My open baffle dipole with Beyma TPL-150 - Page 13 - 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 12th June 2009, 10:08 PM   #121
diyAudio Member
 
StigErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
I have worked somewhat with EQ og XO, some adjustments were necessary...

The midrange falls off quite a lot below 300 Hz, so I had to move the XO point to the woofer up to 250 Hz. The 21" does not have obvious problems with that. Also, I found that the tweeter could be crossed over at 1200 Hz.

Bass extends to 25 Hz with my current EQ... which is very good for a dipole speaker of this size.

Graphs will come, I promise!
__________________
dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles and dipoles
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th June 2009, 05:44 AM   #122
Telstar is offline Telstar  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy
Quote:
Originally posted by StigErik

Graphs will come, I promise!
I'm particularly interested in your midrange graph, because i think that the reflections on the woofer u-frame top will have some impact.
__________________
"The total harmonic distortion is not a measure of the degree of distastefulness to the listener and it is recommended that its use should be discontinued." D. Masa, 1938
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2009, 09:25 AM   #123
diyAudio Member
 
StigErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
In order to see whether the U-frame creates any problems for the midrange, we would have to measure it with and without the frame... which I cant do.

The midrange is very far from flat, I will present a graph later. The main problems are very steep roll-off below 300 Hz, and an 11 dB peak around 520 Hz.

The main problem with the tweeter is a peak at 9 kHz, which is caused by removing the rear damper pad (there is a felt pad glued to the rear side of the driver). Apart from that, it behaves well in the open baffle.

The woofer behaves well! No significant resonance peak either.

After some listening tests, I found that 1500 Hz XO is better than 1200 Hz. It just sound better, and it was also easier to make the mid and tweeter sum flat at the XO point.
__________________
dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles and dipoles
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2009, 10:20 AM   #124
Telstar is offline Telstar  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy
Are you going to equalize actively or passively?

the midrange resonace can be simulated (very roughy) in edge! putting the driver close to the floor, that is considering the U top as the floor.

if the resoannce frequency matches, that's the case. if not, it's more complicated.
__________________
"The total harmonic distortion is not a measure of the degree of distastefulness to the listener and it is recommended that its use should be discontinued." D. Masa, 1938
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2009, 02:22 PM   #125
diyAudio Member
 
StigErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
We had the same resonance on our first tryout, which was just a square board with no wings. We had a wider baffle, and the resonance was lower in frequency. I think this is just the main dipole resonance, caused by the rear wave combining with the front wave. 11 dB peak is more than expected, but I think we have a combination of the peak and the fact that the driver's response falls off above 1.2 kHz, and below 300 Hz.

All EQ and XO is active, running digitally in my computer. To (try to) do this passively is - in my opinion - not a brilliant idea.
__________________
dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles and dipoles
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2009, 03:15 PM   #126
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally posted by StigErik
We had the same resonance on our first tryout, which was just a square board with no wings. We had a wider baffle, and the resonance was lower in frequency. I think this is just the main dipole resonance, caused by the rear wave combining with the front wave.
Since this definitely is NO resonance, we should not call it a resonance either. For the midrange this goes without saying. For the U frame things are a little bit more complicated. There should be a quarter-wavelength resonance of the frame depth. But it is overlaid by the peaks and dips of the dipole comb(in)ing at almost the same frequencies. IMHO it can be very misleading to call any peaks and dips in the dipole response "resonance".
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2009, 03:26 PM   #127
Telstar is offline Telstar  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy
Quote:
Originally posted by StigErik

All EQ and XO is active, running digitally in my computer. To (try to) do this passively is - in my opinion - not a brilliant idea.
Cool. I plan to do the same. Which software and soundcard combo are you using for the task?
__________________
"The total harmonic distortion is not a measure of the degree of distastefulness to the listener and it is recommended that its use should be discontinued." D. Masa, 1938
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2009, 09:20 PM   #128
diyAudio Member
 
StigErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
OK, we'll call it frequency response peak then....


My XO setup is quite simple on the software side - Console for running the XO and EQ plugins, Waves LinEQ for XO and Waves Paragraphic for EQ. I also use Voxengo SampleDelay for time alignment.

The hardware side is a bit more complicated. I use a laptop computer, because its small and low-noise. There are not many good alternatives for multichannel soundcards with laptops, at least if you want to avoid USB. I have an RME Fireface 800, which is a fabulous box. From there I go through an RME ADI-4 DD format converter to get AES3 interface (the Fireface has only ADAT). And then we end up in the DAC, which is a 8-channel DAD (Digital Audio Denmark) AX-24.
__________________
dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles and dipoles
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2009, 08:06 AM   #129
diyAudio Member
 
StigErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Updates:
The baffle we build works great for the woofer and tweeter. The mid however, does not have a very good on-axis frequency response and the extension below 300 Hz could be better. We did have better measured performance on our previous prototype. The main difference was that we had "wings" for the midrange as well.

An other thing is that the baffle still vibrates too much, and its the lower midrange thats the problem now. We are going to try this:

1. Add "wings" around the midrange, this will stiffen the baffle.
2. Add damping - heavy bitumen (asphalt) damping sheets.
3. If this is not enough - mount the driver without contact with the baffle, like Linkwitz did in Orion+.

Regarding point 3.... Linkwitz mounted the midrange driver on a bracket attached to the magnet, with the driver not having direct contact with the baffle. This will still transfer vibrations through the bracket, although not directly to the baffle.

We would like to go a bit further. We are thinking of using foam seal around the driver, just like Orion+. The "new" idea is to suspend the drivers rear side with rubber bands or maybe steel springs to avoid any vibration transfer. Anyone tried something like this before?
__________________
dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles and dipoles
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2009, 01:01 PM   #130
tinitus is offline tinitus  Europe
diyAudio Moderator R.I.P.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally posted by StigErik
Updates:

The mid however, does not have a very good on-axis frequency response and the extension below 300 Hz could be better.


hI

Thats why I have concerns whether to buy 6" PHL or 8" PHL
Or maybe loose the midrange top and go for 10" PHL
Most of those PRO mids roll of in the midbass

Woofer will probably be Faital 18FH500
__________________
sometimes we know very little, and sometimes we know too much
  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
open baffle bass-dipole-what amp felixx Multi-Way 20 13th December 2006 06:53 AM
Open baffle/ dipole design help Infinity buff Multi-Way 3 12th April 2006 02:19 AM
New Open Baffle Dipole Pics PaulHilgeman Multi-Way 25 27th April 2004 03:43 PM
Beyma (or other modest priced) drivers for a open baffle project. swak Multi-Way 2 22nd November 2003 07:59 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:00 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