I imagine the BMR would need to be positioned just underneath the bass mid at the front of the enclosure, to reduce interaction between the drivers.
Also I wonder how the small BMR's would perform in a small side and top vented enclosure (complete with wedge shape lens) for dipole operation for open baffle speakers or omni hybrid in a similar manner to the new Steinway Lyngdorf tweeters in their new cheap 'n' cheerful mini monitors.
Steinway Lyngdorf - AER (Ambience Enhancing Radiation)
Again obviously the more expensive heil air transformer drive units should offer superior cost no object performance but that's not usually the objective with diy. The advantage of the BMR being the potential for extremely low crossover points for more even power response and vanishingly transparent integration.
Last edited:
interesting omni experiments by Radugazon in the stereolith thread from page 67 - post #669 on:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/10962-stereolith-loudspeakers-question-67.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/10962-stereolith-loudspeakers-question-67.html
Here are some omni insights hot off the press. Enjoy the lengthy text with your favorite beverage.
http://www.2pi-online.de/html/interim_conclusions1.htm
Oliver
http://www.2pi-online.de/html/interim_conclusions1.htm
Oliver
nice! congrats!
Have You tried it with my favourite Beveridge yet?
and more generally - have You tested how do the speakers sound space-wise when placed closer to the front wall and to the side walls?
also - have You tried them without reflector? the TimeDomain Yoshii9-style?
My project is right now based on a small full range flooder like speaker (but 60-70 cm above floor). The "interim" project is almost the same but with reflector.
Would it be better to use a normal tweeter with a waveguide, or combine the full range with the tweeter, so I'll have a three way? I would prefer 2-way, and that's why I mention tweeter with waveguide, so it integrates with my 10 inch woofers (I hope).
Would it be better to use a normal tweeter with a waveguide, or combine the full range with the tweeter, so I'll have a three way? I would prefer 2-way, and that's why I mention tweeter with waveguide, so it integrates with my 10 inch woofers (I hope).
I think You could try waveguided tweeter and that 10'' but the waveguide shouldn't work itself as a reflector for the woofer
Hi Kjeldsen,
I've been testing very fast a flooder approach with very directive HF (12" + wizzer), it was not dull at all. I think then that you can reasonably try a wave guide. Maybe an omni diffusion is not required or even can have a negative impact. Never know.
I have a suggestion for you : If you go 3 ways, try to have 3 independent baffles by channel (bass + mid + tweet).
This will allow you to try a lot of optimisations : different oblique inclinations for each way, different distance from the back wall, different heights (maybe an effect on time alignment, but I have doubts...), and different layouts of the speakers.
A layout to try is a copy of the OSD : boomers very excentered, or even on the side walls, mids in between and tweeters in the center. If your room permits this, I guess it could be very good, and you would become a pioneer.
I've been testing very fast a flooder approach with very directive HF (12" + wizzer), it was not dull at all. I think then that you can reasonably try a wave guide. Maybe an omni diffusion is not required or even can have a negative impact. Never know.
I have a suggestion for you : If you go 3 ways, try to have 3 independent baffles by channel (bass + mid + tweet).
This will allow you to try a lot of optimisations : different oblique inclinations for each way, different distance from the back wall, different heights (maybe an effect on time alignment, but I have doubts...), and different layouts of the speakers.
A layout to try is a copy of the OSD : boomers very excentered, or even on the side walls, mids in between and tweeters in the center. If your room permits this, I guess it could be very good, and you would become a pioneer.
I had the same association when I wrote itHave You tried it with my favourite Beveridge yet?
But I don't want to cut the pipes into pieces just now.
Not yet. That I am going to try once the equalization is at its next level. Some fine tuning is in the works. But I will be travelling the next two weeks.
I did at the very beginning but it was by far not as good as it is now. Too little highs. But I am going to try to "shelve them up" when I am back bcause the response without cone was pretty smooth. I am only afraid that the level of equalization would exceed reasonable levels.
Oliver
RFZ objector
They do say you should never look back.
I just took a trip down memory lane, comparing the last speakers I built to the Linkwitz Pluto's my current speakers.
first I spent a week listening to the WD25's again, reminding myself of all the position tweaking I used to have to do.
Comparisons between the WD25's, a traditional broad baffled 2006 two way speaker (which I loved to bits) with their 10 inch a26RE4 bass drive units and Seas Excel tweeters up against little Pluto with it's 5 1/4 inch bass mid's and $20 drive units.
Result, total wholesale slaughter, the Pluto's did absolutely everything better, most especially the spatial rendition of the acoustics of the recording venue or the fake electronic environments created in a studio. Simply put if the studio recording is flat then Pluto shows this, if the hall is large Pluto shows this too. By comparison the box speaker presented a sound with far more sameness to recordings, the sound remaining locked between the cabinets with little depth rendition to speak of.
Bass depth, power and definition with Pluto was all better with Pluto, this despite the drive unit being a fraction of the size. Pluto's bass mid moves a lot to produce this, the 10 inch a26RE4 in WD25 barely seems to move even at high volumes.
I get the feeling in a large room I would be scared for Pluto's well being but the a26re4 in the World Designs speaker would carry on to much higher volumes but this is purely based on physical inspection not audible signs of distress.
Upper midrange detail is completely seamlessly blended with the tweeter in Pluto 5 1/4 incher married to the 2 inch treble, by comparison the 10 incher which is impressively blended to the 1 inch tweeter in WD25 needs greater distance between listener and speakers to be anything like as convincing.
Pluto's drivers marry so well it sounds like one driver until you are right on top of the speaker, even under 10 inches the drive units blend as if one radiating element.
Stereo left to right imaging was very sharp on both speakers but only Pluto placed the performances in a believable space instead of obviously in my listening room.
WD25 seems rather more couth or smooth compared to many speakers but sounds harsh and confused compared to Pluto.
I still feel WD25 is a lot better than a great deal of speakers, I am glad I built them and I consider them good value for money but comparisons with the far more advanced Pluto are extremely unkind.
Results are interesting, comparing the omni to the box it is the box speaker that sounds more mechanical, more flawed, the more direct radiating box speaker clearly coloured the sound more and I was less able to distinguish spaces in which the recordings took place.
Certainly in this case bigger is not better.
I feel the WD25 could be improved by a skillful designer blending a midrange drive unit with the big a26re4 and using Linkwitz transform to extend the bass or by changing to a tweeter with a large waveguide and lower crossover but the speaker would still lack the Pluto's spatial rendering ability.
I just took a trip down memory lane, comparing the last speakers I built to the Linkwitz Pluto's my current speakers.
first I spent a week listening to the WD25's again, reminding myself of all the position tweaking I used to have to do.
Comparisons between the WD25's, a traditional broad baffled 2006 two way speaker (which I loved to bits) with their 10 inch a26RE4 bass drive units and Seas Excel tweeters up against little Pluto with it's 5 1/4 inch bass mid's and $20 drive units.
Result, total wholesale slaughter, the Pluto's did absolutely everything better, most especially the spatial rendition of the acoustics of the recording venue or the fake electronic environments created in a studio. Simply put if the studio recording is flat then Pluto shows this, if the hall is large Pluto shows this too. By comparison the box speaker presented a sound with far more sameness to recordings, the sound remaining locked between the cabinets with little depth rendition to speak of.
Bass depth, power and definition with Pluto was all better with Pluto, this despite the drive unit being a fraction of the size. Pluto's bass mid moves a lot to produce this, the 10 inch a26RE4 in WD25 barely seems to move even at high volumes.
I get the feeling in a large room I would be scared for Pluto's well being but the a26re4 in the World Designs speaker would carry on to much higher volumes but this is purely based on physical inspection not audible signs of distress.
Upper midrange detail is completely seamlessly blended with the tweeter in Pluto 5 1/4 incher married to the 2 inch treble, by comparison the 10 incher which is impressively blended to the 1 inch tweeter in WD25 needs greater distance between listener and speakers to be anything like as convincing.
Pluto's drivers marry so well it sounds like one driver until you are right on top of the speaker, even under 10 inches the drive units blend as if one radiating element.
Stereo left to right imaging was very sharp on both speakers but only Pluto placed the performances in a believable space instead of obviously in my listening room.
WD25 seems rather more couth or smooth compared to many speakers but sounds harsh and confused compared to Pluto.
I still feel WD25 is a lot better than a great deal of speakers, I am glad I built them and I consider them good value for money but comparisons with the far more advanced Pluto are extremely unkind.
Results are interesting, comparing the omni to the box it is the box speaker that sounds more mechanical, more flawed, the more direct radiating box speaker clearly coloured the sound more and I was less able to distinguish spaces in which the recordings took place.
Certainly in this case bigger is not better.
I feel the WD25 could be improved by a skillful designer blending a midrange drive unit with the big a26re4 and using Linkwitz transform to extend the bass or by changing to a tweeter with a large waveguide and lower crossover but the speaker would still lack the Pluto's spatial rendering ability.
Last edited:
Pluto is smart through and through; down to the bone.
And there are so many subtleties not written anywhere in context that would be worth "revealing" and putting together in a concise form in a speaker/cross-over book or article as a teaching example for readers, who are just familiar with the standard text books, imho.
Douglas Self's new book could be such a frame work.
And there are so many subtleties not written anywhere in context that would be worth "revealing" and putting together in a concise form in a speaker/cross-over book or article as a teaching example for readers, who are just familiar with the standard text books, imho.
Douglas Self's new book could be such a frame work.
Last edited:
So I put this little demo up for a limited time on 'why Omnis might have popularity problems'. IOW what issue(s) they can cause: audio blog: Haas Demo
Dan
Dan
Hi Dan,
Interesting clips. Please explain the captions and examples. Seems like left channel is original and right is the delayed copy at the level and delay specified?
David S.
That's pretty much it Dave. The action is happening to the right speaker except the mono. The same type stereo delay is summed mono.
The dB change demos have a "ghost" channel with an unspecified delay time. At 0dB, they are the same volume. Interesting image shift eh?
The hi hats are just one then the other.
Hopefully that clears it up,
Dan
The dB change demos have a "ghost" channel with an unspecified delay time. At 0dB, they are the same volume. Interesting image shift eh?
The hi hats are just one then the other.
Hopefully that clears it up,
Dan
These examples mirror some playing around I'm doing with room synthesis programs in an AV receiver. That is, that what you hear is so dependent on the program source.
With your acoustic guitar every new transient is heard both left and right for many of the cases. As the chord sustains it is all recedes to the left channel. Only the initial transients get the benefit of the reflection. On the electric guitar with high fuzz, I never hear it in the right channel, their aren't any high transients to reveal the echo.
Griesinger of Lexicon talks about this a lot. They use a term called "running reverberation" and talk about the music needing quick decays and quiet spots between chords for reverb to be revealed.
I notice the same with the DSP echo. You can add a fair amount to music and set it to a level where it is fairly subtle, just detectable, and then switch the source over to talk radio and the amount of echo is laughable. Voice reveals it, fairly continuous music almost hides it.
So does that mean that an omni speaker may be perfectly fine for some types of music?
David S.
With your acoustic guitar every new transient is heard both left and right for many of the cases. As the chord sustains it is all recedes to the left channel. Only the initial transients get the benefit of the reflection. On the electric guitar with high fuzz, I never hear it in the right channel, their aren't any high transients to reveal the echo.
Griesinger of Lexicon talks about this a lot. They use a term called "running reverberation" and talk about the music needing quick decays and quiet spots between chords for reverb to be revealed.
I notice the same with the DSP echo. You can add a fair amount to music and set it to a level where it is fairly subtle, just detectable, and then switch the source over to talk radio and the amount of echo is laughable. Voice reveals it, fairly continuous music almost hides it.
So does that mean that an omni speaker may be perfectly fine for some types of music?
David S.
Page not found
Sorry, the page you were looking for in the blog audio blog does not exist.
Go to blog homepage
So what's up with that?
nice omnis from Nacsound
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
