• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Sealed Crossfiring 6x10 build

#42
My ears were right about the betas and now I know that they were right about the ND410. I always thought that the 18sound was a great mid except that is sounds like there is a nasty spike that makes it clacky. I found a thread where someone took measurements of it and there is a 108db spike at 4khz. The guy changed the dust cab with a softer one and filled or coated the back of the speaker. I don't know what that means but it flattened the response out and extended the high range. It also reduced sensitivity. I don't think that I'll be able to find soft dome mids that will be loud enough so I may end up using something like a pair of faital pro 6fe200's.
 
#44
This morning I put a source audio eq pedal in the fx loop of my shuttlemax 9.2 and used it to dial out the clack in the berg/beta driver 92k & 4k sliders) and boosted the top end (8k slider). WOW What a difference. I can make the nv610 cab work stock now. I've never used a graphic to correct this cab. In the past I boosted the top end due to the cabs dark nature but that just brought out alot of the 2k clack and my amps eq isn't tight enough to remove just the nastiness alone. When I looked at the frequency plot of the beta, I just moved the sliders around to flatten things out and then used the amps eq like normal. Awsome sound. Im going to try it at tonights gig. I put in an order for an ART EQ351, dual 31 band with adjustable high and low pass filters. I can eq with one and use the other to HP, LP, and eq my di signal to the board. (I've been doing that with an fdeck pre, a sansamp bass vt and a passive di) Im thinking that this crossfire 6x10 is going to happend with 6 beta 10's. Great sound, better dispersion, common easy to replace drivers, same sensitivity as the 4 ohm berg with the ability to add another 2x10 cab for a 4 ohm load and more power. Im having a good day.:)
 
#45
kringle77 said:
Alright, I know that I want a sealed 6x10 cab where all drivers are running full range. This is the sound that works for me so, don't try to talk me into a crossed over cab with a mid, different tunings, etc. I've tried pretty much everything thing out there and keep coming back to what works best for me.

The only problem with a cab like this is off axis dispersion. Since I will only be running drivers full range there are just two choices. Build a 6' tall vertically aligned cab (very dangerous!), or do the 2nd best thing and crossfire the drivers like a Billfitzmaurice XF guitar cab or an old sunn 610L. I have looked any several of the sunn 6x10 and 6x12 cabs and noticed that the 12's are angled in at a slightly smaller angle than the 10's. Im assuming that this was only to use the same size box for both size drivers. But, in case Im wrong, what would be the best angle to crossfire most 10's at? Experimenting at home I had very good results crossfiring a pair at roughly 135 degrees. Very even sounding.

I currently have an order placed for two different drivers to test. A weber 10FL (light weight vintage svt clone 150 watts, 20. oz., 1.5" voice coil, 95db) and a 10FH (60 oz., 150 watt, 2" voice coil, 98db) Assuming that they sound good, I was thinking about running a pair of drivers in each of the 3 sealed compartments. A pair of the heavier 16ohm drivers on the bottom, and the other two chambers would use the lighter 32ohm drivers, all 6 in parallel for a 4ohm load. The bottom pair would see as much input as the top four. All in parallel, as I understand this produces a tighter, dampened sound.

Im just looking for suggestions and comments.
Click to expand...

If you can do it, have a vertical array of drivers which handle the upper mids/treble and next to it a vertical array of woofer only drivers. The high frequency dispersion will be better laterally by having a vertical stack rather than a horizontal one higher up with bass speakers underneath.

It would still look like a 610 but perform closer to the Barefaced 69. If you have loads of money for the project and want it lightweight, use two new Kappalite 10's MB on the right top vertically and LF's for the rest. Bias the box volume to the LF's to ensure the cones are well controlled. These are all 8 Ohm. Wire them in series in pairs so you get MB's 16 Ohms, and each pair of LF's 16 Ohms. Wire the 3 pairs in parallel for around 5 Ohms - would give you a safety factor, looks good and sounds amazing.

just a thought! (But personally I would use 3 12's vertically :-)
 
#46
kringle77 said:
I meant that one weber driver is a cts vintage ampeg clone (light) and the other is at least twice as heavy and more efficient with more low end.

I've read all over that parallel sounds tighter. Doesn't mean that it's true but, it seems to be the overall opinion.
Click to expand...

A driver moving assembly which is twice as heavy and the same area would not be more efficient.... unless the BL was at least twice as high!

Wiring in series at very low frequency for any given input should be as tight as parallel. For example, four 2 ohm speakers in series = 8ohms. Four 32 Ohm speakers in parallel = 8 ohms. Doubt you could tell the difference in terms of speed etc.

However, wiring in series at higher frequencies increases the coil inductance which may encourage a faster roll off of the system. It also has undesirable effects when the two speakers are not carefully matched or have difference driver box resonances.
 
#47
5StringPocket said:
If you don't want to do a .5 alignment with crossovers then two narrow vertical 310s makes sense for cross-firing. The heavier 16 ohm driver on the bottom in it's own chamber and the two lighter 32 ohm drivers wired parallel in a shared top chamber would make each cab 8 ohms. They could be set next to each other at the desired angle for optimum dispersion and have latches to fasten them together to make one standard sized 610 for a one trip load in. This would also give you a modular setup for those times when you might only need a single 310.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Trapezoid strapped. They would not cross fire but angle out fire.

OR, a 6-10 , you could make the inside baffle angle out a little. Prolly same displacement internally.
 
#48
kringle77 said:
In case the webers don't have the top end I want, I've started looking at soft dome midranges. Apparently they sound smoother than tweets and have good off-axis response. Not very efficient but, Im really only looking to add from about 3khz to 5 or 6khz. Just alittle top end sparkle that sounds crappy with most tweets. One would sit over each columb of 10's. They may just be enough and not add much height to the cab.
Click to expand...

How about those Bag End Coax 10's?
 
#50
kringle77 said:
This morning I put a source audio eq pedal in the fx loop of my shuttlemax 9.2 and used it to dial out the clack in the berg/beta driver 92k & 4k sliders) and boosted the top end (8k slider). WOW What a difference. I can make the nv610 cab work stock now. I've never used a graphic to correct this cab. In the past I boosted the top end due to the cabs dark nature but that just brought out alot of the 2k clack and my amps eq isn't tight enough to remove just the nastiness alone. When I looked at the frequency plot of the beta, I just moved the sliders around to flatten things out and then used the amps eq like normal. Awsome sound. Im going to try it at tonights gig. I put in an order for an ART EQ351, dual 31 band with adjustable high and low pass filters. I can eq with one and use the other to HP, LP, and eq my di signal to the board. (I've been doing that with an fdeck pre, a sansamp bass vt and a passive di) Im thinking that this crossfire 6x10 is going to happend with 6 beta 10's. Great sound, better dispersion, common easy to replace drivers, same sensitivity as the 4 ohm berg with the ability to add another 2x10 cab for a 4 ohm load and more power. Im having a good day.:)
Click to expand...

So all of us who have been saying for years that FR is the vast majority of the story where how drivers sound is concerned weren't lying? Crazy talk :)

I think you'd be happier with a .5 alignment and using woofers more suited to sealed. Or just suck it up and buy a Barefaced 69er.

By the time you spend buckets of money fiddling around with crap you could just get the british cab and call it a day :)
 
#51
RP, usually my goal is to be able to plug my rack into a cab and have 95% of my sound. I always hate using extra eq's. Also, most outboard rack eq's I've tried tend to make the sound like there is a blanket over the amp. Don't know why. Thats the big reason why I don't use external eq's. The source audio pedal didnt' do that so now, Im just hoping that the art eq works as well becaue it has finer control over the range and I LOVE having low and high pass filters at my disposal. So, I wasn't ignoring anyone, I just wasn't getting the results I wanted with the gear I was using.
 
#53
Yes, it is. Crossfiring really helps it though. I have two small cabs that I mounted 10's in and crossfired at 135 degrees. Response sounds really even. To me it sounds strong along a whole 90 degree spread. It sounds stronger than running to s single woofer and crossed over mid. I've got two stock betas arriving next week. If they work out then Im going to build this cab using all betas allowing about 0.87 cubic ft per driver, sealed and stuffed, crossfired. It should be like an nv610 cab with WAY better off axis response.
 
#55
kringle77 said:
Yes, it is. Crossfiring really helps it though. I have two small cabs that I mounted 10's in and crossfired at 135 degrees. Response sounds really even. To me it sounds strong along a whole 90 degree spread. It sounds stronger than running to s single woofer and crossed over mid. I've got two stock betas arriving next week. If they work out then Im going to build this cab using all betas allowing about 0.87 cubic ft per driver, sealed and stuffed, crossfired. It should be like an nv610 cab with WAY better off axis response.
Click to expand...

WOW! ... really interested to read how this all shakes out.
 

Attachments

  • 8kcross.gif
    8kcross.gif
    43.9 KB · Views: 83
#56
I didn't notice a null at the center but, maybe if I was outside where there are no wall reflections. It just sounded even to me. There obviously has to be cancellations though. That narrow null in the center is a small price to pay for the rest of the coverage range.
 
#58
walterw said:
aha. the "crossfired" pair does indeed go a lot higher before the hideous combing starts. however, it looks like it also quickly creates one big null in the mids and highs right exactly in front of the pair.
Click to expand...
No one said it was perfect. But when using two cabs that can't be vertically stacked it's better than the other options.
 
#59
I got an ART 355 dual 31 band eq with hi pass and low pass filters. It went in the master fx loop of a shuttlemax 9.2. What a great eq, it didn't sound like throwing a wet blanket over my amp when I plugged it in like I've had with other units. I basically looked at the frequency response of a beta 10a and made it flat with the eq. Man, my stock NV610 sounds so much better now. All the brightness I could ever use and no clack. I used the second eq/filter section to eq the bass in my in-ears to sound like my cab and it really does just that. I've got two gigs to try it out on this weekend but already know that this is going to work. On wednesday I'll have to beta 10's to stuff in a cab. If those work out, this cab may go into production. :hyper:
 
#60
walterw said:
aha. the "crossfired" pair does indeed go a lot higher before the hideous combing starts. however, it looks like it also quickly creates one big null in the mids and highs right exactly in front of the pair.
Click to expand...

That's where the benefit of using a shallower crossfire angle comes in. In my experimenting with this stuff, something around 15-20 degrees rather than the 45 shown in that link, ( or 140 instead of 90, depending on how you view the angles), you don't notice a drop in response on axis, just greatly improved response off axis. There isn't such a hole in the center. I went as far as some listening tests and preliminary cab dimension math before stopping. Mine approach was for an 810, preserving everything people like about the ampeg cab, just spreading it around to more stage/audience area, and it really works well, big improvement over the flat front version. Kringle's concepts are basically the same for his Berg 610 and the results/angles he's arriving at are very, very similair to what I heard. The difference is, he's following it through to fruition.:). I've no need for an 810, but worked out the design in case someday I could sell some of them.


Hey Kringle....depending on how extreme your EQ correction is to get your desired sound, you might be able to get there using notch filters in the cab passively and not have to drag around more gear. At least knock down the worst peaks and chalk the rest up to subjective tone differences.

Another thing that, In My Opinion, people should take away from this thread is just how much they're paying for a brand name and not paying for highend components, etc. OEM speakers won't vary more than 5% or so, 10 at the very most, from off the shelf models, so for 2 arms and a leg, you can get some Beta's in a box.....yay. You'd be surprised how much "boutique" stuff is created by carefully and precisely implementing budget stuff. The most expensive part is the logo. Not a knock at bergantino specifically there, this goes on industry wide.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back