August 17, 2021 at 10:07 am #13897
I was talking with Chris Perez of Dayton Audio and he basically said the new Dayton Epique line is a new classification of woofers. They hit like a subwoofer, handle power like a subwoofer, but have an extended range with low distortion while maintaining bl linearity. This makes it useful for a lot of 2-way designs. They look pretty awesome.
He even went on to say, he thought these would be very comparable to the 3.5 time as expensive Purifi ptt6.5. THey do look pretty epique and I plan to throw some ideas around these drivers down below. What do you guys think of them?
If you want to hear all of Chris’ thoughts – here is the video:
August 17, 2021 at 9:20 pm #13899
I saw these with the announcement of the High Excursion Reference Series. My first thought was a replacement for the Tang Band subs. After watching your video and seeing the bl linearity, I was much more impressed. It’s power hungry to get over 100dB, because it looks like you want to level it around 80-81dB instead of 83dB on the frequency curve. At 100W, that is +20dB. It can handle 200W RMS, but that is bringing it to just 103dB. Granted, most watch or listen between 86-96dB, so the low sensitivity should not matter.
But that linearity and low distortion really makes this something to consider. And if doing this (I pulled numbers from the 7″) as dual mid, crossing over at 1800-2000Hz, you can get it where it should do over 102 without worrying about RMS at all.
But this should be good to do a speaker down to 40-45Hz decently well.
As far as looks go, these are beautiful. Also, glad they are including the decay waterfall and the harmonic distortion on the third page of the spec sheet.
Overall, these are some that look fun to play with!
August 17, 2021 at 9:24 pm #13900
Yeah I think for the five and a half inch I really like the idea of an MTM. That way you can take the woofers down to four ohm to help increase that sensitivity. Interestingly enough, I found this on my doorstep today.
Well I actually received the four epique drivers today. The tweeters I already had. So it appears that I will be building an MTM with these. I’ll have to throw out some ideas based on what I’m seeing. But I’m pretty sure that I’m going to design these around maximum 200 watts. Which should give someone over 100 decibels anechoically. So more than enough. And that should cut down on the port size. But it does look like if you’re going to use these as pure subwoofers you would definitely want to use a passive radiator. Hopefully they’ll design one for these.
That 7-in design that you talked about sounds really cool. I would love to see the bass out of those. The 7-in could make a really good home theater speaker.
August 17, 2021 at 10:19 pm #13903
@123toid – Yeah, going to 4 Ohm will definitely help. Considering they are 4+4 speakers, you have options (and if doing car audio, you could bring it to 1 Ohm), lol. The tweeter looks like a sealed back, so that doesn’t need a separate chamber for it.
Minimum height internal dimension I would try is 16″ (the 3″ tweeter plus 2 almost 6 inch at basket edges, unless wanting to screw the driver frame into the top or bottom wood pieces). I got 1025.6 in^3 and tuning frequency of 40.51 with a dual driver with vent. I’d go 7″ internal width, which leaves it about 9.16″ deep before adjustments for driver volume, bracing, etc. After the adjustment, you could easily be looking at around 11″ deep. The vent, if doing a shelf vent, would need to be 1.25″x7″x21.68″, which if it is 11″ deep by the end that means you would add 4″ to the bottom to account for a vent to the back and back to the front of the speaker, meaning you are now around 20″ tall, which also means I’d need to double check the depth after that winding. The first port resonance would be 312.16Hz. Also, to wind up at 11″, I estimated 20% for everything else, which is likely wrong depending on which style of bracing is using, the vent, etc. I’d have to throw it into my spreadsheet (which I will do later).
The filter I put on it is a high pass at 24Hz, thereby making X-Max at 80W per driver (still have to leave some for the tweeter, although likely the tweeter would only need around 30W or slightly less to match the two mids pushing 80W) like 10.5mm, leaving it a full 4mm below X-Max, while not interfering with how low it can reach, which should be an F3 around 39Hz. I did not have it include voice coil inductance since this doesn’t cross low and the bl features.
Here are some of the images from my winisd setup:
Granted, this was a quick and dirty design, so take it for what it is. But it isn’t a bad start, and even these 5.5″ drivers having around an F3 of 39Hz is impressive.
August 18, 2021 at 1:34 am #13904
August 18, 2021 at 5:51 am #13907
So far, there are some amazing ideas for these Epique drivers! Here is what I came up with. Feel free to critique it if you see something wrong. I went with two of the 5 1/2″ drivers in a 0.75 cubic foot box tuned to 39Hz. This gives an F3 of 35Hz (very similar to the DINAS).
This would result in an enclosure that would be approximately 7.5″ wide, by 30″ Tall and 10″ deep (before port). The port would be approximately 6″ wide by 2″ tall and 25.25″ long.
If you gave this speaker 200watts, the SPL would be about 108db anechoically 3 feet away. With 150watts, it only drops about 1db. Even at 10 feet away, you still get an anechoic SPL of 98db. which should be more than loud enough for most people.
The port velocity at 200watss is around 19m/s. Assuming a rear firing port this shouldn’t be an issue. But if you think it would be, at 150watts, it drops to 16m/s.
Assuming you are using gear with a built in 20hz high pass. The speakers are completely protected from over excursion at 15watts. They do go over at 200w between 28hertz and 17hertz.
Overall, it feels like a good compromise between high output and port velocity. The only thing that is somewhat of a concern is the first port resonance it relatively low at 226hertz. It would be nicer if it could be pushed up higher. But I am going on a limb and guessing that will not be much of an issue.
It would seem if you want maximum output out of these, it would be best to go with some sort of passive radiator. But I don’t think that is a great option currently. They either wouldn’t match aesthetically or you would end up using a much bigger passive radiator, that would surely look pretty silly.
August 18, 2021 at 6:04 am #13908
Shoot now I can’t un-see this. I decided to try a few passive radiators just for fun. I tried this 10″ and this 12″. All are modeled in a 0.75 cubic foot box. The 12″ has one 75 gram weight attached, while the 10″ is just the passive radiator with no extra weight. They both offer pretty impressive results. And neither will reach their excursion limits, even at full RMS power. The 10″ will run out of excursion after 500w, while the 12″ will be good up to full 800w peak power. Although, the Epique drivers themselves will pass excursion after 500w, so that is really a moot point.
August 18, 2021 at 6:07 am #13909
Sweet, I came up with something very similar to yours. It looks like we are both on the same track. It looks like either would be a good one to build. I am now wondering if I should go with a passive radiator or just go ported. I am feeling ported. I mean, the project is already expensive enough…
August 18, 2021 at 6:25 am #13911
August 18, 2021 at 6:50 am #13912
That would be sweet. However with the current arrangement the passive radiator would end up having to be a side-firing toward the bottom of the cabinet. With the MTM up in a normal arrangement. Since the passive raiders are so much, I think I’m just going to stick with ported.
August 18, 2021 at 2:07 pm #13914zarbo-audio-projectsParticipant
Nick, thanks a lot for the link to my video on the mini-Epique driver.
I actually left a lot out that I wanted to say… like how nice the frame is and how thick the mounting flange is (nearly a full 1/4″ thick) and how thick the sealing gasket is 1/8″ if not thicker…
It’s a beauty of a driver, and a darn shame to hide it in a box honestly….
If the motor is quiet enough at high-excursion, I wonder if a mini-tower with two of them could be arranged with the bottom one crossed as a .1 and mounted magnet-side-out for some extra bling…
…Or maybe even a little mini-subwoofer magnet-side-out with the driver on top… say for a small computer desk sub or for a small bedroom setup. I used Dayton’s sag calculation on both the 5 and 7″ versions and it seems they can be mounted up or down-facing with no issues.
I enjoyed the video describing the inner workings of this series of driver, thanks to you and Chris — a really great guy — for doing this. Exciting times for speaker builders!
TomZ, aka Tom Zarbo, aka Zarbo Audio Projects
August 18, 2021 at 4:05 pm #13915
@123toid Something I started doing with my designs is use of dadoes and grooves in the design step to help tie elements together more, as well as doing a modified D vertical brace (how some companies run a vertical brace with a rounded cut out to make way for the drivers and to not fully cut off the two sides of the box from each other, often accompanied with horizontal bracing at points), but instead, since I glue two sheets of the material together to make the brace (so 1.406″ for plywood, 1.5″ MDF), you can then cut a part and inverse each of the two that get glued together to then put the horizontal brace inside the opening of the vertical brace, then have where it is a halved-jointed along the spine and front part of the brace that in the middle runs from the top to the bottom, while gluing the part cut back in place afterwords.
An example may make what my thoughts are easier to understand. Take this brace here (being considered for the tower subwoofer chamber):
Now, since you make two of these to glue together, you can cut one at the top, then one at the bottom around where the red lines are. You then move the horizontal braces to the inside space, then glue the two vertical pieces together to make the 1.5″ thick brace, with the mirror part being whole acting as a support for the piece that was cut to allow the horizontal braces to fit inside. Then, the horizontal braces, without the need for the shape at the bottom to hold the vent shelf, just slide into the cut positions to create the halves-joint between all the bracing. This reinforces the position and prevents flex of the bracing as the horizontal reinforces the vertical bracing and vice versa.
To take it further, either a dado set or your CNC can cut grooves and dadoes in the vent shelf and the walls and top and bottom, similar to some kits you have used, although the corners may need cleaned up with a chisel, to help really connect the elements together. But, do not do this to the front, generally, due to concerns that if you glue that last separately, minor deviations or swelling due to glue application may make it not fit in those grooves. Plus the baffle can be reinforced by doing a double baffle to stiffen it, which with an MTM design and not having many contact opportunities with the bracing of the rest of the cabinet kind of makes that a way to stiffen the front without much additional work, while allowing a canvas to use your CNC to shape the baffle, such as having a slope away from the center tweeter like pyramid walls, reducing down to around 0.75″ at the connecting edge (so after a flush mount, give like a quarter to half inch buffer on the sides, then slope from that point to the edge of the baffle), while with the larger drivers doing a more rounded part to the baffle edge (doesn’t recess as much). I will have to figure out how to draw what I see in my head, but the idea is that since you have the CNC, start playing with some design elements in the baffle, which the double baffle gives ample room to be creative with.
Although the bracing equations are wrong for me now including a vertical brace to hold the vent (which can also act as the spacer, along with the grooves for the vent in the sides, to help the vent be held at the perfect distance), but throwing it in my spreadsheet, it approximates a box, using a vertical and two horizontal braces of MDF, to be around 7″x20″x12.88″ (just use 12 7/8″) internal dimensions, with a front facing vent, the vent is calculated as 2 vents of 2.75″ (7″ internal width minus 1.5″ for the bracing thickness which separates it into two vents, then divided by 2) which gives a 1.5″x2.75″x21.07 vent length. I would wrap the rest up the back and create the slot in the sheet goods going upward, but no dado or groove in that part of the vent, only a half-joint at the top the thickness of the amount for the vent material (1.5″) so that you slip that part in, slide it up, then when you slide in the part for the vent from the baffle toward the back, it locks in underneath that part holding it up into the half joint. That would create a pocket for where the bracing is if using a dado in the bottom piece, but I suppose the second part of the vent could have a little piece glued onto it once in place, followed by the second part being slid into place. I know, this is sounding more like a 3D jigsaw puzzle with the bracing the more I speak about it. LOL.
Box volume is 0.594 ft^3. I might try calculating it using the 0.75 ft^3 and the other factors you used to drop down the F3 to 35Hz later.
I did not model for any damping material in my calculations yet as I am trying to figure out if I can come up with a better way than creating a specific formula for each design I create moving forward (although I am not going to hold my breath on that).
But just where my thoughts are going with techniques for bracing and building. Let’s hope sheet goods pricing start dropping soon. Lumber futures are already down to $458.60 as of today and we are fast approaching the end of construction season, meaning hopefully soon demand on sheet goods will drop off.
BTW, my bracing is still simplistic when compared to something like this Polk internals:
August 19, 2021 at 6:23 am #13920
You’re welcome. I am really excited to see where your channel grows. You are a great designer and great guy. I wish the best for you.
As far as what you said. I was also very impressed with the gasket. it looks like the ones Chris had were preproduction or along those lines, because there was no gasket. Some people were actuay asking if it came with it. I am glad it does.
I love the idea of the a 0.1 with the basket sticking out. That would be amazing. I have only come across a few drivers that I was really impressed like that. The Epique line and the esoteric line come to mind.
I look forward to see what projects you come out with. Let me know if you ever want to do some type of collaboration between channels. I think that would be fun.
August 19, 2021 at 6:26 am #13921
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.