Beyond the Ariel - Page 663 - 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 6th July 2010, 05:11 AM   #6621
diyAudio Member
 
Lynn Olson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by LineSource View Post
Hi Lynn,

So, after researching dipole speakers for serveral years do you now believe that dipole home sound is inferior to monopole horns and woofers?

This sounds like a religious conversion! CONFESS!! ... what sins do dipole speakers commit?
Not really ... it's just that the reality of equalization finally sank in. I spent a fair amount of quality time auditioning the Linkwitz Orions at the last several shows, and the amount of equalization the Orion uses is far outside what I'm willing to do with a passive or active crossover. When you're conserving those very expensive triode watts, throwing any of them away as a result of EQ is not an attractive prospect.

For folks who are in the "watts are watts" camp and are also OK with 8 to 12 op-amps and/or digital equalization, OB speakers have a lot of appeal, removing all of those obnoxious box colorations at a stroke. When a 30-watt amplifier represents the outer limits of triodeville, then 6 to 20 dB of equalization (as used in the Orion) becomes a show-stopper. In power terms, of course, that's 4 to 100 times the power required by a flat-response, non-equalized speaker.

Just squeaking another 60% (2 dB) out of an amplifier like the Karna - an all-triode DHT Class A PP amplifier - would practically double the cost, size, and weight. The 300B's would have to go, replaced by 845's running at a plate voltage of 800 to 1000 volts. The driver section would have to be scaled up proportionately - and so on. Once you leave the land of "radio receiver" tubes and enter the world of transmitter tubes, it's a different set of rules.

Sure, I could give into the Dark Side and come to terms with 200 to 400-watt Class AB transistor amplifiers with sliding-bias schemes marketed as "Class A". But I don't like the way these things sound - OK for home theater, not so OK for listening to music. But that's just me.

I've spent enough time designing amplifiers to become prejudiced against conventional practice in the solid-state world - Class A/B switching transitions in large-geometry power devices with charge-storage "sticking" effects, noisy rectification with very large current pulses flowing through the diode bridge, and high-speed transient overshoots at the summing node of the feedback network when the output transistors switch on and off and also when they saturate.

These problems grow worse when large numbers of devices are paralleled, since they all find different A/B transition points and all saturate at slightly different current and voltage levels. What is a moderate problem with a pair of NPN/PNP transistors (as found in a low-powered amplifier) is much more difficult when there are 16 or 24 output devices on a common heat-sink, all operating at different die temperatures and having different quiescent currents. What was a simple transition between B to A to B and back again becomes a forest of transition points, all drifting thermally as power levels go up and down. Smoothing out the A/B transition with large numbers of mismatched and thermally drifting devices remains a very difficult problem.

Class D is an interesting way to bypass the tedious business of Class AB operation - I expect interesting things in the future, as problems with reactive load stability and RF emission are resolved.

That leaves me with 8 to 30-watt Class A DHT amplifiers, and 20 to 60-watt Class AB pentode amplifiers. I'd like a speaker that operates efficiently from 100 Hz on up. Full-range efficiency (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz) would be even nicer, but there's a size and weight tradeoff there.

The large-format horn goes down to 700 Hz without any trouble, but a straight (non-folded) horn that's flat down to 100 Hz is truly gigantic, so that's not an option. An OB that has a baffle peak around 100 Hz is also very large - these are 12-foot wavelengths, after all. If the baffle is a domestically acceptable size and provides a 500 Hz baffle peak, there's a lot of EQ needed between 100 and 500 Hz - and more importantly, 100 to 500 Hz falls in the power region of the musical spectrum, so the drivers and amplifiers need a lot of headroom. That's the blight of the mini-monitor - not enough headroom in this critical part of the spectrum, so the music sounds scaled-down and "miniaturized".

The only way around the challenge of high efficiency and generous headroom in the 100~500 Hz range, as far as I could tell, was plain old boxes, or exploring a transitional approach of an open-backed lossy box, with perforated sides, and filled with damping material. The tough part of the latter is avoiding mass coupling of the box filling to the driver cone, which would once again drag down efficiency.

Frankly, I was glad when Gary Dahl suggested his much simpler 2.5 two-box solution. I'd already spent nearly two years on the horn side of the project, and didn't want to get bogged down in researching lossy boxes.

I still see lossy boxes as an interesting solution in the 100 to 700 Hz range, and would like to explore them after I get the main system up and running.

Last edited by Lynn Olson; 6th July 2010 at 05:39 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2010, 07:01 AM   #6622
Jmmlc is offline Jmmlc  France
R.I.P.
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Hello,

Read my original question: I don't bother if the double impulse response is from the theorical point of view is min phase or not and that I question if the a "simple" min phase equalization was possible in the case of the dipole".

That's different, and I think that in most cases such min phase equalization is very difficult. Only when the wavelength is large it is possible. (well at higher frequency due to the piston directivity, the rear wave doesn't turn around the baffle edge and in an infinite space it should not interfer with the front wave, BUT in a finite space the rear wave will reflect on walls before to interfer with the front wave and we may question a possiblesimple min phase equalization (even at low frequency).

Your graph with the double pulse says quite the same as what mine sent before:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attac...ipole_arta.gif

Best regards from Paris, France

Jean-Michel Le CLéac'h

Quote:
Originally Posted by john k... View Post
Work through the math! The double impulse response is minimum phase to start with.

Last edited by Jmmlc; 6th July 2010 at 07:05 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2010, 11:18 AM   #6623
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmmlc View Post
Hello,

Read my original question: I don't bother if the double impulse response is from the theorical point of view is min phase or not and that I question if the a "simple" min phase equalization was possible in the case of the dipole".

That's different, and I think that in most cases such min phase equalization is very difficult. Only when the wavelength is large it is possible. (well at higher frequency due to the piston directivity, the rear wave doesn't turn around the baffle edge and in an infinite space it should not interfer with the front wave, BUT in a finite space the rear wave will reflect on walls before to interfer with the front wave and we may question a possiblesimple min phase equalization (even at low frequency).

Your graph with the double pulse says quite the same as what mine sent before:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attac...ipole_arta.gif

Best regards from Paris, France

Jean-Michel Le CLéac'h
It is minimum phase in theroy, in practice (measurements) and is easy to equalize assuming you limit the response to it's useful range, as should be apparent by the exsistance of diple speakers like my NaO II, Nao Mini, NaO Note and the Linkwitz Orion. None of which will show a douple impulse.

I suggest you build a simple dipole and eq the response to an acceptable band pass response and look at it youself. I not interested in pointlessly arguing about what is easily verified with measurement.

A well design dipole system will place the high frequency cut off around the dipole peak, ideally lower. If you want to extend the response higher then the baffle width has to be carefully considered in conjunction with driver directionality to avoid significant nulls which are not easily equalized. But I am repeating myself.
-----
1 msec would place the dipole peak at 500 Hz and the first null at 1k Hz. My rule of thumb is that this would be useful to about 250 to 300 Hz. But, depending on the driver directionality, you could maybe push it further. However, I do not like wide baffle dipoles for other reasons. In a very large room, away from the wall behind the speakers, they might be ok, but when placed 3 or 4 feet from the wall and similarly from the side wall the large baffle blocks the reflected rear wave and and leads to severe coloration. The large baffle forms a resoance cavity with the near walls. Obviusly 2 msec reduced the useful range by an octave. 2 msec would be a baffle nominally 4' in diameter.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2010, 01:41 PM   #6624
Jmmlc is offline Jmmlc  France
R.I.P.
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Hello,

Let's investigate the unequalized dipole subwoofer.

Imagine a loudspeaker having a perfectly flat response and used in a subwoofer dipole intended to be used with the less possible equalization (because passive equalization at frequency less than 100Hz is not very practicable).

In a first example, let's define at 80Hz the upper limit at -3dB of the unequalized pass-band (the null will be at 107Hz). Now the lower cut-off (at -3dB) will be at 27Hz.

This needs a 3.2 meters long difference of path and the required width of the OB will be (roughly) in the same range. Better to use IMHO an infinite baffle.


With a 2 meters long difference of path low F-3dB = 43Hz high and F-3dB = 127Hz.

With 1 meter long difference of path low F-3dB = 86Hz and high F-3dB = 257Hz.

Now let's imagine a 1ms difference of path (as indicated by John), this is equivalent to 0.344 meter.

the low cut-off at -3dB will be at 250Hz and the high cut-off will be at 749Hz. 40Hz will be at -18dB and 27Hz at -21dB it will be not practicable to equalize passively (this requires a +6dB/octave high pass ).


Best regards from Paris, France

Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2010, 06:09 PM   #6625
diyAudio Member
 
slowmotion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Norge
I've been using 140cm wide baffles for bass for almost 10 years now.
2 normal 15" speakers in each, no eq.
Active crossover.
I have never measured them tho.
Sounds fine to me on electric and acoustic bass and so on.
Not much really deep bass.

I don't know how this fits in with the rest of the discussion either.

Last edited by slowmotion; 6th July 2010 at 06:24 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2010, 08:23 PM   #6626
Bigun is offline Bigun  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Bigun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3dahl View Post
There really is a DIY project in progress, believe it or not!
When the speakers are complete, each channel will consist of the following components:

Aurum Cantus G-3 ribbon (above ~8 kHz).
Azurahorn AH-425 with Radian 745PB driver (900 Hz to ~10 kHz).
AE TD15M in 3 cu ft sealed enclosure (75 Hz to 900 Hz). LF rolls off naturally.
AE TD15H and two PR15-700 passive radiators in 5 cu ft enclosure, actively powered. This will be allowed to overlap with the sealed cabinet in order to fill in below the baffle step, about 200 Hz.
Hi Gary,

It's great to see that all this theory is resulting in a build.

It looks as if you are really going to town on this, that 'lifetime' speaker project


(I'm not ready for this myself, I was hoping there might be something simpler coming out of this thread that I, a newbie, could build. I'm still trying to decide between an OB with bi-amped supporting woofer, or a BLH - but that's OT for this thread)
__________________
"The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed." Robert M Pirsig.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2010, 09:12 PM   #6627
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmmlc View Post
...
Read my original question: I don't bother if the double impulse response is from the theorical point of view is min phase or not and that I question if the a "simple" min phase equalization was possible in the case of the dipole".
Quote:
Originally Posted by john k... View Post
...
I suggest you build a simple dipole and eq the response to an acceptable band pass response and look at it youself. I not interested in pointlessly arguing about what is easily verified with measurement.
John, as far as everyone who loves dipols wold agree from a practical point of view - I really believe you are wrong when we go into some hairsplitting discussion about the more theoretical part = correctability of delayed signals.

The difference is in the quality not in the quantity - meaning if we "can't measure" does not necessarily mean that the dual impulse (original and delayed / reflected / diffracted) does not happen.
Sure - this discussion would possibly be worth an dedicated thread - as there is some confusion with proponets claiming spakers (including dipoles, transmission iines, horns - posslbly backloaded even, etc.) being "true" min phase - and on the other hand there are proponents that claim that this is not the case - me being in between with the concept of "consecutively min phase behaviour" along the time line for any delayed doublet (echo, reflections, multipath - whatever you naim it).

I find this especially interesting as virtually everyone is relaying on the min phase behaviour be for EQing or "phase shaping" via XO.
So the question "min phase or not" - to me - seems to be quite fundamental - worth to do some hairsplitting here or elewhere to be sure.



Michael

Last edited by mige0; 7th July 2010 at 09:16 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2010, 09:37 PM   #6628
diyAudio Member
 
chrismercurio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Silicon Valley
Since the intelligent and educated loudspeaker folks hang around these parts and since there isn't a project...how many of you have fooled around with isobaric over the years to get a smaller box with reasonable extension? And...what were your experiences?

I have been thinking about it recently but before had always discarded the idea because of the added expense. Now I'm thinking that it's a great way to get away with a smaller box from drivers that require huge enclosures. My application and interest strictly applies to sealed enclosures as vented enclosures allow you to go smaller for a given voltage sensitivity than their sealed counterparts anyway.

Thank you,
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2010, 09:49 PM   #6629
poptart is offline poptart  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
poptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Lynn, thanks for the updates. What about line level EQ of the low end as a solution to your limited triode watts? Wouldn't be so different than an RIAA stage, could make it switchable etc
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2010, 10:00 PM   #6630
BudP is offline BudP  United States
diyAudio Member
 
BudP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: upper left crust, united snakes
Quote:
So the question "min phase or not" - to me - seems to be quite fundamental - worth to do some hairsplitting here or elewhere to be sure.
I am also interested in this question. I don't quite understand how a driver, with nulls and positive and negative going response to a single tone can be described as minimum phase. I do note that a grouping of non minimum phase behavior can be useful in a gross sense, for simplified models, but I don't see how any driver can be called minimum phase, since there is only one frequency at which it actually acts as a piston.

I have attached a series of questions and answers on the subject from a posting I ran into a number of years ago. So long ago that I no longer know it's provenience. It does however address some of my questions but doesn't answer them to my satisfaction. John, I really would appreciate some teaching on the subject.

Bud
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Minimum phase definition.pdf (8.2 KB, 39 views)
__________________
"You and I and every other thing are a dependent arising, empty of any inherent reality" Tsong Ko Pa
  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 01:37 PM.


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