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. In 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?
I'm at a bit of an interesting crossroad and hoping you can help point me in the right direction. Forewarned, I get that it's a loaded question filled with personal bias. Also, feel free to tell me I'm wrong for considering these options. I'm trying to maximize the use of my tuner for the time being while I continue to build out the system. For the rear channel speakers, I'm likely going to install a pair of Dayton ME650's down the road, largely due to the room configuration.
Initial thoughts were building a soundbar type enclosure that's broken up into two different channels with three speakers on each channel (orientation = (1) ps95, (1) TEBM65C20F-4, (1) PS95) and it would hang on the wall underneath the TV. Couple that with a sub and I've got a 2.1 system. I've calculated the box volume for each channel to be 0.25 ft.³.
The alternative soundbar idea is utilizing the same speakers but break them up to be:
Channel One: (1)PS95, (1) TEBM65C20F-4
Center Channel: (2) PS95
Channel Two: (1)PS95, (1) TEBM65C20F-4
Based on initial calculations I should be able to pull off the external dimensions of 40"x4"x5.5" with the internal space broken up into 3 compartments vs the 2 mentioned above.
@123toid Any chance you can help me sort out the BSC needed for speakers?
Let me preface this by saying that I'm only asking these questions to gain a better understanding of your vision. No disrespect or any other feeling intended.
I'm curious as to the choice of combining the 2 different "full range" drivers. Is it trying to get the best of both worlds? I'm not sure of your design intent. Perhaps it is the dispersion.
Major differences are their impedance and Sensitivity. The PS is 8 ohm and ~86 dB while the TEBM is 4 ohm and 81 dB. Here, again, is where the difference in stated rating parameters comes into play. ~86 dB @ 2.83v/1m and 81 dB @ 1w/1m (which works out to about 2v/1m), so theoretically, the 4 ohm should be slightly more loud if measured @ 2.83V across it. How much would have to be verified by measurement.
Wattage is another difference. 10 w vs 30 w (RMS). Proper combinations would make this a very small point to consider.
Looking at the supplied graphs, they have similar looking curves, but they are different. Here I have taken both graphs and matched up their grids as close as I could to compare apples to apples.
I'll let you guys mull it over and we'll talk a bit later, see how the thought processes play out.
As to box sizes/calcs, I haven't had time to really get into it other than to verify that @ 0.25 CuFt, one driver will tune to 101 Hz and the other will tune to ~124 Hz.
I know you've already touched on it in an above reply, but the decision on these specific drivers is what I'm looking for. As I said, not to judge or anything, but to better understand where you are truly aiming.
My thought in this exercise was to pair the PS95 speakers I have (4) with a pair of speakers that would help fill in the mid to low tones while allowing the PS's cover the high tones. In fairness, the purchase of the Tech's was a bit rushed, taking advantage of a Parts-Express sale during Black Friday. That said, I'm beginning to understand this may not have been the best purchase and more so looking for a way out that does not include returning the speakers.
Another option would be running the Tech's as the center channel speakers while allowing the PS95's to be the left and right channels. Just a thought.
Apologies for my scatter-brainess. Up until this point my speaker building has been very limited and elementary at best, more so just basic garage speaker setups that include two speakers and zero consideration for crossovers of BSD's. I'd rather invest time in learning and building rather than just purchasing.