Where did you get the square frame BMRs?
I’m working on a build using 6 of the Tectonic 3.5” BMR drivers per side in the parts express 1.16 cubic foot knock down cabinet and a minidsp for optimization. Amp will be an Emotiva A-300. Thoughts on that config?
I’m glad I discovered these drivers. They seem to be fascinating!
I bought them in Moscow from a small local home theater company.
Will the cabinets be closed or vented type? Will the volume be shared or separate for each speaker?
Thanks! Guessing no way to get them in the states.
For my cabinets, I’m going to use the parts express 1.16 cu-ft knock down sealed with shared volume with 6 or 7 per side of the Tectonic Elements TEBM65C20F-8 BMR.
The rest of the system will be a MiniDSP 2x4 HD and Emotiva A-300 amplifier. Bass is currently a decent Klipsh wireless sub that I’ll replace with something more appropriate later.
I think so, I was just lucky to find them in Russia.
You should use 6 pieces per side option only for correct driver line array wiring: arrayimpedance-revised Box volume as twice as bigger for recommend sealed optimum. Therefore, above and below, you can make deaf partitions under 45 degrees and thus make two useful improvements at once: reduce the volume and weaken the vertical standing wave.
Don't mean to hijack this thread but have a couple questions.
These TE BMR's have really peeked my interest and luckily I have found this thread. I have been looking to build a mainly HT system that will be wall mounted to flank my 65" TV.
The TV is mounted high (approx. 3" from ceiling and tilted downward) so the L/R speakers will be mounted the same.
Hopefully my attachment will post, but the idea is to have 9 of the TEBM35 and 2 of the TEBM65 per side. I would like to mount one 65 above and one below the line of the 35's. Hopefully I can work out a design for the center or maybe just mount an identical speaker horizontal.
For simplicity sake, could I get away with bi-amp and do a butterworth high pass on the 35's and a separate low pass on the 65's (thinking around 1-1.5K) or what would be my best option for crossover?
Thank you in advance for any suggestions or advice
These TE BMR's have really peeked my interest and luckily I have found this thread. I have been looking to build a mainly HT system that will be wall mounted to flank my 65" TV.
The TV is mounted high (approx. 3" from ceiling and tilted downward) so the L/R speakers will be mounted the same.
Hopefully my attachment will post, but the idea is to have 9 of the TEBM35 and 2 of the TEBM65 per side. I would like to mount one 65 above and one below the line of the 35's. Hopefully I can work out a design for the center or maybe just mount an identical speaker horizontal.
For simplicity sake, could I get away with bi-amp and do a butterworth high pass on the 35's and a separate low pass on the 65's (thinking around 1-1.5K) or what would be my best option for crossover?
Thank you in advance for any suggestions or advice
In my opinion it will be correct to use 4 speakers TEBM65C20F-8 and 4 speakers TEBM35C10-4. This will ensure sufficient sound pressure in both bands with minimal distortion. I got a good result with a crossover point at 1kHz. Near full range BMR (Balanced Mode Radiator) pictures in post #537
Last edited:
Anybody notice that there is something deceptive (fraudulent?) about Fig. 5 compared to Fig. 7?
0, 30, 60, 90......
B.
Ha ha sharp eyes there bentoronto, think they don't wan't us to look BMR out at 90º where directivity plot kind of predict response curve will look far from being smooth above 5kHz, so why not sneak in a 45º point and stop at 60º so to forget that 90º point : (
While dispersion is not bad for that BMR, coherency between the four angles above 2 kHz are not near as fine as the other they call typical 2-wayer, it looks way more diffuse.
While dispersion is not bad for that BMR, coherency between the four angles above 2 kHz are not near as fine as the other they call typical 2-wayer, it looks way more diffuse.
Last edited:
IMO The Naim BMR was a good all round driver when used with DSP crossover and Eq but it never sounded quite right in its passive crossover guise.
Development was cut short due to cash flow problems at Naim and after Focal took over (Naim were close to going under) they decided not to continue with the restrictive licence Naim had to sell its version of BMR.
All water under the bridge, esp as all the BMR patents have expired or are about to expire within the next 12 months.
Maybe others will invest in the concept over the next few years.... Similar to the various AMT drivers with appeared after Oscar Heil's patents expired.
Development was cut short due to cash flow problems at Naim and after Focal took over (Naim were close to going under) they decided not to continue with the restrictive licence Naim had to sell its version of BMR.
All water under the bridge, esp as all the BMR patents have expired or are about to expire within the next 12 months.
Maybe others will invest in the concept over the next few years.... Similar to the various AMT drivers with appeared after Oscar Heil's patents expired.
What do you think about these speakers http://audio-hi.fi/download/pdf/TangBand_W6-1914SB_midrange.pdf ? Are they similar to BMR?
Good driver over 400Hz to 10KHz band
I have not heard this driver but I have used a few TB drivers and I found them to be good value and well built.
This driver is not a BMR but looks good over the 400Hz to 10KHz band.
Its limited Xmax of 0.5mm means it will distort if asked to produce anything below 300Hz, assuming you want good SPL / dynamic range.
There is no data showing polar / off axis response so I would not count on it being anywhere near the performance of a good BMR.... If TB had managed to match / beat the BMR's at their own game they would be singing it from the roof tops!
I have not heard this driver but I have used a few TB drivers and I found them to be good value and well built.
This driver is not a BMR but looks good over the 400Hz to 10KHz band.
Its limited Xmax of 0.5mm means it will distort if asked to produce anything below 300Hz, assuming you want good SPL / dynamic range.
There is no data showing polar / off axis response so I would not count on it being anywhere near the performance of a good BMR.... If TB had managed to match / beat the BMR's at their own game they would be singing it from the roof tops!
just one comment from my side regarding the mentioned tang band:
http://audio-hi.fi/download/pdf/TangBand_W6-1914SB_midrange.pdf
Boenicke audio is using them in their designs - I can confirm that they have a very wide dispersion - they sound really good. I was considering to use them as well, but quite costly.
Not sure whether they use a similar technology -- but well -- the NXT patent has already expired - or ? I anway never understood why it can be patented - because I have seen very old loudspeaker designs using a similar technology (Yamaha etc. ).
best
Thomas
http://audio-hi.fi/download/pdf/TangBand_W6-1914SB_midrange.pdf
Boenicke audio is using them in their designs - I can confirm that they have a very wide dispersion - they sound really good. I was considering to use them as well, but quite costly.
Not sure whether they use a similar technology -- but well -- the NXT patent has already expired - or ? I anway never understood why it can be patented - because I have seen very old loudspeaker designs using a similar technology (Yamaha etc. ).
best
Thomas