Hello All,
First, thanks to those who make this forum so great and informative! I've spent years on avs and with help done a bit of diy. I've spent days reading the threads related to the design I was considering (Beyma TPL150h based giant three way). I will have help from someone very experienced in xover deisgn as well, so that, along with the ability to go active on the mains should make it very doable for me.
The reviews and past designs I've seen like this seem very good. The concern I have is that my goal is to fill a large home theater with 3 rows of seating and possibly up to a vertical difference of 42" total from ear height in the first row to ear height in the 3rd row. Also, I'm a loud listener and for the purposes of headroom and peice of mind, I'd like capabilities above ref at the furthest listening position (probably between 25 and 30ft..final room dimensions still pending). The very narrow vertical window of the amt scares me a bit with regard to it's ability to do this effectively.
The other concern I have is that although there seems to be a number of designs using 8", 10" and even 12" mids, the directivity match is better on the smaller drivers, yet the output limitations of some mean dual mids. even the 8" dual mids, by my math, seem to have no possible way to have optimal ctc spacing when above and below the tpl waveguide. Initially I thought the AE TD10M in an mtm with the tpl, plus a single AE18 or dual 15s would be the ultimate 3 way, but the above has me a bit worried.
I would also like the ability to mate robust surrounds, capable of ref plus. The above design would match well I'd think with an mtm dual 10, tpl combo....but again the concern becomes great sound spread over much more than the MLP.
The last project I had incorporated the BMS 4594, a large waveguide and multiple AE TD15M woofers. Output was great, imaging was spectacular, but taming the CD and getting that sweet sound along with the output etc just didn't come through.
I've also had the Mundorf 164 2.3r brought to my attention as well, but all other things aside, my veritcal issue would still be present. Is my concern on the coverage through multiple rows valid? I broke out the protractor and tried to see what distances would create acceptable coverage...it seems as though I'd need 12degrees total top to bottom as a bare minimum for what I'd like to do seat tiering wise...more would be better of course to allow for some flexability in seating and with regard to surround placement. I'd also like to address atmos channels if possible..not sure how much so that is if we go ribbon/amt based design.
I'd love to hear from the experienced folks here. Cost no object, to accomplish the above, what is your input?? Size constraints aren't an issue either. I'll also be using an sub system capable of matching anything we can come up with.
I'm open to any and all ideas you guys have and can't wait to hear what no holds barred designs could be implamented
First, thanks to those who make this forum so great and informative! I've spent years on avs and with help done a bit of diy. I've spent days reading the threads related to the design I was considering (Beyma TPL150h based giant three way). I will have help from someone very experienced in xover deisgn as well, so that, along with the ability to go active on the mains should make it very doable for me.
The reviews and past designs I've seen like this seem very good. The concern I have is that my goal is to fill a large home theater with 3 rows of seating and possibly up to a vertical difference of 42" total from ear height in the first row to ear height in the 3rd row. Also, I'm a loud listener and for the purposes of headroom and peice of mind, I'd like capabilities above ref at the furthest listening position (probably between 25 and 30ft..final room dimensions still pending). The very narrow vertical window of the amt scares me a bit with regard to it's ability to do this effectively.
The other concern I have is that although there seems to be a number of designs using 8", 10" and even 12" mids, the directivity match is better on the smaller drivers, yet the output limitations of some mean dual mids. even the 8" dual mids, by my math, seem to have no possible way to have optimal ctc spacing when above and below the tpl waveguide. Initially I thought the AE TD10M in an mtm with the tpl, plus a single AE18 or dual 15s would be the ultimate 3 way, but the above has me a bit worried.
I would also like the ability to mate robust surrounds, capable of ref plus. The above design would match well I'd think with an mtm dual 10, tpl combo....but again the concern becomes great sound spread over much more than the MLP.
The last project I had incorporated the BMS 4594, a large waveguide and multiple AE TD15M woofers. Output was great, imaging was spectacular, but taming the CD and getting that sweet sound along with the output etc just didn't come through.
I've also had the Mundorf 164 2.3r brought to my attention as well, but all other things aside, my veritcal issue would still be present. Is my concern on the coverage through multiple rows valid? I broke out the protractor and tried to see what distances would create acceptable coverage...it seems as though I'd need 12degrees total top to bottom as a bare minimum for what I'd like to do seat tiering wise...more would be better of course to allow for some flexability in seating and with regard to surround placement. I'd also like to address atmos channels if possible..not sure how much so that is if we go ribbon/amt based design.
I'd love to hear from the experienced folks here. Cost no object, to accomplish the above, what is your input?? Size constraints aren't an issue either. I'll also be using an sub system capable of matching anything we can come up with.
I'm open to any and all ideas you guys have and can't wait to hear what no holds barred designs could be implamented
Hi ChopShop,
I use the larger "consumer" grade Mundorf AMT's, and the vertical dispersion should be great for your use. I think you are too worried. A big benefit of line sources is the reduction of floor and ceiling bounce. Especially at a distance, this yields measurably smoother FR and subjectively better detail. It's a great option. Perhaps consider lifting the L and R speakers up off the ground though, so that the mid of the tweets is near the middle of the screen. This could improve your angle.
As some one who worked in theater sound systems, I'd recommend instead of trying to make gigantic surrounds, make more small surrounds. That is, instead of 1 pair of very large side surrounds, use 2 pairs of smaller surrounds. This will give you the most accurate reference grade surround sound. It's meant to be diffused, and in theaters often has 2 or more pairs of speakers. Of course, small and large is relative. You may want to prototype this before commiting to a solution. That is, try the difference with some speakers you already have and see if you like it.
Best,
Erik
I use the larger "consumer" grade Mundorf AMT's, and the vertical dispersion should be great for your use. I think you are too worried. A big benefit of line sources is the reduction of floor and ceiling bounce. Especially at a distance, this yields measurably smoother FR and subjectively better detail. It's a great option. Perhaps consider lifting the L and R speakers up off the ground though, so that the mid of the tweets is near the middle of the screen. This could improve your angle.
As some one who worked in theater sound systems, I'd recommend instead of trying to make gigantic surrounds, make more small surrounds. That is, instead of 1 pair of very large side surrounds, use 2 pairs of smaller surrounds. This will give you the most accurate reference grade surround sound. It's meant to be diffused, and in theaters often has 2 or more pairs of speakers. Of course, small and large is relative.
You may want to prototype this before commiting to a solution. That is, try the difference with some speakers you already have and see if you like it.Best,
Erik
ONe last thing, before commiting to it all, build your speakers and listen.
One oddity is that I find myself wanting to listen below the tweeter position, despite having measured and tuned on tweeter axis.
Despite the roll off, performance off axis is very smooth, you are the only one who might know it's there.
Best,
Erik
One oddity is that I find myself wanting to listen below the tweeter position, despite having measured and tuned on tweeter axis.
Despite the roll off, performance off axis is very smooth, you are the only one who might know it's there.
Best,
Erik
Hi ChopShop,
I use the larger "consumer" grade Mundorf AMT's, and the vertical dispersion should be great for your use. I think you are too worried. A big benefit of line sources is the reduction of floor and ceiling bounce. Especially at a distance, this yields measurably smoother FR and subjectively better detail. It's a great option. Perhaps consider lifting the L and R speakers up off the ground though, so that the mid of the tweets is near the middle of the screen. This could improve your angle.
As some one who worked in theater sound systems, I'd recommend instead of trying to make gigantic surrounds, make more small surrounds. That is, instead of 1 pair of very large side surrounds, use 2 pairs of smaller surrounds. This will give you the most accurate reference grade surround sound. It's meant to be diffused, and in theaters often has 2 or more pairs of speakers. Of course, small and large is relative.
Best,
Erik
Thank you for taking the time Erik! That's pretty reassuring too. I may be overly concerned, I tend to be. I know that many of you are for more experienced implamenting solutions like this than I am. The configuration of the drivers on the baffle and height the finsihed speaker sits at can all be manipulated, as you've said, so that helps too.
With regard to surrounds, my thoughts were not to use fewer speakers, quite the opposite actually. I'd like to put a trinnov or Datasat in play to allow for many more discrete channels than typical (two to three sets of sides, width channels, rear channels and multiple overhead. My main concern with the drivers used, size and capability, was just to have the needed ouput and headroom from each channel.
With regard to the Mundorf...what has been successful as far as waveguides go?
I've not used a waveguide at all. But the large dimensions of the diaphragm act to control dispersion.
Remember your surrounds are going to be MUCH closer than your mains. You don't need quite the efficiency or dynamic range.
Support them with a pair of subwoofers in the rear of the theater and you'll be golden.
At a certian point, space becomes more important than absolute cost or dynamic range. That is, you can't build a home theater for 8, using only 15" woofer. You could, I guess, but it's going to be totally out of proportion.
In a home theater seating 20 people or less, with multiple surrounds, that are many times closer than the main speakers, making them physically smaller is much more balanced, and will leave more room for room treatment and other aesthetic touches.
A pair of 15" woofers in the rear corners will add back in any missing bass and consequently increase the dynamic range tremendously. Bi-amping gives huge amounts of headroom.
Best,
Erik
But the large dimensions of the diaphragm act to control dispersion.Remember your surrounds are going to be MUCH closer than your mains. You don't need quite the efficiency or dynamic range.
Support them with a pair of subwoofers in the rear of the theater and you'll be golden.
At a certian point, space becomes more important than absolute cost or dynamic range. That is, you can't build a home theater for 8, using only 15" woofer. You could, I guess, but it's going to be totally out of proportion.
In a home theater seating 20 people or less, with multiple surrounds, that are many times closer than the main speakers, making them physically smaller is much more balanced, and will leave more room for room treatment and other aesthetic touches.
A pair of 15" woofers in the rear corners will add back in any missing bass and consequently increase the dynamic range tremendously. Bi-amping gives huge amounts of headroom.
Best,
Erik
Last edited:
Actually, in your surrounds you may want to consider changing your tweets to a dome.
The reason is geometry. As the speakers get closer, the dispersion area is smaller. Especially important with overhead speakers which will be the closest. You don't want them beaming straight down.
If money is no object, I recommend the small profile Scanspeak Be tweeters, not the large one's. The small faceplate will make it much easier to make small profile surrounds.
Best,
Erik
The reason is geometry. As the speakers get closer, the dispersion area is smaller. Especially important with overhead speakers which will be the closest. You don't want them beaming straight down.
If money is no object, I recommend the small profile Scanspeak Be tweeters, not the large one's. The small faceplate will make it much easier to make small profile surrounds.
Best,
Erik
Interesting points Erik. I had figured the overhead speakers I'd have basically no chance of using amt...although somehow Alcons seems to do it. You belive the same change in tweeter should be considered for the surrounds themselves?
My only concern on the dynamic range of the surrounds is that the rears will be potentially as far from the MLP as the LCR and even further from the front row (MLP in second row).
Going back to the geometry, using something like the mundorf option, you believe the limited veritcal window will not provide enough disperison coming from the sides and rears to give a nice effect in all rows?
My only concern on the dynamic range of the surrounds is that the rears will be potentially as far from the MLP as the LCR and even further from the front row (MLP in second row).
Going back to the geometry, using something like the mundorf option, you believe the limited veritcal window will not provide enough disperison coming from the sides and rears to give a nice effect in all rows?
Yeah, building 20 plus cabinets certainly monopolizes time for a while
I've thought seriously about just building the mains and the wide channel speakers to match and utilizing something out there for the surrounds. I've actually talked with a couple of guys who use the tpl in their mains and everything from JBL pro surrounds to custom stuff.
I love the idea of making everything, one for the pride, two because it always seems like you can do better than commerical offerings with the right help. For a couple thousand a piece in parts, one could build lcr that are world beaters. That's the goal. I do take the advice on the surrounds to heart....I may just focus on the best mains possible, build those and buy the surrounds/heights. I always bought into timbre matching etc, but it seems to matter less and less with a properly designed room and treatment plan...plus eq of course.
Any thoughts from you, or anyone else too, on the driver choices for mids and woofs?? I've read a lot of success has been had with Beyma, FP, PD, etc. Maybe it's been my limited exposure, but I always thought AE was the best one could do sound quality wise. I have used and loved John's drivers before.
Please, no one hold back either...opinions on midrange size, woofer size, orientation of drivers etc. I'm really open to anything at this point, just want to build the best speaker I can.
I've thought seriously about just building the mains and the wide channel speakers to match and utilizing something out there for the surrounds. I've actually talked with a couple of guys who use the tpl in their mains and everything from JBL pro surrounds to custom stuff.
I love the idea of making everything, one for the pride, two because it always seems like you can do better than commerical offerings with the right help. For a couple thousand a piece in parts, one could build lcr that are world beaters. That's the goal. I do take the advice on the surrounds to heart....I may just focus on the best mains possible, build those and buy the surrounds/heights. I always bought into timbre matching etc, but it seems to matter less and less with a properly designed room and treatment plan...plus eq of course.
Any thoughts from you, or anyone else too, on the driver choices for mids and woofs?? I've read a lot of success has been had with Beyma, FP, PD, etc. Maybe it's been my limited exposure, but I always thought AE was the best one could do sound quality wise. I have used and loved John's drivers before.
Please, no one hold back either...opinions on midrange size, woofer size, orientation of drivers etc. I'm really open to anything at this point, just want to build the best speaker I can.
Oh, no. A wide horizontal dispersion on side speakers is a good thing, which AMT's have, relative to their vertical. I thought you would want to only design 2 types of speakers.
A main and a surround. So I was going for hte best compromise. The more speaker types, the harder and longer this process is though.
I think you really should build some prototypes before committing. As quick and dirty as you can.
The problem is i don't know if you are estimating the time and labor all of this would take. Also consider situations when you might make something that is wrong, and have to redesign.
If you do everything perfectly it's all good, but no one ever does that without years of practice.
I don't think I would have done my 3 different models if I had to plan it all in advance. I built the mains, tweaked them, six months later the center, then a few months later the sides. I would have choked if I had tried to do all of that at once, and I wouldn't have known as much. In particular, I encourage you to iterate instead of try to make one massive full plan. Plan to make small plans. The main speakers will be a large project all by itself. Finish those, and then decide what's next and what you have time, money and energy for.
Best,
Erik
All sound advise on tackling projects...I think we all underestimate them for sure. I will start with the mains, absolutely and then transition to surrounds. I would not attempt the heights, at least not now. As you said, trying to get proper dispersion per Dolby would be impossible with these. Plus I think as it stands today, one could treat and eq to make an existing speaker with the proper dispersion qualities mate well.
My last mains were a 2.5 way, four woofer design combined with the bms cd on a seos 24" waveguide. I had help with design of course, but all in all, I built solid cabinets to be baffle wall installed, in a weekend. Finish on these won't be of importance obviously, just cabinet construction quality. Luckily I have a freinds with a nive CNC setup as well.
I'd be very interested to hear thoughts from you guys on the Mundorf vs the tpl in general in more detail, and where the most success has been had crossing it, slopes, etc. I've searched but only seen very few posts on it.
My last mains were a 2.5 way, four woofer design combined with the bms cd on a seos 24" waveguide. I had help with design of course, but all in all, I built solid cabinets to be baffle wall installed, in a weekend. Finish on these won't be of importance obviously, just cabinet construction quality. Luckily I have a freinds with a nive CNC setup as well.
I'd be very interested to hear thoughts from you guys on the Mundorf vs the tpl in general in more detail, and where the most success has been had crossing it, slopes, etc. I've searched but only seen very few posts on it.
I'd also have no problem copying an existing design for the most part..meant as a compliment to the folks here...I'm quite sure you guys have all designed better than I'm capable of. I'd love to start fresh with the proper help, and use the best components available today, but don't want to fool myslef into thinking I'm going to creat the best speaker on earth all by my lonesome.
‘Seems like we are thinking along the same kind of lines for our home theaters ChopShop.
I don’t think you have to worry too much about the TPL 150H’s narrow vertical dispersion of +/- 15 degrees. The sound lobe expands in height quite rapidly as seating positions get further away from the front speakers.
My room was primarily planned for music and less for movies. Still, I chose to make as best a compromise also including movies. So, I have 4 of AEs 18” as front subs complemented with 4 subs of AEs 15”:ers (SPB 15) at the back wall. LCRs are AEs TD12 M + Beyma TPL 150H. The room itself and angling of LCRs fronts is meant to copy as best as possible a RFZ room (RPG’s Peter D’Antonio and Trevor Cox design idea), so front end speakers are in a kind of flush mounted baffle wall, angled so no side wall early reflection shall reach MLP (or at least be easily treatable to go below -20 dB versus direct sound).
When it comes to surrounds, I agree with Eric. If you aim for diffuse surround sound, go for several smaller speakers per side channel. My reasoning here: Your mains might have about 60 degree spread in front of you. There are another 300 degrees to cover in your room …, while at the same time you may want a diffuse sound for all seats. I highly doubt that can be accomplished with only 1 surround speaker per side. People closest to the wall will hear that singular speaker closest to them and a lot less, if any, from other directions. So, I went with 4 speakers per surround channel. The front most one is about 18 degrees up and 18 degrees forward of MLP, the remaining 3 per channel are evenly spread out in height towards the ceiling and backwards to the back wall to evenly cover those 300 degrees. I would think more than twice regarding a placement close to back corners for the surrounds, they will get some extra room gain and sound louder in “lower frequencies” compared to those placed along the side wall. (Depending on room rooms size /seating positions it could be used as an advantage also. If you use DSP for each surround speaker, corner placement might not be an issue to worry that much about.)
Theoretically a 15” driver and the TPL 150H wouldn’t be the best marriage, as the centers would be too far apart for crossover frequency working out well for both elements. I skipped AEs TD15 M for this reason and went with TD12 M instead. Ideal would be even smaller but then you loose efficiency / SPL and have to dial down the TPL 150H.
I started a thread several months ago about my built. It was put on ice though when I started to fix some other rooms in the house. Will pick up the thread again quite soon. Line Source came with very good suggestions, I would put attention to those.
Enclosed is a .pdf of an excel spread sheet I wrote for probable sound lobe with TD12 M + TPL 150H at different heights and room lengths (or other drivers). Excel files cannot be uploaded, so it is a pdf version here. Pm me your email adress if you want it, might be of use for you when you plan your room. You probably recognize the picture from a PiSpeaker white papers, -I “borrowed” it and hope Wayne Parham isn’t too upset about that.
If you have an all concrete room, it could be a good idea to go for large sealed subs with system resonance above your lowest room mode, -if you want the bass to go flat down to low frequencies with less boomy bass issues. Sealed ones will roll off with 12 dB/octave, sub placements within 1/4 wavelength to surrounding heavy surfaces (or in a heavy baffle wall), will get substantial room gain, so the bass can be quite smooth, without tons of acoustic treatments carried in.
I don’t think you have to worry too much about the TPL 150H’s narrow vertical dispersion of +/- 15 degrees. The sound lobe expands in height quite rapidly as seating positions get further away from the front speakers.
My room was primarily planned for music and less for movies. Still, I chose to make as best a compromise also including movies. So, I have 4 of AEs 18” as front subs complemented with 4 subs of AEs 15”:ers (SPB 15) at the back wall. LCRs are AEs TD12 M + Beyma TPL 150H. The room itself and angling of LCRs fronts is meant to copy as best as possible a RFZ room (RPG’s Peter D’Antonio and Trevor Cox design idea), so front end speakers are in a kind of flush mounted baffle wall, angled so no side wall early reflection shall reach MLP (or at least be easily treatable to go below -20 dB versus direct sound).
When it comes to surrounds, I agree with Eric. If you aim for diffuse surround sound, go for several smaller speakers per side channel. My reasoning here: Your mains might have about 60 degree spread in front of you. There are another 300 degrees to cover in your room …, while at the same time you may want a diffuse sound for all seats. I highly doubt that can be accomplished with only 1 surround speaker per side. People closest to the wall will hear that singular speaker closest to them and a lot less, if any, from other directions. So, I went with 4 speakers per surround channel. The front most one is about 18 degrees up and 18 degrees forward of MLP, the remaining 3 per channel are evenly spread out in height towards the ceiling and backwards to the back wall to evenly cover those 300 degrees. I would think more than twice regarding a placement close to back corners for the surrounds, they will get some extra room gain and sound louder in “lower frequencies” compared to those placed along the side wall. (Depending on room rooms size /seating positions it could be used as an advantage also. If you use DSP for each surround speaker, corner placement might not be an issue to worry that much about.)
Theoretically a 15” driver and the TPL 150H wouldn’t be the best marriage, as the centers would be too far apart for crossover frequency working out well for both elements. I skipped AEs TD15 M for this reason and went with TD12 M instead. Ideal would be even smaller but then you loose efficiency / SPL and have to dial down the TPL 150H.
I started a thread several months ago about my built. It was put on ice though when I started to fix some other rooms in the house. Will pick up the thread again quite soon. Line Source came with very good suggestions, I would put attention to those.
Enclosed is a .pdf of an excel spread sheet I wrote for probable sound lobe with TD12 M + TPL 150H at different heights and room lengths (or other drivers). Excel files cannot be uploaded, so it is a pdf version here. Pm me your email adress if you want it, might be of use for you when you plan your room. You probably recognize the picture from a PiSpeaker white papers, -I “borrowed” it and hope Wayne Parham isn’t too upset about that.
If you have an all concrete room, it could be a good idea to go for large sealed subs with system resonance above your lowest room mode, -if you want the bass to go flat down to low frequencies with less boomy bass issues. Sealed ones will roll off with 12 dB/octave, sub placements within 1/4 wavelength to surrounding heavy surfaces (or in a heavy baffle wall), will get substantial room gain, so the bass can be quite smooth, without tons of acoustic treatments carried in.
Last edited:
I've measured the Mundorf AMT25CM1.1-R with help from Raal. Absolutely flawless FR, distortion and compression from 70 to 90 dB/1m. literally could not measure compression but I don't have such experience with other brands of AMT's.
I'm listening to a pair of them right now. They will pry them away from me only when dead. \
For my center and Surrounds I went with Vifa XT ring radiators. They meet spec and matched great. I have not done the distortion / compression levels though. If you want, those designs are free and online here. You'll have to adapt for wall mounting.
http://speakermakersjourney.blogspot.com/2016/01/introduction-to-georgia-tech-leach.html
Best,
Erik
I'm listening to a pair of them right now. They will pry them away from me only when dead. \
For my center and Surrounds I went with Vifa XT ring radiators. They meet spec and matched great. I have not done the distortion / compression levels though. If you want, those designs are free and online here. You'll have to adapt for wall mounting.
http://speakermakersjourney.blogspot.com/2016/01/introduction-to-georgia-tech-leach.html
Best,
Erik
Last edited:
The best theaters use horns. I don't see any in the mix except a "waveguide" for treble . To tame a compression driver use a bass system that will keep up with it. A midbass horn down to 100 HZ or so should do it as long as it is clean response to where your upper horn is working properly. Than you will have the ultimate. Below 100 Hz use multiple 15's or 18's or a basshorn or two if you have the space.
Thanks for weighing in! Yes it sounds like we are on similar paths.
I've been doing some quick and dirty drafts of the room design that has what we think will be the final dimensions, seat placement etc. (still have to collaborate with Erskine Group who is doing design with me, to finalize). I've done front and side elevations as well as overhead. It appears I can get very close to axis in MLP from all channels and fairly good coverage to all other seats, with the right placement, angling of the speakers etc....It still makes me a bit nervous, but once I build a couple of modular models to test I will know much better how far off axis sound is still acceptable and creating the desired effects.
As far as the mids go, I had planned on TD10M's originally. I do like the idea of more efficiency and output than a single ten, but directivity matching and ability to play higher, better lend the 10M to more options with regard to tpl xover. I've seen a few guys use the TD12M with the TPL150H and love it, but can't help but think the 10M would work even better.....
I plan to do a large number of surrounds for sure...as of now, thinking of 3 sides, and maybe two sets of rear. Also going to try to fit width speakers in front that are identical to the mains.
For subs, I've used the SI HS24 before and will probably make the jump to the HS24mkII for this...12 of them should get me, with room gain, in the 120db down below 10hz. I plan, as of now, to use them at 1/4 points up/down and across on the front wall. Will prob put a couple nearfiled in teh risers as well.
Pm coming, I'd love that. Just off the cuff, what are the drawbacks you think the 12 is presenting you and how do you plan to compensate?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.