Karadon has some gorgeous colors and textures their line up for sure - but the higher the percentage & size of of aggregate particles, the lower the structural rigidity of the product, and certainly the greater the challenge in fabricating a "seamless" enclosure.
http://www.karadon.com/colors.html?t=k&s=23
website sample photos of the Karadon products just doesn't do them justice
http://www.karadon.com/colors.html?t=k&s=23
website sample photos of the Karadon products just doesn't do them justice
I am bringing up this subject again
While acknowledging that my plan to unite an FF85wk and a helper woofer is a very good one, I have some questions about same-type drivers on one channel.
Two small drivers per side have more punch and impact, and can play louder before running into distress and congestion.
From hearing various stacked speakers over the years, I have the impression that there are complex and un-engineered consequences to doing so. On average the imaging is not great. Must be phase interactions, and source locating difficulties encountered by aural processing?
1)What kind of steps can be taken to make two same-type drivers, operating in the same range, have the least destructive or conflicting interactions?
Wave guides? Strategic distancing? Angling? Dipole arrangements?
2)Or is it just always better to use a larger and more powerful driver, or multiple drivers for the same frequency range?
3) I guess a vertical array is one design that works well sometimes, but I don't know why or how. What is the reason that vertical arrays work better than horizontal ones, assuming that they do? I also note that MTM's are usually vertically oriented.
While acknowledging that my plan to unite an FF85wk and a helper woofer is a very good one, I have some questions about same-type drivers on one channel.
Two small drivers per side have more punch and impact, and can play louder before running into distress and congestion.
From hearing various stacked speakers over the years, I have the impression that there are complex and un-engineered consequences to doing so. On average the imaging is not great. Must be phase interactions, and source locating difficulties encountered by aural processing?
Several questions:
1)What kind of steps can be taken to make two same-type drivers, operating in the same range, have the least destructive or conflicting interactions?
Wave guides? Strategic distancing? Angling? Dipole arrangements?
2)Or is it just always better to use a larger and more powerful driver, or multiple drivers for the same frequency range?
3) I guess a vertical array is one design that works well sometimes, but I don't know why or how. What is the reason that vertical arrays work better than horizontal ones, assuming that they do? I also note that MTM's are usually vertically oriented.
Keep driver center to center (CTC) as close as possible and don't go bigger than 3 or 4 in driver. The imaging on two vertically stacked 3.5 in drivers is very good, at 6 ft or more away I can't really tell difference if it is single or two. Bigger drivers mean bigger CTC and comb interference (destructive/ constructive) interference becomes an issue. Vertical alignment gives wider horizontal dispersion and less vertical dispersion because it acts like a larger effective diameter (beaming with large full range drivers).
Fine enough to use multiples of smaller drivers - one of the most memorable commercial systems I've heard in a long time was an early model (2001) by Louis Chochos - Omega Loudspeakers. This was 2001 - small standmouted bipole with Fostex FE127E I believe, and demoed at a local audio show by a range of amps as small as mono strapped Decware Zen C. Huge soundstage and tremendous imaging, but could use some help in the bottom end.
But I think you'll get much better bang for your buck by using one or more per side of small to mid size (5-8") dedicated midbass drivers such as the Silver Flutes I think you already mentioned.
Here's an interesting read that touches on the subject of vertical vs horizontal arrays - including MTMs
http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/vertical-vs-horizontal-
speaker-designs
When taking anything I read on the internet with a dose of salt (such as my own bloviations) , I prefer the pink Himalayan coarse rock salt - makes even Kale pan fried in coconut oil with garlic and lemon edible.
But I think you'll get much better bang for your buck by using one or more per side of small to mid size (5-8") dedicated midbass drivers such as the Silver Flutes I think you already mentioned.
Here's an interesting read that touches on the subject of vertical vs horizontal arrays - including MTMs
http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/vertical-vs-horizontal-
speaker-designs
When taking anything I read on the internet with a dose of salt (such as my own bloviations) , I prefer the pink Himalayan coarse rock salt - makes even Kale pan fried in coconut oil with garlic and lemon edible.
I wouldn't touch a two full range driver speaker with a 10' pole. Chris, those you heard were bipole? That's would be ok. Also a half way driver would be ok. But full range and front facing, no way. But everyone does things differently.
MTM is good for controlling vertical dispersion, but only to so high of a frequency before the vertical control becomes a vertical problem.
MTM is good for controlling vertical dispersion, but only to so high of a frequency before the vertical control becomes a vertical problem.
Curious - have you had any bad experiences with such a configuration? Or in theory comb filtering is a big problem with 2 FR on the same baffle, and that is why you want to avoid it?
IIRC this question came up before and Dave mentioned that in real world comb filtering is much less of problem with 2 small FR (4" or smaller) on the same baffle. Larger drivers - yes it becomes a perceptible issue.
Also recall Mark Fenlon sharing some test box data with 2x CHR-70 on the same baffle - nothing bad there.
Yes I have. Casual listening Dave's right, it is much LESS of a problem. But in my personal experience when listening closely (only 5% of the time), there are suckouts that can make a cymbal disappear. The reflected sound will fill it in slightly, but not enough IMO. Of course, others may enjoy it just fine.
Mark didn't share test data on a 2x CHR-70. He left out the most important measurement for that kind of configuration; vertical off axis. An on axis frequency response will just look like a single driver measurement, with possibly a slight droop in the top octave if the mic isn't dead centered.
Edit to add: If wanting to listen to Full Range drivers for their "purity", why ruin that with adding another problem driver. A 2way with a XO at 2khz has fewer evils associated with it.
Mark didn't share test data on a 2x CHR-70. He left out the most important measurement for that kind of configuration; vertical off axis. An on axis frequency response will just look like a single driver measurement, with possibly a slight droop in the top octave if the mic isn't dead centered.
Edit to add: If wanting to listen to Full Range drivers for their "purity", why ruin that with adding another problem driver. A 2way with a XO at 2khz has fewer evils associated with it.
Last edited:
I believe someone posted measurements of that one, and there was a mild suck up around 1khz iirc. I'd say it's acceptable though. A good way to design dual drivers. Once the vertical problem occurs, the drivers beam away from each other and all is well. So ya, that would work as well. Though I never did hear those (my fault, you invited me numerous times
)XO at 2K = less evil? - you might find disagreement with that on a FR forum
FWIW, my second iteration of the Castle Micro used a pair of CHBW70 and ERT26 tweeter, top titled forward at 10dg, and using Dave R's parallel MTM XO designed for Bob Reimer. I can't remember whether the sparse documentation for that mentioned the exact turnover point, and clearly it wasn't important to me to find out - it sounds fine - bring your measure kit by next time you're in the neighborhood.
FWIW, my second iteration of the Castle Micro used a pair of CHBW70 and ERT26 tweeter, top titled forward at 10dg, and using Dave R's parallel MTM XO designed for Bob Reimer. I can't remember whether the sparse documentation for that mentioned the exact turnover point, and clearly it wasn't important to me to find out - it sounds fine - bring your measure kit by next time you're in the neighborhood.
XO at 2K = less evil? - you might find disagreement with that on a FR forum
Yah, I'm just being snotty today aren't I
ChrisB suggested this reading to me.
But I want to recall an experiment that I did when trying to come up with a design a few years back using 2 Fostex FE126e per side, each pair side by side.
When trying different angles between two drivers, closely spaced, on the same baffle, I would pace back and forth listening for dropout. The angle with the most even response, side to side, was 22 degrees. Both mounted in the same plane was not as good. This was without any measuring.
But with two speakers in stereo-4 drivers total, the imaging seemed to suffer compared with a single driver on each side. Not sure if this was because of wider horizontal dispersion, or being a non-point source, or something else. (This arrangement did have more punch and power than a single driver on each side).
If two drivers were placed vertically, and mounted 22degrees off from each other, this might be the best arrangement for 2 FR drivers per side to lessen dropout. But then it would increase vertical dispersion, which I think is not typically desirable in a home listening environment.
I do now see how a horizontal arrangement can mess with imaging and non sweet spot listening.
But I want to recall an experiment that I did when trying to come up with a design a few years back using 2 Fostex FE126e per side, each pair side by side.
When trying different angles between two drivers, closely spaced, on the same baffle, I would pace back and forth listening for dropout. The angle with the most even response, side to side, was 22 degrees. Both mounted in the same plane was not as good. This was without any measuring.
But with two speakers in stereo-4 drivers total, the imaging seemed to suffer compared with a single driver on each side. Not sure if this was because of wider horizontal dispersion, or being a non-point source, or something else. (This arrangement did have more punch and power than a single driver on each side).
If two drivers were placed vertically, and mounted 22degrees off from each other, this might be the best arrangement for 2 FR drivers per side to lessen dropout. But then it would increase vertical dispersion, which I think is not typically desirable in a home listening environment.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.