to take me up to ribbons etc. I didn’t want a dome for various reasons. Metal cones aren’t the best choice for taking up high due to break up. I needed small cones because of MTM design, minimising excessive comb interference. Zaph’s TI100 review wasn’t as positive as I’d hoped for, but I bought them anyhow. People love the sound, the break ups at 7KHz and higher look problematic. A few commented the revealing sound may well be a result of the break ups. In line with my thoughts on 70s speakers: what sounds great is not necessarily the straightest frequency response graph. A little taming would probably make them the mid for me. Blow it – I bought them and love the little things.
Fountek NeoCD 3 / Seas 29TAF/W
I don’t know what tweeter I want. Possibly a better dome than the seas with the waveguide, but it does a very good job at its price, and no ugly hexagrid. Metal essential. Listenable, yes, but I want analytical to feature somewhere in the description of the sound.
I’ve never tried ribbons, so am working on using the fountek. You can see one mounted alongside the Seas on one baffle.
I know Millenium will bore me. I need a metal equivalent, but I’m not sure Seas offerings would do it. The problem is there is a jump from £30 to £130 for the top end tweeters. I’m hoping Neos do it, otherwise I’m open to suggestions for a nice top end driver.
Crossovers:
Will post schematics for this shortly:
Passive crossover designer 5.1 for crossovers. Pretty simple so far. Pretty much 2nd order for.
TI100 has slight taming for peak (taken from visaton’s schematics – checked with justMMS, does the trick). Regular bandpass otherwise.
W22 has regular low pass 2nd order, with no capacitor filtering bottom end: I’m using a different amp for XXLSs so only 4ohm min load, not 2!
XXLS – I’m using Jon’s passive crossover for Avro does just what I need. What a coincidence I’ll redraw very badly, (with apologies). Jon’s crossover here: (https://www.htguide.com/forum/showth...&page=15&pp=35) and I didn’t see any point redesigning a wheel designed by an expert... at least until the final speakers are made and I start tweaking
Tweeter – not decided which tweeter to use.
Final note - using passive crossovers as if I move to active, I'll need a lot more cash. it seems pretty daft using a DCX2496, which doesn't even have digital in and out. Years ago I found A 24 bit meridian DAC (certainly a good £1000, can't remember) well outclasses many other DACs. Presumably accurate DA with high slew rates etc provide a superb signal for the pre amps. Re digitising that, post DAC with a Behringer for £100 with cheap op-amps is going to be pretty daft, so unless I buy a load of DACS and processors with digital in and out, passive would seem the way to go. I'm bi-amp, sure, but that's about it. Results so far suggest it is a reasonable route.
Any suggestions?
Jon (https://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7644)
Paul (http://www.geocities.com/pnwright3/Test_Mules.html)
Steve (http://www.doddsy.net/steve6_009.htm)
Jim (https://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25932)
SL (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/builtown.htm)
…and many others here and on the other forum.
Presently I’m using yet another neighbours old wardrobes, and am nearing something I Love the sound of. Thought I’d post for comment before I start looking at exact layout. I’ll follow the pictures with a few details of drivers / crossovers I’m using, and why. I'm still astounded at how fantastic these sound despite being very much experimental. Any pointers as to directions I should take the design in would be very welcome – harsh or otherwise Where am I failing most miserably: layout? Crossover?
Note 1: 10” drivers will be below main panel - like Orion/Avro
Note 2: 45 degree side-baffle suggested by Paul. I’m still working on dimensions
Note 3: MTM distance too large: will decrease in later baffles.
Drivers:
Peerless 10” XXLS 830843
Seas Excel W22 (W22EX001 / E0022)
Visaton TI100
Fountek NeoCD 3 (or Seas 29TAF/W / H1322)
I started a project, building some speakers with Seas Prestige drivers,
- both dipole and boxed
- in TMW vs WMTMW designs.
Dipole or enclosed?
Dipoles built with virtually no design plans way outclassed my Quad 22Ls, and various B&W speakers I have auditioned. I was astounded. Dipole route was chosen without further consideration. Had never heard speakers of that type, but various builds on this group encouraged me to try them.
TMW or WMTMW etc
The project started after discovering that a pair of monitors sat on top of my quads (upside down) gave great presence to many instruments and vocals (clearly comb patterns from high frequencies would be causing problems, but possibly also benefits). I hadn’t previously known about MTM type designs, but reading about Paul’s Mules and various other designs on here, I did some experiments with seas L18 drivers leading me to believe the characteristics of two sets of speakers could be harnessed more constructively in speakers with drivers in a similar pattern.
How many drivers?
Paul’s Mules had four different sized drivers. Jon’s avro designs only 3, but employed construction more like the Orions – and I liked the idea of the lowest frequencies from a U frame: speakers are for music use only and I did not want a sub. Paul’s Mules would probably require a sub of more equalisation than I was looking to use.
Given my L18 drivers shifted far to little air, W22’s had to be used: leaving a hole at low frequencies to be filled by big bass drivers, and a huge gap up to where the tweeter could start.
70s speaker designs, including some old wharfdales I have, often seem exciting and ‘real’ to me. I’m sure they’re inaccurate, I know they lack bass, and they employ pretty poor construction by modern standards. I believe much of what makes them untiring and ‘real’ sound is due to use of a mid between woofer and tweeter; something which has fallen out of fashion, with tweeters having to work down to below 2KHz in various designs. I really wanted a mid, so the hole between W22s and tweeters was very much intended. I hoped dipole woofers would be as tireless on the ears as non-ported 70s boxes too.
Cone types?
I have some Leak speakers: some of the earliest using polystyrene cones and aluminium coating: stiff but light. Very light. A really exciting sound, something the wharfdales (paper/plastic for mid) and certainly the Quads (with a Kevlar cone) don’t have. I chose metal cone drivers throughout.
Drivers
Peerless XXLS – Qts 0.44. These newer drivers were chosen over Linkwitz’s XLS selection as his have such a low Q. I know high Q is bad news, but excessively low Q just needs way too much equalisation: and I want to see if I can get away with passive crossovers. I really thought these were the ones for the job but I’ve never bought a 10” speaker in my life so perhaps a little caution; various people agreed these would be a better choice, so I put down my money and can only thank them for their encouragement.
Seas Excel W22: – super speaker: W26s break up too soon, W18s to weedy. Suitable for dipoles.
Visaton TI100. Much harder to find ‘high mid’ to take me up to ribbons etc. I didn’t want a dome for various reasons. Metal cones aren’t the best choice for taking up high due to break up. I needed small cones because of MTM design, minimising excessive comb interference. Zaph’s TI100 review wasn’t as positive as I’d hoped for, but I bought them anyhow. People love the sound, the break ups at 7KHz and higher look problematic. A few commented the revealing sound may well be a result of the break ups. In line with my thoughts on 70s speakers: what sounds great is not necessarily the straightest frequency response graph. A little taming would probably make them the mid for me. Blow it – I bought them and love the little things.
Fountek NeoCD 3 / Seas 29TAF/W
I don’t know what tweeter I want. Possibly a better dome than the seas with the waveguide, but it does a very good job at its price, and no ugly hexagrid. Metal essential. Listenable, yes, but I want analytical to feature somewhere in the description of the sound.
I’ve never tried ribbons, so am working on using the fountek. You can see one mounted alongside the Seas on one baffle.
I know Millenium will bore me. I need a metal equivalent, but I’m not sure Seas offerings would do it. The problem is there is a jump from £30 to £130 for the top end tweeters. I’m hoping Neos do it, otherwise I’m open to suggestions for a nice top end driver.
Crossovers:
Will post schematics for this shortly:
Passive crossover designer 5.1 for crossovers. Pretty simple so far. Pretty much 2nd order for.
TI100 has slight taming for peak (taken from visaton’s schematics – checked with justMMS, does the trick). Regular bandpass otherwise.
W22 has regular low pass 2nd order, with no capacitor filtering bottom end: I’m using a different amp for XXLSs so only 4ohm min load, not 2!
XXLS – I’m using Jon’s passive crossover for Avro does just what I need. What a coincidence I’ll redraw very badly, (with apologies). Jon’s crossover here: (https://www.htguide.com/forum/showth...&page=15&pp=35) and I didn’t see any point redesigning a wheel designed by an expert... at least until the final speakers are made and I start tweaking
Tweeter – not decided which tweeter to use.
Final note - using passive crossovers as if I move to active, I'll need a lot more cash. it seems pretty daft using a DCX2496, which doesn't even have digital in and out. Years ago I found A 24 bit meridian DAC (certainly a good £1000, can't remember) well outclasses many other DACs. Presumably accurate DA with high slew rates etc provide a superb signal for the pre amps. Re digitising that, post DAC with a Behringer for £100 with cheap op-amps is going to be pretty daft, so unless I buy a load of DACS and processors with digital in and out, passive would seem the way to go. I'm bi-amp, sure, but that's about it. Results so far suggest it is a reasonable route.
Any suggestions?
Comment