Re: love your work...
Thanks all!
You are making me go back four years but I will try - There is more SNAP to the upper bass lower mid and transients sound more whole and and coherent or 'real' - the single 12 moves a lot more air then the little Audax's as does the treble system. The tone is more vivid and natural plus it is 'denser 'and the upper midrange low treble is smoother. The little Beyma would make a nice super tweeter but it is not sensitive enough to match the Emilar in the complex conical horn. This system may not look like it but it will play stupid loud with very low distortion. It also sounds great at background levels where the Karlson/Audax/Beyma was limited in output (by the Audax PR170's) plus it had to be cranked a bit to sound good in the bass.
I had the SRO's sitting here for a while and just decided to make them work. I really didn't look into alternative 12's because after having them reconed with the different edge they sounded so nice I decided to use them. The tone tubby 12 may be good. These panels are one sheet of mdf glued together to make 24" by 48" baffles. The 12 needs to get down to 120 cycles on it but doesn't really need to be flat that low (these are -3-4 db) because of the rising response of the 21" woofer. Other then that look for a 12 that doesn't have bad up break and is as linear (stay away from low QTS rising response drivers that are more suitable for a front horn) and efficient as you you can find 100 to 3K - The SRO was originally with a paper edge and although it was smooth for a guitar speaker it is too peaky for hifi IMO, these have the Jensen Flexair edge.
The horns I'm using can be bought from Renkus Heinz dealers as a part. " CCH1200-9 HORN,CMPLX CONIC,1200Hz,90x60,1" -
mikey_audiogeek said:Hi Magnetar, those are waaaaaaaay cool! You definitely got the right 'tude.
OK my turn for questions: how would you compare sonics (1K and up) to the twin Audax/Beyma CP21f OB panels you were running back in 2004?
Thanks,
Mike
Thanks all!
You are making me go back four years but I will try - There is more SNAP to the upper bass lower mid and transients sound more whole and and coherent or 'real' - the single 12 moves a lot more air then the little Audax's as does the treble system. The tone is more vivid and natural plus it is 'denser 'and the upper midrange low treble is smoother. The little Beyma would make a nice super tweeter but it is not sensitive enough to match the Emilar in the complex conical horn. This system may not look like it but it will play stupid loud with very low distortion. It also sounds great at background levels where the Karlson/Audax/Beyma was limited in output (by the Audax PR170's) plus it had to be cranked a bit to sound good in the bass.
moray james said:
I had the SRO's sitting here for a while and just decided to make them work. I really didn't look into alternative 12's because after having them reconed with the different edge they sounded so nice I decided to use them. The tone tubby 12 may be good. These panels are one sheet of mdf glued together to make 24" by 48" baffles. The 12 needs to get down to 120 cycles on it but doesn't really need to be flat that low (these are -3-4 db) because of the rising response of the 21" woofer. Other then that look for a 12 that doesn't have bad up break and is as linear (stay away from low QTS rising response drivers that are more suitable for a front horn) and efficient as you you can find 100 to 3K - The SRO was originally with a paper edge and although it was smooth for a guitar speaker it is too peaky for hifi IMO, these have the Jensen Flexair edge.
The horns I'm using can be bought from Renkus Heinz dealers as a part. " CCH1200-9 HORN,CMPLX CONIC,1200Hz,90x60,1" -
Congratulations Magnetar - Your new toys look great!
Hi Magnetar!
Your new speakers look absolutely great!
While many of us use most of time considering the next project, you actually manage to let your ideas materialize - which is very inspiring! Thanks for sharing and please keep up the good work
Kind regards
Peter
PS: I somehow by mistake posted this in the Ariel-thread, where it dosn't belong, sorry!
Hi Magnetar!
Your new speakers look absolutely great!
While many of us use most of time considering the next project, you actually manage to let your ideas materialize - which is very inspiring! Thanks for sharing and please keep up the good work
Kind regards
Peter
PS: I somehow by mistake posted this in the Ariel-thread, where it dosn't belong, sorry!
Hello Magnetar,
I was walking back home today when I was thinking that I should ask you to upload some pictures of your new system. I've arrived home and what do you know!... Congratulations again!
Now regarding that electro voice midrange. Could you please tell me what is the shape of the diaphragm? Is it conical or is it a curvilinear / compound shape? And could you please post some close-ups on the midrange withe the cone-diaphragm assembly?
Thank you for these inspiring threads!
I was walking back home today when I was thinking that I should ask you to upload some pictures of your new system. I've arrived home and what do you know!...
Congratulations again!Now regarding that electro voice midrange. Could you please tell me what is the shape of the diaphragm? Is it conical or is it a curvilinear / compound shape? And could you please post some close-ups on the midrange withe the cone-diaphragm assembly?
Thank you for these inspiring threads!
Hey Mike,
Congrats on the latest setup. I enjoy following your builds and see similarities in our thinking. You certainly follow through on many ideas and I applaud your forward motion. I too have headed into open baffle speakers, but still flirt with horns and believe optimal sound is somewhere to be found with a optimal combination of each. I agree whole-heartedly with your statement:
>>>>What most people do (like geddle in his Pumma) is they attenuate the mid frequencies to get treble out of their design. What this does is it RAISES the distortion of the treble - this is the area of 'break up' so it is quite frankly stupid if you can afford to use a separate tweeter that will keep up.
It's a path I followed when pushing the sensitivity envelope and can confirm its success sonically as well. If it's possible to add the extra element and eliminate the padding of a driver, it's an absolutely clear step upwards.
I'm in the process of downsizing things, as I have relocated to a smaller listening room. I will be trying hard to maintain big, undistorted sound within the new enviroment. Keep pushing the envelope on the big stuff......
Jerrod
http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=28
Congrats on the latest setup. I enjoy following your builds and see similarities in our thinking. You certainly follow through on many ideas and I applaud your forward motion. I too have headed into open baffle speakers, but still flirt with horns and believe optimal sound is somewhere to be found with a optimal combination of each. I agree whole-heartedly with your statement:
>>>>What most people do (like geddle in his Pumma) is they attenuate the mid frequencies to get treble out of their design. What this does is it RAISES the distortion of the treble - this is the area of 'break up' so it is quite frankly stupid if you can afford to use a separate tweeter that will keep up.
It's a path I followed when pushing the sensitivity envelope and can confirm its success sonically as well. If it's possible to add the extra element and eliminate the padding of a driver, it's an absolutely clear step upwards.
I'm in the process of downsizing things, as I have relocated to a smaller listening room. I will be trying hard to maintain big, undistorted sound within the new enviroment. Keep pushing the envelope on the big stuff......
Jerrod
http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=28
CLS said:
Ah, I forgot this.
You're 'cheating' with the horn sub, again!
Since the 21" can pump a lot of air, have you ever tried EQing it a bit to get down another octave?
Yes, the distortion goes up, the power handling goes down and so does the illusion of real bass instruments in real space. Rather then EQ the bass I'd recommend high passing it and using a sub bass system that can be integrated with low compromise and 'keep up' with the rest of the system. If you look at the pic of the two SG-OB's in the first post you will notice there is no horn sub between the panels. With the lower crossover point I have been able to move the subhorn behind me - it's path is now exactly the same distance from my listening space as the panels. Because of the lower crossover it cannot be localized and has allowed this move. The crossover point is much less challenged because the position of the panels and subs are driving the room modes where the listening position is in a very 'happy' position - the problem is behind the main listening position there is a hole in the bass response, that is where I plan on using the other 21's I have pointed where the side dipole null is at the listening position and the 21's driving the the center back half of the room. Maybe I will get good results..
SunRa said:Hello Magnetar,
I was walking back home today when I was thinking that I should ask you to upload some pictures of your new system. I've arrived home and what do you know!...
Now regarding that electro voice midrange. Could you please tell me what is the shape of the diaphragm? Is it conical or is it a curvilinear / compound shape? And could you please post some close-ups on the midrange withe the cone-diaphragm assembly?
Thank you for these inspiring threads!
Hello, the EV uses a straight sided cone. Thanks
Hi Magnetar,
At last my Beyma SM-115/N 15"ers have arrived.
They now have the same multi-pleat cloth edge as the 'SM-115/K' version, and have sig-gen Fs 34Hz out of the box. They look good, but not the same as the one shown on the Beyma PDF.
When these are simulated on XLBaffle they indicate the same near straight line low Qes roll-off as your Pyle 21"; as indeed do many other low Qes drivers intended for cabinet loading; like Kappa-15A. Of course your 21" has excellent volume displacement too.
When I connect these drivers directly to a SS amplifier they run exactly as expected - without a cabinet the bass rolls off steeply and sounds 'tight' with too much mid. All low Qes drivers do this, and thus without any EQ they sound inferior to the likes of an Alpha-15A on OB.
And yet I feel that EQ alone cannot help a low Qes driver when compared to the likes of higher Qes ones because that 'tightness' of reproduction when directly driven via thick cable by a SS NFB amplifier a direct amplifier to loudspeaker 'damping' connection is maintained. Yes the LF hits so firmly, especially with a large diameter driver, but it still does not sound 'right'.
Use a high power tube amplifier, with say parallel push-pull ultralinear beam tetrodes, and that 'tightness' disappears as the driver is allowed to transduce amplifier output current without that SS NFB amplifier 'fighting' against motionally generated LS back-EMF characteristic.
Low Qes LF drivers especially need to be driven by an optimum source impedance, and this brings us into the realm of amplifier/LS matching where the output impedance of an amplifier can quite literally 'tune' the reproduction response of a LF driver.
There is room for a commercial SS amplifier product having tunable LF output impedance controls for this very purpose, however, any such design will be much less efficient and need large heatsinks with greater power output capability due to the amplifier itself needing to dissipate energy within its own internal series output impedance. Beam tetrodes are particularly good in this regard because secondary electron emission from cherry red anodes cannot overheat the third grid as arises in a pentode; this because there is no third grid, and the tetrode electron path is literally 'beamed'.
Yet there is another solution with SS amplifiers, and although I first observed the differences in LF reproduction between pentodes, tetrodes and SS over 35 years ago when driving multiple 18"ers in what would now be termed 'U' frames, it is only this year that I hit upon this solution.
I called it 'T'-bass because it is derived from a transformer circuit which is connected directly to the output terminals of a good high damping NFB SS amplifier.
Here, one Beyma 15" did exactly as expected; two in parallel would be more like your 21", and yes they can hit and throb hard at LF; however one alone driven by the circuit shown below went lower/louder below driver Fs than could two in plain parallel with direct NFB damping connection.
If you knock together this type of circuit you WILL hear depths of reproduction from your baffle which you could never have imagined possible. Due to the choke in series with the primary of the step-up transformer the LF amplitude is increased to overcome the impedance peak at and below FS where it has still not returned to its nominal value and otherwise causes the sharp driver+baffle roll-off. The capacitor pulls output down to nominal on the high side of Fs with amplifier damping so that output is not raised in the upper bass region. The choke plus capacitor together limit resonant behaviour at Fs.
On its own, a high Qes driver can have a decent frequency response on a baffle due to its own (non-adjustable) mechanical resonant characteristics augmenting the amplitude at and *above* Fs, this circuit provides a much superior, and adjustable increase in output (try low value 0.47 ohm to 4.7 ohm power resistors in series with the choke and capacitor) at and *below* Fs.
With a decent SS amplifier and this circuit the LF from your single 21" WILL sound like 2x 21" when directly driven on a much larger baffle !
Now that I have tried this circuit with the Beymas (which will behave similarly to your Pyle) I am able to make this claim publically, and add that EQ alone simply cannot produce the same type of reproduction improvement as this. I have EQ too, but with a low Qes driver on an OB it still sounds so un-naturally and tightly 'cut-off' with SS drive.
Cheers ........ Graham.
At last my Beyma SM-115/N 15"ers have arrived.
They now have the same multi-pleat cloth edge as the 'SM-115/K' version, and have sig-gen Fs 34Hz out of the box. They look good, but not the same as the one shown on the Beyma PDF.
When these are simulated on XLBaffle they indicate the same near straight line low Qes roll-off as your Pyle 21"; as indeed do many other low Qes drivers intended for cabinet loading; like Kappa-15A. Of course your 21" has excellent volume displacement too.
When I connect these drivers directly to a SS amplifier they run exactly as expected - without a cabinet the bass rolls off steeply and sounds 'tight' with too much mid. All low Qes drivers do this, and thus without any EQ they sound inferior to the likes of an Alpha-15A on OB.
And yet I feel that EQ alone cannot help a low Qes driver when compared to the likes of higher Qes ones because that 'tightness' of reproduction when directly driven via thick cable by a SS NFB amplifier a direct amplifier to loudspeaker 'damping' connection is maintained. Yes the LF hits so firmly, especially with a large diameter driver, but it still does not sound 'right'.
Use a high power tube amplifier, with say parallel push-pull ultralinear beam tetrodes, and that 'tightness' disappears as the driver is allowed to transduce amplifier output current without that SS NFB amplifier 'fighting' against motionally generated LS back-EMF characteristic.
Low Qes LF drivers especially need to be driven by an optimum source impedance, and this brings us into the realm of amplifier/LS matching where the output impedance of an amplifier can quite literally 'tune' the reproduction response of a LF driver.
There is room for a commercial SS amplifier product having tunable LF output impedance controls for this very purpose, however, any such design will be much less efficient and need large heatsinks with greater power output capability due to the amplifier itself needing to dissipate energy within its own internal series output impedance. Beam tetrodes are particularly good in this regard because secondary electron emission from cherry red anodes cannot overheat the third grid as arises in a pentode; this because there is no third grid, and the tetrode electron path is literally 'beamed'.
Yet there is another solution with SS amplifiers, and although I first observed the differences in LF reproduction between pentodes, tetrodes and SS over 35 years ago when driving multiple 18"ers in what would now be termed 'U' frames, it is only this year that I hit upon this solution.
I called it 'T'-bass because it is derived from a transformer circuit which is connected directly to the output terminals of a good high damping NFB SS amplifier.
Here, one Beyma 15" did exactly as expected; two in parallel would be more like your 21", and yes they can hit and throb hard at LF; however one alone driven by the circuit shown below went lower/louder below driver Fs than could two in plain parallel with direct NFB damping connection.
If you knock together this type of circuit you WILL hear depths of reproduction from your baffle which you could never have imagined possible. Due to the choke in series with the primary of the step-up transformer the LF amplitude is increased to overcome the impedance peak at and below FS where it has still not returned to its nominal value and otherwise causes the sharp driver+baffle roll-off. The capacitor pulls output down to nominal on the high side of Fs with amplifier damping so that output is not raised in the upper bass region. The choke plus capacitor together limit resonant behaviour at Fs.
On its own, a high Qes driver can have a decent frequency response on a baffle due to its own (non-adjustable) mechanical resonant characteristics augmenting the amplitude at and *above* Fs, this circuit provides a much superior, and adjustable increase in output (try low value 0.47 ohm to 4.7 ohm power resistors in series with the choke and capacitor) at and *below* Fs.
With a decent SS amplifier and this circuit the LF from your single 21" WILL sound like 2x 21" when directly driven on a much larger baffle !
Now that I have tried this circuit with the Beymas (which will behave similarly to your Pyle) I am able to make this claim publically, and add that EQ alone simply cannot produce the same type of reproduction improvement as this. I have EQ too, but with a low Qes driver on an OB it still sounds so un-naturally and tightly 'cut-off' with SS drive.
Cheers ........ Graham.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.