The peerles mids are way to insensitive. Why not take a look at audax pr170m0, 97dB listed at madisound for the same price? Or maybe one of the beyma 6MI90 (realy cheap), 605ND (not too expensive) , B&C 6PEV13 or 18sound mids discoused here or on magnetar's thread. The price should be quite similar to the peerles.
edit: regarding bass... I think I'd better go with some 15" eminence woofers. They have a higher qts, and a spl of about 98dB. For the price they will probably outperform the selenium drivers.
edit: regarding bass... I think I'd better go with some 15" eminence woofers. They have a higher qts, and a spl of about 98dB. For the price they will probably outperform the selenium drivers.
tangential suggestion for Lynn
Lynn,
Just wondering if you'd considered the following for the midrange; circular ESL element, with a Le Cleac'h horn on either side.
Ie a true dipole horn, each side of the ESL will see some decent horn loading, and horn reflections may be less likely to bounce back and forth because the driver is acoustically transparent. Could damp the rear horn of course.
And you can direct drive it off your PP amp anodes (if the output stage is IT coupled, you can have the B+ at ground too).
Cheers,
cv
Lynn,
Just wondering if you'd considered the following for the midrange; circular ESL element, with a Le Cleac'h horn on either side.
Ie a true dipole horn, each side of the ESL will see some decent horn loading, and horn reflections may be less likely to bounce back and forth because the driver is acoustically transparent. Could damp the rear horn of course.
And you can direct drive it off your PP amp anodes (if the output stage is IT coupled, you can have the B+ at ground too).
Cheers,
cv
SunRa said:
I agree with all of this... If only using 2 woofers a side use 15's - !
The Audax is probably the best if no horn/WG is used. A pair a side is very good
The little 18 sound horn is very good, and so is the little B&C DE10 driver (treble)
This should be a killer OB system - probably will need a sub for the lowest bass otherwise you could probably do no better for the $$$, it will shame most high end systems if you get the crossovers righy
Hi
Magnetar, with ""short horns" are you telling about something similar like what this cinema speakers do in the mid's ?
http://www.electrovoice.com/download_document.php?doc=1379
http://www.jblpro.com/pub/cinema/4632.pdf
Would two 6,5" do the trick as wave guide OB for example ?
Greetings
Michael
Magnetar said:
Magnetar, with ""short horns" are you telling about something similar like what this cinema speakers do in the mid's ?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
http://www.electrovoice.com/download_document.php?doc=1379
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
http://www.jblpro.com/pub/cinema/4632.pdf
Would two 6,5" do the trick as wave guide OB for example ?
Greetings
Michael
manifold bass loading
I realize that manifold bass driver loading does not offer a very wide usable band but it will lower driver Fs and add a lot of control over the driver motion. Is it worth while to consider given that it probably means the use of a mid bass driver as well? I was thinking about a Ripole or Linkwitz style arrangement.
I realize that manifold bass driver loading does not offer a very wide usable band but it will lower driver Fs and add a lot of control over the driver motion. Is it worth while to consider given that it probably means the use of a mid bass driver as well? I was thinking about a Ripole or Linkwitz style arrangement.
Hi Lynn,
Limono, the recipient of the first EnABL'd Lowther DX4 drivers, ended up with his Asura horn as a back load for the Lowther, with the front running open baffle. He said this was very good sounding with no compromise dynamically or musically, though he missed certain horn qualities, from the original front horn loading.
The treated Lowther was so dynamic in open baffle, that putting a horn on the front side was just unendurable. Everything was sweet and clear and had very very hard edges and being phase coherent, was actually making his eyes buzz with much of the midrange content.
Just so you know what another has found with an EnABL'd mid range and horns.
I expect to hear from Jon at Lowther America, on a horn loading results for their A45 driver, shortly and will encourage him to post findings here..
Bud
Limono, the recipient of the first EnABL'd Lowther DX4 drivers, ended up with his Asura horn as a back load for the Lowther, with the front running open baffle. He said this was very good sounding with no compromise dynamically or musically, though he missed certain horn qualities, from the original front horn loading.
The treated Lowther was so dynamic in open baffle, that putting a horn on the front side was just unendurable. Everything was sweet and clear and had very very hard edges and being phase coherent, was actually making his eyes buzz with much of the midrange content.
Just so you know what another has found with an EnABL'd mid range and horns.
I expect to hear from Jon at Lowther America, on a horn loading results for their A45 driver, shortly and will encourage him to post findings here..
Bud
One misconception that seems to arisen is that a driver "needs" symmetric loading on both sides of the diaphragm. Actually, it doesn't. Both air-loads are in series, and the cone is more or less acoustically transparent.
This means any resonance, whether arising from front or back baffle, WG, or horn, appears on both sides of the diaphragm. That's not to say front and rear horns are equivalent in terms of radiation into the room - the energy coming out of the mouth of the horn is considerably stronger than the direct radiation from the diaphragm. As far as the driver itself is concerned, there's not much difference between front and rear horns - although the rear horn has a lot more scrambled wavefront thanks to the magnet assembly and basket of the driver.
In practice, rear horns are typically folded bass horns, with limited bandwidth thanks to the folds, and there's the minor matter of the delayed and phase-inverted bass, entirely aside from resonances and standing waves caused by the horn folds. Offsetting these time-domain problems are greatly reduced IM distortion in the bass region thanks to reduction of diaphragm excursion at frequencies in the passband of the horn.
A purpose-built crossover-controlled bass horn is one thing, but using a direct-radiator widerange driver combined with a rear bass horn is quite another - in effect, the widerange driver has two quite different regions of operation (direct-radiator and horn), with a quasi-mechanical (and quite uncontrolled) transition between the two modes of operation. I've heard speakers like this sound better than they any right to, but conceptually it kind of bothers me - the same way whizzers bother me, with their uncontrolled transition between different modes of operation.
This means any resonance, whether arising from front or back baffle, WG, or horn, appears on both sides of the diaphragm. That's not to say front and rear horns are equivalent in terms of radiation into the room - the energy coming out of the mouth of the horn is considerably stronger than the direct radiation from the diaphragm. As far as the driver itself is concerned, there's not much difference between front and rear horns - although the rear horn has a lot more scrambled wavefront thanks to the magnet assembly and basket of the driver.
In practice, rear horns are typically folded bass horns, with limited bandwidth thanks to the folds, and there's the minor matter of the delayed and phase-inverted bass, entirely aside from resonances and standing waves caused by the horn folds. Offsetting these time-domain problems are greatly reduced IM distortion in the bass region thanks to reduction of diaphragm excursion at frequencies in the passband of the horn.
A purpose-built crossover-controlled bass horn is one thing, but using a direct-radiator widerange driver combined with a rear bass horn is quite another - in effect, the widerange driver has two quite different regions of operation (direct-radiator and horn), with a quasi-mechanical (and quite uncontrolled) transition between the two modes of operation. I've heard speakers like this sound better than they any right to, but conceptually it kind of bothers me - the same way whizzers bother me, with their uncontrolled transition between different modes of operation.
Well I received teh 8NMB420. But it has the basket shown in this link:
Not the basket the website now shows. It masks the back of the cone completely, I don't think it is a very good OB candidate. I called Universal Music and they were really not helpful, assuring me over and over this is a brand new driver and I have the latest basket. I have the feeling they knew they were wrong but didn't want to own up to the truth. I kind of hope this driver does poorly in testing now, I don't want to have deal with those guys again if I had decided it would work well in a future project.
Otherwise though, it's a very nicely built driver.
jogi59 said:
Not the basket the website now shows. It masks the back of the cone completely, I don't think it is a very good OB candidate. I called Universal Music and they were really not helpful, assuring me over and over this is a brand new driver and I have the latest basket. I have the feeling they knew they were wrong but didn't want to own up to the truth. I kind of hope this driver does poorly in testing now, I don't want to have deal with those guys again if I had decided it would work well in a future project.
Otherwise though, it's a very nicely built driver.
"I've heard Gary Pimm's Beta-8 based system. His listening room is fairly small, and I think the midrange dynamics are only just OK - about on a par with my Ariels, which are not really dynamics champs."
Lynn, I realize that Eminence may not make a product with colorations low enough for your current project but I wonder about your statement about their dynamics. Those paper coned 8" pro drivers must be louder and have more dynamics than two audiophile poly 5.25 inchers. Those beta eights are like 93db each aren't they?
Lynn, I realize that Eminence may not make a product with colorations low enough for your current project but I wonder about your statement about their dynamics. Those paper coned 8" pro drivers must be louder and have more dynamics than two audiophile poly 5.25 inchers. Those beta eights are like 93db each aren't they?
Now that I think on it a bit more, the only real gain for the front&rear symmetric horns are a dipole polar pattern. However, in terms of standing waves and pipe modes, the length of the horn is doubled, although perhaps an argument could be made the termination on the rear portion is gentler with a front&rear symmetric horn than a closed chamber or open-back loudspeaker. An arcane point like this could only be determined by finite-element simulation and a direct time-domain measurement.
Hi Lynn,
What you say about the air loads being in series as far as the driver is concerned makes perfect sense, many thanks for that concise explanation.
There may be a higher order effect here: if the driver (be it an ESL or paper cone) is acoustically transparent, does a reflected wave not see an abrupt radiation impedance change - generating more reflections? Is that what you were getting at with the second part of your reply?
Thanks again for a great thread... seeing if I have enough pennies to go for the double RAAL...
Best wishes,
cv
What you say about the air loads being in series as far as the driver is concerned makes perfect sense, many thanks for that concise explanation.
There may be a higher order effect here: if the driver (be it an ESL or paper cone) is acoustically transparent, does a reflected wave not see an abrupt radiation impedance change - generating more reflections? Is that what you were getting at with the second part of your reply?
Thanks again for a great thread... seeing if I have enough pennies to go for the double RAAL...
Best wishes,
cv
SunRa:
Magnetar:
Sorry I probably should have clarified that the number of drivers I listed was per side and so total number is X2. I took your advice and will try to get a hold of 4, 18 sound mids but will keep the selenium woofers as they conform to my design parameters and think about a sub addition later, thanks for your help, I will update my progress once I get a hold of the drivers and can start measuring and testing
Magnetar:
Sorry I probably should have clarified that the number of drivers I listed was per side and so total number is X2. I took your advice and will try to get a hold of 4, 18 sound mids but will keep the selenium woofers as they conform to my design parameters and think about a sub addition later, thanks for your help, I will update my progress once I get a hold of the drivers and can start measuring and testing
It is correct to say that the radiation impedance for both sides of the driver is in series with the driver. This will influence the velocity of the diaphragm or cone. However, the SPL radiated from the form or rear side will be the radiation impedance times the cone velocity. If the radiation impedance is not symmetrical, the SPL will be different front and rear. An undamped u-frame is a simple example. As shown in this measurement, the front and rear SPL is quite different.
The rather "normal" looking front SPL indicates is that for the woofer in this system the significant difference is radiation impedance (primarily the mass reactance) between front and rear has a small effect on the cone velocity compared to the mass of the cone. If an ELS diaphragm (or other low mass diaphragm) were substituted the low mass of the diaphragm relative to the mass reactance of the air loads would significantly affect the diaphragm motion, reducing its velocity at the u-frame resonance with the consequence that the peak in the rear response would be diminished and the front response would develop a corresponding dip.
The same arguments apply for front and/or rear wave guides/horns. If the front and rear are loaded differently then while the radiation impedance from front and rear are in series with the "driver" and will combined to influence the driver motion, the front and rear radiated SPL will depend only on the resulting driver motion and the front or rear radiation impedance, respectively.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The rather "normal" looking front SPL indicates is that for the woofer in this system the significant difference is radiation impedance (primarily the mass reactance) between front and rear has a small effect on the cone velocity compared to the mass of the cone. If an ELS diaphragm (or other low mass diaphragm) were substituted the low mass of the diaphragm relative to the mass reactance of the air loads would significantly affect the diaphragm motion, reducing its velocity at the u-frame resonance with the consequence that the peak in the rear response would be diminished and the front response would develop a corresponding dip.
The same arguments apply for front and/or rear wave guides/horns. If the front and rear are loaded differently then while the radiation impedance from front and rear are in series with the "driver" and will combined to influence the driver motion, the front and rear radiated SPL will depend only on the resulting driver motion and the front or rear radiation impedance, respectively.
Categorical Chains
When designing loudspeakers it is so easy to become category bound and pass quick judgement, forgetting that each of the categories are transformations of themselves. For instance: we may think "horns are bad", whereas a simple flat baffle is a horn, drivers too, are horns. So a multi driver OB is a complex horn system.
Lynn talks of doubling up the cone area per octave to compensate for baffle loss. If we see WG's as efficient couplers then we may find a trick or two. A single 12" driver mounted in a 24" diameter WG will have four times more radiating power than a single 12" unit.
Cilla
When designing loudspeakers it is so easy to become category bound and pass quick judgement, forgetting that each of the categories are transformations of themselves. For instance: we may think "horns are bad", whereas a simple flat baffle is a horn, drivers too, are horns. So a multi driver OB is a complex horn system.
Lynn talks of doubling up the cone area per octave to compensate for baffle loss. If we see WG's as efficient couplers then we may find a trick or two. A single 12" driver mounted in a 24" diameter WG will have four times more radiating power than a single 12" unit.
Cilla
I was thinking at magnetar's claim, about those 103dB needed for real-life dinamics. It apeared to me that this is posible just with horn loading or multiple drivers, like Mr.'s Olson last drawing. However, AER (the original one I think) makes a driver capable of 104dB and 10mm Xmax. The most expensive one is capable of 106dB.
The mesurments for the
AER MD2B (104dB)
AER MK1 (103dB) (the cheapest and maybe affordable one)
AER MD3 (106 dB.. I think I don't want to know the price for this one)
Here is a very interesting (12"?) bass driver that seems to have 101-102dB
The mesurments for the
AER MD2B (104dB)
AER MK1 (103dB) (the cheapest and maybe affordable one)
AER MD3 (106 dB.. I think I don't want to know the price for this one)
Here is a very interesting (12"?) bass driver that seems to have 101-102dB
SunRa said:
None of those are capable of that efficiency over a wide range without being horn loaded. They are like most of the drivers being discussed here - actual 93 to 98 db with 2.83 volts.
They are expensive because they are some of the best wide range drivers ever built - use them wide range and try to get them to sound live with or without a horn (both front and back loaded) you will have massive IM distortion when listening to music compared to a good 3 or 4 way multiamped system. The difference will be dramatic. Not to say the AERs won't satisfy the majority of listeners. In this case 'beyond the ariel' they would be expensive midrange drivers.
My claim is just that, my claim , my experience. Nothing but my opinion - after I have built several full range (20 to 16K) systems 96 db sensitive up I have a feel for what it takes to sound free from compression (for me!). When you listen to live music it's so dynamic and free from typical 'hifi' artifacts it makes most systems sound like a primitive tinker toy - I want it to sound the same where I am limited only by the recording.. it's not easy and it's not 'conventional' ..
It would probably be higher than 103 if I don't quad or penta amp. Once you live with a system like this - a beast - it's virtually impossible to go back to regular speakers. I tried a couple times and found only full range electrostats are worth pursuing - (compressed coherence!) except they suck when it comes to live, realistic reproduction BUT do sound a lot better than the typical high end cone aand domes you see in stereophile (I've had big dunlavy, focal, watt, fulton, infinities, ect..) LOL
I'm probably as odd as my claim! There aren't many folks that go where I go with this mainly cause they never experienced what it's like... or don't believe live reproduction is possible, or don't care, or.... well - list goes on and on. I'm the odd one - do what you find is right for you.
I have decided to quit participating in the 'beyond the Ariel' and sign off of this thread.
BYE!!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
