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 20th August 2013, 01:43 AM   #9221
Bill F. is offline Bill F.  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Bill F.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SW MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rewind View Post
I can get my 2 cm throat police sirens to reach 200Hz easy in an elongated Goto S-150. Using such a small diaphragm down to 200Hz seem to give much higher clarity than e.g. a Fane S 8M, which I rank as one of the top contenders to work good in a horn. I still need to fix a proper back chamber for the Fane but I can't imagine it beating the police siren.
Hey Rewind,

I'd like to hear more about your experience with the siren drivers. I bought some San Ming SD-210RX to try in midrange Karlson tubes, but I haven't had the time to get them going yet. What brand are your drivers? How much bandwidth do you get out of them? Do they need any EQ? Here's a link to my 3-way Karlson idea.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2013, 08:01 PM   #9222
Scott L is offline Scott L  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Knoxville, TN
Default Timely

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kindhornman View Post
Pano,
I agree and think that most of what people think is the horn loading of the front and back loaded horns is just room gain. I think if you took most of these designs and put them outside and made a correct measurement, even though it is not an anechoic measurement you would see that these claims just don't hold water. The tapped horns which to me are really transmission lines have a better chance of working but those have other issues. I just don't see why the fixation on low frequency horns in homes, the integration of the multiple horns is also a problem that seems to be overlooked in almost all instances. There is nothing wrong with combining a direct radiator for the bottom end with a horn system that starts at a reasonable point. As long as the bass section can integrate with the horn and can produce the necessary spl level to keep up that is the way I would go.
Well, I must say this current topic is very timely for me. In a previous post I considered using my pair of Altec 416-8B's for mid-bass. Now it seems an audiophile friend has offered me his pair of the same drivers. He uses JBL D-130's for total bass duties, and he knows I am fixated on double 15's per side.
So, keeping in mind that I have a SUPERB subwoofer system for operation below 60Hz, my intent is to create a full mid-bass section covering from 60-
500Hz, above which will probably be the large Sierra-Brooks horn. My friend made the suggestion to use my 20" i.d. sonotubes to create a double stack, but that raises the height of the horn up a ways to where I am uncomfortable
with the image height. A side by side orienation has me concerned about a horizontal 500 Hz propogation doublet. So, I am really stuck for ideas.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2013, 08:10 PM   #9223
Rewind is offline Rewind  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
When adding a horn to my Fane 8M I went from normal speaker to hornloaded midbass, not at all tuned or correct, as this was just a prototype, I got something that fit much better with the upper horns. Not hornloading midbass works, but it will have a complete other type of sound than the upper horns. I am listening to a 3-way right now composed of a Beyma TPL-150 + hornloaded JA6681B (1" compression driver) + JBL 2204H (12" midbass cone driver) at the moment, and the midbass is completly off. xD
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2013, 11:04 PM   #9224
diyAudio Member
 
POOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Rewind, if you get the bass horn and low bass horn setup right with your mid treble horn I imagine you'll become another satisfied music lover horny that is amazed with every listen. It's like a hybrid electrostatic mid/treble and dynamic bass, it can be satisfying but sucks compared to a real full range electrostat in your home.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2013, 11:29 PM   #9225
diyAudio Member
 
Kindhornman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles, California
Pooh,
"a real full range electrostat" I have yet to see that happen. It always seems that you need some dynamic direct radiator to fill in the bass on any electrostatic I have ever heard.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2013, 12:40 AM   #9226
diyAudio Member
 
POOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
There are commercial models and DIY, the DIY I have here use two 32 square foot bass panels.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2013, 01:30 AM   #9227
diyAudio Member
 
Kindhornman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles, California
Pooh,
Now that is a large panel, that I would like to here.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2013, 07:27 AM   #9228
diyAudio Member
 
Lynn Olson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott L View Post
Well, I must say this current topic is very timely for me. In a previous post I considered using my pair of Altec 416-8B's for mid-bass. Now it seems an audiophile friend has offered me his pair of the same drivers. He uses JBL D-130's for total bass duties, and he knows I am fixated on double 15's per side.

So, keeping in mind that I have a SUPERB subwoofer system for operation below 60Hz, my intent is to create a full mid-bass section covering from 60-500Hz, above which will probably be the large Sierra-Brooks horn. My friend made the suggestion to use my 20" i.d. sonotubes to create a double stack, but that raises the height of the horn up a ways to where I am uncomfortable with the image height. A side by side orienation has me concerned about a horizontal 500 Hz propogation doublet. So, I am really stuck for ideas.
Well, I've tried a lot of dual-woofer setups. The 2.5 tends to overcompensate for BSC, resulting in a slow, heavy sound. My own feeling about BSC is that it is frequently overdone, giving an exact compensation for outdoor use, but resulting in much too heavy bass-heavy sound in a typical listening room. I prefer to make minor subjective adjustments in the crossover.

A vertical WWMT or MMT array is popular in audiophile speakers (Wilson et al), and I've done designs like these myself, but I've never been all that happy with the resulting sound. I suspect lack of coherence in the arrival-time of the two woofers, but I'm not sure why they don't sound better than they do.

The Ariel uses a slightly modified MTM array, but it took a long time to get the subjective balance to match the measurements. And that's with very small drivers, an intentionally asymmetric driver placement on the front panel (tweeter offset to one side), and a low diffraction enclosure. I tried symmetric MTM's and didn't like the sound at all; the symmetric location of the tweeter emphasizes front-panel diffraction effects, and the upper-midrange diffraction coloration cannot be removed with equalization.

I've yet to hear a commercial high-end speaker with large-diameter woofers in a MTM or WMTMW vertical array that didn't sound very artificial and unnatural. Part of the problem might be subjective; in the real world, bass instruments don't radiate their sound in mid-air, but close to the floor, and you expect to hear and feel the floor sensation with bass. Another possible explanation is the upper woofer sees a substantially different air-load than the woofer closest to the floor (which sees its image), and that unbalances the acoustic pair-matching of the two drivers.

The big pro studio monitors using side-by-side 15" drivers actually have pretty good midbass coherence, with a lot of impact and snap to the sound. I might quibble about the sound of the studio-monitor horn, but have no complaints at all about the sound of the bass, with realistic impact and weight to the drums and piano.

If all the drivers are within 5 degrees of each other at crossover, having them a wavelength apart is an acceptable option, and side-by-side with the horn directly above and between gives the closest possible spacing (like a dot triad in a color CRT). If the drivers have the layout mentioned in the previous pages (each bass driver is 22.5 degrees off-axis from the listener), it should be possible to get a pretty good time-alignment at the listening position.

I grant that much of the foregoing is subjective preference, but when all of the speakers (including my own designs) using a given driver layout sound a certain way, I pay attention. In particular, I am not sure why MMT's don't sound better, but they seem to fall into the "sounds worse than it measures" category.

Last edited by Lynn Olson; 21st August 2013 at 07:55 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2013, 05:33 PM   #9229
diyAudio Member
 
angeloitacare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
The quest of speaker placement to get the most natural reproduction is maibe worth a own thread. I have had frequencies below 1,2khz reproduced by my 38" lower midrange horn. Since a good part of the voice range is reproduced in this frequency range, a visitor made this remark, and said voices should sound from more above, they were from too low, not sounding natural.Certainly not wrong. But what about different instruments, each radiating in a different kind, environment, different propagation, beside different recordings, some with just one mic, other with various ? How about organ in churches etc ? Does that not bring to a conclusion, that the aim of the most natural reproduction should be only in a certain way and limitation ? The aim of for example the most natural reproduction of voices, the right timbre and tone, is a very valid one. But the aim of reproducing the way, how the soundwaves are propagated at the life event and arrive, the correct size, location etc. is maibe a false one. If you listen to a big orchestra, the origin of the instruments can be 20m, 30m away. That might result in a big, open and deep powerful sound. If you have a multiway system, it might be able to reproduce a orchestra the best way. If you use however a single wideband speaker, erradiating just from two single stereo points, they might struggle harder. If you have however just one Singer, lets say with a guitar, or solo instruments or so, these might be better reproduced with single widebanders, rather than a big multiway speakers. So it will be always a compromise. I was disturbed of having bass only at the half of the room, close to the floor, and it pleases me more to have a line bass array, radiating and filling the whole room with bass. But that is just a subjective preference, without the aim to reproduce the most natural possible.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2013, 08:05 PM   #9230
diyAudio Member
 
Greebster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: South of the Skyway
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn Olson View Post
I prefer to make minor subjective adjustments in the crossover.
Also why I like to floor couple, crossed low. Removes the excess, that muddy thick which mars the midbass low mid.

Quote:
A vertical WWMT or MMT array is popular in audiophile speakers (Wilson et al), and I've done designs like these myself, but I've never been all that happy with the resulting sound. I suspect lack of coherence in the arrival-time of the two woofers, but I'm not sure why they don't sound better than they do.
Would agree about the timing issue. Adding two additional ceiling bounces can't help either. Think of the cascading wavefront. On axis simple timing errors due to the acoustical time alignment, but baffle shape included has an effect, as is listening distance all crucial. But when we look at the upper and lower floor bounce interaction, the interphase of this sum upon the direct arrival is adding/subtracting.


Quote:
The Ariel uses a slightly modified MTM array, but it took a long time to get the subjective balance to match the measurements. And that's with very small drivers, an intentionally asymmetric driver placement on the front panel (tweeter offset to one side), and a low diffraction enclosure. I tried symmetric MTM's and didn't like the sound at all; the symmetric location of the tweeter emphasizes front-panel diffraction effects, and the upper-midrange diffraction coloration cannot be removed with equalization.

I've yet to hear a commercial high-end speaker with large-diameter woofers in a MTM or WMTMW vertical array that didn't sound very artificial and unnatural. Part of the problem might be subjective; in the real world, bass instruments don't radiate their sound in mid-air, but close to the floor, and you expect to hear and feel the floor sensation with bass. Another possible explanation is the upper woofer sees a substantially different air-load than the woofer closest to the floor (which sees its image), and that unbalances the acoustic pair-matching of the two drivers.
Concur completely...

Quote:
The big pro studio monitors using side-by-side 15" drivers actually have pretty good midbass coherence, with a lot of impact and snap to the sound. I might quibble about the sound of the studio-monitor horn, but have no complaints at all about the sound of the bass, with realistic impact and weight to the drums and piano.

If all the drivers are within 5 degrees of each other at crossover, having them a wavelength apart is an acceptable option, and side-by-side with the horn directly above and between gives the closest possible spacing (like a dot triad in a color CRT). If the drivers have the layout mentioned in the previous pages (each bass driver is 22.5 degrees off-axis from the listener), it should be possible to get a pretty good time-alignment at the listening position.

I grant that much of the foregoing is subjective preference, but when all of the speakers (including my own designs) using a given driver layout sound a certain way, I pay attention. In particular, I am not sure why MMT's don't sound better, but they seem to fall into the "sounds worse than it measures" category.
I've done some sims using an MLTL placed at various points within another enclosure, that we can call a room. Depending on shape and placement, the interaction of the room has a direct effect. The side by side placement of the midbass's being floor loaded yielded best results so far. What would that acronym be? MTM/MM or WW

Perhaps this CTC distance is critical if crossed high (>100), the same rules should apply.

Also was thinking about antennas again (DUCK) and how the E/H wave propagation travels off of an elliptic paraboloid where the dish is orientation is elliptical in width and narrow vertically. This produces a beam which is shifted 90. This results in a narrow horizontal but tall narrow beam. Even tho we are working at far lower frequencies this is the same as how we control the off axis horizontal and vertical polars with an MTM. Thus if this holds true for both, then would it be too far off to conclude that at these frequencies would have similar effect down to the very bottom, or rather an interaction of phase due to the constricted wavelengths within the room?
  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 02:42 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