2nd order crossover for CJD's RS150 MTM?

[eyekode]

I have been thinking about building this design sealed for use as satellites in a HT system. I like the value and sealed it comes close to f3 of 80hz with a second order roll-off as per THX spec.

But I was wondering if a 2nd order crossover will work? I don't see many 2nd order MTM's, I assume this has to do with C2C spacing and a 2nd order has more overlap in the crossover region?

Anyway, I was playing in speaker workshop and I came up with the attached network.

Notes on the frequency response:
1) my FRD data is wonky on the Seas tweater > 13k or so. That is where the roll-off is coming from.
2) the bass response has ~4db of baffle step.
3) the amplitude scale is very zoomed in.

And I figure if this crossover fails I can always revert to CJD's well respected design .

[eyekode]

Arg, crossover is a little old. I have one that uses a little different values on the LC trap that gets the break-up node to be down ~15db. Will this melt my ears ? I wonder if toe'ing the speakers out a little will mostly remove the issue. By 10k I imagine these drivers are really beaming.

[eyekode]

Or if you drop the crossover a little lower you can get ~21 db down for the 10k breakup node.

[cjd]

When you say "2nd order" are you talking the acoustic slope or electrical circuit? It seems the latter, which is (IMHO) a rather silly thing to care about.

Actual acoustic slope of the roll-off is what matters. I doubt what you're proposing is 2nd order.

[eyekode]

Yes I meant 2nd order electrical. Part of the motivation is a simpler crossover. And part of the motivation is to try my hand at design .

After staring some more at your crossover and mine it looks like using a third order electrical network on the RS150 gets you > 20db more suppression on the 10k breakup node and doesn't significantly impact the cost or complexity of the crossover. Back to the drawing board

[cjd]

Getting the steep filters with fewer components also lowers impedance.