pjpoes said:
Much better.
Treble:
http://www.raalribbon.com/products_flatfoil_140-15.htm
Midrange (4 drivers per loudspeaker):
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=264-848
Bass driver (large vented enclosure 6 cu-ft 25 Hz tunning w/ 6 inch vent):
http://www.supravox.fr/anglais/haut_parleurs/285_GMF.htm
(top-down):MMMMTW
Two-box system. One box for the midbass. A smaller adjustable box for the mid-and-tweeter.
Avg. eff. 91 db 8 ohms.
Excuse me, but isnt that Supravox 285 GMF a 99db midwoofer ?
And MMMMTW configured ... now I am really confused ?
Very special choise of drivers ... is that something thats been proven ?
If you want good soundstage work with a simple straight forward design with well behaved drivers making simple "acoustical" 12db LR filters possible
And MMMMTW configured ... now I am really confused ?
Very special choise of drivers ... is that something thats been proven ?
If you want good soundstage work with a simple straight forward design with well behaved drivers making simple "acoustical" 12db LR filters possible
tinitus said:
Its an idea I've been "toying with".
Frankly though I don't have the time or even the facilities (..at this point most of its packed up for a big move/lifestyle change).The MMMM line is about 3db more efficient in a series-parallel config. + you have some additional gain for that size driver between 400 Hz and 2 kHz (..which should compensate nicely for the drivers inherent slight "gain" above 2kHz). The 4 driver config. will also reduce excursion and as a result non-linear distortion. The net spl result should be about 91 db (1watt 1 meter).
The tweeter will either need a shelving filter or listened to about 50 degrees off-axis (which sounds absurd but works well in the near field and gives an enormous sound-field with fewer side wall disturbances).
It is a very specialized choice in drivers.. but its "what I do".
tinitus said:
There should be a fair amount of "room" with the crossover - all of the drivers are relatively broadband.. the exception is the tweeter at the lowest freq.s in its bandpass. Combing will only start to begin above 3kHz for the mid.s to any significant degree, and even then it will be minimal.
The Tangbands should be fine fullrange with proper loading and normal in-room averages (including the occasional 105+ db peaks). Remember there are 4 of them and they will only see a modest portion of the amplifier's power.
Gah!!!! That is bigger than I would like. I mean, I know I was just talking about the Everest, but good I don't know about woofers in a 6 cubic foot enclosure.
Those Tangband drivers are great aren't they. I just picked up a pair to measure, and I'm mighty impressed. They make a great midrange, and can work over a wide enough range to give huge flexibility in crossover points.
I have not heard the Raal tweeter, but I hear really good things about the ribbon tweeter. I have heard they have wider dispersion than most ribbons, and overload very nicely.
Why the Supravox midwoofer? I have no experience with them, they are pretty expensive for what they are. Have you used them with good results? I understand they make good drivers from a quality standpoint, they suffer some of the same issues that other lightweight coned high efficiency drivers do, but seem better than most in some regards.
Those Tangband drivers are great aren't they. I just picked up a pair to measure, and I'm mighty impressed. They make a great midrange, and can work over a wide enough range to give huge flexibility in crossover points.
I have not heard the Raal tweeter, but I hear really good things about the ribbon tweeter. I have heard they have wider dispersion than most ribbons, and overload very nicely.
Why the Supravox midwoofer? I have no experience with them, they are pretty expensive for what they are. Have you used them with good results? I understand they make good drivers from a quality standpoint, they suffer some of the same issues that other lightweight coned high efficiency drivers do, but seem better than most in some regards.
Well the biggest issue is that they require a larger cabinet to play as low. While not a big deal in Pro Audio where enclosure size isn't as important, and efficiency is far more important, it is important in Home audio. Well for some anyway.
As for my other personal issues, I think the response is generally more ragid than on comparably priced highend drivers from the likes of Scan-speak or Seas.
As for my other personal issues, I think the response is generally more ragid than on comparably priced highend drivers from the likes of Scan-speak or Seas.
pjpoes said:
If the ultimate goal is that kind of complexity, I really don't know how you can get around the size problem.
And about the 'flatness' of the frequency responses, I guess those datasheets from "pro" brands are much more honest while those of the "hi end" brands are whitewashed a lot.
Finally, please try to compare sizes and performances of:
1) whatever 'hi end' loudspeakers of 3, 4, 5... ways.
2) properly setup of 2 way 'pro' stuff with quality 1" CD and midbass of 12" or 15"
pjpoes said:
Once a driver is into its full omni dispersion character, "ragged" is almost never an issue (..i.e. its a non-issue as I suggested it).
Remember however that the Supravox is NOT a pro driver. It is expressly NOT concerned with higher input levels and thermal problems. Moreover it requires a MUCH larger enclosure, (to be at its best), than virtually all pro drivers of a similar sd.
What do you have to be concerned with such a driver?
Non-Linearity - its a short vc design with a very good field strength for the motor (i.e. it can't take a lot of excursion so it needs to be loaded appropriately).
Along with linear stroke you also have power levels (which at and below the baffle step region tend to represent about 1/2 the total power input). Take the spec.ed 70 watts RMS to heart for this driver.
Linear problems with resonances due to a poorly spot and edge damped diaphragm.. as well as a surround that it also susceptible to additional "messy" resonant behavior. Again though, these tend to be above the driver's "omni" region (..excepting the driver's fundamental resonance).
Size-wise, figure a 14-15 inch wide baffle about 32 inches high and almost 2 feet deep (for the woofer portion). Big yes, but the resulting loudspeaker wouldn't be that much more obtrusive than the Ekta Grande.
What do you get in return?
Near average full output at lower freq.s.
..and the subjective qualifier, I'll give you an excerpt from Troel's page here on a slightly smaller driver from Supravox:
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Supravox215GMF.htm
..bottom of the page:
"..It can play enormously loud - and it hard not to do so. Acoustic Live from Nils Lofgren was on the CD-player many times and impressed quite a few visitors. The speed, the transient attack is phenomenal."
Drivers that I would like to try
AE Lambda TD15S in a 180liter closed box, should take som EQ
http://www.aespeakers.com/drivers.php?driver_id=13
Thiel 6" mid with underhung neo motor
http://www.clofis.nl/nl/thiel/thiel.htm
Eton or Mundorf AMT ribbon ... a cheaper Gradient magnetostat may do ... or LCY ribbons could be interesting
With a different mid that could be crossed higher, say like a 6" Supravox 165GMF, the new Raven "pointSouce" would be nice, but may run into sensitivity problems
Its a classical 3way with high quality drivers, nothing fancy
Not cheap though ... but could probably be ok with cheaper mid/tweet
AE Lambda TD15S in a 180liter closed box, should take som EQ
http://www.aespeakers.com/drivers.php?driver_id=13
Thiel 6" mid with underhung neo motor
http://www.clofis.nl/nl/thiel/thiel.htm
Eton or Mundorf AMT ribbon ... a cheaper Gradient magnetostat may do ... or LCY ribbons could be interesting
With a different mid that could be crossed higher, say like a 6" Supravox 165GMF, the new Raven "pointSouce" would be nice, but may run into sensitivity problems
Its a classical 3way with high quality drivers, nothing fancy
Not cheap though ... but could probably be ok with cheaper mid/tweet
pjpoes said:
what if you used 2 tangbands in a MTM with 2 more for baffle step on the rear.
pjpoes said:
PJ, How big a box can your decor tolerate?
Are your main speakers going to be helped in the bass by a seperte subwoofer?
el`Ol said:
tinitus said:
Wow we are getting into some pretty exotice drivers and driver combinations here.
navin said:
Yeah, personally I cant afford the at the moment, but not overly expencive and top quality that should last a lifetime
Actually metal cones are not my kind of thing, but I have had Thiel tweeters that I liked very much
My speaker friend and mentor has just finished a VERY big Thiel WWMTMWW design, all Thiel except fore a Raven ribbon
He says its magic and like everything is wrapped in silk ... and VERY clean
I like el´ols suggestion with 2.5way Supravox and ribbon ... but personally I wont have nothing less than 15" woofer ... I want deep bass and subs seems like a strange thing to me
multiple drivers is not my kind of thing ...
one driver fore each passband should give more precise soundstage
Maybe in a couple of years we can get suitable drivers
btw, I have also thought about using the Supravox 165 with an 18" PRO woofer
Pro drivers with ragged FR? The Seas Excels are some of the most ragged FR of any driver on the market.
My experience is that high efficiency drivers are lower distortion than consumer grade product. Other than enclosure sizes, pro gear is almost always better than consumer grade speakers.
The problem is people don't understand the drivers...or have some poor misconceptions that are unfounded.
My experience is that high efficiency drivers are lower distortion than consumer grade product. Other than enclosure sizes, pro gear is almost always better than consumer grade speakers.
The problem is people don't understand the drivers...or have some poor misconceptions that are unfounded.
Hmm, lets go back and look at what *pjpoes* says he wants (..it is his thread after all):
1. Moderate eff. around 91-92 db.
2. Fullrange response.
3. More traditional *premium* Hi Fi drivers as opposed to pro drivers.
4. Smaller form factor if he can get it.
Don't get me wrong, I *like* the Supravox 165 GMF.. BUT it isn't a traditional Hi Fi driver. Specifically it won't give that smooth rounded imaging that the better HiFi drivers provide.
The only reason I chose a Supravox driver for suggested inclusion was to complement the design's HiFi character - NOT alter it.
Basically the low mass of the driver will work *very* well with the low mass of the Tangbands and the ribbon. The added bonus is efficiency and the dynamic character it can add while still offering low freq. extension. The trade-off is the added enclosure size as well as the usual port additions of low freq. extended group delay and phase rotation.
A more traditional approach would have been to simply suggest a Dayton RS HiFi sub driver (instead of the supravox), with a full 3-way crossover. THAT however will require a specific type of amplifier and will neither provide as much detail or as much dynamic contrast.. but it would be available in a smaller form factor with a greater level of low freq. extension.
The only real "nit" I have with my suggestion is NOT with the Supravox.., rather its with the RAAL's price. In the past 2 years that I've recommended the driver it has gone up almost double. Even excepting transport increases and dealer markup - that increase is ***OBSCENE*** (..and it p!ss's me off more than a little). However..
The price is only a 3rd more than the ring based Scan Speak driver (in the Ekta Grande), and the RAAL *is* a superlative driver. So overall I think its in keeping with pjpoe's requirements. Yes, there are alternatives, but none are better and almost all are worse. I could recommend alternatives, but I'm not sure price is a "sticking point" for him.
On the other hand he seemed to balk at the price of the Supravox.. Not its cost, but rather its value. To that, all I can add is that there are few if any alternatives to the driver; the 285 is exceedingly *unique*. If you can find a similar driver for less, let me know!
...
With regard to Hif-Fi drivers vs. pro driver operated into the upper midrange and lower treble:
Yes, pjpoe is generally correct. Most pro drivers don't have the same amount of internal damping of the diaphragm, nor substantial edge damping at the surround. Additionally most pro drivers are larger in diameter. All of the above means that generally a mid-band pro driver operated near the top of its passband will *usually* be less linear. Typically they also have less dispersion at higher freq.s. Of course always be wary of manufacturer smoothing of freq. response graphs from any source (..HiFi or Pro). Note that while a HiFi driver like the Seas is chaotic at its break-up ("bell"-mode) region, it is overall fairly smooth throughout its passband:
http://www.zaphaudio.com/6.5test/compare.html
1. Moderate eff. around 91-92 db.
2. Fullrange response.
3. More traditional *premium* Hi Fi drivers as opposed to pro drivers.
4. Smaller form factor if he can get it.
Don't get me wrong, I *like* the Supravox 165 GMF.. BUT it isn't a traditional Hi Fi driver. Specifically it won't give that smooth rounded imaging that the better HiFi drivers provide.
The only reason I chose a Supravox driver for suggested inclusion was to complement the design's HiFi character - NOT alter it.
Basically the low mass of the driver will work *very* well with the low mass of the Tangbands and the ribbon. The added bonus is efficiency and the dynamic character it can add while still offering low freq. extension. The trade-off is the added enclosure size as well as the usual port additions of low freq. extended group delay and phase rotation.
A more traditional approach would have been to simply suggest a Dayton RS HiFi sub driver (instead of the supravox), with a full 3-way crossover. THAT however will require a specific type of amplifier and will neither provide as much detail or as much dynamic contrast.. but it would be available in a smaller form factor with a greater level of low freq. extension.
The only real "nit" I have with my suggestion is NOT with the Supravox..
, rather its with the RAAL's price. In the past 2 years that I've recommended the driver it has gone up almost double. Even excepting transport increases and dealer markup - that increase is ***OBSCENE*** (..and it p!ss's me off more than a little). However..The price is only a 3rd more than the ring based Scan Speak driver (in the Ekta Grande), and the RAAL *is* a superlative driver. So overall I think its in keeping with pjpoe's requirements. Yes, there are alternatives, but none are better and almost all are worse. I could recommend alternatives, but I'm not sure price is a "sticking point" for him.
On the other hand he seemed to balk at the price of the Supravox.. Not its cost, but rather its value. To that, all I can add is that there are few if any alternatives to the driver; the 285 is exceedingly *unique*. If you can find a similar driver for less, let me know!
...
With regard to Hif-Fi drivers vs. pro driver operated into the upper midrange and lower treble:
Yes, pjpoe is generally correct. Most pro drivers don't have the same amount of internal damping of the diaphragm, nor substantial edge damping at the surround. Additionally most pro drivers are larger in diameter. All of the above means that generally a mid-band pro driver operated near the top of its passband will *usually* be less linear. Typically they also have less dispersion at higher freq.s. Of course always be wary of manufacturer smoothing of freq. response graphs from any source (..HiFi or Pro). Note that while a HiFi driver like the Seas is chaotic at its break-up ("bell"-mode) region, it is overall fairly smooth throughout its passband:
http://www.zaphaudio.com/6.5test/compare.html
I've owned a couple of sets of Tannoys, mainly the older Alnico Red, Gold and HPD's and think they are fine speakers. I've not heard many of the never models except the DMT 215 (excellent) and the cheaper ranges. I've not heard the big exotic JBL's because, as far as I'm aware, there aren't any down here.pjpoes said:
The Tannoys need better enclosures and xover tweaks in the older versions to come alive and quite substantial improvements can be had here.
I should also state that I don't have a fixation with soundstaging.
Some of the drivers are available, and TAD make similar flares. However, much as though I respect Greg Timbers and crew, my experience tells me to go a different path. A 15, to my ears shouldn't be used above 500Hz or so, and I typically cross to a 10" somewhere around 300Hz, and then to a horn/WG with a compression driver. This matches the dispersion through the midband and matches well to a variety of flares in the 900-1k5 region, depending upon the drivers and required results.pjpoes said:
Sorry, can't help you with pre-designed kits except maybe the Geddes. There are some reviews of his Summa's in the waveguide threads.pjpoes said:
The only design of Troel's I like is the Acapella WB with the JBL 123. My experience with some large line arrays built may years ago is that wide baffles can sound as good or better than narrow ones in terms of imaging, and baffle step can be relegated to <300Hz where the large drivers work best.
As a suggestion for a design, how about these?
TD-10M/ Neo5i monitors I'd add a 15 or two in the bottom, crossed actively. I don't like the dispersion changes between the 10 and the ribbon, but it might be to your taste.
Another superb design that has influenced me is Jack Bouska's Stoplights
+1winslow said:
It still amazes me that people go to the effort of trying to cross these drivers passively and use them fairly wideband. If they were really cheap I could possibly see some advantage to using them, but not next to some great pro drivers out there that have great FR and distortion as well as efficiency so no thermal compression.
Hi-eff is the only way I'll go now, and that means > 96dB.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.