Hi chaps,
So I guess I need a sanity check from you sensible folks. I have built a few different speakers over the years, from very basic ones to quite complex ones. I have synergy horns, full range driver speakers, complex 4 ways active speakers.........but........
I have never built a line array.
I have been very interested in the TC9 builds - obviously Wesayso's build thread being a great source of inspiration to many - but as usual, would like to do something a little different.
My first thought was to use TC9s again as this is a well trod and successful recipe, but then I got a little fixated with the:
TEBM35C10-4
http://docs-europe.electrocomponents.com/webdocs/15b6/0900766b815b6e2c.pdf
You can pick them up in bulk for about £6.23 so 36 per side for a total of 72 is about £500 all in....
Measurements can be seen here:
Tectonic Elements TEBM35C10-4 Miniature BMR(R) Driver | Medley's Musings
My thoughts are - would their incredible dispersion characteristics be a good thing, or a bad thing? i.e. does the fact that the TC9 start to beam at higher frequencies actually help mitigate comb filtering? Or is the dispersion a good thing?
Secondly.
Has anyone done a full range driver open baffle line array? I know that the bipolar losses would mean a 50cm wide baffle would probably only get the array down to 150 hz or so - even with some boost, but this is almost to schroeder frequency, so could then be handed over to distributed subs or some other lower freq plan.
I just seem to have a slight obsession with seeing 25-30 full range drivers in an open baffle configuration - perhaps an aluminum central strip to mount them into with perspex 'wings'.......
Thoughts.
So I guess I need a sanity check from you sensible folks. I have built a few different speakers over the years, from very basic ones to quite complex ones. I have synergy horns, full range driver speakers, complex 4 ways active speakers.........but........
I have never built a line array.
I have been very interested in the TC9 builds - obviously Wesayso's build thread being a great source of inspiration to many - but as usual, would like to do something a little different.
My first thought was to use TC9s again as this is a well trod and successful recipe, but then I got a little fixated with the:
TEBM35C10-4
http://docs-europe.electrocomponents.com/webdocs/15b6/0900766b815b6e2c.pdf
You can pick them up in bulk for about £6.23 so 36 per side for a total of 72 is about £500 all in....
Measurements can be seen here:
Tectonic Elements TEBM35C10-4 Miniature BMR(R) Driver | Medley's Musings
My thoughts are - would their incredible dispersion characteristics be a good thing, or a bad thing? i.e. does the fact that the TC9 start to beam at higher frequencies actually help mitigate comb filtering? Or is the dispersion a good thing?
Secondly.
Has anyone done a full range driver open baffle line array? I know that the bipolar losses would mean a 50cm wide baffle would probably only get the array down to 150 hz or so - even with some boost, but this is almost to schroeder frequency, so could then be handed over to distributed subs or some other lower freq plan.
I just seem to have a slight obsession with seeing 25-30 full range drivers in an open baffle configuration - perhaps an aluminum central strip to mount them into with perspex 'wings'.......
Thoughts.
Last edited:
There were a few people doing line arrays open baffle, a small Google search picks some of the experiments: open baffle line array - Google Search
I have always been interested in this project, open baffle line arrays, as I really liked my attempt at a line array setup, and I really like the sound from open baffle. Seemed a logical step for me to combine the two.
I remember seeing a BMR before, but I guess it was not the same unit as the one I saw had a huge chasm at 2-3kHz, if I remember well...
I believe the wide dispersion pattern will actually help counteract the combing associated with line arrays.
So, should you consider building this, i would sure follow your progress with excitement, knowing your attention to detail from your synergy thread.
It would be a great thing to be able to compare synergy to line array, since you have both, and I know Wesayso would be quite interested as well!
Good luck!
I have always been interested in this project, open baffle line arrays, as I really liked my attempt at a line array setup, and I really like the sound from open baffle. Seemed a logical step for me to combine the two.
I remember seeing a BMR before, but I guess it was not the same unit as the one I saw had a huge chasm at 2-3kHz, if I remember well...
I believe the wide dispersion pattern will actually help counteract the combing associated with line arrays.
So, should you consider building this, i would sure follow your progress with excitement, knowing your attention to detail from your synergy thread.
It would be a great thing to be able to compare synergy to line array, since you have both, and I know Wesayso would be quite interested as well!
Good luck!
Ah, a bushmeister line array project 
I don't get the attraction of an OB version though, unless you have the opertunity for huge space behind the arrays.
As is, sealed line arrays can work with the room with some simple means. It might give you something extra for orchestral music, but that's not my main interest.
How much room do you plan on having behind the arrays?
With lots of space to play with even a CBT type array might be interesting. Use frequency dependent shading instead of shading all drivers...
I don't get the attraction of an OB version though, unless you have the opertunity for huge space behind the arrays.
As is, sealed line arrays can work with the room with some simple means. It might give you something extra for orchestral music, but that's not my main interest.
How much room do you plan on having behind the arrays?
With lots of space to play with even a CBT type array might be interesting. Use frequency dependent shading instead of shading all drivers...
Dayton Audio Epique CBT24K Line Array Speakers at AXPONA 2017 - YouTube
Line Array speaker kit at P.E.
Line Array speaker kit at P.E.
Assuming a vertical array, the wider dispersion at higher frequencies of course is a good thing for horizontal dispersion. However, for vertical dispersion it might be bad. Ideally you want a continuous 'cone' from end to end of the line. Traditional stiff-coned drivers with small baskets placed close together somewhat approximate that ideal case. Bending mode radiators behave more like point sources, so you would end up with an array of 36 point sources spaced 53 mm apart.
Horizontal dispersion should not be affected by vertical arraying.
Horizontal dispersion should not be affected by vertical arraying.
Last edited:
I thought about my line array for a long time before I built them and did a lot of research on alternatives, as like you I like to add my own stamp on things if possible. I could have bought any driver (within reason) but I decided on the TC9.
The small size of that BMR driver is a benefit in that the CTC can be kept down pushing the combing to a higher point, even though the combing is all but inaudible at any reasonable listening distance with music.
What I like less is the uneven directivity above 3k, as shown in those measurements.
BMR drivers seem like very good candidates but there aren't very many to chose from. Also I think that driver did not do so well in one of XRK971's blind driver tests but I could be remembering wrong. Maybe get one yourself to listen to before committing. If you don't like the sound of 1, 36 won't be any better
If you make it open baffle you will also get dipole directivity, nulls to left and right, that has it's advantages but kills the very wide horizontal directivity of the BMR driver.
There is a lot to like about dipole systems and I have two myself, for me the extra sound to the rear does need to be controlled or a large enough space behind, otherwise it does create a more reverberant sound which enhances some music and muddies others.
Do not discount the height and "bendiness" of structures in excess of 2m tall. It doesn't seem so bad in pictures or when on the ground, then you stand it up...
A bushmeister line array would be a cool project to watch so I hope you go through with it whichever way you choose
The small size of that BMR driver is a benefit in that the CTC can be kept down pushing the combing to a higher point, even though the combing is all but inaudible at any reasonable listening distance with music.
What I like less is the uneven directivity above 3k, as shown in those measurements.
BMR drivers seem like very good candidates but there aren't very many to chose from. Also I think that driver did not do so well in one of XRK971's blind driver tests but I could be remembering wrong. Maybe get one yourself to listen to before committing. If you don't like the sound of 1, 36 won't be any better
If you make it open baffle you will also get dipole directivity, nulls to left and right, that has it's advantages but kills the very wide horizontal directivity of the BMR driver.
There is a lot to like about dipole systems and I have two myself, for me the extra sound to the rear does need to be controlled or a large enough space behind, otherwise it does create a more reverberant sound which enhances some music and muddies others.
Do not discount the height and "bendiness" of structures in excess of 2m tall. It doesn't seem so bad in pictures or when on the ground, then you stand it up...
A bushmeister line array would be a cool project to watch so I hope you go through with it whichever way you choose
I think boring was an often heard verdict on that BMR. That usually gets my attention . A non boring driver often has more than I like in its FR. Can't remember the graphs or IR. I think I remember the TC9 being cleaner up top. With the SS 10F as the clear winner for me. Just not for array duty.
. A non boring driver often has more than I like in its FR. Can't remember the graphs or IR. I think I remember the TC9 being cleaner up top. With the SS 10F as the clear winner for me. Just not for array duty.I suppose boring could be taken as a positive, I'm not sure an "exciting" driver is what anyone should be looking for
What I like about the fullrange line is that it can be equalized to go all the way down with music at least as loud as I want it too. The bass is one of the better parts for me so far, seems a shame to not even hear that out of it even if a sub is needed for other uses.
Maybe I am biased
What I like about the fullrange line is that it can be equalized to go all the way down with music at least as loud as I want it too. The bass is one of the better parts for me so far, seems a shame to not even hear that out of it even if a sub is needed for other uses.
Maybe I am biased
The TG9 and TC9 are probably the best bang for the buck wide range drivers currently available.
Boring sounding? Maybe lacking in crispness and real bass, don't play that loud too, but there's some real magic in the sound. I believe the Scanspeak 10F is closely related to the TG9 but who knows...
Oh and there are some weird oval drivers that Tectonic Element (HiWave?) markets as "high aspect ratio" drivers, maybe they'll be great for line array too?
Boring sounding? Maybe lacking in crispness and real bass, don't play that loud too, but there's some real magic in the sound. I believe the Scanspeak 10F is closely related to the TG9 but who knows...
Oh and there are some weird oval drivers that Tectonic Element (HiWave?) markets as "high aspect ratio" drivers, maybe they'll be great for line array too?
Not entirely true though...
BMRs are designed to operate like conventional pistonic drivers in the mid-bass, and as bending wave exciters which excite the flat honeycomb panel above a certain transitional frequency. Extra weight is added at the edge of the panel (around the weight of the voicecoil according to Naim's whitepaper) to make sure they behave this way.
BMRs are designed to operate like conventional pistonic drivers in the mid-bass, and as bending wave exciters which excite the flat honeycomb panel above a certain transitional frequency. Extra weight is added at the edge of the panel (around the weight of the voicecoil according to Naim's whitepaper) to make sure they behave this way.
Sorry mate you're missing the point here.
The BMR drivers are somewhat like mechanically decoupled co-axial drivers e.g. the one found in Thiel 2.4 or even KEF Muo. Except the BMR drivers behave as distributed mode speakers above a certain frequency and as conventional pistonic speakers below that. The said frequency is strictly dependent on the mechanical design of the driver unit.
Unlike the exicters you have mentioned, BMRs are designed to be mounted on solid baffles, rather than light surfaces.
Hope this clears things up unless you're taking the ****.
The BMR drivers are somewhat like mechanically decoupled co-axial drivers e.g. the one found in Thiel 2.4 or even KEF Muo. Except the BMR drivers behave as distributed mode speakers above a certain frequency and as conventional pistonic speakers below that. The said frequency is strictly dependent on the mechanical design of the driver unit.
Unlike the exicters you have mentioned, BMRs are designed to be mounted on solid baffles, rather than light surfaces.
Hope this clears things up unless you're taking the ****.
BMR's behave like DML's because THEY ARE EXCITERS.
You are the one with the misconception....exciters are mounted on light surfaces the same way the BMR exciter is mounted on a light thin honeycomb paper surface....the only difference is the surround support and a frame utilized by the BMR technology....There are some exciter designs which utilize some type of surround attached to a spine on a frame which would mimic the BMR drivers but it can be done on a way LARGER SCALE since most BMR drivers do not go over 5 inches......BMR technology is nothing new it was done way before NXT even utilized exciters.
Here is a insert from NXT
The new system is using a new technoogy, dubbed Balanced Mode Radiator (BMR). NXT's flat panel technology consists in placing "exciters" in flat panels that pulsate when electrically activated, thus allowing these flat panels to be used in wide bandwidth drive units. The BMR technology makes the most of such expertise in bending wave physics techniques. The BMR panels can be either circular or rectangular and they are mounted in a conventional chassis, like any conventional unit. NXT claims that such configuration (they use the term "similarity") facilitates the manufacturing process because the BMR drive unit can be built "using conventional loudspeakers techniques."
You are the one with the misconception....exciters are mounted on light surfaces the same way the BMR exciter is mounted on a light thin honeycomb paper surface....the only difference is the surround support and a frame utilized by the BMR technology....There are some exciter designs which utilize some type of surround attached to a spine on a frame which would mimic the BMR drivers but it can be done on a way LARGER SCALE since most BMR drivers do not go over 5 inches......BMR technology is nothing new it was done way before NXT even utilized exciters.
Here is a insert from NXT
The new system is using a new technoogy, dubbed Balanced Mode Radiator (BMR). NXT's flat panel technology consists in placing "exciters" in flat panels that pulsate when electrically activated, thus allowing these flat panels to be used in wide bandwidth drive units. The BMR technology makes the most of such expertise in bending wave physics techniques. The BMR panels can be either circular or rectangular and they are mounted in a conventional chassis, like any conventional unit. NXT claims that such configuration (they use the term "similarity") facilitates the manufacturing process because the BMR drive unit can be built "using conventional loudspeakers techniques."
Last edited:
The discussion might be better served by you explaining why you think that the driver bushmeister has suggested is not suitable for the purpose he has suggested.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.