The SAGA of Low_Bass_Makker

[Sam Kapasi]

Originally Posted by navin

Then if you add a subwoofer to such a system you, in reality, have a 4 way system!

Exactly my point

[low_bass_makker]

Navin ji any model u wanna comment of any 3 way setup...

An about the placement of the 3 way the tweeter on the rvm adjuster the mid near the door opener and the woofer at the stock location......

any further suggestion are welcome.......

[Autophile]

The locations are fine. The tweeter can be on the dashboard or A-pillar also all depends on how it sounds.

[navin]

JB the advantage of the RVM position is that sometimes the tweeter can be flush mounted. I find that hen tweeters are surface mounted they are more suseptable to physical damage.

[Autophile]

The tweeters can be flush mounted in the A pillar too. Also the in my opinion the good sounding location is very important. It can be anywhere.

[low_bass_makker]

People now as the location are almost final now I like to hear about the diff models from which I wanna choose...........

what benifit will I get If I use a dome mid range rather than the cone midrange........

[Autophile]

Dome has better off axis response and the dispersion characterstics are similar to tweeter hence the better integration but it does no play low. Domes have their own sealed enclosures, so sound it sounds the same at any location they can share the same space with the midbass as the backwave of midbass cannot affect the sound in dome. Domes are expensive.

Cone can play lower but the off axis response is not as good as dome. Also a poor midrange driver can suffer cone breakups in the reproduction of upper midrange. Cones are relatively cheaper than dome. They need space at the back to play optimally and one has to work for isolating the cone midrange from the midbass backwave which spoils the sound as it can couple with midrange cone sharing the same area.

[Bass&Trouble]

Originally Posted by Autophile

Dome has better off axis response and the dispersion characterstics are similar to tweeter hence the better integration but it does no play low. Domes have their own sealed enclosures, so sound it sounds the same at any location they can share the same space with the midbass as the backwave of midbass cannot affect the sound in dome. Domes are expensive.

Cone can play lower but the off axis response is not as good as dome. Also a poor midrange driver can suffer cone breakups in the reproduction of upper midrange. Cones are relatively cheaper than dome. They need space at the back to play optimally and one has to work for isolating the cone midrange from the midbass backwave which spoils the sound as it can couple with midrange cone sharing the same area.

Agree about everything except that cones are cheaper than domes. Although this is the case with dome tweeters as opposed to mylar or polycarbonate cone tweeters that use a ferrite magnet system, dome midranges are usually cheaper to manufacture than a similar quality cone midrange. Of course there would be a lot of areas in which one could outdo the other, especially when the dome is made of materials like titatnium or ceramic and uses a neo motor, or when the cone is using kevlar etc.

Also, one should not really worry about the midrange's ability to play low because usually, a 6.5" or 8" midbass driver is able to seamlessly hand over to the dome at about 600-1000 Hz. This would only be worrying if the midbass driver in concern were a 8" or 10" which drops naturally after the bass frequencies.

[navin]

Originally Posted by Autophile

Dome has better off axis response ...Domes are expensive.

Cone can play lower but the off axis response is not as good as dome. ....

I agree but this is too general a statement.

Cone mids can have a good enough of axis response (I've seen some that are farily good to above 5K)

Some Cone mids with sealed backs albeit they have greater depth than a dome mid.

There are great domes and great cones and both serve their purpose.

In this partucular install I would suggest considering a 2" dome mid as most 3" dome mids would not fit and most 4" cone mids would require more depth than the install location might provide. This also means that the woofer would have to work till about 700Hz and the 2" dome mids would really only be covering a range of 2 octaves (700-1400-2800) or a bit more.

Given this one would have to consider triamping or 1st order crossovers as steeper crossovers so close together (700Hz and 3/4000Hz) introduce a whole new set of challenges.

[Autophile]

I am talking about the domes which are available in car audio brands. If you have cost no object design than one can better the other no doubt the way it is in home audio.

Dome midranges have better dispersion (nearly 180 Deg) than cone midranges (90 deg) hence they can be used in difficult off axis locations of car audio environment and can integrate much better with the tweeters as compared to cone ones.

I don't deny of cone midranges with back cans but they really don't exist in car audio and also mounting them will be pain. Unless youi want to go DIY with drivers intended for home audio use.

In car audio environment you can use dome midrange of 2" to 3" easily and cone from 3" to 4". Though installing the later size in both cases are difficult.

Triamping is good if you have good active crossover otherwise i would suggest to stick to the passive 3way crossover designed for the particular combination and use a powerful 2ch amp anywhere from 150W to 300W per side.

You can use steeper crossover slopes if drivers have good flat response curves and are placed closer to each other if they are far off from each other its better to have shallower slopes but all this playing around is only possible in active system.

[low_bass_makker]

People keep that coming.....

And no one is suggesting a model to me for the same application Do I have only two choices

1) hertz
2) kappa

[Bass&Trouble]

Originally Posted by Autophile

Dome midranges have better dispersion (nearly 180 Deg) than cone midranges (90 deg) hence they can be used in difficult off axis locations of car audio environment and can integrate much better with the tweeters as compared to cone ones.

A higher dispersion is not necessarily the most virtuous trait. It has its merits and demerits. I find it especially irritating when the waves bounce off nearby surfaces causing innumerable reflections. This is more of a concern for car audio than in home audio. I also tend to find speakers mounted in the dash, right up against the windscreen, sound honky.

I don't deny of cone midranges with back cans but they really don't exist in car audio and also mounting them will be pain. Unless youi want to go DIY with drivers intended for home audio use.

Canton cone midranges from their 3-way car audio component set are provided with rear chambers so as to suit the driver's capabilities. They are not terribly deep, but there is no comparison of their mounting depth v/s that of a 2" dome midrange.

You can use steeper crossover slopes if drivers have good flat response curves and are placed closer to each other if they are far off from each other its better to have shallower slopes but all this playing around is only possible in active system

If your driver has a nice and flat response curve, it's all the more reason to use a lower order crossover than say a 3rd or 4th order crossover. You'd want to savagely terminate a speaker's reproduction range only when the driver is known to create some mischief in the band that you are trying to eliminate. So, the greater the break-up or some undesired dips or surges that the driver exhibits, the steeper the crossover slope so as to attenuate the driver at those frequencies to the maximum possible extent.

Also, I see no connection whatsoever between the slope of the crossover and the relative placement of the drivers. It would depend more on the respective crossover frequencies rather than the slope.

[gunbir]

Originally Posted by low_bass_makker

People keep that coming.....

And no one is suggesting a model to me for the same application Do I have only two choices

1) hertz
2) kappa

LBM like I said, even we havent seen many choices available in India. As far as I know, apart from the Blau and Canton options, the two options above are the only ones.

I hope the others can contribute any makes models that I might be missing.

[gunbir]

Great discussion on cone vs dome mids... Without getting into the nitty gritties, lets just agree that

1. There are certain domes better than certain cones and vice versa

2. There are certain domes more expensive than certain cones and vice versa

3. In the car environment, it is easier to find a suitable location (one with minimal relections etc) for a dome, than to calculate and build the optimal enclosure for a cone mid and then find the perfect install location with space for that enclosure.

4. Beyond a great product, whether its a dome or a cone, eventually its all in the tuning.

Peace

[navin]

I think gunbir said it best.

B&T corssover slopes for home speakers are primarily a funciton of the driver's parameters becuase the relative positions are quite standard such as W-M-T or M-T-M etc... in fact Joe D'Appolito's work shows that in a M-T-M config certain crossover topologies are favourable over others.

In a car enviroment the relative position of drivers can also mean that certain slopes are preferable. For example if the drivers are very far apart and if the sloeps are steep you might be able to distinguish the various drivers when in reality you dont want to (all 3-4 drivers should sound seemless).

I do not prefer steep slopes close together of reasons that reactive passive components interact with each other's electrical characteristics (dependant on frequency). Laplace Mathematics will make this clearer but I think if we delve into that here we might have a revolt. 4th order slopes 1 decade apart are fine but 2 octaves apart have audible after effects.