Beyond the Ariel - Page 511 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 5th April 2009, 01:50 PM   #5101
Telstar is offline Telstar  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy
Overkill Encore (2003):
Click the image to open in full size.

Prey (2003):
Click the image to open in full size.

Not sure on the name of this one:
Click the image to open in full size.

Thats all. Aren't they beautiful?
__________________
"The total harmonic distortion is not a measure of the degree of distastefulness to the listener and it is recommended that its use should be discontinued." D. Masa, 1938
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2009, 02:45 PM   #5102
soongsc is offline soongsc  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
soongsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Taiwan
I don't think I've seen these here in Taiwan.
__________________
Hear the real thing!
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2009, 05:48 PM   #5103
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
Wild looking stuff!
I like the Schroeder diffuser in the last photo.
__________________
Take the Speaker Voltage Test!
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2009, 07:51 PM   #5104
Sheldon is offline Sheldon  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Diego
Is the bottom driver in the bottom picture a sealed enclosure? Bet the system shown in the top pictures sounds really clear.

Sheldon
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2009, 08:30 PM   #5105
diyAudio Member
 
Lynn Olson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Colorado
Default s

Quote:
Originally posted by Overkill Audio

Re the Manger, there is a lot to talk about with that driver and I donít want to go off on a Manger tangent from Lynn's thread. I am happy to post here about my Manger experiments with open baffle / wave guide / matching bass & low midrange if Lynn and the guys donít object. Lynn, please advise as I am wary of upsetting the master!
Derek, the posts about the Manger and the desired bass/midbass criteria are very interesting. I'm largely in agreement about the desired qualities for the 100~800 Hz region vs what's needed for the sub-100 Hz region. It's good to see there's a "secret" to unlocking this unusual driver - basically, don't try and get any deep bass out of it!

Me a master? Not really. I just collect bits of information and try and assemble them into something useful - and not always successfully, as you can see below.

Quote:
Originally posted by john k...

Lynn,

It amazes me how you continue to misrepresent the dipole back-wave problem and the open backed, damped woofer. I posted some simulation results previously showing exactly that the back wave isn't an issue at all when the driver is correctly eq'ed and filtered. Perhaps you didn't get the idea or don't like sims. So here are some measurement and additional sims.

...

Also with regard to G.Pimms opend backed, heavily damped woofer it would be nice if you gave credit where is is deserved. Nothing against G. P. here, just an observation that it isn't his invention. What the heck, I've been using it for almost 10 years. This type "acoustic resistance box" has been around for a long time, since the 50's and was analyized by Thomas Holmes in 1986 AES paper, and modeled by Juha Backman in a 1999 AES presentation.
Well, I'm still trying to decide if the sims are right or not. For an idealized point-source dipole emitter, adding a finite-sized baffle adds an additional non-minimum-phase delay to the direct wave - and the delay of this additional wave is greatest directly in front and directly in back. The greater the baffle size, the greater the delay of the non-minimum-phase additional wave.

I'm not too sure if I buy the argument the rear frame of the driver acts as an ideal lowpass filter for the backwave. I see it as an additional source of reflections and interference, and not an absorber at all - there's nothing back there that is soft and absorbent - it's all hard, reflective metal. So what comes out of the back is a cluttered and degraded version of what comes out of the front - lowpass filtered in the coarse sense, but not the same as an electrical lowpass filter nor the same as passage through damping material.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2009, 09:39 PM   #5106
diyAudio Member
 
Lynn Olson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Colorado
I apologize to John K and others if I'm taking an oversimplified view of loudspeaker systems.

I see two main sources of coloration: resonance and multipath. If the resonance is a simple system, and not multiple overlapping sources that are spatially dispersed, it is minimum-phase and can be corrected by equalization. Correction by equalization breaks down if there are multiple sources that are spatially dispersed, such as the more chaotic types of cone or diaphragm breakup.

Multipath is different. As the name implies, the sound takes multiple paths from the emission source to the listener. This is inherently non-minimum-phase - the comb filtering you see in the frequency domain is an artifact of multipath, not anything the emitter is doing. The real problem is in the time domain, where it is clearly visible if present.

Time domain problems should not be fixed in the frequency domain - if you do, the time domain problem is made worse, not better. It is possible to use tapped delay lines (in the digital or analog domains) to cancel out the multipath (this is used in digital cellphone systems), but the problem in the loudspeaker world is the correction is location sensitive - a correction good for one location in the room will make it worse in other locations. At the lowest frequencies with the longest wavelengths, it can work, but is not a good solution for mid or higher frequencies.

Antenna design for radio, television, and cellphones is simplified by the narrow bandwidth of the carrier, usually much less than a single octave. As a result, antennas and RF preamps can be selectively tuned to the desired carrier and reject the rest. It also greatly simplifies decisions that affect directivity and group-delay response (the latter critical for stereo FM, color TV, and digital transmission).

Loudspeakers have the very awkward requirement for extremely wide bandwidth (three decades!), flat response, freedom from resonance and multipath, and low harmonic and intermodulation distortion. Even for a distortionless antenna system these would be very severe requirements, and loudspeakers need to be transducers as well. The problem is nearly intractable, compared to the simplicity of the RF world. The difficulty of the problem is where the requirement for tradeoffs come in - in headroom, acceptance of multipath and resonance, and nonlinear distortion.

Direct-radiator LF drivers are reasonably well behaved in the 100 ~ 800 Hz region. Not perfect, but certainly not as bad as cones and diaphragms are at the top of their working range, where the radiator goes into chaotic breakup. The problem is in multipath. What to do with the reverse-polarity backwave?

The magnet and basket structure creates many additional unwanted reflections, and then there is the problem of where the backwave goes next. If the baffle is a simple disk, then the backwave diffracts around the edge after a transit delay that is proportional to the radius of the baffle. This happens in both directions - the front and back waves pass through each other. The transit delay in unavoidable and a simple property of acoustics.

In a box, the backwave bounces around many times, with a moderate degree of attenuation and low-passing by going through damping material with each pass. Loudspeaker cones are acoustically transparent, so the many-times-reflected backwave emerges through the cone. If the box is a vented box (bass-reflex), the vents have organ-pipe modes that selectively pass some frequencies and reject others - these modes fall in the midrange and have very high Q. The multipath within the box is a separate problem from cabinet-wall resonance, which is a structural problem, not an acoustic one. However, it is possible for acoustic standing-waves in the box to physically drive cabinet-wall resonances. It takes an accelerometer to distinguish between mechanical and acoustical problems in the box, since they can interact.

I am interested in minimizing the multipath problem in loudspeakers, which is why I've asked for Gary Pimm's assistance. He's a Tektronix guy with experience in RF systems and instrumentation shielding over a very wide frequency range. I like to give my collaborators credit, so that's why I've mentioned his name in connection with the filled-box quasi-cardioids.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2009, 12:33 AM   #5107
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
"Multipath is different. As the name implies, the sound takes multiple paths from the emission source to the listener. This is inherently non-minimum-phase - the comb filtering you see in the frequency domain is an artifact of multipath, not anything the emitter is doing. The real problem is in the time domain, where it is clearly visible if present."

Lynn,

Multipath is not inherently non-minimum phase. Comb filtering typically does indicate multipath but not necessarily non-MP behavior. I presume you would consider diffraction multiplath and therefore would assume it to be non-MP. Thus, as a reference to a 3rd, uninterested party you might which to examine Kates, Loudspeaker Cabinet Reflection Effect, AES Anthology, Vol.2, which shows the conditions under which edge diffraction is MP. Similar arguments can be applied multiple sources, the back wave , etc. And, as I am sure you really know, for a linear system the frequency domain and the time domain are one in the same. And if the system is MP then time domain errors are also corrected by MP corrections in the frequency domain. Again, for a linear system. And what you have been discussing are all factors of the linear aspects of a speaker. The key is whether a simple, single eq function Eq can be applied to correct the response in a 3-D space, as Earl and I were discussing. The answer to that is yes, if the source is CD. As most of the readers here have seen, I have clearly demonstrated that.

I would agree that there can be many source of coloration in a loudspeaker, but the idea that multipath necessarily creates time domain distortion which is not correctable is in error.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2009, 09:43 AM   #5108
mige0 is offline mige0  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
mige0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austria, at a beautiful place right in the heart of the Alps.
John, have you ever listened to any of the minimum phase enclosures you mentioned *without* any damping material - only with EQing?

If so - from auditioning - what are your impressions when 100% substituting dampening material by perfect EQing?

Michael
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2009, 01:31 PM   #5109
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally posted by mige0
John, have you ever listened to any of the minimum phase enclosures you mentioned *without* any damping material - only with EQing?

If so - from auditioning - what are your impressions when 100% substituting dampening material by perfect EQing?

Michael

Hi Michael,

I am not against damping. In fact I'm all for it. That is not the point of my posts. The point is whether or not eq can correct the time response of a system, what constitutes MP, and where can MP eq be used to advantage. Let's face it every speaker that uses any type of crossover is using EQ. We start with some raw source response and make a decision of what target acoustic response we want to meet. Call it a crossover filter if you like, but it is equalization of the raw source response to a target relative to some design point. If the source is MP and the filter (eq) is MP then the final result will be MP and will have the same time response as target response, relative to the design point, with deviations only a result of deviations form the ideal target.

Adding damping to the back side of a driver mounted as a dipole will have an effect on the raw SPL data just as mounting the driver in a sealed enclosure will change the raw SPL data. But there are several issues to look at when you consider pure open baffle, open baffle with some kind of damping over the back side of the driver, an open back enclosure of a given length and cross section, or a closed box. There are a number of sources of resonances to deal with in each case. Mechanical resonances associated with the driver such as cone breakup and basket resonances. Both of these can be controlled somewhat by driver design. The there is mechanical energy transmitted to the baffle or enclosure. Again these can be controlled by design and driver mounting. Mechanical resonance of the baffle/enclosure. These are again, mostly excited by the mechanical energy transmitted to the structure directly from the driver. And these too are controllable by design. So what we are really left with are the acoustic resonances and we must ask which are more problematic. If we stay with a pure open baffle we deal with the back wave in one manor . If we go with a sealed box or box with open back (short TL) we have other issues. Ask yourself what is the real difference between a sealed box and an open backed box and an open baffle? Lynn has suggested you talk into a sealed box to see what the colorations are. Take it a step further. Cut a 6" hole in a piece of plywood and talk into it. What is the coloration? Now, build a box say 6" x 6" x 6" with and w/o a back. Talk into it. Add damping and talk into the boxes. Depending on the amount of damping you probably won't notice much difference between the sealed and open backed boxes. In an open backed box the damping creates a low pass filter. The same effect occurs in a sealed box. The only basic difference is that, above the fundamental resonance when the wave reaches the back of the open box some of the wave is emitted to the surroundings and some is reflected back toward the driver. In the sealed box some of the wave is transmitted to the box wall and the majority is reflected back to the driver. Below the fundamental it is very difficult to get much attenuation of the back wave in an open box. As I said, the damping forms a low pass acoustic filter. Thus the low frequency radiation form the open back is pretty much identical in amplitude to the front side driver radiation. Of course, below the fundamental in a sealed box the box begins to act like a pressure vessel creating the air spring and containing the rear wave, thus preventing the "dipole" cancellation seen in an open backed box. If this is to be a midrange driver, since the damping in both open and sealed boxes is effectively a low pass filter the major differences will be based on where the pole of the filter is compared to the high pass filter for the midrange.

Below the fundamental the open backed response can be exploited to form a dipole or quasi-cardioid, depending on the damping and directional characteristics of the driver. Above the fundamental the response is nominally going to be similar to that of the sealed box with radiation pattern established by the driver characteristics and what ever anomalies arise from what ever radiation escapes form the rear, and the directional characteristics of the rear radiation.

Lynn's proposed damping approach with perforated side and internal panels aligned is specific ways will have little impact at low frequency (wave length long compared to box dimensions) other than to change the effective front to back delay. At higher frequencies there is no reason to expect that the behavior will be anything different than the low pass filter. Achieving 10 or 12 dB wide band attenuation is unlikely.

FWIW, here is a simulation of the rear radiation of 6" driver mounted in a 6" x 6" x 6" heavily damped, open backed enclosure.

Click the image to open in full size.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2009, 02:52 PM   #5110
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally posted by john k...
"Multipath is different. As the name implies, the sound takes multiple paths from the emission source to the listener. This is inherently non-minimum-phase - the comb filtering you see in the frequency domain is an artifact of multipath, not anything the emitter is doing. The real problem is in the time domain, where it is clearly visible if present."

Lynn,

Multipath is not inherently non-minimum phase. Comb filtering typically does indicate multipath but not necessarily non-MP behavior. I presume you would consider diffraction multiplath and therefore would assume it to be non-MP. Thus, as a reference to a 3rd, uninterested party you might which to examine Kates, Loudspeaker Cabinet Reflection Effect, AES Anthology, Vol.2, which shows the conditions under which edge diffraction is MP. Similar arguments can be applied multiple sources, the back wave , etc. And, as I am sure you really know, for a linear system the frequency domain and the time domain are one in the same. And if the system is MP then time domain errors are also corrected by MP corrections in the frequency domain. Again, for a linear system. And what you have been discussing are all factors of the linear aspects of a speaker. The key is whether a simple, single eq function Eq can be applied to correct the response in a 3-D space, as Earl and I were discussing. The answer to that is yes, if the source is CD. As most of the readers here have seen, I have clearly demonstrated that.

I would agree that there can be many source of coloration in a loudspeaker, but the idea that multipath necessarily creates time domain distortion which is not correctable is in error.
[edit 4.6.09]
I should add that I am not advocating correcting comb filtering using eq. In the frequency range where comb filtering is apparent although the response may still be MP it is not CD. The peaks and nulls in the response will change in frequency as the reference position changes. However, with correct choice of driver size and baffle dimensions the dipole peak can be positioned to occur above the point where the driver becomes directional. As a result the comb filtering which would occur if the driver were still omni directional is not present. This was the case in the measurements I posted for the 8" baffle with 5" driver. The downward turn at 3K Hz would be the position of the first dipole null, but there are no other peaks or nulls above that point (other than the peak due to breakup at 5k). Add to this the correct choice of x-o frequency (2.5K in this case) and we have a CD response generated from the front and rear wave which can be eq'ed to the desired acoustic target and have the correct amplitude, phase and time response on and off axis.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:20 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2