how to avoid transmission line resonance with front and rear firing dipole tweeters? - 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 14th June 2007, 03:16 AM   #1
thadman is offline thadman  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: west lafayette
Default how to avoid transmission line resonance with front and rear firing dipole tweeters?

Quote:
Originally posted by Linkwitz
There is not much sense in building a dipole speaker with two small closed box speakers driven in opposite phase, when one of the objectives is to remove the sound character that boxes imparts. The two boxes a can be joined at their backs, though, and the connecting wall removed b.

Since the two cones move back and forth in unison, there is little air pressure inside the enclosure b at very low frequencies. When the internal length L becomes half wavelength, there is a sharp resonance of the transmission line between the cones, causing a severe dip and peak irregularity in the frequency response. The resonance occurs when L = lambda/4
Does this phenomenon also apply to dipole (ie front and rear firing) midrange/tweeters? I'd like to maintain dipole radiation throughout the entire spectrum of audible noise and this could be very detrimental to my design. For simplicities sake, lets assume the ribbons are each <3.5" deep. This places the driven elements 8" apart from each other.

8=lambda/4.
lambda=32,
lambda=13,397/32,
lambda=418.65hz

How does Linkwitz avoid this phenomenon with his front and rear firing Milleniums?
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2007, 05:55 AM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Keruskerfuerst's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
You can avoid that by dimension the cabinet correctly.
__________________
Houston, we have a problem!
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2007, 08:34 AM   #3
diyAudio Moderator
 
pinkmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chatham, England
Default Re: how to avoid transmission line resonance with front and rear firing dipole tweete

Quote:
Originally posted by thadman
How does Linkwitz avoid this phenomenon with his front and rear firing Milleniums?
I would imagine he stuffs the line as heavily as required to damp the resonance frequencies. It's what I'd do.


Quote:
Originally posted by Keruskerfuerst
You can avoid that by dimension the cabinet correctly.
Could you explain further?
__________________
Rick: Oh Cliff / Sometimes it must be difficult not to feel as if / You really are a cliff / when fascists keep trying to push you over it! / Are they the lemmings / Or are you, Cliff? / Or are you Cliff?
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2007, 01:05 PM   #4
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Default Re: how to avoid transmission line resonance with front and rear firing dipole tweete

Quote:
Originally posted by thadman
How does Linkwitz avoid this phenomenon with his front and rear firing Milleniums?
What you are citing from Linkwitz is regarding to two cone drivers in one box, sharing a common back volume.
The Millenium drivers are closed in the back, so this phenomenon does not apply.
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2007, 03:25 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Italy
Sorry for my awful english..

Iím from italy and Iím not able to write very well

I think that what Rudolf wrote is correct, the described phenomenon of resonance regards two speakers sharing the same volume. Millenium tws have separate volumes..

Iíve made a prototype of dipole speaker like the one suggested in a figure of the Linkwitz site.

Here are some photos..

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.



Iíve investigated about the resonance described by Linnkwitz but I was not able to find this type of problem.. My prototype seems not to have this issue.

Any suggestion and comment is well accepted..

Thanks
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2007, 05:54 PM   #6
thadman is offline thadman  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: west lafayette
It appears you have front and rear firing cone midranges. How much more energy is required to drive them into xmax at high frequencies (say 160-200hz) as compared to a conventional open baffle?
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2007, 06:09 PM   #7
thadman is offline thadman  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: west lafayette
It appears you have front and rear firing cone midranges. How much more energy is required to drive them into xmax at high frequencies (say 160-200hz) as compared to a conventional open baffle?

From an aesthetic, diffraction, and perhaps cleaner rear radiation standpoint, having dedicated rear firing cone midranges (down to 160/200hz) would be very nice. I wouldn't have to transition (from an aesthetic and diffraction point of view) from the 8" deep midrange cabinet to the open baffle panel of the RS225s. If I decided to preserve the roundover down the entire length of the cabinet, the cone midranges would be within a 4" deep quasi u-frame creating a resonance. If I went with front and rear firing cone midranges, that resonance could be avoided by seperating the air volumes of the midrange drivers.

The Daytons aren't that expensive to begin with and justifying an extra $100-140 for rear radiating drivers would be very easy.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2007, 07:09 PM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Italy
Quote:
From an easthetic, diffraction...
Sorry thatman but I donít understand if u r talking to me

Iím not so able to understand English correctly

If u r talking to me I could answer that separating air volumes of midrange could be a good idea regarding resonance but I think that the important ďno box soundĒ of the open baffle will be lost..

I have think a lot about the resonance problem due to the length between drivers..

My opinion is that sound wave stars from the back of each driver, go towards the other driver and meet the other loudspeaker wave that is reverse of phase.. In that point we probably have the waves deletion..

I ďprobablyĒ could be in wrong..

Thanks
  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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Front firing vs down firing sub? alex_g Subwoofers 32 22nd June 2010 12:34 PM
Dipole speaker with monopole rear firing midbass? GuyPanico Multi-Way 4 12th November 2005 02:49 PM
Woofer: side firing pair vs front firing? tcpip Multi-Way 13 9th September 2005 02:13 PM
searching software to switch front speakers to rear and rear to front!-dolby surround MCM Everything Else 6 6th February 2004 09:29 PM
Horn at front, transmission line at rear? Circlotron Multi-Way 2 7th October 2003 07:57 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:39 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