There is a bit of a misnomer with the Behringer that almost everyone, including SL, makes:
Narrow dispersion.
The fact is that the Behringer doesn't really have the narrow directivity pattern everyone thinks (at least within 120 degrees of forward radiation).
Within +/- 30 degrees it's exceedingly similar in pressure except for a minor "dip" between 2.5 kHz and 4.5 kHz:
http://www.zaphaudio.com/temp/B2031P-system-horizontal-offaxis-0-15-30-45-60.gif
At 45 degrees the pressure loss is about what you would expect in most designs except for that 2-5 kHz region (..where some added diffraction from the tweeter often occurs). At 60 Hz most of the top two octaves probably has greater dispersion than most normal designs.
The Orion almost certainly has a moderately similar response to Nao II (which can be seen here when placing your cursor on the Nao Note Polar Spectrum vs. Frequency plot:
NaO Note Details
With the exception of the "blooming" between 1 kHz and 6 kHz, the Orion will almost certainly be *more* directive (overall) in the frontal lobe than either the IMP or the Behringer.
Now extrapolate the results.
(..I should also note that when you don't have a corresponding intensity on the rear of the loudspeaker that subjectively it tends to "push" the soundstage forward. At higher freq.s the Behringer will have a lower intensity at the rear of the speaker.)
I think I've read a pre-print and then the power-point. I remember reading quite a bit more from the 1st publication than the power-point presentation, but over two years after the fact that's the best I can muster (..or is it 3 or 4 years?).
If I'm wrong and you have examples - please provide them. (..note: I've certainly no stake in either. ..and perversely, I tend to revel in being wrong.
) (Ex. if it has pink-noise testing then I'm wrong about that, but I don't think I'm wrong in my interpretation of SL's results with regard to the pink-noise tests he performed. If you still think otherwise - please explain.)That it is subjective - isn't in question.
That it lacks sufficient controls - that's what I remember, but that could be faulty. (..though the power-point doesn't give me any assurances of sufficient controls.)
That it lacks a truly objective base-line - I'm virtually certain of.
Last edited:
Well doesn't the IMP make use of rear firing tweeters eliminating the need for BSC? Therefore HF energy equaling the rest of the frequency spectrum?
The berry's employ a BSC filter. That means 1/2 omni, 1/2 forward radiator.
Uneven power response.
I thought the IMP was 4 full range drivers with intensity differences (depending on driver).
Looking back at the power-point it describes two "speakers" (I'm assuming full-range drivers) on the "rear" baffles operating at full intensity. The forward facing toe-in driver is -6db from the rear. The forward facing toe-out driver is -12db from the rear drivers.
Because it's a fullrange driver (with modestly greater directivity at higher freq.s), it has something of a Jordan/Geddes intensity-trading scheme to stabilize imaging for listener's listening off-axis. It also means that combing at those higher freq.s won't be quite as horrendous as you would expect.
From my own (not dissimilar experiments quite some time ago), that frontal toe-out driver is problematic for several reasons (including of course combing), which is why the designer likely dropped the pressure 6 db from the toe-in driver.
Last edited:
I thought the IMP was 4 full range drivers with intensity differences (depending on driver).
Well, it looks like tweeters and woofers on all sides.
imp360-2.jpg photo - Gary Eickmeier photos at pbase.com
It's some kind of bipole omni, yes with different amplitudes on opposing sides.
Is that a tweeter or a port?
Also, that looks different than the pic in the power-point.
The newer one looks like it has tweeters on the rear, but the front looks more like ports to me. (..and the rear has ports as well, if that black circular thing is a port that is.)
..and thanks for the link!
Last edited:
Is that a tweeter or a port?
Also, that looks different than the pic in the power-point.
The newer one looks like it has tweeters on the rear, but the front look more like ports to me. (..and the rear has ports as well, if that black circular thing is a port that is.)
..and thanks for the link!
I think they look more like tweeter faceplates? Looks like there are 4 screws around the tweeter and 3 screws around the perimeter of the faceplate.
Yup, I think I'm seeing the interior and exterior screws for the face-plate of a tweeter as well.
At this point I don't know what to make of it.
(..or if it's substantially similar to the design in the AES article.)But I would like to hear it.
Ha!
2005 for that post.
He went ahead and did something different, very nice!
Melo theory, I think you've found a kindred spirit.
Hahaha! I'm glad you follow my wacky designs!
Just remember: one man's wacky is another man's genius.