sdclc126 said:
They're made by Adire for Creative Sound Solutions. I'll cross them over to my woofers at 250 Hz.
http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=WR125ST
audiobomber said:
What sort of design do you have in mind for these? These are 16 ohm - never heard of that - is that appropriate for a multi-driver/line array set-up? Also, for OB/Dipole you need a fairly low mid-tweet x-over - what will you be using for tweet? Considering their size you might need several for good dipole performance - according to the prevailing wisdom you need some decent surface area for midrange dipoles - ala the SEAS 8" in the linkwitz Orion - have you considered using those? What is your overall consideration for choosing the CSS drivers? And will you also have dipole bass?
No criticisms at all intended here - just curious about your design goals - I'm always mining info from the more experienced forum members here. Thanks!
sdclc126 said:
This is going to be a learning experience for me. I'm a long-time audiophile and DIY newbie. I have a Marchand XM44 crosover, three high-quality power amps, a pair of Usher 9950 tweets, and dual 10" subs. I want to try various things with the CSS drivers. I may not get through all of them:
- Open baffle MTM, crossed to a sealed woofer @ 250 Hz
- Sealed MTM
- Sealed bipole
- Sealed 2.5-way
- MTMW
All the above will be used with the subs.
Because I'm crossing at 250 Hz in the OB design, I believe a pair of 4.5 mids per speaker will suffice. Especially considering these particular mids have extreme excursion capabilities and a highish Qts. Because they're only 4.5" drivers, I can cross anywhere up to 4K without the beaming problems of the bigger mid-woofs. The fact that they are 16-ohm will just mean an easier load for my midrange amps.
Wow that's all great - the driver selection seems to make sense given the parameters, x-over points, etc. Glad to see you are going to experiment with several designs. I'm very interested in the sealed bipole idea - one I have considered and seen a few examples of - just takes more drivers!
Please keep us posted on your progress and I'm very curious as to which design(s) you end up preferring!
Please keep us posted on your progress and I'm very curious as to which design(s) you end up preferring!
I'm not sure those will give you much of a data point to "find out what all the fuss is about." Part of the Linkwitz design is to use largish drivers that have a very open construction in the back to provide a lot of radiation rearward. He then experiments with various baffle shapes and sizes to yield a much wider response than would be possible with a box mounted speaker.
The CSS driver has a huge magnet/basket relative to the size of the cone and the openings are predominately to the side...or right against the baffle cutout. There will be little/no radiation towards the rear unless you get very creative with chamfering or scalloping the baffle backside. And even then it's unclear how well it will work.
Good luck.
Davey.
The CSS driver has a huge magnet/basket relative to the size of the cone and the openings are predominately to the side...or right against the baffle cutout. There will be little/no radiation towards the rear unless you get very creative with chamfering or scalloping the baffle backside. And even then it's unclear how well it will work.
Good luck.
Davey.
audiobomber said:
I have tried dipoles myself, although it wasn't a serious enough attempt to really make a decision on how much I like it. The bass had a natural uncoloured sound considering the cheap drivers and the midrange certainly had a very different effect.
That's a strange definition of accuracy. Any recording will have its own characteristics that are captured. But if accurate reproduction is your goal, then you will want to add as little as possible to the original. To then add an additional interaction with the listening room is more about "augmentation" than "accuracy." Speaking of which, I have nothing against this. I'm not a purist in the strict sense of the word, but I prefer a room which adds a little of its own sound ie not too dead, my system is eq'd flat then I roll off the top end slightly and boost the bottom end. I prefer a little enhancement, but I don't call it accuracy.
The points made about the WR125 basket/magnet are quite valid. Orion uses an 8" driver with an open basket design for good reason. The polar response of a small driver like that will also be different. In that respect I think you would get a better polar response with a cluster of 4 of that driver around a central tweeter.
The extremis is a better dipole mid driver since it has a small magnet and an open basket. It will happily cross higher than the seas 8" used in the orion and will probably also extend lower so a much more flexible driver.
So using the WR125 on top of a sealed woofer is really missing out on some of the strengths of the Orion, without really geting a lof of the benefits! The excellent polar response is lost. The extremely accurate bass is given away. I suppose you will get a taste of the different soundstage, and perhaps what some would call "more transparent mids," but you will by no means have experienced anything like the Orion.
Speaking of which, I do know someone who is building an Orion, I'm very curious to finally hear it.
I should mention, I have tried my AV12 subs in a H frame dipole, although I haven't yet properly calibrated it. While it turns SPL house wreckers into modest creatures, I have noticed that the bass takes on a very natural sounding quality, very dynamic.
That's a strange definition of accuracy. Any recording will have its own characteristics that are captured. But if accurate reproduction is your goal, then you will want to add as little as possible to the original. To then add an additional interaction with the listening room is more about "augmentation" than "accuracy." Speaking of which, I have nothing against this. I'm not a purist in the strict sense of the word, but I prefer a room which adds a little of its own sound ie not too dead, my system is eq'd flat then I roll off the top end slightly and boost the bottom end. I prefer a little enhancement, but I don't call it accuracy.
The points made about the WR125 basket/magnet are quite valid. Orion uses an 8" driver with an open basket design for good reason. The polar response of a small driver like that will also be different. In that respect I think you would get a better polar response with a cluster of 4 of that driver around a central tweeter.
The extremis is a better dipole mid driver since it has a small magnet and an open basket. It will happily cross higher than the seas 8" used in the orion and will probably also extend lower so a much more flexible driver.
So using the WR125 on top of a sealed woofer is really missing out on some of the strengths of the Orion, without really geting a lof of the benefits! The excellent polar response is lost. The extremely accurate bass is given away. I suppose you will get a taste of the different soundstage, and perhaps what some would call "more transparent mids," but you will by no means have experienced anything like the Orion.
Speaking of which, I do know someone who is building an Orion, I'm very curious to finally hear it.
I should mention, I have tried my AV12 subs in a H frame dipole, although I haven't yet properly calibrated it. While it turns SPL house wreckers into modest creatures, I have noticed that the bass takes on a very natural sounding quality, very dynamic.
paulspencer said:
I ended up posting in this thread, but I have no delusion that I'm building anything remotely resembling an Orion. I want to try an open baffle midrange, as suggested by Dickason. He also suggests blanketing the rear wave with fiberglass batting. In which case I don't know that an open magnet structure would matter. I see the point of not burying the WR125's in the baffle, so it looks like a chamfer would be a good idea.
I won't have the true dipole effect of the Orion, but I may actually have superior midrange reproduction in the front of the cabinet compared to an 8" midrange, without the usual compromise of a box. At any rate, I didn't buy the CSS drivers just for an OB attempt. I want to try a whole bunch of stuff, including different configurations of drivers, boxes, crossover slopes and frequencies.
BTW, thanks to both you and Davey for the critique. I appreciate knowing some of the limitations of what I'm doing. It will help when I try to weigh the results.
Pass DIY Addict
Joined 2000
Paid Member
Chaucer,
While it appears that I am late to the party, have you seen the Avro Mark speakers that Jon Marsh and ThomasW are developing? Most of the work is already completed, which would save you the trouble of driver selection and making an XO.
They are a good deal larger than the Orion speakers, but will produce greater sound levels while maintaining low distortion levels. They use the TC+ 12" woofers, HiVi M8a midwoofs, and the Dayton RS28a tweeter.
A pair of these are about $1100 for the drivers alone, and there are two versions. One features a passive XO, while the other features an active XO.
Eric
While it appears that I am late to the party, have you seen the Avro Mark speakers that Jon Marsh and ThomasW are developing? Most of the work is already completed, which would save you the trouble of driver selection and making an XO.
They are a good deal larger than the Orion speakers, but will produce greater sound levels while maintaining low distortion levels. They use the TC+ 12" woofers, HiVi M8a midwoofs, and the Dayton RS28a tweeter.
A pair of these are about $1100 for the drivers alone, and there are two versions. One features a passive XO, while the other features an active XO.
Eric
"quote:
IMHO "accuracy" would also include the speakers doing more or less what live performances do - radiate sound in all directions.
That's a strange definition of accuracy."
Why? I didn't say accuracy IS defined as radiating sound in all directions - I said that for ME it INCLUDES that. That doesn't seem strange to me at all - if a DIYer's goal is to experience music in the home which is as indistinguishable from a live performance as possible, then a more three dimensional radiation of the sound from its source is desirable.
I find the DSP settings on my home theater receiver, which delay the signal to the rear speakers, add an incredible "dimension" to the listening experience of classical music, as it sounds like a live auditorium performance with the slight echos coming from the side and rear. This is not the same as the dipole effect, but indeed the psychological perception is that it sounds more real, more live, and thus more satisfying to me.
So although the sound coming from the speakers themselves is no more "accurate" with DSP or dipole than without, the listening experience is. Please note that Linkwitz talkes about this quite extensively on his site; his system includes dipole mains and FOUR ambience speakers in the rear - he uses his electronics to create the delayed/echo sound of live auditoriums.
I've also taken note from other posters here that open baffle and dipole do not always go hand-in-hand - the driver design plays an important role - I neglected to mention that this was a significant reason Linkwitz chose the SEAS driver for the Orion.
IMHO "accuracy" would also include the speakers doing more or less what live performances do - radiate sound in all directions.
That's a strange definition of accuracy."
Why? I didn't say accuracy IS defined as radiating sound in all directions - I said that for ME it INCLUDES that. That doesn't seem strange to me at all - if a DIYer's goal is to experience music in the home which is as indistinguishable from a live performance as possible, then a more three dimensional radiation of the sound from its source is desirable.
I find the DSP settings on my home theater receiver, which delay the signal to the rear speakers, add an incredible "dimension" to the listening experience of classical music, as it sounds like a live auditorium performance with the slight echos coming from the side and rear. This is not the same as the dipole effect, but indeed the psychological perception is that it sounds more real, more live, and thus more satisfying to me.
So although the sound coming from the speakers themselves is no more "accurate" with DSP or dipole than without, the listening experience is. Please note that Linkwitz talkes about this quite extensively on his site; his system includes dipole mains and FOUR ambience speakers in the rear - he uses his electronics to create the delayed/echo sound of live auditoriums.
I've also taken note from other posters here that open baffle and dipole do not always go hand-in-hand - the driver design plays an important role - I neglected to mention that this was a significant reason Linkwitz chose the SEAS driver for the Orion.
paulspencer said:
Dickason calls it an unbaffled mounting, which doesn't seem quite right because there clearly is a baffle. Open back is good. I also think "Open Baffle midrange" works. Apparently the Dahlquist DQ10 was designed that way.
You mentioned the Extremis as a good candidate for OB. Have you seen this? http://adireaudio.com/Home/KITDDR.htm
Dan, yes I've seen that Adire kit.
Noob, depends if you are talking excursion limited or thermal power. The data sheet I've seen does not mention a thermal power rating, but gives one based on power compression. I'd expect a pair of these in a 3 way used as a mid could probably handle a 200w amp.
CLC, I would define the accuracy of a system as the extent to which the original recording is merely presented as it is, without adding anything. A recording will already have a certain amount of "ambience" included that results from a given environment in which the recording is made. Say its a live recording. If you mimick the ambience of the original event, you are not only reproducing the original ambience, you are adding more on top of it. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with this, only that I would not consider this a system that is more accurate.
It's like reheating a grilled sandwich. Would you grille it again or would you put it in a convection oven to avoid making it too hard and dry? If you grille it again it will be more crisp than it was, but if you put it in the oven it will warm up but make it more like it was when it was first grilled.
If you want to argue that accuracy alone isn't the most satisfying experience, I'll agree. BTW, I'm quite familiar with Linkwitz' site, have read and referred to it many times, he is clearly one of the sharpest speaker designers in the world today.
Noob, depends if you are talking excursion limited or thermal power. The data sheet I've seen does not mention a thermal power rating, but gives one based on power compression. I'd expect a pair of these in a 3 way used as a mid could probably handle a 200w amp.
CLC, I would define the accuracy of a system as the extent to which the original recording is merely presented as it is, without adding anything. A recording will already have a certain amount of "ambience" included that results from a given environment in which the recording is made. Say its a live recording. If you mimick the ambience of the original event, you are not only reproducing the original ambience, you are adding more on top of it. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with this, only that I would not consider this a system that is more accurate.
It's like reheating a grilled sandwich. Would you grille it again or would you put it in a convection oven to avoid making it too hard and dry? If you grille it again it will be more crisp than it was, but if you put it in the oven it will warm up but make it more like it was when it was first grilled.
If you want to argue that accuracy alone isn't the most satisfying experience, I'll agree. BTW, I'm quite familiar with Linkwitz' site, have read and referred to it many times, he is clearly one of the sharpest speaker designers in the world today.
A dipole puts less "ambience" into the room than a monopole box speaker because of the front-rear cancellation. The ratio of direct to reflected sound is actually better with the dipole. "Eliminating the rear wave" is a faulty and overly simplistic way to look at the overall polar response and room power response of the speaker. SL explains all that in great detail on his site.
Paul,
I think it is clear from your comments that you have never heard an Orion with its OB midrange. If this is not so then I stand corrected. Please let me know, if you have heard an Orion, what loudspeaker have you heard that has a more "accurate" midrange? I would like to listen to that loudspeaker, since I have heard just about every type of enclosed mid, from the B&W with its pod to suppress the backwave, to Aerials (sp) with there massive thick enclosures,Wilsons,etc,etc,etc. NONE, that "I" have heard, match the "accuracy" of the Orions mids, or bass for that matter. If loud boom/slam bass is your thing then the Orions bass is not for you. Now if we are talking treble, then it becomes quite subjective, since as much as I liked the millennium, I chose a different route with my tweeters. I have heard ribbons that sound very,very, nice, but I still prefer the overall performance of a hi-end dome. The Orion doesn't stand head and shoulders over other speakers in the treble, but you really,really must experience the OB mid/bass to make a fair judgement.
Cheers,
AJ
I think it is clear from your comments that you have never heard an Orion with its OB midrange. If this is not so then I stand corrected. Please let me know, if you have heard an Orion, what loudspeaker have you heard that has a more "accurate" midrange? I would like to listen to that loudspeaker, since I have heard just about every type of enclosed mid, from the B&W with its pod to suppress the backwave, to Aerials (sp) with there massive thick enclosures,Wilsons,etc,etc,etc. NONE, that "I" have heard, match the "accuracy" of the Orions mids, or bass for that matter. If loud boom/slam bass is your thing then the Orions bass is not for you. Now if we are talking treble, then it becomes quite subjective, since as much as I liked the millennium, I chose a different route with my tweeters. I have heard ribbons that sound very,very, nice, but I still prefer the overall performance of a hi-end dome. The Orion doesn't stand head and shoulders over other speakers in the treble, but you really,really must experience the OB mid/bass to make a fair judgement.
Cheers,
AJ
"CLC, I would define the accuracy of a system as the extent to which the original recording is merely presented as it is, without adding anything. A recording will already have a certain amount of "ambience" included that results from a given environment in which the recording is made. Say its a live recording. If you mimick the ambience of the original event, you are not only reproducing the original ambience, you are adding more on top of it. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with this, only that I would not consider this a system that is more accurate.
It's like reheating a grilled sandwich. Would you grille it again or would you put it in a convection oven to avoid making it too hard and dry? If you grille it again it will be more crisp than it was, but if you put it in the oven it will warm up but make it more like it was when it was first grilled."
Well I don't want to belabor this point, but I guess I already have, and I see faulty logic here...
Yes, the recording will capture the ambience of whatever place it was recorded in, but if played back on a stereo, monopole system, the recorded ambience will come from the same place as the primary sound - from the two speakers - not perceptually from the side & rear walls, ceiling, etc.
The human ear is very good at locating sound sources in 3 dimensional space, and ambience coming from the same place as the primary source will still be perceived as flat, or 2 dimensional. So to me dipoles and DSP are not putting into the listening experience more than was originally there - they are adding BACK what stereo/monopole reproduction cannot duplicate.
Think about this example: Let's say you make a recording in an anechoic chamber - by definition you will have no ambience in the recording. Now if you play back the recording on a sound system in a large auditorium, you will have the ambience of the auditorium, coming at you from all sides. You can play back the same non-ambience recording on dipole speakers and will still get ambience as a natural characteristic of the dipoles - they will make the sound source seem more three dimensional. Now you can add concert hall "effects" by taking some of the signal and sending it to a set of rear speakers with a tiny delay, and you have even more ambience, or echo, and thus more realism.
I understand your argument that recorded ambience reproduced with dipole/DSP will add something that wasn't there originally - essentially a "double echo" - but based on my own experience it's WHERE the ambience is coming from that determines the perceived realism of the listening experience.
OK, your turn...
It's like reheating a grilled sandwich. Would you grille it again or would you put it in a convection oven to avoid making it too hard and dry? If you grille it again it will be more crisp than it was, but if you put it in the oven it will warm up but make it more like it was when it was first grilled."
Well I don't want to belabor this point, but I guess I already have, and I see faulty logic here...
Yes, the recording will capture the ambience of whatever place it was recorded in, but if played back on a stereo, monopole system, the recorded ambience will come from the same place as the primary sound - from the two speakers - not perceptually from the side & rear walls, ceiling, etc.
The human ear is very good at locating sound sources in 3 dimensional space, and ambience coming from the same place as the primary source will still be perceived as flat, or 2 dimensional. So to me dipoles and DSP are not putting into the listening experience more than was originally there - they are adding BACK what stereo/monopole reproduction cannot duplicate.
Think about this example: Let's say you make a recording in an anechoic chamber - by definition you will have no ambience in the recording. Now if you play back the recording on a sound system in a large auditorium, you will have the ambience of the auditorium, coming at you from all sides. You can play back the same non-ambience recording on dipole speakers and will still get ambience as a natural characteristic of the dipoles - they will make the sound source seem more three dimensional. Now you can add concert hall "effects" by taking some of the signal and sending it to a set of rear speakers with a tiny delay, and you have even more ambience, or echo, and thus more realism.
I understand your argument that recorded ambience reproduced with dipole/DSP will add something that wasn't there originally - essentially a "double echo" - but based on my own experience it's WHERE the ambience is coming from that determines the perceived realism of the listening experience.
OK, your turn...
BTW, thats an interesting kit that Adire has come up with there!
Maybe someone will build one and bring it to the FL DIY in Aug. I'd love to see how it much better it is than these (that I built for $250), a remotely similar concept. All 12 of the Audax's used cost about the same as 1 Extremis! Sorry no ribbons either, but hey, I did use a 48" H baffle, so the're similar in that respect
Cheers,
AJ
Maybe someone will build one and bring it to the FL DIY in Aug. I'd love to see how it much better it is than these (that I built for $250), a remotely similar concept. All 12 of the Audax's used cost about the same as 1 Extremis! Sorry no ribbons either, but hey, I did use a 48" H baffle, so the're similar in that respect
Cheers,
AJ
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.