Guess Bill is far more concerned with aesthetics than acoustics. We all have our priorities. I just can't understand that kind of investment without considering the sound.
BTW, I prefer my Dayton RS to their Titanic. I prefer my Peerless 830500's to either. I run slightly larger boxes so I can get the Q lower. My preference for subs. 60 to 70L.
BTW, I prefer my Dayton RS to their Titanic. I prefer my Peerless 830500's to either. I run slightly larger boxes so I can get the Q lower. My preference for subs. 60 to 70L.
Putting a hemisphere on top of the deflector would reduce diffraction problems the knife edge will introduce.
The deflector could be attached to an "X" across a standard speaker, or to a perforated metal screen which would reduce the amount of dead bugs collecting on the cone in coconut land
.
I am very concerned with aesthetics. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
but seriously, I do want it to sound as good as possible within the brief of the design. The drive units will be chosen on sound quality and the cabinet shape is as much function as form.
The deflector is mounted inside so I'll remove the dust caps, or if using the Omnes I'll take the phase plugs out
but seriously, I do want it to sound as good as possible within the brief of the design. The drive units will be chosen on sound quality and the cabinet shape is as much function as form.
The deflector is mounted inside so I'll remove the dust caps, or if using the Omnes I'll take the phase plugs out
Last edited:
Or simultaneously; form should make the design function properly (the Joe Sutter approach). With this design I wanted a relatively discreet system, sizewise if not visually, and to keep the main speakers under a certain height/width.
I always think the best designs are those which push form to the absolute knife-edge limit (of function), for example a Colin Chapman Lotus.
I always think the best designs are those which push form to the absolute knife-edge limit (of function), for example a Colin Chapman Lotus.
Last edited:
I'll take up that analogy. Chapman was a master of not enough function. They were too fragile for normal use and too unreliable even if driven daily. I can't imagine how some of the later designs ever made it off the drawing board. (Eclat) The 11 was the only one at all attractive. Elite, cute maybe. If you were over 5' 7 and size 8 shoes, forget it. That is why I drove a TVR instead of a Europa. I had a Morgan as I can't even get inside a Seven. Best Lotus ever built? Third generation Toyota MR2. A bit short on the form part.
I am all for cutting edge form, but for me the function comes first. A better analogy than the Lotus would be the E-type. It functioned for it's time better than anything and the form was superb. Parsons table, Eames chair, dare I say, iPad? The list goes on. Even Trevor Wilkinson (TVR) was famous for the coffee pot he designed that was used in many airliners.
Back to function. I would be concerned you will have localization of the sub problems as I doubt your mains can get down low enough. The steeper the crossover the better. ( I do LR4 @ 60 ) Your sub will work, but at only one foot the Q will be on the high side which may leave you with less bass than you want and a big hump where you would rather it just roll off. Custom EQ may be able to tame it. Every extra cubic inch will be to your advantage. You are going to need quite a bit of EQ with those mains to deal with the baffle step and diffraction as well as no real tweeter. If this is to be an integrated system, then that is a piece of cake.
Several people have tried the midrange reflector idea. Never seemed to work very well. For no other reason, the round shape is the very worst thing you can do with regards to baffle step. (See Olson) Omni mains tend to be difficult to use in real rooms. It really comes down to needing about a 6 inch mid to reach down to the sub and a real tweeter to get anything like high fidelity. I offer the challenge is to make that blend in. In-wall is the least obtrusive. If your goal is just background music or a little better TV, they you may be fine but a couple of wall plates could be better.
One of the reasons the world has so few top notch industrial designers is great artists tend to be not great engineers, and great engineers tend to not be great artists. Fortunately there are exceptions.
I am all for cutting edge form, but for me the function comes first. A better analogy than the Lotus would be the E-type. It functioned for it's time better than anything and the form was superb. Parsons table, Eames chair, dare I say, iPad? The list goes on. Even Trevor Wilkinson (TVR) was famous for the coffee pot he designed that was used in many airliners.
Back to function. I would be concerned you will have localization of the sub problems as I doubt your mains can get down low enough. The steeper the crossover the better. ( I do LR4 @ 60 ) Your sub will work, but at only one foot the Q will be on the high side which may leave you with less bass than you want and a big hump where you would rather it just roll off. Custom EQ may be able to tame it. Every extra cubic inch will be to your advantage. You are going to need quite a bit of EQ with those mains to deal with the baffle step and diffraction as well as no real tweeter. If this is to be an integrated system, then that is a piece of cake.
Several people have tried the midrange reflector idea. Never seemed to work very well. For no other reason, the round shape is the very worst thing you can do with regards to baffle step. (See Olson) Omni mains tend to be difficult to use in real rooms. It really comes down to needing about a 6 inch mid to reach down to the sub and a real tweeter to get anything like high fidelity. I offer the challenge is to make that blend in. In-wall is the least obtrusive. If your goal is just background music or a little better TV, they you may be fine but a couple of wall plates could be better.
One of the reasons the world has so few top notch industrial designers is great artists tend to be not great engineers, and great engineers tend to not be great artists. Fortunately there are exceptions.
The full rangers I'm using have a raise in the treble region and should have an f3 of 120hz. The sub will have a Qtc of around 0.82/ slight raise around 50-70 hz, which has some advantages.
Design is all around us, i don't see a problem if an architect is crap at maths for example
Design is all around us, i don't see a problem if an architect is crap at maths for example
Last edited:
Yea, the architect still has to be approved by an engineer so the architect can be an "ar-teist" But the Engineer can do the architects job. I contend F.L.W. was the worst architect of his time as he had no respect for the engineer. "their problem" An engineer would not make the front door too small to walk through just to make the porch look bigger.
High Q sub, full range, and high crossover. You have been advised that is not a good combination for quality sound reproduction. Best of luck.
High Q sub, full range, and high crossover. You have been advised that is not a good combination for quality sound reproduction. Best of luck.
Thanks, will have to agree to disagree about Frank Lloyd Wright and Colin Chapman. What's your opinion on the designer Naoto Fukasawa?
I'm factoring in a 10% difference of drive unit measured parameters - if I go by the factory numbers there is no rise at all.
I'm guestimating the sub Q leads to a small 1dB rise around 50-80hz which is ok; 28-30l volume makes for an f3 of 35hz with the rise factored in. I prefer a small dip around the 150hz region and this can sometimes help w/ Bsc; crossover is 100-120hz.
I'm factoring in a 10% difference of drive unit measured parameters - if I go by the factory numbers there is no rise at all.
I'm guestimating the sub Q leads to a small 1dB rise around 50-80hz which is ok; 28-30l volume makes for an f3 of 35hz with the rise factored in. I prefer a small dip around the 150hz region and this can sometimes help w/ Bsc; crossover is 100-120hz.
Last edited:
Speaker first:
10% is a fair guess for a driver after it is broken in.
My preference is I want my bass to roll of gently. Any hump makes it sound boomy. Remember, you will get some boost from the room. A woofer that models perfectly flat will sound fine on top of a 100 foot pole. I don't sit on a 100 foot pole. This is why I like sealed subs with a Q below .6. They just seem to work better in a real room. You should also remember balance. If the bottom end is nice and flat, but the top is lacking, it will sound un-naturally dull. With no tweeter, you may want to back off more of the lower mid and bass that you expect. Only way to know is to prototype. I might have mentioned that.
Have you thought about replacing your diffuser with a sphere holding a small footprint neo tweeter?
If you insist on such a high crossover, be very careful to keep the woofer the same distance from each main speaker or you will have serious cancellation and boost problems in the upper bass. Finding a driver you can push down to 80 and as I mentioned, steep crossover would help.
Now back to design:
Disagree we will. I have been in several of his customer houses as well as Taliesin West. Anyone who designs a flat roof, as in really flat, is just plain an idiot. When answering about his horrible plywood chairs, he responded that if he could stand the pain, so could you.
Any car that is so fragile it can't be used is just not a good engineer. I have driven, or failed to be able to drive Several Lotus cars. His racing record stands. Too many DNF's and it wasn't just Mario who could break anything because he never backed off. Even Sir Jackie had them break and he was about as gentle as they come.
Nato's work is fluid. Pretty generic which is probably his intention. You can't judge by a picture. You have to sit in a chair, use a pitcher, see how it fits on a shelf or in the hand. (more things FLW fails at) Then you can determine if he is a genius or not. Superior design is deceptively simple at first glance.
Consider Shaker design. Devoid of ornamentation, but that is not to say their craftsmen were not just as artistic. Now, think hard. Shaker, Danish Modern, and Chinese provincial, circa 1850 or so. Almost identical in proportion. Just change from black paint to milk paint or light wood. Basic pleasing aesthetics and efficient design.
I very much do like the glass work FLW had Tiffany do. My office is prairie inspired, though I follow Green and Green or Stickily more. Their work is just more conformable.
Audio if full of bad design. I think it was a Krell preamp that had light grey 10 point font on a silver faceplate. The only people who could read it were too young to afford it. Who wants to hold a button down to change volume like on some newer stuff? They should be clear and intuitive.
Thanks, i haven't modeled that driver yet. The back will be full of plate amp, so not much space.. It would look great with a great big flared port instead
Thanks, i haven't modeled that driver yet. The back will be full of plate amp, so not much space.. It would look great with a great big flared port instead
I modeled it a while back, I know the HO 12 will do better than the HF 12 in one cube. I can't recall the exact figures, but for my desired response, it was something like 40L HO vs. 80L HF, volume including port, in hornresp. I'm not sure if you can do a ported HO 12 in one cube and get the response you want, model it. I ended up with a pair of 15" HO. Another thing to consider is the HF has a problem with oil canning (the cone pinging) when pushed to hard in a small sealed box.
I've personally never been a fan of plate amps. I'm liking the behringer inuke series these days- cheap, powerful and has onboard dsp. You could do a nu1000dsp for $265 (750 wrms bridged into 4 ohms), with a sealed 12 HO, and boost the low end with a linkwitz transform, plus eq it all you want to compensate for the placement. Hide the amp anywhere you want....
Yes lots of things to consider, room placement and size etc. Luckily the plate amp controls give some flexibility with x/o point and tailoring the in-room balance.
I'm in touch with the factory which make the subwoofer so will be able to go into some detail with them regarding the design; its a cheap air fare so I might pay a visit and pick some samples up directly.
How do you know so much about what I've been doing or not doing with my time, yet know nothing about the box compliance enhancement effects of activated charcoal, properly applied?
thor,
I only know what I do in my free time. I study and test. Having been to engineering school, I am not a fan of magic or hearsay.
I have never heard of activated charcoal for box fill. Filtering water, sure. Burnt coconut fiber is also a new idea to me. I have done considerable testing of various other fibers and densities. Neither material is easily available. I have never heard of charcoal being used commercially. That is usually a hint. If you can provide test results, please let us all know. Or drop me off some and I will do the tests.
I can say for sure there is no free ride. Improvements can be had in reflection reductions and some Qts, but not much in Fs. I have tested common fiberglass, foams and various fibers. The results had me re-stuff all four of my current subs with common fiberglass and I use boutique synthetic for a ported main because I don't want to pump glass or wool into the room. I found it had to be a lot denser than I had traditionally been advised. What I know is from direct testing.
I only know what I do in my free time. I study and test. Having been to engineering school, I am not a fan of magic or hearsay.
I have never heard of activated charcoal for box fill. Filtering water, sure. Burnt coconut fiber is also a new idea to me. I have done considerable testing of various other fibers and densities. Neither material is easily available. I have never heard of charcoal being used commercially. That is usually a hint. If you can provide test results, please let us all know. Or drop me off some and I will do the tests.
I can say for sure there is no free ride. Improvements can be had in reflection reductions and some Qts, but not much in Fs. I have tested common fiberglass, foams and various fibers. The results had me re-stuff all four of my current subs with common fiberglass and I use boutique synthetic for a ported main because I don't want to pump glass or wool into the room. I found it had to be a lot denser than I had traditionally been advised. What I know is from direct testing.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.