dwk123 said:
Does currently waiting count? Nick at Lambda is finishing a pair of horns. Since his speaker stuff is a part-time sideline business now, the pace is, shall we say, relaxed. I hope to have something to report in the next couple of months. I'm also interested in anyone else's findings. By the way, I've got some TAD 2001's for the hf drivers.
Sheldon
The unity horn concept is interesting. To simplify why people like
to use horns -- high sensitivity ?
They want loud clean music. Ask yourself if there is another way
to achieve the same design goal.
My project (in the works) is to create a loud and clean sound
system without using horns. Maybe I will be done next year ?
/ lol /
Horns would be a lower cost solution to what I'm doing, but
I wanted to try a project like this without using horns.
to use horns -- high sensitivity ?
They want loud clean music. Ask yourself if there is another way
to achieve the same design goal.
My project (in the works) is to create a loud and clean sound
system without using horns. Maybe I will be done next year ?
/ lol /
Horns would be a lower cost solution to what I'm doing, but
I wanted to try a project like this without using horns.
The unity is a mixed bag. Using a passive crossover, you cannot achieve high efficiency and have good high frequency extension due to the conical flair. Of course you can go active and retain the raw driver sensitivity, but that becomes much more complicated. I think the main advantages of the unity are that it can get you significant directivity and avoids interference between drivers (it acts like a point source). Of course you need to build a large horn to get more directivity or directivity at lower frequencies, but this is nothing unusual. You can get higher sensitivity and an easier design procedure by using standard horn setups (multiple horns) but the response is usually only good in one spot and the overall sound will depend on the room. You can get some directivity by using direct radiators as dipoles or using them to high frequencies where they have some directivity, but then you are usually using the woofer into the region of cone breakup and compromising sound quality. You could also build a line array or something similar, but I have never heard these sound as good as any point source / quasi-point source system.
I am currently playing with a passive crossover runt-esque design. It covers 100hz and up using two 8's and a CD, and I think the sensitivity is in the 95dB/watt range (but not sure, really). It is just another example of the tradeoffs present - it is a small cabinet (by my standards) so it does not have a lot of directivity on the low end.
I am currently playing with a passive crossover runt-esque design. It covers 100hz and up using two 8's and a CD, and I think the sensitivity is in the 95dB/watt range (but not sure, really). It is just another example of the tradeoffs present - it is a small cabinet (by my standards) so it does not have a lot of directivity on the low end.
John has hit the two reasons I'm interested in the Unity - directivity and co-incident driver arrangement. The low distortion that tends to go along with high efficiency is attractive as well, but there are other ways to get that.
I'm looking at a small difficult room, and my previous project (full-ish range dipoles w/ Carver Ribbons) just didn't work well as I couldn't get enough distance to the back wall (well, that and I never got a tweeter solution). I played with some designs using Tannoy dual-concentric drivers which would give a true linear-phase point source with the right digital xover, but the idea of going back to monopoles and their room problems didn't appeal. The interest in the Unity started from the realization that I can get the same point-source behavior, but get other benefits as well.
The relatively tight directivity of the Unity seems like it would be ideal in my room, and the DIY challenge is cool as well.
So, it's not just high efficiency that is attractive - it's the whole package.
BTW - having done some preliminary design work, I think anyone that tries a ground-up DIY Unity with a passive xover is ummmmm, nuts (I mean that in the most respectful way possible . The ability to dial in the delay and eq the drivers w/ a good digital xover would seem to be a HUGE benefit in this speaker.
I'm looking at a small difficult room, and my previous project (full-ish range dipoles w/ Carver Ribbons) just didn't work well as I couldn't get enough distance to the back wall (well, that and I never got a tweeter solution). I played with some designs using Tannoy dual-concentric drivers which would give a true linear-phase point source with the right digital xover, but the idea of going back to monopoles and their room problems didn't appeal. The interest in the Unity started from the realization that I can get the same point-source behavior, but get other benefits as well.
The relatively tight directivity of the Unity seems like it would be ideal in my room, and the DIY challenge is cool as well.
So, it's not just high efficiency that is attractive - it's the whole package.
BTW - having done some preliminary design work, I think anyone that tries a ground-up DIY Unity with a passive xover is ummmmm, nuts
(I mean that in the most respectful way possible . The ability to dial in the delay and eq the drivers w/ a good digital xover would seem to be a HUGE benefit in this speaker.Mudge said:
Exactly. This makes me really appreciate what a brilliant piece of Engineering the original Unity was. Tom didn't break any theoretical ground as far as I can tell, just identified a unique way to approach the problem and balance the (considerable) trade-offs. This is a really tough problem to tackle when you can't build your own drivers, as you end up with too many constraints.
As for where my thinking lies, it's too soon to tell really. I've been trading a couple emails with John S. about driver modeling and selection. I will probably try a couple sets of mids to see how things work.
I have a fairly good design for a clone of the SPL Runt at the moment, just need some parts to see if it actually works
That's two 8" units and a single compression driver if anyone's interested. The compression unit will probably need to be padded down, as the mid-bass seems to only manage 98dB/2.83V
Interesting - I've actually been looking the other way, at smaller drivers with the (possible) idea of being able to push the xover higher. I don't need the type of max output level the original Unity's had (or the Yorkvilles for that matter), so I might have more options. Also, given that I am planning on using an FIR-based digital xover, I can play with delay and phase to remove the constraint on 1/4 wave placement which gives some flexibility.
I'd throw in the quotes from previous posts, but I'd have to do several, and I'm not quite sure how. So my post here refers to several points made above, but you'll have to do attribution by inference (makes you wonder how I expect to deal with something as complicated as the Unity, I bet).
Anyway, my reasons are a mix of the above. I wanted to try a high efficiency system. The notion of time an phase coherency seems a good thing. The directivity aspect is interesting too, partly as I'd like the speakers back against the wall, if possible. And, it just seems an interesting design - tweakers delight, or nightmare.
The hf, as I mentioned earlier, will be covered by the TAD 2001. The mids will be supplied by Nick, and I don't know what they are. He will also supply the x-over for the horn, optimized for the TAD and his mids (for a real "cost no object approach", how about 4 ATC mid domes per horn? Thylantyr?). I'll do the cross over to the bass driver. At this point I'm planning Lambda Apollo 15 in a cabinet with two pr's, again, because I can place it against the wall. We'll see how it sounds and go from there - could go dipole with the bass too. I plan to bi-amp, but could tri-amp too. If I tri amp, I'll probably go with a DEQX, but I'd like to try first without. The advantage here is high order crossovers to minimize phase issues. May try a low power SE on top too. Lots of options to explore, and that's part of the point of this exercise.
Sheldon
Anyway, my reasons are a mix of the above. I wanted to try a high efficiency system. The notion of time an phase coherency seems a good thing. The directivity aspect is interesting too, partly as I'd like the speakers back against the wall, if possible. And, it just seems an interesting design - tweakers delight, or nightmare.
The hf, as I mentioned earlier, will be covered by the TAD 2001. The mids will be supplied by Nick, and I don't know what they are. He will also supply the x-over for the horn, optimized for the TAD and his mids (for a real "cost no object approach", how about 4 ATC mid domes per horn? Thylantyr?). I'll do the cross over to the bass driver. At this point I'm planning Lambda Apollo 15 in a cabinet with two pr's, again, because I can place it against the wall. We'll see how it sounds and go from there - could go dipole with the bass too. I plan to bi-amp, but could tri-amp too. If I tri amp, I'll probably go with a DEQX, but I'd like to try first without. The advantage here is high order crossovers to minimize phase issues. May try a low power SE on top too. Lots of options to explore, and that's part of the point of this exercise.
Sheldon
Does currently waiting count? Nick at Lambda is finishing a pair of horns. Since his speaker stuff is a part-time sideline business now, the pace is, shall we say, relaxed. I hope to have something to report in the next couple of months. I'm also interested in anyone else's findings.
Nick's personal situation went sour and orders were delayed even
more. Someone in the internet world wasn't too happy and forced
the issue and he got his woofer order filled, soon after I got my
woofers. There is deeper drama that I won't go into, but it's too
bad that Nick couldn't make the business work as planned, the
drivers he creates are pretty cool. I now have ten Apollo TD15's
in my collection. I feel like a museum now.... I do need to have a
machine shop build some phase plugs to complete the build.
The ATC midrange? I'm not a big fan of soft dome midranges but
the ATC is probably the only exception as it does raise interest.
For now I have no projects planned so I have not tried it yet.
That DEQX looks interesting. Have you found any prices?
I think I will need this toy for my 22 driver project to tame the wild
beast design.
Nick's personal situation went sour and orders were delayed even
more. Someone in the internet world wasn't too happy and forced
the issue and he got his woofer order filled, soon after I got my
woofers. There is deeper drama that I won't go into, but it's too
bad that Nick couldn't make the business work as planned, the
drivers he creates are pretty cool. I now have ten Apollo TD15's
in my collection. I feel like a museum now.... I do need to have a
machine shop build some phase plugs to complete the build.
The ATC midrange? I'm not a big fan of soft dome midranges but
the ATC is probably the only exception as it does raise interest.
For now I have no projects planned so I have not tried it yet.
That DEQX looks interesting. Have you found any prices?
I think I will need this toy for my 22 driver project to tame the wild
beast design.
thylantyr said:
It's available through Espeakers in the US. $3000 US for the base version and you can add options from there. Balanced analog I/O or 3x digital out both run about $500 on top of the base.
planet10 said:
Interesting - do you mean that he's going to come out with a different hardware box, or that he's licensed the software to do a Windows software version? If the former, then it's just a front-end UI which will probably run on Linux under some version of an emulator - Wine, Crossover Office etc. If the latter, then I'm surprised, but somewhat interested.
Of course, DEQX isn't doing anything you can't more or less do with BruteFIR, DRC and some custom code, it just does it in a very slick package and possibly with lower latency. Possibly better quality, but user reports on DRC are getting better and better as folks learn how to tweak it.
With the Unity's, the ability to use DSP to adjust delay and phase between the mid and HF drivers "should be" a huge advantage to the DIYer over doing it passively. It means you can ignore the HF output and put the mids exactly where they should be, and then do the xover independently. With the passive approach you have a constant tradeoff between the delay generated by the xover and the location of the mids which I imagine must result in tons of back-and-forth tweaking with component values and hole location. Ugh.
thylantyr said:
Yes, I guessed as much and in my last conversation with Nick a couple of weeks ago, he said basically the same. I know nothing of the deeper drama, and don't need to. I actually ordered the stuff in February. The delay has been a silver-lined cloud in my case. I orginally joined this forum with the sole intent of building some speakers and learning some basic electronics by so doing. Since I couldn't build my main speakers due to lack of stuff, I worked out the setup for Speaker Workshop, built some zHorns for a second system along with a gainclone with discreet regulation and discreet jFet buffer. Now I'm even thinking of building a low power tube amp to drive the Unity's (assuming they are coming at some point, of course).
The ATC wisecrack was trying to match you for your gaggle of Apollo woofers. But it wasn't entirely facetious, as it does seem to have some of the attributes that would fit with the Unity application. Haven't really compared the electrical properties, but it is enclosed in the rear and has about the right freq. response. Given the expense involved, one would certainly want to validate the entire concept before investing a couple grand in exotic mids.
Sheldon
Just running sims on a variety of 8" midbasses (allegedly suitable for horn loading ie good BL product, light diaphragms and good EBP), you do start to see where the higher sensitivity of the TD1 comes from.
BTW in case I'm making a horrible mistake, I assume that the length of a conical horn for a compression driver is determined soley by the throat size, mouth cutoff and the flare angle? This seems to be the case with all the commerical constant directivity horns I've seen.
BTW in case I'm making a horrible mistake, I assume that the length of a conical horn for a compression driver is determined soley by the throat size, mouth cutoff and the flare angle? This seems to be the case with all the commerical constant directivity horns I've seen.
If anyone is interested, many of Fane Acoustic's drivers model favourably.
I'm toying with the use of:
Studio 5M for a midrange
Crescendo 8MB for a midbass (lowish ~95dB efficiency even with 2 units)
Colossus 12MB for a bass driver
In each case I'm trying a 40 degree horn with a mouth appropriate for 80Hz. I'm intending to use my unities in a 5.1 setup, probably with a LabSub (or two).
I'm toying with the use of:
Studio 5M for a midrange
Crescendo 8MB for a midbass (lowish ~95dB efficiency even with 2 units)
Colossus 12MB for a bass driver
In each case I'm trying a 40 degree horn with a mouth appropriate for 80Hz. I'm intending to use my unities in a 5.1 setup, probably with a LabSub (or two).
Fane doesn't seem to have much presence in North Am as far as I can tell, and what's here tends to be their woofers.
My current plan (haven't pulled the trigger on the order yet) is the Peerless chambered mid (821615). Fs is a bit high, but it's due to the chamber tuning and so hopefully shouldn't cause any problems. Looks like it can probably make 1.5k or maybe 2k with a bit of tweaking via eq. If I can get the mids looking good, I'll try mating them to a BMS 4550 which seems to have gotten good reviews.
If this goes well and I decide to do a 'real system', the PHL 1120 looks like it should work OK with 2/side, although not going quite as high as the Peerless.
My current plan (haven't pulled the trigger on the order yet) is the Peerless chambered mid (821615). Fs is a bit high, but it's due to the chamber tuning and so hopefully shouldn't cause any problems. Looks like it can probably make 1.5k or maybe 2k with a bit of tweaking via eq. If I can get the mids looking good, I'll try mating them to a BMS 4550 which seems to have gotten good reviews.
If this goes well and I decide to do a 'real system', the PHL 1120 looks like it should work OK with 2/side, although not going quite as high as the Peerless.
Sorry for the ambiguity
My address was to people that have some info to offer. You have replied and I thank you. Is there any way to get in touch with the gentleman (Nick) that made the horns for you? And how much did they cost? That would be a step in one direction to get the horns.
Alternatively at the beginning of the thread there are a couple of gentlemen who actually have made them. I'd rathe go down that path. I have the woodworking know how and a decent grasp of the concept.
John Sheerin
mefistofelez
hancock
I have read the patent at length and have a good handle on the concept of placing the drivers at 1/4 wavelengths from each other. It does make sense to use the naturally occuring nulls and a low order crossover to produce a coherent summation of the wavefront exiting the horn. But experimentation with an active X-over could be advantageous. The delay lattice are more fun though on the edge of my current understanding of crossover design.(the active crossover could be a big plus here) Definitely can be done but will take some heavy reading and a big brushup on calculus. The proper throat diameters for the mids and upper bass in a 60 hx horn are the parameters that are more diffucult to come up with. Experimentation as to the placement of the throat holes is also probalbly quite critical. How a waveguide like conic horn works in theory and real life are two very different things. The actual acoustic centre of the driver and what we think is the acoustic centre will also be apoint to measure experimentally. THroat diameter and thickness will also change both the bandwidth that the driver will function. In effect creating it's own passband. And these along with agreat many other things have to all work together to get a single horn to produce a coherent wideband wavefront. ( I say wavefront because we are basically dealing with air pressure modulations that are being guided by the horn. To get a horn to behave over such a wide bandwidth is the real trick )
Mark
My address was to people that have some info to offer. You have replied and I thank you. Is there any way to get in touch with the gentleman (Nick) that made the horns for you? And how much did they cost? That would be a step in one direction to get the horns.
Alternatively at the beginning of the thread there are a couple of gentlemen who actually have made them. I'd rathe go down that path. I have the woodworking know how and a decent grasp of the concept.
John Sheerin
mefistofelez
hancock
I have read the patent at length and have a good handle on the concept of placing the drivers at 1/4 wavelengths from each other. It does make sense to use the naturally occuring nulls and a low order crossover to produce a coherent summation of the wavefront exiting the horn. But experimentation with an active X-over could be advantageous. The delay lattice are more fun though on the edge of my current understanding of crossover design.(the active crossover could be a big plus here) Definitely can be done but will take some heavy reading and a big brushup on calculus. The proper throat diameters for the mids and upper bass in a 60 hx horn are the parameters that are more diffucult to come up with. Experimentation as to the placement of the throat holes is also probalbly quite critical. How a waveguide like conic horn works in theory and real life are two very different things. The actual acoustic centre of the driver and what we think is the acoustic centre will also be apoint to measure experimentally. THroat diameter and thickness will also change both the bandwidth that the driver will function. In effect creating it's own passband. And these along with agreat many other things have to all work together to get a single horn to produce a coherent wideband wavefront. ( I say wavefront because we are basically dealing with air pressure modulations that are being guided by the horn. To get a horn to behave over such a wide bandwidth is the real trick )
Mark
Re: Sorry for the ambiguity
As far as I know, mine were the last set that Nick had, and it took over a year to get those. He didn't make them from scratch, but finished a pair that were mostly made. I don't think he is making anything new. So making them yourself is the practical option.
I only have a work e-mail for Nick and he asked that I not give that out. But when they come, I'd be happy to provide any info that can be gotten from them, i.e., dimensions, construction details, etc.. He shipped passive x-over components for the horn (optimized for TAD 2001 tweeters), and I'm curious to see what's there. I'll try those first, but may bi-amp the horn itself, at which point, I'd probably look at something like DEQX.
I hope you do give it a try. I'd like more folks to compare notes with.
Sheldlon
mwmkravchenko said:
As far as I know, mine were the last set that Nick had, and it took over a year to get those. He didn't make them from scratch, but finished a pair that were mostly made. I don't think he is making anything new. So making them yourself is the practical option.
I only have a work e-mail for Nick and he asked that I not give that out. But when they come, I'd be happy to provide any info that can be gotten from them, i.e., dimensions, construction details, etc.. He shipped passive x-over components for the horn (optimized for TAD 2001 tweeters), and I'm curious to see what's there. I'll try those first, but may bi-amp the horn itself, at which point, I'd probably look at something like DEQX.
I hope you do give it a try. I'd like more folks to compare notes with.
Sheldlon
Re: Re: Sorry for the ambiguity
Unfortunately Nick has pretty much exited the audio scene... i wouldn't even attempt to contact him unless i had a big cheque in my pocket to get some consulting i couldn't elsewhere.
OTOH, the patent holder -- Tom Danley -- has just recently joined the forum. It wouldn't hurt to point this thread out to him, so that if he chooses, he can help out.
They are quite tricky to get right -- a situation where mm or less can impact their performance (at least this is what i've read when Nick was supporting the Unity kits).
dave
Sheldon said:
Unfortunately Nick has pretty much exited the audio scene... i wouldn't even attempt to contact him unless i had a big cheque in my pocket to get some consulting i couldn't elsewhere.
OTOH, the patent holder -- Tom Danley -- has just recently joined the forum. It wouldn't hurt to point this thread out to him, so that if he chooses, he can help out.
They are quite tricky to get right -- a situation where mm or less can impact their performance (at least this is what i've read when Nick was supporting the Unity kits).
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.