Re: sheilding is not an issue....
I'm designing a cinema sound system and we are trying to avoid more than 2 and we are working a big room. In a small room there should be no need.
With shielding not an issue, that gives a lot more choice. Did you go look at the link to the Ariels (wouldn't use the enclosure, just the drivers & XO).
dave
slicemaster101 said:
I'm designing a cinema sound system and we are trying to avoid more than 2 and we are working a big room. In a small room there should be no need.
With shielding not an issue, that gives a lot more choice. Did you go look at the link to the Ariels (wouldn't use the enclosure, just the drivers & XO).
dave
the room is quite big....
The room detentions will be about 18ft wide and 25ft long...
Now that you know the room detentions I think you may reconsider the need for 4 surrounds.
I have talked to a man I know that designs speakers for a living and he agrees that 4 surrounds would be beneficial due to the room size and the multiple rows of seating...
I would design them with him but he is a very busy man…
And I think you guys here at diy audio have much to teach me that he could not…
He is not able to speak in layman’s terms very well…
I have not had the time to check out the xo site but I will tomorrow…
please note: i hate paper cones...so try to stick to poly or sandwich cones like the peerless ones....
The room detentions will be about 18ft wide and 25ft long...
Now that you know the room detentions I think you may reconsider the need for 4 surrounds.
I have talked to a man I know that designs speakers for a living and he agrees that 4 surrounds would be beneficial due to the room size and the multiple rows of seating...
I would design them with him but he is a very busy man…
And I think you guys here at diy audio have much to teach me that he could not…
He is not able to speak in layman’s terms very well…
I have not had the time to check out the xo site but I will tomorrow…
please note: i hate paper cones...so try to stick to poly or sandwich cones like the peerless ones....
What are you trying to achieve?
My suggestion would be to step back for a moment and really evaluate what your goals are. You seem fixated on certain power levels, a 3 way design, and a vast number of speakers. Personally I think you are biting off way more than you can chew.
I've used this example in the past. What you are essentially saying is. "I went out and bought a tablesaw and used it to build a shelf, it looks good. Now I want to build a solid oak 10 place Queen Anne dining room set, but I have no idea how to proceed"
Chances are you are going to spend a great deal of money and not be very happy with the results. Start off small, get some books like the Loudspeaker Cookbook, build a pair of two ways, get some practice building crossovers, try bi-amping it, try building an active crossover. Then once you're confident in your abilities, build 2 of your monsters (just for now), test them, tweak them and once you're happy build another 3 to give you a 5.1 system. Then if you need more, upgrade to a 7.1, 9.1 or what ever you desire.
My suggestion would be to step back for a moment and really evaluate what your goals are. You seem fixated on certain power levels, a 3 way design, and a vast number of speakers. Personally I think you are biting off way more than you can chew.
I've used this example in the past. What you are essentially saying is. "I went out and bought a tablesaw and used it to build a shelf, it looks good. Now I want to build a solid oak 10 place Queen Anne dining room set, but I have no idea how to proceed"
Chances are you are going to spend a great deal of money and not be very happy with the results. Start off small, get some books like the Loudspeaker Cookbook, build a pair of two ways, get some practice building crossovers, try bi-amping it, try building an active crossover. Then once you're confident in your abilities, build 2 of your monsters (just for now), test them, tweak them and once you're happy build another 3 to give you a 5.1 system. Then if you need more, upgrade to a 7.1, 9.1 or what ever you desire.
Slice, I hope things turn out close to what your vision is. A couple of facts to deal with are that since you are just learning etc your past experience with 2 ways has no meaning. Not trying to be harsh, just truthfull. If you need to use passive crossovers the KISS( keep it simple stupid ) method will help you to avoid Mr Murphy and his absolute law for engineering ( if something can go wrong it will ). The transmission lines I built for the rear channels use an 8" poly woofer and a 1" silk dome tweet. The cross over is a 6 db high pass for the tweeter. Thats it. I spent a lot of time listening and changing caps untill I found the point that the woofer rolled off, used a 6 db high pass since it is the simplest and tuned the cabinets with stuffing and weighting the passive radiators I built for them. Blind I know you would not have a chance of picking these out of a crowd of speakers that had more than 2 drivers. I am not saying you would like them better because I believe that quality takes a back seat to bass and volume with you. Again not trying to sound harsh, just the the feeling I get from your posts. Well built 2 ways will be better than most 3 ways everytime. The big reason being is that it is made from fewer parts that have a chance to alter the sound. That gets back to the fact that there is not anything out there that is 100% accurate in reproducing sound. The more drivers you have the greater the chance of screwing up. The more complicated a crossover is the greater the chance of its altering the sound. Then you can think about your wiring. Everything in the signal path will change the signal. You could do everything right but not have the correct wiring inside your cabinets and loose all you had gained. Or in other words never take anything for granted and when it is time to figure out where you went wrong don't overlook the obvious. Nuff said from me.
Ariels suck
Dave,
All of your advice has been excellent up to this point. Except for the recommendation about the ariel crossover. I've owned them, I've measured them (with my IMP FFT system). They suck. The crossover point is at 4kHz! Way to high for the driver spacing. They have a very wide and deep depression in the midrange that I couldn't tweak out without a complete redesign of the xover. Also using the P13s for high spl below 100Hz is really pushing it, they just don't have it in them. I've had this discussion with Lynn many times, he always blames it on my amps! Many on the Madisound board agree. Stay away.
The Audax home theatre system is much better. If he has big bucks to burn, go for the Thor's by D'Appolito.
Cheers,
Ron
Dave,
All of your advice has been excellent up to this point. Except for the recommendation about the ariel crossover. I've owned them, I've measured them (with my IMP FFT system). They suck. The crossover point is at 4kHz! Way to high for the driver spacing. They have a very wide and deep depression in the midrange that I couldn't tweak out without a complete redesign of the xover. Also using the P13s for high spl below 100Hz is really pushing it, they just don't have it in them. I've had this discussion with Lynn many times, he always blames it on my amps! Many on the Madisound board agree. Stay away.
The Audax home theatre system is much better. If he has big bucks to burn, go for the Thor's by D'Appolito.
Cheers,
Ron
Re: Ariels suck
Good to know. I never paid to much attention to the XOs, i was always more interested in the labyrinth box.
It brings up a good point for Slice thou -- on an MTM the driver spacing determines how high you can go on the XO -- the bigger the Ms the lower you have to cross-over.
A single or a pair of any 5" is going to be challenged below 100 Hz at high volumes. At lower levels these are a fine midbass -- a friend has a set in Dalines. In slices case he would be using them as mids with an XO around 300 (suggested) if he goes passive and maybe a little lower if we can impress on him that bi-amping with smaller amps would be better & cheaper.
I'm a big fan of making sure my midbasses are releaved at the bottom with active woofers -- current system has active XO at 125 Hz -- it really cleans up the midrange.
The early reports from people who have gotten the Thor have been one of a bit of dissapointment. And after living with Martin King's TL model for so long now the title on the audioXpress article "1st scientifically designed TL" rubs me the wrong way. I can't believe that Joe just interpolated from the scanty 3 data points Augspurger gives when Martin's (equivalent) software can be freely downloaded. And i bet that if he had asked Goerge nicely he could have had a copy of that software too.
dave
transducer said:
Good to know. I never paid to much attention to the XOs, i was always more interested in the labyrinth box.
It brings up a good point for Slice thou -- on an MTM the driver spacing determines how high you can go on the XO -- the bigger the Ms the lower you have to cross-over.
A single or a pair of any 5" is going to be challenged below 100 Hz at high volumes. At lower levels these are a fine midbass -- a friend has a set in Dalines. In slices case he would be using them as mids with an XO around 300 (suggested) if he goes passive and maybe a little lower if we can impress on him that bi-amping with smaller amps would be better & cheaper.
I'm a big fan of making sure my midbasses are releaved at the bottom with active woofers -- current system has active XO at 125 Hz -- it really cleans up the midrange.
The early reports from people who have gotten the Thor have been one of a bit of dissapointment. And after living with Martin King's TL model for so long now the title on the audioXpress article "1st scientifically designed TL" rubs me the wrong way. I can't believe that Joe just interpolated from the scanty 3 data points Augspurger gives when Martin's (equivalent) software can be freely downloaded. And i bet that if he had asked Goerge nicely he could have had a copy of that software too.
dave
Thors
I'm hearing the exact opposite. The thing with TLs is that if you don't have measuring gear, it's really hard to tune the stuffing by ear. If you can run impedance sweeps, that's the best way that I know of. The drivers themselves are supposed to be excellent, Linkwitz ran some tests on them and they performed very well, extremely low energy storage.
I'll have to look at Martins software, as my interest in TLs has been revived after reading Joe's article, and also the Augspurger article. I must say that even the Ariel labyrinth wasn't all that great, had cancellation problems somewhere around 2-500Hz that I am sure was related to the line.
I agree regarding crossing over to an active sub, I would think 125Hz would be a bit on the high side unless the sub was built into the main speaker. Otherwise that high of a crossover point will make it easy to localize the sub. Below 100, even 80Hz, would be better. Of course you are then demanding more from the mains. My newest speaker will be an MTM using Vifa PL14s and XT25 tweeter, probably with a Titanic 1200 because I have them lying about. Will be actively biamped/crossed over, if not triamped. I prefer the protection of a passive xover on the tweeter than direct drive by an amp.
Cheers,
Ron
I'm hearing the exact opposite. The thing with TLs is that if you don't have measuring gear, it's really hard to tune the stuffing by ear. If you can run impedance sweeps, that's the best way that I know of. The drivers themselves are supposed to be excellent, Linkwitz ran some tests on them and they performed very well, extremely low energy storage.
I'll have to look at Martins software, as my interest in TLs has been revived after reading Joe's article, and also the Augspurger article. I must say that even the Ariel labyrinth wasn't all that great, had cancellation problems somewhere around 2-500Hz that I am sure was related to the line.
I agree regarding crossing over to an active sub, I would think 125Hz would be a bit on the high side unless the sub was built into the main speaker. Otherwise that high of a crossover point will make it easy to localize the sub. Below 100, even 80Hz, would be better. Of course you are then demanding more from the mains. My newest speaker will be an MTM using Vifa PL14s and XT25 tweeter, probably with a Titanic 1200 because I have them lying about. Will be actively biamped/crossed over, if not triamped. I prefer the protection of a passive xover on the tweeter than direct drive by an amp.
Cheers,
Ron
Re: Thors
I am only repeating from the small sample of reports i have heard. The drivers certinly are excellent. When i 1st say the design on Seas web site some time ago, my gut feeling was that it was not an optimum line. With just the barebones alignment table Joe used he would have no way to discover some of the subtle tricks that have been shown to be very beneficial. These have come to light as people have played with martin's SW and Rick Schultz with Augspurger's SW.
(the following cut & pasted from an email i wrote earlier)
I was present at the AES seminar when Augspurger let the world know what he has found out ... i got pretty excited. George's work can be seen in his original AES paper, the revision of that in a later AES Journal article (my pick if i could only have 1), and in his 3-part audioXpress article.
Augspurger's electrical TL model generates lines that are in VERY close agreement with Martin J. King's mechanical model. I find it confidence inspiring that two guys independently, with two different analogs, at the same time come up with software models that generates the same lines under the same conditions.
Martin's software is more accessible. There are 3 very detailed papers with 2 practical examples, and a downloadable MathCad TL model*. http://www.t-linespeakers.org/projects/martin/index.html . Martin is also very helpful by email.
*(and usually a link to a demo version of MathCad)
Martin's software can model modestly complex lines from tapered TLs to tapered pipes -- most of the projects on the net* that have their basis in martin's software are actually ML-TQWTs.
*(Bert Doppenburg's BD-Pipes are an example of a successful ML-TQWT developed in a true cut-and-listen path -- an independent validation of the design IMM)
The Ariel isn't a TL since it doesn't have any stuffing to damp out the higher resonances -- it is bound to have some ripple issues, and 2-500 Hz would be right where to expect them.
Stereo woofers with 2x8" peerless in each. I don't call them subs because they probably only hit 30 Hz and will reach up to over 1kHz. Active 4th order which intrudes a little (i have a number of ideas noodling in my head to replace it).
dave
transducer said:
I am only repeating from the small sample of reports i have heard. The drivers certinly are excellent. When i 1st say the design on Seas web site some time ago, my gut feeling was that it was not an optimum line. With just the barebones alignment table Joe used he would have no way to discover some of the subtle tricks that have been shown to be very beneficial. These have come to light as people have played with martin's SW and Rick Schultz with Augspurger's SW.
(the following cut & pasted from an email i wrote earlier)
I was present at the AES seminar when Augspurger let the world know what he has found out ... i got pretty excited. George's work can be seen in his original AES paper, the revision of that in a later AES Journal article (my pick if i could only have 1), and in his 3-part audioXpress article.
Augspurger's electrical TL model generates lines that are in VERY close agreement with Martin J. King's mechanical model. I find it confidence inspiring that two guys independently, with two different analogs, at the same time come up with software models that generates the same lines under the same conditions.
Martin's software is more accessible. There are 3 very detailed papers with 2 practical examples, and a downloadable MathCad TL model*. http://www.t-linespeakers.org/projects/martin/index.html . Martin is also very helpful by email.
*(and usually a link to a demo version of MathCad)
Martin's software can model modestly complex lines from tapered TLs to tapered pipes -- most of the projects on the net* that have their basis in martin's software are actually ML-TQWTs.
*(Bert Doppenburg's BD-Pipes are an example of a successful ML-TQWT developed in a true cut-and-listen path -- an independent validation of the design IMM)
The Ariel isn't a TL since it doesn't have any stuffing to damp out the higher resonances -- it is bound to have some ripple issues, and 2-500 Hz would be right where to expect them.
Stereo woofers with 2x8" peerless in each. I don't call them subs because they probably only hit 30 Hz and will reach up to over 1kHz. Active 4th order which intrudes a little (i have a number of ideas noodling in my head to replace it).
dave
i understand your concerns for me....
this being my second diy project...
what i have not told you it this is atleast 2 years down the road befor i start construction on these suckers...
i also neglected to tell you i would like to do some smaller project between now and then...
possibly some 2-way system and give them another whirl...
and see what results i can get...
and do you have any books you counld suggest any good books on crossover theory, design, and construction that you could suggest...
sorry for holding this all in the dark but i was worried if i didn't i would get no help... sorry
i would also like a book on loudspeaker design... any suggestions
thanks,
Slice
note: i was only able to read a few of your posts sence my last bu i will read them later...
i have to go now...
this being my second diy project...
what i have not told you it this is atleast 2 years down the road befor i start construction on these suckers...
i also neglected to tell you i would like to do some smaller project between now and then...
possibly some 2-way system and give them another whirl...
and see what results i can get...
and do you have any books you counld suggest any good books on crossover theory, design, and construction that you could suggest...
sorry for holding this all in the dark but i was worried if i didn't i would get no help... sorry
i would also like a book on loudspeaker design... any suggestions
thanks,
Slice
note: i was only able to read a few of your posts sence my last bu i will read them later...
i have to go now...
Ariels
Dave,
The Ariels DO use stuffing, both in the straight portion of the line and in the labyrinth. It also has felt glued onto the straight portion. This is at least when the speaker was first conceived, and how I built them. Maybe things have changed. I know that the whole mysticism of the Ariels have gone to a certain designers head
and he likes to play it all up. If you read the original article, it's quite different than todays "revised" thesis!
I don't know if the Ariels can be considered a TL, Lynn calls the upper portion a line and the bottom portion a labyrinth.
Hey, have you seen the inside of the Meadowlark Kestrels? It uses a labyrinth!
Cheers,
Ron
Dave,
The Ariels DO use stuffing, both in the straight portion of the line and in the labyrinth. It also has felt glued onto the straight portion. This is at least when the speaker was first conceived, and how I built them. Maybe things have changed. I know that the whole mysticism of the Ariels have gone to a certain designers head
and he likes to play it all up. If you read the original article, it's quite different than todays "revised" thesis!I don't know if the Ariels can be considered a TL, Lynn calls the upper portion a line and the bottom portion a labyrinth.
Hey, have you seen the inside of the Meadowlark Kestrels? It uses a labyrinth!
Cheers,
Ron
Ron, it is not hard to tune TLs by ear, just time consuming. If they port out the back to make use of walls and corners you work on stuffing and placement at the same time. Measuring can be helpfull but when you get down to it the real test is with your ears. The rest is to help you get close enough that you can finish it without the test gear. Synergy is not something that you can measure with a scope.
TL tuning
Dave, you're preaching to the wrong choir. If you look at D'Appolito's article, it is easy to see that you need to be able to run an impedance sweep of the speaker to optimize the stuffing. Without being able to do this, you have no idea if you've successfully removed all of the peaks in the impedance trace and therefore ripples in the acoustic response. Tuning by ear will be hit and miss, you're tuning to what you prefer it to sound like as opposed to optimum or accurate. I prefer accurate. By the way, I originally saw this mentioned in the Loudspeaker Cookbook, which made me invest in my FFT measuring gear, as I had the Ariels and wasn't happy with them.
But this thread is neither about TLs or accuracy
Cheers,
Ron
Dave, you're preaching to the wrong choir. If you look at D'Appolito's article, it is easy to see that you need to be able to run an impedance sweep of the speaker to optimize the stuffing. Without being able to do this, you have no idea if you've successfully removed all of the peaks in the impedance trace and therefore ripples in the acoustic response. Tuning by ear will be hit and miss, you're tuning to what you prefer it to sound like as opposed to optimum or accurate. I prefer accurate. By the way, I originally saw this mentioned in the Loudspeaker Cookbook, which made me invest in my FFT measuring gear, as I had the Ariels and wasn't happy with them.
But this thread is neither about TLs or accuracy
Cheers,
Ron
Read my Ariel Comments
They apply just as much to the ME2, same drivers, same spacing, same wretched crossover. Hey, did you know that when Lynn designed the ME2, he never actaully built it?! He once asked someone who actually did build it, "so, how does it sound?"
The internal volume of the ME2 cabinet is about half of what it should be, in addition to the poor crossover.
I'd suggest you look elsewhere. The drivers are a good choice though. Here's an alternate xover for the Ariel drivers, should be much better, although I never built it, sold them first, thank the lord.
Cheers,
Ron
They apply just as much to the ME2, same drivers, same spacing, same wretched crossover. Hey, did you know that when Lynn designed the ME2, he never actaully built it?! He once asked someone who actually did build it, "so, how does it sound?"
The internal volume of the ME2 cabinet is about half of what it should be, in addition to the poor crossover.
I'd suggest you look elsewhere. The drivers are a good choice though. Here's an alternate xover for the Ariel drivers, should be much better, although I never built it, sold them first, thank the lord.
Cheers,
Ron
Re: Read my Ariel Comments
Thanks Ron. There's general agreement that the drivers are a good choice, while there's endless disagreement about the XO and enclosure.
I'm planning to build a sub (probably using a Shiva), and another idea for the main speakers is the North Creek Okara, which uses the same drivers but just a single Vifa mid-woofer. What do you think?
Thanks,
Glenn
transducer said:
Thanks Ron. There's general agreement that the drivers are a good choice, while there's endless disagreement about the XO and enclosure.
I'm planning to build a sub (probably using a Shiva), and another idea for the main speakers is the North Creek Okara, which uses the same drivers but just a single Vifa mid-woofer. What do you think?
Thanks,
Glenn
A good book is the "Loudspeaker Design Cookbook" by Vance Dickason. You can find it on some of the parts dealers or just goto your library like I did. Its a wonderful book that will explain a lot of things about speakers and crossovers.
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?DID=7&PartNumber=500-034
Thats one place I found just by looking it up in google.
I know some of this stuff is annoying but stick with it all. I'm 20 and on a very limited buget. I just spent $1200(Canadian) on my speakers, thats more than my computer, amp, etc. all combined. With the money you are talking you should be able to do amazing things.
I don't wanna come off as an *** but something you should really look at is the complexity of these speakers you want to design. In the end you will get better sound if it is kept simple. You also reallyREALLY need to get off the power rating thing. 400 Watts means absolutely nothing if you design your speakers properly.
Also I would have to also recommend the Bryston amps also. My friend has one thats 22 years old and it still sounds amazing. They also have a 20 year warenty, so buying something used off of Audiogon would still be a good investment.
As you said you have two years to do this; spend the next year or more designing them, it will be worth it in the end. I would recommend searching the net for projects other people have built. It gave me great ideas for what I want, here are some links:
http://home.hetnet.nl/~geenius/index.html
http://members.home.nl/edgar.beers/
http://www.klone-audio.com/
http://www.exquisiteaudio.ca/
Remember that the people here have lots of experience and know what they are doing. When the advice is free then just take it with a smile.
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?DID=7&PartNumber=500-034
Thats one place I found just by looking it up in google.
I know some of this stuff is annoying but stick with it all. I'm 20 and on a very limited buget. I just spent $1200(Canadian) on my speakers, thats more than my computer, amp, etc. all combined. With the money you are talking you should be able to do amazing things.
I don't wanna come off as an *** but something you should really look at is the complexity of these speakers you want to design. In the end you will get better sound if it is kept simple. You also reallyREALLY need to get off the power rating thing. 400 Watts means absolutely nothing if you design your speakers properly.
Also I would have to also recommend the Bryston amps also. My friend has one thats 22 years old and it still sounds amazing. They also have a 20 year warenty, so buying something used off of Audiogon would still be a good investment.
As you said you have two years to do this; spend the next year or more designing them, it will be worth it in the end. I would recommend searching the net for projects other people have built. It gave me great ideas for what I want, here are some links:
http://home.hetnet.nl/~geenius/index.html
http://members.home.nl/edgar.beers/
http://www.klone-audio.com/
http://www.exquisiteaudio.ca/
Remember that the people here have lots of experience and know what they are doing. When the advice is free then just take it with a smile.
baby_huey0 said:
you have a bigger budget than me -- $250 on the woofers, <200 for the BD-Pipes, $500 for the active XO... and it sounds REALLY good.
Very good advice there.
And now that we have started linking to projects on the web, here is the link to the projects page on my web site:
projects @ TLS.org
I don't think any of these will appeal to slice, but there are some awfully good ones there, including the TLb which uses the same Vifa as the Ariels and is probably a better implementation (and Chris' dalines use them too).
dave
Ron, Isn't tuning to what I prefer the whole thing behind DIY. To maintain that unless you have ways to measure beyong your ears only adds expence to your project with out the promise of higher returns, since if you are working with a quarter wave design all you need is to tune it to your ear. Extra testing equipment might speed it up, but since your ear is the arbritator it is not a necessary part of the process. I know it not having it adds a bit of hit and miss to it, but that is part of the fun of DIY. It also depends on the music that you listen to. I would bet that having all the numbers right could be detrimental to some types of music. Everthing is done in generalities. My self tuning is for my space and my music using the test gear that is the only gear that counts in the end.......my ears. Being a slave to numbers and meter readings will not lead you to Nirvana, though it could get you close enough that you can do the final tweaking with organic testers,
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.