Yes, it's indeed a 'problem' in such a distance.
I know this from my previous setup -- Oris 150 as mid horn + another tweeter horn. As the midhorn is 30" in diameter, and the tweeter horn is another several inches, so the c-c distance might approaching 20". The xover points I was playing were spreaded from 3k to 10kHz at those days... That's a huge separation for that frequency range.
I don't have thorough skills and equipment for precise measurements. By ears, the comb filtering does not bother me very much. I can hear the differences of standing and seated positions. And I aim for the seated one of course. That's OK.
I know I can't grab everything, so I take dynamics, tone correctness, textures as the top priorities. Imaging, 'sound field'... etc would be way down on the list.
After I dismentled the system based on Oris 150, I used 8" mid on OB + 8" HF WG for mid-high. That was a clear step-up in imaging. However I miss the dynamics so much more. That's why you read the 12" midrange story here....
When I changed the 8" mid to this 12" one, I did lose some of the imaging quality. But I can live with that and am very happy with the dynamics gain with this bigger cone. Well, that's for me.
Ideally, a bigger 'tweeter' which can play down to around 1kHz must be good. That has been one of my 'future' plans....
I know this from my previous setup -- Oris 150 as mid horn + another tweeter horn. As the midhorn is 30" in diameter, and the tweeter horn is another several inches, so the c-c distance might approaching 20". The xover points I was playing were spreaded from 3k to 10kHz at those days... That's a huge separation for that frequency range.
I don't have thorough skills and equipment for precise measurements. By ears, the comb filtering does not bother me very much. I can hear the differences of standing and seated positions. And I aim for the seated one of course. That's OK.
I know I can't grab everything, so I take dynamics, tone correctness, textures as the top priorities. Imaging, 'sound field'... etc would be way down on the list.
After I dismentled the system based on Oris 150, I used 8" mid on OB + 8" HF WG for mid-high. That was a clear step-up in imaging. However I miss the dynamics so much more. That's why you read the 12" midrange story here....
When I changed the 8" mid to this 12" one, I did lose some of the imaging quality. But I can live with that and am very happy with the dynamics gain with this bigger cone. Well, that's for me.
Ideally, a bigger 'tweeter' which can play down to around 1kHz must be good. That has been one of my 'future' plans....
sure looks like fun - there should be more guitar speakers - I have an ancient University UC122 12" , fs ~100 - might have been lower when new, has nice mids and top in a Karlson Twelve without any "helper" tweeter - like an idiot I ripped the whizzzer shortly after this picture
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Thanks for your concern, but sorry, not yet, busy on other stuff....
On the other hand, actually I'm getting used to the sound as is. Not bad at all, really And it does not need any EQ now. I brought back some "life" by tuning the xover -- pulling up a couple of dB on the tweeter -- and it's working very well.
Will update here if any progress.
On the other hand, actually I'm getting used to the sound as is. Not bad at all, really
And it does not need any EQ now. I brought back some "life" by tuning the xover -- pulling up a couple of dB on the tweeter -- and it's working very well.Will update here if any progress.
I just tried the 10" eminence ragin cajun as a mid between 400 and 1300hz. Sounds much more open and transparent than my high sensitivity low mass 12" PA driver in the same range...
Can someone shed some light as to why? The 10" has nasty looking csd's compared to the PA driver yet it sounds smoother and cleaner. I don't understand.
Can someone shed some light as to why? The 10" has nasty looking csd's compared to the PA driver yet it sounds smoother and cleaner. I don't understand.
Hi,
What is the model of the PA driver you compare with ?
Explanation... I would also like to find out. Maybe we can start out by comparing measurements of the two at first ?
.
Would it be, the cone breakup is all over the place, so the driver is acting like a bending wave device, or something like that.
Just guessing.
In my experiences on DML, at first it's almost unacceptably amazing to hear sounds so crisp and lively from those humble tiny transducers and flimsy foam board.
Instrument drivers are advertised with subjective buzzwordy but somewhat valid comments regarding their "coloration". Not specifically very hifi-ish. If you can find very neutral drivers, they could well do the job. The buy-out KEI/Kustom 12"s that P-E had did quite well for me in a PA, but they're down to only 16 ohm versions now. Then, PA drivers are more accurate and neutral anyway and don't cost that much. Again at P-E, look over the Peavey Pro 12 woofer. I've used them both, prefer the latter, done a lot of cross-species testing like this. I'd go hifi to instrument in a heart beat, rarely the other way. But PA to hifi, sure there's a lot of room to test around in there. My Kustom Turbo 12/Peavey Pro 12/ Trace Elliot 15/ Peavey 14T horn PA is one of the best hifi sets I've ever owned, and I've been told unsolicited it sounds more like hifi than live sound stuff by others. But it takes a golly-gee-whiz amount of power to run them efficiently and give them the headroom they need to sound like that.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.