New midrange -- 22mm xmax (pics)
|
Bronze Member Username: OlogyaudioColumbus, Oh USA Post Number: 47 Registered: Oct-05 | http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a44/OlogyAudio/Prototype_034.jpg t/s parameters: Qes = .545 Qms = 3 Vas = 45.85l Xmax=xmech=surround hitting its limits=22mm Fs = 54.33 Re = 3.2 ohms Le = VERY low due to underhung design and 1mm thick copper on the entire pole. Bl = 3.23 Sd = 140 cm^2 93.34 dB/w/m 97.33 dB/2.83v Thermal power handling is still untested however 125 watts is a very safe guess... Hex aluminum former (patent pending) for better cooling and lower mms for any given rigidity/strength. 10 layer very high temp voice coil The wire itself is rated for 250C sustained 300C peak, the adhesive used maintains full strength until 600C. 1mm thick copper sleeve on the entire pole .5mm thick sleeve on the top plate ID Both sleeves lower inductance and distortion to an extremely low level 3" OD N42 neo magnet Underhung design with the most xmax of any 6.5" driver http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a44/OlogyAudio/OmegaBL.jpg Xmag is 23mm Xsus is 22mm where the surround comes to a screeching halt, makes some noise as a warning, and if you push it too far it would be the first thing to break. The surround has very little influence to the kms curve until about 20mm after which it quickly becomes the dominating restoring force. The 5.75" diameter spider will give quite a nice looking kms curve, I suspect the best of any 6.5" or 8" in production at the moment. It sounds *modeless* at least until 4 khz and still sounds quite good full range. We will get full FR and distortion measurements in a week or 2 when we get the first production baskets in... They will be 1/4" cast aluminum 8 spoke that will branch into 16 spoke and increase to 1/2" thickness at the base... Sorry it took so long to get to this point. Here's a teaser of the shallow mount... just a teaser guys it's not finalized yet... especially since a lot of people seem to be interested in changing the basket... doesn't use the hex former, same underhung structure... self shielded, underated 90w RMS, Inductance around 0.1mh, full 1mm of copper faraday around the pole, same extremely linear KMS curves and BL is linear for 9mm one way (straight line like the other)... Xmax around 11mm one way... 2.7" deep Fs: 40hz SPL: 90db/w Qts: .6 Re: 3.2 ohms Xmax: 11mm one way I still really like the way this basket looks... but maybe it's just me... it should be the industrial 6.5" standard like the 12 spoke frame seems to be IMO http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a44/OlogyAudio/shallowmountteaser.jpg |
|
Platinum Member Username: GlasswolfWisteria, Lane USA Post Number: 11155 Registered: Dec-03 | yeah I've been talking with him on another forum about that OlogyAudio midrange. |
|
Bronze Member Username: OlogyaudioColumbus, Oh USA Post Number: 48 Registered: Oct-05 | Yea people need to be informed about our baby -- relying completely on word of mouth and forums for this mid  |
|
Bronze Member Username: OlogyaudioColumbus, Oh USA Post Number: 49 Registered: Oct-05 | More information can be found at our official Ology Audio forum: http://www.soundsolutionsaudio.com/forum/index.php?showforum=44 All updates will happen there. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 5601 Registered: May-04 | So assuming this mid performs the same as the specs you've given (not saying I doubt you), we just may be looking at a midbass driver that can finally do justice to some Image Dynamics CD2 Comps I'd like to see independant testing, maybe NPDang on DIY Mobile Audio (I'm sure you've already thought of that). When you can't hear something, the only thing you have to rely on is testing. It still can't tell you exactly how something sounds, but it makes the decision easier. Are you planning components? I'm just wondering what kind of tweeter you'd mate up to this beast. |
|
Bronze Member Username: OlogyaudioColumbus, Oh USA Post Number: 50 Registered: Oct-05 | That was the idea to have some mids that can mate up effectively with some nice HLCDs. Our component sets are using the LPG tweeters (your choice on the aluminum vs silk) it doesn't quite do the Omega midwoofer justice but it is the best small format high value tweeter out there at the moment. When the first of the production baskets are in we will have a few production units to send to dealers, reviewers and some DIYers for independent measurement... Not to mention for the both of us to use since I assure you there is no one more anxious to use these mids than we are . Jim Griffin has our highest priority though since if he likes it he will likely buy up most of our minimum production quota for kits and line arrays of his own. This driver pretty much is the definition of his perfect midwoofer after all. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 5606 Registered: May-04 | I'm debating the idea of horns. I like horns well implemented, and I like components well implemented. It's just that the shape of the dash of this truck (dead flat), the angle of it, having no console or high floor, it's just screaming for horns. |
|
Silver Member Username: MixneffectOrangevale, Ca. USA Post Number: 812 Registered: Apr-05 | Qes = .545 Qms = 3 .545(Qes) X 3(Qms) = 1.635 .545(Qes) + 3(Qms) = 3.545 1.635 / 3.545 = .46 (Qts) It has been said that a driver with a Qts of greater than .4 it is best suited in a sealed enclosure. The Vas is very high for a 6" driver in a sealed enclosure. Vas = 45.85l The Bl is about right for the Qes/Qms. A driver that has a low Bl and a high Vas in a sealed enclosure spells the fact that it will have a weak bass response. If the driver reaches 93 dB, it will be in the midrange 2.5-4Khz. I am not seeing how this driver will deliver any better than other drivers on the market. If you are trying to get better mid-bass or a lower F3 so it will make a better transition with a sub, then this doesnt impress me so far. If you want to build a 20 liter enclosure for it so that it will reproduce the bass/mid-bass region better, it may not be effective in car audio. Just my .02 |
|
Bronze Member Username: OlogyaudioColumbus, Oh USA Post Number: 51 Registered: Oct-05 | The Omega is in all a more advanced driver in terms of install difficulty... It is very deep so it likely wont fit in the stock door. You can make them work in mid-large size sealed/ported kicks/pods or if you go IB... You have pretty much 2 options if you do go IB. The method I will use is to add a 4 dB boost at 62hz with a Q of 1. This will give an f3 of 54hz... Without EQ though it will integrate fine with a subwoofer at 80hz. It also will work nicely in a kick/pod with about .4-.7 cuft of volume. With .4 cuft sealed you get an f3 of 75hz and about a 2.5dB peak at 120hz which people tend to like... .5 cuft sealed with plenty of stuffing will get you down to 65hz with a smaller ~1.8dB peak. You could add mass which would drop the sensitivity and lower the f3 but I don't suggest this... The goal here was to get a midwoofer with as flat a BL as possible, high sensitivity, and liberal use of short paths in the motor with extended high frequency response. The bottom line though is that this driver is the smallest step in a series of much more interesting projects... We are both DIYers at heart . If you don't want to deal with tweaking and the work to get the Omega to fit, the Delta was made for you. |
|
Silver Member Username: MixneffectOrangevale, Ca. USA Post Number: 813 Registered: Apr-05 | .7 cubic foot is about 20 liters. 28 liters is 1 cubic foot. 28 X .7 = 19.6 That is a large enclosure for a car. There are many other drivers out there that do better already. |
|
Bronze Member Username: OlogyaudioColumbus, Oh USA Post Number: 52 Registered: Oct-05 | I wasn't refuting that .7 cuft would work *very* well... if you can manage to fit that... Just you can fit them in smaller enclosures as well with great results. I think you are overlooking the sensitivity of these midwoofers and the quantity of flat BL? You will need 3 Adire Extremis midwoofers IB to outperform one of these IB and you would need more power... What drivers would you rather have and why? If you are looking for ease of install again... The delta gets down to 54hz IB is still moderately sensitive and has plenty of xmax for most people... The Omega just wins in terms of sound quality and sheer output. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 5608 Registered: May-04 | "What drivers would you rather have and why?" SEAS Excels? I'm a midrange buff I will admit I'm not the type that really looks for huge x-max on a midwoofer, just isn't a huge concern for my goals. I like seeing new ideas coming into play, and discussing with driver designers consider their ideal speaker. Obviously this is yours, and I can respect that, though admittedly it's not my cup of tea, I'd rather see a waterfall plot than a BL curve. On the other hand I highly doubt your intended market is old school SQ guys like myself considering how rapidly we're dying off . Only thing that holds me back from horns is the incredible midrange and midbass accuracy of the Excel/Lotus drivers . |
|
Bronze Member Username: OlogyaudioColumbus, Oh USA Post Number: 53 Registered: Oct-05 | I see where you are coming from Jonathan. I'm a big fan of rigid drivers myself but paper was the best route to get the high efficiency as well for the moment... We are working on cones utilizing never before used materials (Woven Spectra and treated Zylon fibers... among others) though that will take a little while. I bet that will be more your cup of tea though. The harmonic distortion numbers I am expecting to be lower than PHL's offerings due to a comparable cone and lower distortion motor. I would expect the linear distortion to be in the same ballpark... Granted this isn't quite as low as the Excels but it is to be expected with a very light paper cone. It will be interesting to see how these do vs the Excels in terms of midbass quality... DIY is fun stuff! I guess mixneffect is trying to say that these don't belong in small kicks which I can agree with as well. It makes sense considering these were designed to work IB or for someone that could pull off some insane kicks (over .4cuft)... |
|
Silver Member Username: MixneffectOrangevale, Ca. USA Post Number: 814 Registered: Apr-05 | My point is; Your design doesnt make any sense. The specs tell one story while you advertise another. You are advertising a high SPL mid-bass driver with capabilities of maintaining a flat FO even down low where most or better said, "almost all 6" mid-bass drivers fall short in this area". I respect your goals, and it would be awesome to have a mid-bass driver to overcome this dilema. One thing that I find strange is that you boast it to be an SPL driver while maintaining SQ as well. Acheving these goals is not going to be easy. Getting a flat FO, high SPL, and maintaining SQ will physically fight your design. It has been proven that to get one you will have to compromise the others. You are asking for all three. Hmmm... Good luck. The specs clearly prove that these drivers will not do that at all. This is my point. |
|
Silver Member Username: MixneffectOrangevale, Ca. USA Post Number: 815 Registered: Apr-05 | BassBoxPro6 optimum in sealed with no stuffing (red); Vb = 23.47L or .829 CF* Qtc = .707 QL = 7 F3 = 93.5 Hz BassBoxPro6 optimum in vented and stuffed (yellow); Vb = 50.95L or 1.799 CF* Fb = 45.45 Hz QL = 7 F3 = 51.94 Hz Heavy damping Dv = 3" Lv = 1.621 These are "OPTIMUM" sizes so that you will maintain a flat response. That's how BassBoxPro6 is designed. Now, you are recommending; "With .4 cuft sealed you get an f3 of 75hz and about a 2.5dB peak at 120hz" BassBoxPro6 says; Your recommendations according to BassBoxPro6 in sealed and stuffed (blue); Vb = 11.33L or .4 CF* Qtc = .725 QL = .7 F3 = 109.2 Hz NOT 75 Hz Your recommendations according to BassBoxPro6 in sealed and stuffed (white); Vb = 14.16L or .5 CF* Qtc = .829 QL = 7 F3 = 108 Hz not 65 Hz So to sum it up; I don't know what program you are using to get your box sizes, but according to BassBoxPro6 they are not going to reproduce what you are advertising. BassBoxPro6 has been tested in comparison to other programs that cost 4-$10,000, and was found to be quite accurate in box calculations. There are other better programs out there that are much more professional, but my point here is that my source is quite accurate. I can give you graphs for these alignments to show in living color what you recommended and what F3 you advertised compared to what BassBoxPro6 reads in reality compared to what BassBoxPro6 recommends as "optimum". Here they are;  |
|
Bronze Member Username: OlogyaudioColumbus, Oh USA Post Number: 54 Registered: Oct-05 | I wouldn't suggest putting these in small enclosures without any EQ... See the screenshots for the big picture: Transfer functions sealed with EQ: |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 5613 Registered: May-04 | I'm not really trying to stick my nose in this, but WinISD is one of the most inaccurate programs for plotting this kind of stuff. JMO. This is where moving mass becomes important. |
|
Bronze Member Username: OlogyaudioColumbus, Oh USA Post Number: 55 Registered: Oct-05 | Yea I definatly trust BB6 more... on the other hand the graphs look very close for the sealed he posted and the sealed I posted w/o EQ though... -- Matt's computer has BB6 though hes not on right now... |
|
Silver Member Username: MixneffectOrangevale, Ca. USA Post Number: 818 Registered: Apr-05 | The graphs I posted are that of those FR of what BBP6 says that your woofer with the above mentioned T/S parameters SHOULD ACTUALLY BE. I did not graph out the FR and F3 that you said it would be. The yellow shows what a PORTED box in 1.799 CF* would do. The Red shows what a SEALED .829 CF* would do. The blue shows what YOUR .4 CF* recomendation would do in reality. The white shows what YOUR .5 CF* recommendation would do in reality. Please do not misinterpret that the above graphs are close. Your projections are way off. Thats what I have been trying to tell you. The only reason that the red, blue and white are close is because thats about as low as they are going to get in a sealed box. You projected 75 Hz and it didnt even come close. It had a cutoff at 109.2 at .4 CF*. The .5 CF* only dropped to 108 Hz, and not 65 Hz like you projected. This is all I am trying to say. Heres a tip; The object of speaker building/design is to reproduce exactly the same sound as if it were being replayed live all over again. Your designs have peaks at the rolloff. This will make a terrible FR and terribly out of phase without a doubt. |
|
Bronze Member Username: OlogyaudioColumbus, Oh USA Post Number: 56 Registered: Oct-05 | F3 in .4 cuft without EQ reads 100hz in winisd for the omega... It is off from BB6 but not that horrible. As seen here (the yellow one): http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a44/OlogyAudio/transfersealed.jpg Plot it up with bb6, add the EQ in and see what the f3 is then... I will say it again, the Omega *needs* EQ. I don't see the problem with using the EQ... There is plenty of xmax to go around, group delay still remains fine particularly for use in car, these are sensitive enough that even with rolloff in sensitivity from reference you can still expect great dynamic capability... Not to mention I RLY suggest running these IB since that is what they were designed for. Higher f3s are to be expected right out of the box with a high sensitivity driver... The point I'm trying to make is that you can correct for the low end frequency response with EQ, just like I am currently doing for my Dayton RS mids IB in the doors... |
|
Gold Member Username: Jonathan_fGA USA Post Number: 5614 Registered: May-04 | There's plenty of problem with boosting with EQ, you effectively cut your amplifier's clean power output in half with a 3db boost. If anything I'd rather cut than boost. |
|
Bronze Member Username: OlogyaudioColumbus, Oh USA Post Number: 57 Registered: Oct-05 | Physics does limit us to what we can do... We had a choice, a 87dB/w speaker that needs no boost, or a 93dB/w speaker that needs 6dB of boost at the bottom of its useable range to mate well with a subwoofer in small sealed, or 4dB IB as well as having some rather nice output potential at home where a larger enclosure can be afforded. We figured that we may as well go for the sensitive speaker since it needs much less power over the rest of its useable range. If there rly is a push for an even lower sensitivity driver than the Delta that will work well in a small kick we can get some heavier cones for another version... Or go to a solid former that is perfed near the coil... |
|
Silver Member Username: MixneffectOrangevale, Ca. USA Post Number: 822 Registered: Apr-05 | For the record. What do you mean by IB? |
|
Bronze Member Username: OlogyaudioColumbus, Oh USA Post Number: 58 Registered: Oct-05 | When I'm talking about IB in the car audio world at least I'm talking about the average door. To be more specific I'd say it is about 1 cuft or so for my car that is a very very leaky 1 cuft, mostly to the outside (drains and all the imperfect seals)... There is some to the cab but I took care of that the best I could manage. IB = Infinite baffle... though in a car isn't exactly an ideal IB situation by any means... The truth will likely be somewhere between the sealed simulation and a very large box sealed simulation unless there are excessive leaks allowing the front and rear wave to cancel. Needless to say it isn't something you can simulate with the box programs readily available and will change from car to car but I find ~ a 10cuft sealed box comes pretty close to the best fit approximation though you have to pencil in a little extra rolloff under where the 1 cuft and true IB curves cross... I also say IB when I'm talking about my subwoofer install but that's another story... |
|
Silver Member Username: MixneffectOrangevale, Ca. USA Post Number: 823 Registered: Apr-05 | I would not use a driver in an "IB" application unless it had a Qts of .7 or higher. Your driver has only .46. It does not qualify for an infinite baffle application. Very few drivers are capable of being used in infinite baffle designs. For a driver to have a Qts of .7 or higher you need to have a high Qms and a high Qes and they must be logarithmic to each other i.e. Qms = 7 Qes = .7 7 X .7 = 4.9 7 + .7 = 7.7 4.9 / 7.7 = .63 Qms = 8 Qes = .8 8 X .8 = 6.4 8 + .8 = 8.8 6.4 / 8.8 = .72 Qms = 9 Qes = .9 9 X .9 = 8.1 9 + .9 = 9.9 8.1 / 9.9 = .81 Etc... Now for a driver to have a high Qms it must be very efficient compared to its electrical input. Basically a low Qes would mean that the driver requires very little input to operate. |
|
Silver Member Username: MixneffectOrangevale, Ca. USA Post Number: 824 Registered: Apr-05 | They do not necessarily have to be logarithmic but it was an easy way to explain. |
|
Bronze Member Username: OlogyaudioColumbus, Oh USA Post Number: 59 Registered: Oct-05 | Well we could remachine the top plate ID to be larger and add a much thicker shorting ring to keep the coil closely mated and push the qms up... Keep in mind it would have a huge peak above the rolloff if you tried to put it in a sealed enclosure. The loss in sensitivity wouldn't be that large in the midrange and you would actually gain down low... I think this mid should be made... What do you think about taking the 4 ohm and pushing the BL down to about 2.6 and the qms up to between 6 and 9, all other parameters the same? |
|
Silver Member Username: MixneffectOrangevale, Ca. USA Post Number: 825 Registered: Apr-05 | Hey you sound like you know what you are doing. Send it back to the machine shop and run your tests. Send us the results I am sure there are plenty of people that would like to see a waterfall. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics