Hi Dumptruck,
Thanks a lot for giving us access to the measurements! I am a bit surprised about the serious increase in SPL as the frequency goes up, though...
Best regards
Peter
Thanks a lot for giving us access to the measurements! I am a bit surprised about the serious increase in SPL as the frequency goes up, though...
Best regards
Peter
The TD15M has a different cone profile than the others, which mostly affects the (beam-ey) HF extension it achieves up to 4kHz+, but I think it also changes dispersion a bit. Here's a measurement for you. It is still a work in progress so I am not confident about the exact frequency response, but I am pretty confident about the >1kHz dispersion shown. This is on a 28" baffle, rotated around the center axis of the baffle at fixed mic distance:
And this is vertical (heading off the bottom of the same baffle, which should effectively work something like a 36" baffle, not that this should make much difference at these angles and frequencies). More importantly, this is 44" distance, while the first is 33". Ignore the bright green line:
By the way, it is worth noting that while I'm still working on my measurement technique, there does appear to be a very real rise of about 5-9dB on-axis to reach the 98dB figure, so useable efficiency is going to be more mid-to-lower 90s. If I turn out to be wrong about this, sorry for the slander, but I'm pretty sure it's real.
Hi LineSource,
Thanks a lot for your elaborated reply! I wish I could have the best from both 'worlds' (i.e. the details and clarity on female voices as well as the weighty mid-bass presentation), but I quess this is really difficult to achieve!
Best regards
Peter
Thanks a lot for your elaborated reply! I wish I could have the best from both 'worlds' (i.e. the details and clarity on female voices as well as the weighty mid-bass presentation), but I quess this is really difficult to achieve!
Best regards
Peter
Hi,
I'm currently using the AE LO15 OB with the Autotech SEOS-15 (with B&C DE250) crossed over at 800hz. I never have heared a more coherent and involving system (maybe some ESL / planars, but this is more involving). A real "live" like experience. Excellent work from the Econowave people.
The LO15 (basically a TD15M with Dipole 15 motor) is a superb driver. I compaired it with several models of Scanspeak, Seas, Jordan and Visaton (13 - 18 cm).
About driver / waveguide integration, this is interesting: http://www.pispeakers.com/Pi_Speakers_Info.pdf (especially page 13)
BR, Jeroen
I'm currently using the AE LO15 OB with the Autotech SEOS-15 (with B&C DE250) crossed over at 800hz. I never have heared a more coherent and involving system (maybe some ESL / planars, but this is more involving). A real "live" like experience. Excellent work from the Econowave people.
The LO15 (basically a TD15M with Dipole 15 motor) is a superb driver. I compaired it with several models of Scanspeak, Seas, Jordan and Visaton (13 - 18 cm).
About driver / waveguide integration, this is interesting: http://www.pispeakers.com/Pi_Speakers_Info.pdf (especially page 13)
BR, Jeroen
Peter,
My impression is that it is good, perhaps very good. Is it the best I have ever heard? I doubt that I can go that far. Everything is a compromise and a 2-way gives up some things to gain others.
Also, personal listening tests are very subjective. While I understand your desire for a warm and fuzzy feeling about your potential purchase (the drivers are not cheap) I can say that I have been very satisfied with these drivers and would recommend them to others.
That being said, there is a build thread here discussing the use of two TD12Ms with the Beyma TPL-150 for a studio monitor. I have not listened to these personally (I need to do that!), but my impression after talking to the builder is that he has nailed the design very well, probably better than my two-way.
The TD12M would solve a number of issues that make using a 15" difficult and is worth consideration.
Hi Loren42,
Thanks a lot for your reply! I am getting more and more interested in the TM12M as well...
Best regards
Peter
Thanks a lot for your reply! I am getting more and more interested in the TM12M as well...
Best regards
Peter
I can't believe I forgot to mention this, but those measurements are only valid above ~800Hz. I will try to remember to post a wider-range measurement when I get that completed, but that one is only intended to show the off-axis characteristics around where you might cross over. There is a rising response, but not to the extent that is shown there.
I'm getting 40-1200hz out of my TD15M, with TPL-150H above that (and Raal 70-10 above that). Very happy with the sound, personally I cant hear any downside to using the TD15M that high up. You just have to get used to being scoffed at. Dispersion wise, its probably not a bad fit with the TPL-150H at XO point, but I'm not convinced of the absolute importance of power response...for example when I converted the TPL-150H to dipole the overall power response changed for the worse (I'm guessing) but the overall sound was certainly improved, so I think there are possibly a lot of other more important issues that aiming or perfect off axis dispersion. (or dipole the TD15Ms too if you really want good power response....)
Probably not.
If anything, going dipole would improve the directivity match between those two drivers, because it constrains the tweeter's directivity a little bit.
Interesting question. You guys probably know more about these things than me. I was thinking more front/back differential rather than off-axis to-the-side dispersion, if thats what you're thinking, i.e dipole cancellation to the sides narrowing the Beymas dispersion. As I have them now, standing in the front half of the room (behind speakers) there is a noticeable suck-out between 1200hz and upper bass, vs hearing only bass when they were pure monopoles. But now that I think of it the former does sound better than the latter if one were listening to music from that side of the room, so dipole'ing the Beymas might help the power response as heard from the listening position too.
But still, I think if off axis power response were as important as some suggest, then everyone would be using dioples as they are obviously heaps better in this regard than monopoles...?
Cheers
B
I said it before elsewhere but I am really not happy at all with all that rear radiation being scattered around the room that really shouldn't be there but you get with bipoles/dipoles.
Also I like my speakers with their backs on the wall or better still soffit mounted.
I have no interest at all in spending time behind my speakers unless something's broke.
I'll shut up now…
Also I like my speakers with their backs on the wall or better still soffit mounted.
I have no interest at all in spending time behind my speakers unless something's broke.
I'll shut up now…
CD, I'm not sure the sense that it 'shouldn't be there'...the original recorded sound being largely omnipolar and all.
Wrt 'power response' though, I think pure monopole speakers would be as good as pure dipole speakers, but the fact is that your monopoles are unavoidably dipole in the bass due to the omnipolar nature of the longer bass waves that come out of 'monopole' speakers, so turning them into full dipoles is really just a sense of 'evening up' the rear radiation if you know what I mean...
I found most of the improvement to the Beyma can be had by building a bigger rear chamber, i.e the improvement is not due to the dipoleness, but rather dampening the rear waves in the too-small chamber that the Beyma ships with. For close-to-the-wall placement this is how I'd go. Still, with my mid-room setup, I prefer the added sense of 'air' the they have when run without any rear chamber.
cheers
B
Wrt 'power response' though, I think pure monopole speakers would be as good as pure dipole speakers, but the fact is that your monopoles are unavoidably dipole in the bass due to the omnipolar nature of the longer bass waves that come out of 'monopole' speakers, so turning them into full dipoles is really just a sense of 'evening up' the rear radiation if you know what I mean...
I found most of the improvement to the Beyma can be had by building a bigger rear chamber, i.e the improvement is not due to the dipoleness, but rather dampening the rear waves in the too-small chamber that the Beyma ships with. For close-to-the-wall placement this is how I'd go. Still, with my mid-room setup, I prefer the added sense of 'air' the they have when run without any rear chamber.
cheers
B
Hi bvan,
Could you please elaborate on the benefits of making the back chamber of the Beyma TPL larger and more damped?
Besides killing reflections, how will a larger back chamber affect the low end response?
Thanks!
Best regards
Peter
Could you please elaborate on the benefits of making the back chamber of the Beyma TPL larger and more damped?
Besides killing reflections, how will a larger back chamber affect the low end response?
Thanks!
Best regards
Peter
Hi Bvan,
Have you measured the fundamental resonance of the Beyma without the rear chamber or with a larger rear chamber?
Hi PK. As has been commented by others who have done the mod - it makes a bit more 'relaxed and detailed' sounding. I've read somewhere that 2nd order distortion drops significantly.
FR wise I did end up with a slight depression at about 2-5k (I EQ it out with +1.5db on Fabfilter). I think though that it might be more a case of a rise bellow 2k, and again between 5-10k. Others who have done the mod on the plain TPL-150 report a rise towards 9k if I remember. I dont know anyone else besides myself who's OB'd the horn version of the Beyma.
So a bit less linear than the stock version. Without recourse to EQ I'm not sure if I'd prefer the mod...but its very easy to do, and reversible, so worth a go.
Howzit Hennie, nooit I havent.
FR wise I did end up with a slight depression at about 2-5k (I EQ it out with +1.5db on Fabfilter). I think though that it might be more a case of a rise bellow 2k, and again between 5-10k. Others who have done the mod on the plain TPL-150 report a rise towards 9k if I remember. I dont know anyone else besides myself who's OB'd the horn version of the Beyma.
So a bit less linear than the stock version. Without recourse to EQ I'm not sure if I'd prefer the mod...but its very easy to do, and reversible, so worth a go.
Howzit Hennie, nooit I havent.
The original sound has already been recorded including any desired reflections.
Adding more which are only related to ones listening room but obviously not to the space the performance took place in does nothing to advance fidelity IMO. It does create an illusion of space which was not present or intended on the recording though.
Bass indeed is a problem due to the wavelength but as I said before: If I had the opportunity I'd soffit-mount my speakers.
Failing that I keep mine as close to the back wall as possible although I had to knock well over 6dB of my woofers output to get them within +- 2dB from 25Hz-20kHz. Mind you that does reduce cone excursion and thus distortion.
Soffit mounting also makes it a lot easier to have the speakers visually disappear which does help the listening experience enormously.
IME the ideal speaker would be an invisible, monopolic point-source.
One of the reasons I am so fond of my Tannoy DualConcentrics.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.