Dayton Audio PS95-8 3-1/2" - Needs Crossover?
- I’m considering the idea of building a new 2.1 system for a TV system and I have (4) Dayton PS95’s that is like to use for the sound bar underneath the TV. Right now I’m using those speakers in a ported garage Bluetooth setup, full range with no crossovers. That said, I’ve seen a few builds where these speakers are used in a full range build, but there is a crossover being used. Question is... what is it being used for?
- The planned setup is create a wall mounted soundbar with (2) PS95’s per channel with the use of down firing passive radiators, powered by a Dayton DTA PRO 100. From there I’ll be adding a Dayton LS10 44 in a ported box powered by a Dayton SPA250DSP amp. Thoughts on the setup?
What you are referring to is a BSC. It is a baffle step compensation circuit. Basically, you will miss out on bass and midrange, depending on the size of the cabinet depends on the cutoff. I did a video on how to figure out a basic starting point, which may help. If you give us the baffle dimensions and your results, we can double check them.
As far as thoughts on the setup, the only concern I would have is using the LS10-44. That is a dual 4ohm driver, which means you either can run it at 8ohms or 2 ohms. Since the amplifier you are looking at is only capable of 4 ohms or higher, you would have to run that sub at 8ohms. This means you will only get half the wattage out of that amplifier (125w). You might be better off going witht he 10" HF sub that is nominal 4 ohms.
Thanks for the quick replay!!
As I get closer to planning out the soundbar I’ll jump in with specs. That said, if the BSC setup is limiting bass and midrange, what fills in the midrange?
As for the sub, the LS10 44 fit the bill nicely because I’d be able to build an enclosure that fits underneath the couch and away from the curious hands of children. Is there another low profile sub you’d suggest?
I think I did a poor job explaining myself on baffle step correction. once you put a speaker in a box, you're mid-range and bass will be lower than your trouble. A baffle step compensation circuit compensates for that. Basically it'll take everything after the point the baffle step ends and attenuates it down in order for you to have a flat frequency response. Without it, what you'll have is a speaker that lacks mid-range and bass.
That wavecor would definitely work. Not to mention, I haven't heard a wavecor driver I don't like.
Planning on building a single long narrow box, basically a soundbar, that’s using at least two PS95’s per side along with one of either of these speakers paired with a PS95’s:
This will be a sealed enclosure paired with a pair of Daytona 6.5” subwoofers, sealed enclosure, on the other side of the room.
Lets look at the Peerless and Tectonic while comparing to the PS95's specs.
Most basic you'll need is Impedance, Sensitivity, Qts, Fs and Vas to figure out the best match.
Impedance 8 ohms
Sensitivity 85.56 dB 2.83V/1m
(Fs) 119.8 Hz
(Vas) 0.03 ft.
Impedance 4 ohms
Sensitivity 85.98 dB 2.83V/1m
(Fs) 72 Hz
(Vas) 0.049 ft.³
Impedance 4 ohms
Sensitivity 81 dB 1W/1m
(Fs) 97 Hz
(Vas) 0.035 ft.³
Right off, you'll notice the woofers are 4 ohm while the PS95 is 8 ohm. We can work with that, but keep it in mind.
Next is Sensitivity. Immediately you'll see that the Tectonic is ~4.5 -5 dB down from the others. BUT, it is listed at a different spec. 2.83V/1m = 1W at 8 ohms, while 2.83V/1m = 2W at 4 ohms. I order to get 1W at 4 ohms, the voltage would be 2V. Which means the Peerless would go down to about 83 dB +-. Still more than the Tectonic, but not by much.
Now the rest are used in box calcs. Since you want a sealed box (Acoustic Suspension), I took the liberty of running some numbers. Starting with both the target box Q's set to 0.9 (equal to or greater than the highest Qts in question) for apples to apples comparison, you get:
0.008 Cu.Ft. box at 185.1 Hz
0.149 Cu.Ft. box at 105.2 Hz
If I use the same box size for both based on the Tectonic, I get:
0.149 Cu.Ft. box at Qbox (0.39) 81 Hz
0.149 Cu.Ft. box at Qbox (0.9) 105.2 Hz
If I use the a different Qbox for the Peerless to get it up to a useable level, I get:
0.043 Cu.Ft. box at Qbox (0.5) 102.8 Hz
0.149 Cu.Ft. box at Qbox (0.9) 105.2 Hz
I chose 0.5 because that is about the lowest most designers would go for bass, which would give the tight quick bass normally associated with Jazz, but not overly deep. For reference, a Qbox of 0.7 is considered "flat" while Q's higher than that start to form a hump in the bass above box resonance. Sometimes that helps, sometimes that makes it sound warm and mushy.
Since you are coupling the soundbar to subs, that's not to bad. I'll let you make up your mind on which would be best for your application.
Wow! Mind blown on the response. Thank You.
If I’m reading it right, the peerless speakers are more in-tune with what I’m looking for. Ultimately I’m looking to fill in the mid-tones a bit more, steering towards compartmental design where the PS95’s are more high-tone driver while the peerless fills in the mids and the takes care of the lows. Would you agree with that?
What box building software do you recommend? I was going to draw up the sound bar and sub box in sketchUp while using the speaker information to isolate the dimensions.
There's one other thing that should be looked at before making concrete decisions like this, and that would be the graph provided for each driver.
Going with the provided info from PE, you'll see that all 3 drivers have very similar frequency response graphs in the bass region. What this means is that they should all have somewhat similar output responses. The main reason you would want to put one of those woofers in there would be to have high power handling with better XMAX. So freeing up the PS95s for higher crossover frequency (say 300 to 400 Hz) would give them better transient response and ultimately more clarity in their intended range. Especially if it is to be used like a standard Soundbar with 4.1 channels. Even with 2.1 channels, it would add clarity.
As far as what I use for drawing up the boxes / designs, well, I'm an old school guy who still does that with pencil and paper. I do a lot of drafting with AutoCAD at work, so I relish the time I get to go back to the board and do something by hand. Put it this way, when I started in my job, we didn't even have a 286 yet. Our specialized computer was a HP with a 12 button keyboard, microcassette and thermal print roll like a cashier's tape. So I learned to draw with straightedge, circle templates and french curves. For calculations, I have a small cache of MS QUICKBASIC programs I've copied / modified / written years ago to blow through these scenarios.
Since I've never built a Soundbar, I'd like to hear from some others who have. Who's up?