--Have you ever tried Lamda SB series
I have no experience with these.
--How is your TD Lambda compared ported vs sealed.
The general rule of sealed vs. ported box applies.
Since I was driving my TD with 600w, I was able
to hit mechanical limits of the woofer easier during
bass peaks. I think the box was 3 cubic feet sealed.
Then I built a 4 cubic foot box ported tuned to 35hz
(rough estimates) and used dual 4" rear flared ports.
This obviously gave me more bass output on the low
end and the woofer excursion is least near tuning
so it was a better choice for higher power. When
I tuned the box higher to 55hz by port swapping,
this created a large peak in frequency response
perhaps around 60-70hz (rough estimates), I lost
the deep bass sound, but gained much more
"chest" pounding bass. Both gave you a different
experience. But this applies to any woofer, not
just TD series.
If you do full range tests, regardless of box, the
NON-bass frequencies sound the same really.
The lower excursion port design at high power may
actually sound better at full range because you get less
modulation of the midrange frequencies
This contradicts what everyone says that sealed
boxes sound better than ported boxes
But in this application, who runs their woofer full
range? hehe, perhaps if you designed a 2 way system
the port would be better sonically.
I ended up chosing the ported design because I
didn't notice any sonic degradation compared to
sealed, and I gained some of the cool benefits of ported;
* more effecient
* lower excursion @ tuning
* with dual rear 4" flared ports, it sounded good (no port noise).
* ability to port swap to change tuning depending on your listening mood
I have no experience with these.
--How is your TD Lambda compared ported vs sealed.
The general rule of sealed vs. ported box applies.
Since I was driving my TD with 600w, I was able
to hit mechanical limits of the woofer easier during
bass peaks. I think the box was 3 cubic feet sealed.
Then I built a 4 cubic foot box ported tuned to 35hz
(rough estimates) and used dual 4" rear flared ports.
This obviously gave me more bass output on the low
end and the woofer excursion is least near tuning
so it was a better choice for higher power. When
I tuned the box higher to 55hz by port swapping,
this created a large peak in frequency response
perhaps around 60-70hz (rough estimates), I lost
the deep bass sound, but gained much more
"chest" pounding bass. Both gave you a different
experience. But this applies to any woofer, not
just TD series.
If you do full range tests, regardless of box, the
NON-bass frequencies sound the same really.
The lower excursion port design at high power may
actually sound better at full range because you get less
modulation of the midrange frequencies
This contradicts what everyone says that sealed
boxes sound better than ported boxes
But in this application, who runs their woofer full
range? hehe, perhaps if you designed a 2 way system
the port would be better sonically.
I ended up chosing the ported design because I
didn't notice any sonic degradation compared to
sealed, and I gained some of the cool benefits of ported;
* more effecient
* lower excursion @ tuning
* with dual rear 4" flared ports, it sounded good (no port noise).
* ability to port swap to change tuning depending on your listening mood
Pass DIY Addict
Joined 2000
Paid Member
To throw a wrench into the works here, it might be interesting to run a ribbon on top, a sealed PHL mid range and then configure a Lambda driver as a transmission line... The Lambdas seem to have really great specs - I especially like the high sensitivity and low moving mass!
My current sub is based on the Audiomobile Mass 2012 S24 driver that has a moving mass of almost 160g! Its mounted in a 135L vented enclosure tuned to 19Hz.
My current sub is based on the Audiomobile Mass 2012 S24 driver that has a moving mass of almost 160g! Its mounted in a 135L vented enclosure tuned to 19Hz.
Great thread guys!
I have been researching for awhile and also like this esg/phl combo.
I had thought to use Andre's esg2/phl MTM tower design for fronts for a HT system...this design looked like it went down to like 40-45hz....I was then adding a sub for the super low and HT work. Thoughts? This is lower than what others are mentioning here.
Andre said he could help make this a HT system...the rears however are preferred to be the type that hang on the wall...different cabinet size...but my biggest concern is the vertical dispersion of the ribbon tweeter....these speakers would be above the listeners and no way to make them same height. What about tilting them down?
Thanks!
Jim
I have been researching for awhile and also like this esg/phl combo.
I had thought to use Andre's esg2/phl MTM tower design for fronts for a HT system...this design looked like it went down to like 40-45hz....I was then adding a sub for the super low and HT work. Thoughts? This is lower than what others are mentioning here.
Andre said he could help make this a HT system...the rears however are preferred to be the type that hang on the wall...different cabinet size...but my biggest concern is the vertical dispersion of the ribbon tweeter....these speakers would be above the listeners and no way to make them same height. What about tilting them down?
Thanks!
Jim
Hi Jim,
While I am playing with other designs now, I still have the PHL / ESG2 speakers I got from Andre and they are still one of my favorite speakers.
The PHL drivers are super dynamic, super detailed and have a warm quality to the sound. Most bass mid drivers with this much detail sound thin by comparison. IMO.
The G2 ribbon is great. Very detailed and very smooth, but as you pointed out, does have, like any ribbon, a dropping frequency response as you move off axes on the vertical plane. That said, the G2 is not that long and the drop off is not that severe but tilting the speakers would be a good idea.
If the PHL could be said to have a weakness, its its lack of low bass. A sub is definitely required for HT.
Branwell
While I am playing with other designs now, I still have the PHL / ESG2 speakers I got from Andre and they are still one of my favorite speakers.
The PHL drivers are super dynamic, super detailed and have a warm quality to the sound. Most bass mid drivers with this much detail sound thin by comparison. IMO.
The G2 ribbon is great. Very detailed and very smooth, but as you pointed out, does have, like any ribbon, a dropping frequency response as you move off axes on the vertical plane. That said, the G2 is not that long and the drop off is not that severe but tilting the speakers would be a good idea.
If the PHL could be said to have a weakness, its its lack of low bass. A sub is definitely required for HT.
Branwell
smithsonga said:
Here is the tread where you could see my finished speakers.
http://diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21523
As you could see I have them tilted because that is only how you could hear them on that hight and it works great.
Hello Branwell, long time no speak.
Smithsonga,
Speakers of all types are all engineering compromises.
That said, three ways tend to be bigger then two ways, tend to use larger bass drivers and having a dedicated midrange driver, if built well and in an appropriate room, can easily outperform a two way.
That said, if space is limited, a two way can do better than a three way.
On the topic of subs, a two way with a “well” set up sub will have a full range sound.
Will a three way have deeper or better bass ? Depends on many factors so there is not a clear-cut answer to that, but……..given that the quality of the tweeter and the midrange sound effects the sound of bass instruments, in theory, a three way should have an advantage……in theory
A.R.
Nice to see you got your speakers finished. They look great. Any further comments on sound ?. Positives, Negatives ?.
I am finally getting around to doing a three way.
For the bass, I already have 4 x 7” Scanspeak 8545 bass midrange drivers in cabinets, so I plan to use them.
For the midrange, I have a pair of PHL 1120 6” midrange drivers coming.
For the tweeter, I plan to try the G2 ribbon I have and the Scanspeak Revelator dome of which I have a pair sitting around. Which ever sounds best will stay in the system.
Like you I plan separate cabinets. In my case, I want to do it that way so I can change out components easily.
Since last communicating, I got a Behringer DCX2496 and a DEQ2496. I have that hooked up through a Panasonic XR45 Digital receiver. Having the digital crossover is just amazing. It makes trying different things so easy.
While I still have the eSpeakers kit, I have been using Newform R645 speakers recently. These are the ones with the 45” ribbon. I like them, but plan a line array bass mid section for them.
Either way, the three way is something I have wanted for a long time and the Digital setup is making it possible…..
Hopefully I should have it up and running in two or three weeks……
Branwell
Speakers of all types are all engineering compromises.
That said, three ways tend to be bigger then two ways, tend to use larger bass drivers and having a dedicated midrange driver, if built well and in an appropriate room, can easily outperform a two way.
That said, if space is limited, a two way can do better than a three way.
On the topic of subs, a two way with a “well” set up sub will have a full range sound.
Will a three way have deeper or better bass ? Depends on many factors so there is not a clear-cut answer to that, but……..given that the quality of the tweeter and the midrange sound effects the sound of bass instruments, in theory, a three way should have an advantage……in theory
A.R.
Nice to see you got your speakers finished. They look great. Any further comments on sound ?. Positives, Negatives ?.
I am finally getting around to doing a three way.
For the bass, I already have 4 x 7” Scanspeak 8545 bass midrange drivers in cabinets, so I plan to use them.
For the midrange, I have a pair of PHL 1120 6” midrange drivers coming.
For the tweeter, I plan to try the G2 ribbon I have and the Scanspeak Revelator dome of which I have a pair sitting around. Which ever sounds best will stay in the system.
Like you I plan separate cabinets. In my case, I want to do it that way so I can change out components easily.
Since last communicating, I got a Behringer DCX2496 and a DEQ2496. I have that hooked up through a Panasonic XR45 Digital receiver. Having the digital crossover is just amazing. It makes trying different things so easy.
While I still have the eSpeakers kit, I have been using Newform R645 speakers recently. These are the ones with the 45” ribbon. I like them, but plan a line array bass mid section for them.
Either way, the three way is something I have wanted for a long time and the Digital setup is making it possible…..
Hopefully I should have it up and running in two or three weeks……
Branwell
Branwell,
The sound is great, I am really happy. They are just more pleasing to the eye now while the veneering is done.
I tried the very same Behringer set up, minus receiver and I likied it a lot. I am planning on ordering Apex remote control unit in order to do atenuation after all the processing is done. What a blast of possibilities, for such a low price. Just digital EQ is miracle. No noise and distortion added at all, unlike typical analog EQ.
Good luck with youur project.
The sound is great, I am really happy. They are just more pleasing to the eye now while the veneering is done.
I tried the very same Behringer set up, minus receiver and I likied it a lot. I am planning on ordering Apex remote control unit in order to do atenuation after all the processing is done. What a blast of possibilities, for such a low price. Just digital EQ is miracle. No noise and distortion added at all, unlike typical analog EQ.
Good luck with youur project.
Hi Rick,
I have only used the XR-45 in active systems, which are notoriously easy on amps and in that setting, it easily outperformed $2500 worth of Pre / Power I had on a passive system.
That said, you should not take that to mean you can simply get a $350 receiver and kill a giant. The Panny is not very powerful and compared to more expense amps, lacks in sound stage depth and realism.
I think its great, no for its price and used in an active system, can give surprising results, but beware the hype……..
Branwell
I have only used the XR-45 in active systems, which are notoriously easy on amps and in that setting, it easily outperformed $2500 worth of Pre / Power I had on a passive system.
That said, you should not take that to mean you can simply get a $350 receiver and kill a giant. The Panny is not very powerful and compared to more expense amps, lacks in sound stage depth and realism.
I think its great, no for its price and used in an active system, can give surprising results, but beware the hype……..
Branwell
Has anyone considered matching the PHL 1120 with a LCY ribbon tweeter? They claim to have a very wide vertical dispersion (unlike all other ribbons).
Also, Im building a speaker with a PHL 1120 and a 12" lambda woofer and i was wondering if running the Lambda TD12 (single faraday ring) all the way to 400hz was a bad idea?
I have heard that 50% of music material lies between 200 and 800hz. How much of the material lies between 35-400hz? The phl is a very capable driver and I just want to be sure that the TD12 will keep up with it at 400hz.
Also, Im building a speaker with a PHL 1120 and a 12" lambda woofer and i was wondering if running the Lambda TD12 (single faraday ring) all the way to 400hz was a bad idea?
I have heard that 50% of music material lies between 200 and 800hz. How much of the material lies between 35-400hz? The phl is a very capable driver and I just want to be sure that the TD12 will keep up with it at 400hz.
Thanks for the input guys. The only reason I brought up the LCY was because it is the only ribbon tweeter that I can find that posts frequency response offaxis vertically. I can't find any raven or ac ribbons that post any offaxis data, and I'm surely won't invest in something when I don't know how it will perform when not in the sweetspot.
AC G2 vertical dispersion. Ignore everything below 10kHz, because this is a measurement from a 3-way.
Bold blue: 0
Purple: +2.5
Dark blue: +5
Green: +7.5
Gray: +10
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Bold blue: 0
Purple: +2.5
Dark blue: +5
Green: +7.5
Gray: +10
Lambda TD will go higher than SB that I have. I tested SB 12 all away up to 500Hz and it was great all along. At the end I crossed it at 275 Hz, because my PHL mid is 10" and there is a real benefit of having such a large mid driver. Beaming is not a problem with this speaker, but if crossed lower than 225 Hz it starts being noticable.
I do not have experience with LCY, but with my G3 AC the foll off is dramatical. It doesn't bother me but if you are after wide dispersion this certainly wouldn't be the speaker for you.
It is great to see that you guys keep this tread alive.
Good luck with your building.
AR2
I do not have experience with LCY, but with my G3 AC the foll off is dramatical. It doesn't bother me but if you are after wide dispersion this certainly wouldn't be the speaker for you.
It is great to see that you guys keep this tread alive.
Good luck with your building.
AR2
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.