maybe you could filter 3 of the drivers with a big inductor to do the BSC compensation, and only one driver running fullrangeCal - OK, I see now - I doubt anyone would suggest that even 4 FE103s per side could compete with "real" woofers. I was just reminiscing as to the fun that only two per enclosure can deliver, as well as based on my experience with the Castles, imagining the benefits of the described configuration.
Aside from a few bumps in the night, they are performing well but there is something unusual about them. They have less bass than the FH-3 with the CHR70's in them. A stark contrast to what I was listening to on the island. So much so I am going to EQ them. This is with them right against the wall beside the TV and me, well, darn near anywhere in the room for that matter. The room nodes have only a marginal effect. Most unusual.
Correct, The omni didn't work out so I went back to a dipole setup. (btw love your slot loaded ob idea lotta good stuff in that thread)
I shot a short video of mine in action.
Quad Fostex 103En Open Baffle Speakers - YouTube
I shot a short video of mine in action.
Quad Fostex 103En Open Baffle Speakers - YouTube
Nice video - a bit disturbing in a pleasing way ? You can try the slot loaded OB below your quad driver array. Maybe use 8 x 6 in drivers and an active XO and biamp. It would be one loud speaker with low distortion. How are you wiring your 4 drivers? Parallel serial for 8 ohms nominal and 95dB sensitivity?
adason - after reading post #31 above, I'd doubt if he'd be interested in trying another box of any type?
I get that for some folks dynamic drivers on OBs, or any type of planar dipole are nirvana, but what some of them don't get it it that those of us may have very good reasons and are quite content "standing up with" results obtained with conventional cabinets.
For that matter, the same could be said about line arrays
I get that for some folks dynamic drivers on OBs, or any type of planar dipole are nirvana, but what some of them don't get it it that those of us may have very good reasons and are quite content "standing up with" results obtained with conventional cabinets.
For that matter, the same could be said about line arrays
If you don't like the boxy sound of speaker cabinet, use the Nautaloss enclosure (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/247598-nautaloss-ref-monitor.html) which is an acoustic black hole. It measured nearly identical to a 2 ft x 4 ft n open baffle - no back reflections to mess with the sound from the cone.
Here is some data of the Nautaloss compared to OB before I got an ADC that went above 6 kHz. Note the similar shape in the response and how clean it is. Blue and Green are OB and Red is Nautaloss response.
Here is some data of the Nautaloss compared to OB before I got an ADC that went above 6 kHz. Note the similar shape in the response and how clean it is. Blue and Green are OB and Red is Nautaloss response.
xrk - those measures certainly do suggest that you're achieving virtually identical results with the cochlear enclosure as with the OB - pardon my not reading the project threads in entirely, but are those before any EQ? If so, then there's not much to be sniffed at there.
adason - I'd tend to concur with your supposition - the few times I tried very shallow enclosures or BLH with under- sized or -damped driver chambers as originally designed, I was less than thrilled with the results - i.e. much coloration most noticeable in the vocal range.
adason - I'd tend to concur with your supposition - the few times I tried very shallow enclosures or BLH with under- sized or -damped driver chambers as originally designed, I was less than thrilled with the results - i.e. much coloration most noticeable in the vocal range.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.