92 replies to this topic

[268669♫]

They are only 77.5 mm mounting depth. The 86mm is for the total depth off the speaker. Also check out some other pro audio mids that may fit on that site.

Ant

[TMM]

Qts is too high on the MW265, might be a bit boomy.

The 8ohm MW267 would go better imo, especially since you won't need to feed it more than ~100W.




edit:damnit wrong image... fixed.

Edited by TMM, 09 April 2012 - 04:23 PM.

[peaandham]

They are only 77.5 mm mounting depth. The 86mm is for the total depth off the speaker. Also check out some other pro audio mids that may fit on that site.

I have a feeling that's an extra 1.5mm I dont have, and depending on the size of the rubber that may cause an issue aswell.

Edit: Thanks for taking the time to Model those TMM but im not the best at understanding what point the graphs are actually making.

How ever the Beyma driver Ant has linked here: http://www.usspeaker...yma 8BR40-1.htm seems like it wouldn't be as boomy as the 265/266 in a 40L enclosure correct? So therefore this would probably be the better driver if I can fit it?

[TMM]

The higher the qts the looser the damping of the driver is - it gives more bass response per watt but sounds looser/flabby. The MW265 and MW267 are very similar except the MW267 has higher damping, - in simple terms that means you have to drive it harder down low (bump up the EQ) to achieve the same bass output as the MW265. The advantage of using a driver with higher damping is that it produces tighter bass, you just have to make sure that it isn't too bass-anemic.

For completeness of this thread I should also also add this:

The measured response of the ushers in my Commodore, with no EQ. You can see why some roll off is preferable, because the cabin gain makes up for it The dip at 70Hz on the right side is due to a resonance in my car, not much can be done about that unfortunately short of mounting the driver somewhere else or getting a different car lol.

If you get a high QTS driver that models with good bass response (like the MW265), once you put it in a car it'll be boomy because of the cabin gain, and it won't sound as tight as if you went for a lower Q driver like the MW267, Usher 8945A etc.

Edited by TMM, 09 April 2012 - 05:09 PM.

[ryzaa]

I think you should work out exactly what you are going to do before you set yourself on a driver and buy things willy nilly.

Measure exactly what you can fit, are you going to fit it behind the trim, and leave it there, or are you going to build out from your doors later? If you are going to do that, may as well do it properly the first time, and then pick a driver. Otherwise you are going to have to upgrade, again.

Read more, learn more, its all very well to go on this and that, and buy every driver that every other person recommends, but once again, is this going to be right?
Look up some work done by some notable professionals, if you dont understand it, take a step back and learn about the basics first, as you have stated, you dont know that much, maybe it may be better if you did know some more?

In the long run, its more then likely going to save you money, you are going to be better off because of it, both financially and with your tuning, building, etc. As you will know more about what you are doing and why you are doing it that way.

Maybe start at some work by Linkwitz http://www.linkwitzlab.com/index.html
or maybe some Geddes http://www.gedlee.com/

Or maybe some noted DIYers
David Gee: http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/
Troels Gravesen: http://www.troelsgra...er_Projects.htm
John Krutke: http://www.zaphaudio.com/

Or even a local DIYer:
Paul Spencer: http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com.au/

[peaandham]

Measure exactly what you can fit, are you going to fit it behind the trim, and leave it there, or are you going to build out from your doors later? If you are going to do that, may as well do it properly the first time, and then pick a driver. Otherwise you are going to have to upgrade, again.

I have figured out what I want to do, I want something that will sit behind the trim that I wont have to build a pod for. With the current 22mm baffle I have 80mm of clearance, however my current focal rubber seems to close for comfort to the back of the trim, so I would like to bring that about 4mm back from the trim with an 18mm baffle which will give me 76mm of clearance, if I could even bring that further back I would, but at the same time every time I look into a different woofer the basket/magnet depth is getting deeper and deeper.

I will have a look at those links but along with the advice of fellow members I would like to get it sorted soon.

At the moment im browsing through pro audio drivers, but at the moment pardoning the boomy sign wave from the Morel 265 seems like its going to be the easiest option.

[TMM]

Another idea (out of the drivers from Madisound): SEAS L16RN-SL. Models nicely for a door, 0.55qtc should be nice and punchy.

Others that model ok:
SEAS CA18RLY (~0.6qtc)
Scanspeak 18W/4434G (~0.4qtc)

The Morel still goes louder than all the above by a few dB, but i just don't think you'd be happy with how it sounds with a qtc of 0.9+

Edited by TMM, 09 April 2012 - 05:39 PM.

[peaandham]

Im going to take Ryan's advice and do some more precise measurements of the door because it looks like the other two options I am looking at are between 75 and 80mm depth so it might be a matter of a few mm that one fits in by.

This is one option, thanks to Ant. My issue is whether this will be too boomy similar to the Morel, im only purely going off the bass reflex chart (40L) it doesnt have a extremely high QTS like the Morel but by no means is it low.
http://www.usspeaker...a%208BR40-1.htm

This is another, this was actually one of the first drivers I was looking at but when I was focusing purely on the FS/QTS it sort of threw me off of it, this has a rather low QTS that as explained should raise once its put into a car door. Does any one think this will model alright in a 40L simulation?
http://www.madisound...ofer-poly-cone/

Thats pretty much it for 8Inch drivers or I can step down but TMM the Seas you posted is a 6inch driver, this is the driver I was going to purchase until others chimed in and pretty much said there was a world of difference between a 6inch and 8inch driver, hence why im still looking today.

If neither of the 2 above will fit im pretty much looking into these two options (one being the Scan you suggested) The Scan with its smaller depth is obviously going to be the favorite but if anyone knows much about Hi-Vi woofers I wouldn't mind hearing about it.

http://www.madisound...idwoofer-4-ohm/


http://www.madisound...r-3-voice-coil/

Thoughts on the above options? The biggest hurdle will be decided what sort of clearance I will leave for rubber surround, but that will pretty much be a hunch on my behalf.

[2LOUD2OLD]

Wow the beyma looks ideal. Would certainly be my pick

[peaandham]

Wow the beyma looks ideal. Would certainly be my pick

What about them appeals to you, if you don't mind me asking?

[2LOUD2OLD]

IMO the qts is about right for the door and high sensativity means they won't take much to make some noise.
And going by that bass reflex model they are only just starting to roll of at 60hz

[TMM]

Thats pretty much it for 8Inch drivers or I can step down but TMM the Seas you posted is a 6inch driver, this is the driver I was going to purchase until others chimed in and pretty much said there was a world of difference between a 6inch and 8inch driver, hence why im still looking today.

That Seas 6" will play nicely down low because it's got a low resonant frequency (36Hz) and decent xmax (+/-6mm).

Most 6" car audio speakers have a resonant frequency of 60hz+ which is why they have a reputation of being weak down low.

[peaandham]

Thanks for the responses guys Ive done some more measurements and the first time I did them I was pretty much on the money, so if someone would be able to model these three woofers thanks it would be greatly appreciated. I think I can fit the 8's so I will order a set and hope I am right.

Option 1
http://www.usspeaker...yma 8BR40-1.htm

Option 2
http://www.madisound...ofer-poly-cone/

Option 3, I am just really curious how this one here would compare.
http://www.madisound...um-cone-woofer/

[TMM]

The Beyma has the same issue as the Morel imo - will be boomy once you put it in a car. If you look at the Usher it starts rolling off gradually at 200hz, yet in car it's more or less flat due to cabin gain. With the Beyma/Morel you would expect a ~5db increase in response from ~50-100hz because of the cabin gain.




That Scan 8" looks pretty good. I think we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves though. Just because it models well doesn't mean it'll have low harmonic distortion etc as well.
I still reckon you are best off spending the extra coin and getting Ushers if they will fit

Edited by TMM, 09 April 2012 - 08:15 PM.

[syd-monster]

sorry for so many opinions and some of the advice being conflictive.
I think what my first piece of advice should have been, is to listen to as many setups as possible, with a midbass responce you like and see if that combo can work for you. At the end of the day, all the data, opinions, ideas etc. don't mean squat if you don't like it/the sound.

Edited by syd-monster, 09 April 2012 - 08:16 PM.

[TMM]

sorry for so many opinions and some of the advice being conflictive.
I think what my first piece of advice should have been, is to listen to as many setups as possible, with a midbass responce you like and see if that combo can work for you. At the end of the day, all the data, opinions, ideas etc. don't mean squat if you don't like it/the sound.

Agreed . If possible try to find a setup in the same model car because cabin gains can vary too.

[peaandham]

Agreed . If possible try to find a setup in the same model car because cabin gains can vary too.

Thats one big issue haha, its hard enough finding someone else in South Australia with a 3way setup and let alone finding another Magna, I can honestly say I dont think there is a single Mitsubishi Magna 3 way in SA besides mine.

At the start of all this I was thinking the Scan, im still thinking the Scan, now as you said it does model well, at the same time the depth of one of the Usher's isnt too different compared to the Scan.

If I could manage to fit on this would be the one Id be able to fit.
http://www.parts-exp...296-602&scqty=2

Is there any difference between the one and the other models on the following page.
http://www.parts-exp...CAT&srchCat=572

At the end of the day its about $105 difference between the 2 options when I add shipping.

[peaandham]

Looks like I get to trial fit some Usher midbass', Ryzaa has a set in his possession and is more than happy to let me try them out before I order them from overseas, so hopefully I can fit them otherwise the Scans are next in line.

[syd-monster]

top work!! nice one and very thoughtfull of him!

[TMM]

Looks like I get to trial fit some Usher midbass', Ryzaa has a set in his possession and is more than happy to let me try them out before I order them from overseas, so hopefully I can fit them otherwise the Scans are next in line.

Nice.

The 8945A (non-phase plug) has cleaner bass than the 8945P (phase plug), but slightly higher distortion in the midrange and a 2mm deeper magnet. The 8948A (smooth cone) is no good because the magnet is even larger and the resonant frequency is 45hz instead of 29hz.

8945A is the pick of the bunch for midbass. If you need the extra 2mm clearance then get the 8945P. I'm not familiar with the Magna door trims, but in the Commodore you can just add a few washers/spacers on the screws down the bottom to space the trim a little - you might be able to do something similar in your car if you are running out of space behind the trim.

Edited by TMM, 09 April 2012 - 10:20 PM.

[muzzy66]

In response to those who said you need cone area, a correction: You don't need cone area, you need displacement. Displacement is the product of cone area and cone movement (excursion).

Morel Elate SW 8"
Cone area: 219cm^2
Xmax: 4.25mm
Displacement: 219 * 4.25 = 930

Scanspeak 18W8531-G00 7"
Cone area: 150cm^2
Xmax: 6.5mm xmax
Displacement = 150 x 6.5 = 975

The 7" Revelator is actually capable of 5% greater displacement then the Morel Elate 8" - as I said, don't always listen to the stereotype. Yes the Morel will need to move a couple of mm less to produce the same note, but it also has a couple of mm less movement available to it as well - at the end of the day it more or less evens out. The Revelator may need to move 5.8mm to produce something that the Morel only needs 3.8mm of cone movment to to produce, but it doesn't matter - they are both still being pushed to within 90% of their limits, and they are both struggling just as much.

To put things into perspective, a typical 12" driver has a cone area of about 460cm^2. If that 12" has only 1mm of xmax it's only capable of half the displacement of either either of the above drivers (and about 30% less displacement than even the 5.75" the Seas L16).

Obviously the Seas is going to significantly lower displacement then the Revelator 7", but what if we compare it to the 6.5" SB17?

SB Acoustics SB17
Cone Area: 118cm^2
Xmax: 5.5mm
Displacement: 118 x 5.5 =649

Seas L16RN-SL 5.75"
Cone area: 104cm^2
Xmax: 6mm
Displacement: 104 * 6 = 624

Notice that the 5" L16RN has barely 10% less cone area then the 7" SB17? It's no accident. The L16 uses a new Seas basket that has been specially designed to fit more radiating area into a compact frame be more compact. It has 90% of the cone area of the 7" SB driver, but the outer diameter (146mm) is pure 5". Combine that with a very impressive 6mm one-way xmax and you only have about 4% less displacement then the SB17. Despite this deficit, it still plays lower AND cleaner below 150hz (I can say this from experience).

Also take into account here that the SB17 has significantly more xmax then a typical 6" driver, and both it and the Seas have far greateer (+35%) displacement potential compared to your existing Focals.

Edited by muzzy66, 10 April 2012 - 12:16 AM.

[muzzy66]

Looks like I get to trial fit some Usher midbass', Ryzaa has a set in his possession and is more than happy to let me try them out before I order them from overseas, so hopefully I can fit them otherwise the Scans are next in line.

If you can fit the Usher, it's pretty much a no brainer - unless you want to spend a bit more for the Scanspeak 8535, which is comparable to the Usher in distortion (Scan seems a wee bit better, but the difference is probably not audible) but seems to have significantly better low end extension.

If you can't, then I would honestly say stick with the SB17 or the Seas L16RN - for midbass my preference would be the Sea, but either should be a dramatic improvement over your Focal's. I see the mouning diameter (moreso then the depth) probably being an issue for the Usher/Scanspeak. If the diameter is no issue, then you'll probably be fine.

Personally, I'd recommend the Scanspeak 18W/8535 over the Revelator use < 200hz. Not only is it cheaper, but according to my research it's a better performer in the midbass department (Revelator is still very good!).

[bobo333]

test fitting is complete and the ushers just fit, hes making up some proper baffles tommorow then test listening before ordering a pair

[TMM]

^ Ushers are the daddy in that respect. 150x8.7 = 1305

That said, you shouldn't really run out of xmax with any of the drivers discussed here since it's not unreasonable to crossover to a sub between 50-100hz.

[syd-monster]

In response to those who said you need cone area, a correction: You don't need cone area, you need displacement. Displacement is the product of cone area and cone movement (excursion).

*sigh*
Your not thinking dedicated Midbass enough.
Sorry, Pete, not trying to be argumentative, but I'd ask you think active 3-way dedicated midbass here...

[Luke352]

BMWTurbo and myself both have Morel HCW8" which is an old car'ified version of the the MW26* range. If there is one thing neither of us lacked if we tuned right it was midbass, they won't play overly low but that's not the point, I have this thing called a subwoofer for that. They are still capable of playing full range on the bottom end well enough, but they won't convince you that you don't need a subwoofer, whereas one of our competitors up here uses SLS8's and he has no sub and he almost gets away with it, it is pretty convincing but in the end it lacks in some areas, but not badly.

So don't worry that the numbers might show that some other driver is going to be technically superior, the Morel drivers are more than up to the job. Given the choice of two drivers with similar displacement for midbass duties i'll take the one that gets it's displacment via cone area over the one that uses xmax.

[2LOUD2OLD]

^ Ushers are the daddy in that respect. 150x8.7 = 1305

or you just stop being soft and get a real midbass
my CSS Trio8 have 14mm xmax and 213cm^2 of cone area = 2982

[268669♫]

I think thats what Chris and I are talking about. Dont compromise on your midbass, especially in a 3 way. Unless you really want to go to the effort of getting some nice beefy 8's or 10's in the doors or kicks, then just stick with the focals and save for later mods.

I've just downgraded from having 9 inch and 15 inch midbass in the car to 6.5inch in the doors and there is just no comparison. I'm currently working out a way to go back to at least 8's in the kicks because I miss that authority up front that proper midbiss gives.

Ant

[muzzy66]

^ Ushers are the daddy in that respect. 150x8.7 = 1305

That said, you shouldn't really run out of xmax with any of the drivers discussed here since it's not unreasonable to crossover to a sub between 50-100hz.

Are your Usher's on steroids???

If memory serves me correctly I think the Usher 8945A has around 6mm of Xmax, not 8.7mm - although I wish it was the latter!

*sigh*
Your not thinking dedicated Midbass enough.
Sorry, Pete, not trying to be argumentative, but I'd ask you think active 3-way dedicated midbass here...

Oh, but I am!! I definately wouldn't recommend the Seas L16 for a two-way setup...not unless you have a tweeter that can cross over comfortably at 1khz! The midrange cone breakup on those Seas drivers is really quite nasty!

Oh and I don't see it as argumentative at all. It's an interesting topic of discussion and I see any point made as a contribution rather then an argument

So don't worry that the numbers might show that some other driver is going to be technically superior, the Morel drivers are more than up to the job. Given the choice of two drivers with similar displacement for midbass duties i'll take the one that gets it's displacment via cone area over the one that uses xmax.

Please note that when I refer to extension I'm not talking about output below 50hz - I'm more concerned about output from 60hz to 100hz where (if it's capable enough) I'd much prefer my midbass handling rather then my sub. I'm concerned with the ability of the SB29's within this frequency range, You would think that the Morel (being an 8") shouldn't have too much trouble with this area, but I'm not familiar with it so I can't say for certain.

Also regarding the displacent topic I absolutely would rather get displacement from cone area rather then xmax whenever possible. However think about this - the cone are of a driver is fixed and does not change, so when a driver reaches it's limit, what is holding it back? The answer (generally) is excursion. Doesn't matter if it's a 3" driver or a 21" driver, it still needs to excurt in order to move air. When the driver reach the limit of that excursion things are going to get ugly, regardless of whether that limit is 30mm or 0.5mm.

What I'm trying to say here is that all drivers - regardless of size - are ultimately going to be limited by excursion in the end.. To achieve greater displacement then the 7" Revelator, you'd need more then:

* 1mm xmax for a 15" woofer
* 2mm xmax for a 12" woofer
* 2.5mm xmax for a 10" woofer
* 4.5mm xmax for an 8" woofer
* 11mm xmax for a 5" woofer
* 18mm xmax for a 4" woofer

Now almost every 15" driver will have at least 1mm xmax. Likewise almost all 12" and 10" drivers are going to have at least 2mm and 2.5mm xmax. As such, you can be pretty safe in assuming that amost any 10", 12" or 15" driver you buy will be capable of moving as much (or more) air then a 7" revelator.

However go down to an 8" driver and it's a different story. With an 8" the cone area advantage is not so significant, and so it still needs a fairly significant (> 4.5mm) amount of excursion in order to move that same amount of air. As we can see from my earlier post, the Morel SW 8" only has 4.25mm of xmax, so it's it's certainly not a given that all 8" drivers will have at least 4.5mm-5mm of xmax - in fact some may well have only 2mm-3mm.

Why is all of this important?

Because as I've been harking on from the start, it's all about displacement - xmax vs cone area. If you need to move 800cm^3 of air then an 8" woofer with 3mm of xmax is likely not going to cut it - it will probably run out of excursion and fail before you get there. A 7" with 6.5mm of xmax will handle it, but barely. An 8" with 7mm of xmax will do it pretty much effortlessly.

I'm no engineer, so whether it works like this in the real world I don't know, but it seems to make logical sense to me.

Edited by muzzy66, 10 April 2012 - 02:19 PM.

[Fury♫]

Only way to tell is put them on a Klippel