Had a request for phase response comparisons with (blue, labeled EQ-Fs) and without (red, labeled EQ) Arbitrator correcting for the phase shifts around Fs.
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks. I can't type though; the above should read "comparisons without (blue, labeled EQ-Fs) and with (red, labeled EQ) Arbitrator". 😛 I should also point out I just rejiggered the EQ to remove the high and low shelves on the 8W4P by using ReaEQ. A few details on that here.
I'm pleased with the project; for a quick, easy, low cost introduction to dipoles I've gotten considerably more out of it than I'd expected. I'd originally intended to move on fairly quickly to a four way where the Neo3s and 8W4Ps would be reused but the next design keeps improving as I get more data out of this setup. Something like a Neo8 crossed to a 12PW5 is probably around optimal for a nude two way dipole but this way I can at least reuse the Neo3s in a three or four way successor.
I'm pleased with the project; for a quick, easy, low cost introduction to dipoles I've gotten considerably more out of it than I'd expected. I'd originally intended to move on fairly quickly to a four way where the Neo3s and 8W4Ps would be reused but the next design keeps improving as I get more data out of this setup. Something like a Neo8 crossed to a 12PW5 is probably around optimal for a nude two way dipole but this way I can at least reuse the Neo3s in a three or four way successor.
Neo8 won't do any good tweeter. Look at the now available Neo10 or perhaps Neo8S to build a high class 3-way together with Neo3W. 🙂
/Erling
/Erling
I'd be more worried about the low frequency extension of the Neo8, Neo8S, or Neo10 as a dipole mid. Still seems to be zero availability of the 8S but my estimate is the Neo8 wouldn't cross well below 1.1kHz or so once equalized flat in nude operation. The Neo10's probably good to around 750Hz. The 8S uses the same pleated diapharagm as the 10, so it should reach a bit lower than the 8 once it becomes available, but none of these drivers seems attractive as a nude mid in a three or four way. Also, the directivity consequences of crossing from a Neo3 to a Neo10 are probably worse than using a Neo8 as a tweeter---see Zaph's vertical polars. The same problem comes up, though to a lesser extent, when crossing from a Neo3 to a Neo8.
If you plan on using a baffle the BGs are more viable, though maintaining consistent directivity and making the baffle wide enough to reduce excursion requirements tend to work against each other. My conclusion was it's easier (but not necessarily more fun) to run a nude cone mid than to sort out the vibration and waveguide challenges of a baffle. If you're going that way I'm curious to see how the polars and distortion turn out.
If you plan on using a baffle the BGs are more viable, though maintaining consistent directivity and making the baffle wide enough to reduce excursion requirements tend to work against each other. My conclusion was it's easier (but not necessarily more fun) to run a nude cone mid than to sort out the vibration and waveguide challenges of a baffle. If you're going that way I'm curious to see how the polars and distortion turn out.
Bass should never be nude, that is effeciency waste and no gain soundwise. But you might be right about using the Neos nude as mids. However have a look at this german Neo10 construction: http://www.audax-speaker.de/index.p...ndex[downloads][order]=downloads_position ASC . You should download the PRO 20D - "HOBBY-HiFi" pdf. It is in german but diagrams I suppose are understandable. Neo 10 has a Sd of 154 cm2.
For a two-way combo I could suggest AE Dipole15 and a nude Neo-3W.
Is there a link to Zaph's vertical measurement for the Neo3 ?
/Erling
For a two-way combo I could suggest AE Dipole15 and a nude Neo-3W.
Is there a link to Zaph's vertical measurement for the Neo3 ?
/Erling
2% THD by 1kHz. Not my cup of tea, but then I'm a sand guy.
EDIT: oh yeah, http://www.zaphaudio.com/blog.html
EDIT: oh yeah, http://www.zaphaudio.com/blog.html
Last edited:
I have an idea of using four Precision Devices PD.2450 24" woofers mounted together to form a 120 by 120 cm array. It can work well I think, although a small baffle/mounting plate should be used to cover the gaps between the drivers.
Yes, StigErik, that is a good way to go. You will have a baffle like 120 x 120 cm with a first dipole peak round 260 Hz. But the point is that this baffle would be as good for one unit and still non compromising used below this frequency. 🙂
/Erling
/Erling
I have to agree with Scorpion. For the bass you should add a baffle. You will not soon make it too big so that it deteriorates off-axis behavior. The wavelengths at play are simply too large. Besides, I wonder if dipole behavior is important at all when you get into the modal range of the room.
Depends on whether or not you want to reduce the number of room modes excited. Usually the answer is yes, in which case dipole is an easy way of accomplishing that; for a typical rectilinear room aligning the dipoles with one room axis means little modal activity on the axis transverse to the dipole. That's why the in room data I posted at the end of page two and beginning of page three of this thread is so flat (in particular it's about 10dB flatter than box speakers placed at the same locations)---there's zero room correction in the equalization.
Todd, I'm still confused about your 2% remark which I cannot get any clue to, therefore my bitchy 98% remark. And perhaps we are a bit OT in this discussion. Thanks for the Zaph link, I hadn't looked into his Blog before. Also he has Neo3 vertical measure in his 'Battle of Non-Domes'. I don't think that the vertical spread woul be any issue in normal listening conditions. One should be able to marry Neo10 and Neo3 somewhere round 2-3 kHz crossover.
Neo10 having its first dipole peak around 1700 Hz nude.
However Neo10 would need about 5 dB positive EQ to get to around 90 dB at 300 Hz without any baffle, see: http://meniscusaudio.com/images/NEO10DataSheet.pdf . I wonder if you could still press it to deliver 100 dB under the circumstances. Zaph's remarks seem to indicate this, but it would be interesting if someone really tested it.
I may perhaps have been a bit instrumental in the Neo10 release talking both to BG and Meniscus. I asked for delivery in the Easter time this year when I could have had them transported to Sweden avoiding transport cost and import VAT. But release was not until later. At 177 $ they are pricy.
I play now with 18Sound 6ND430 and Neo3W without back cup in OB crossed at 200 Hz and 3 kHz to a very high satisfaction.
keyser, thank you for further clarification.
/Erling
Neo10 having its first dipole peak around 1700 Hz nude.
However Neo10 would need about 5 dB positive EQ to get to around 90 dB at 300 Hz without any baffle, see: http://meniscusaudio.com/images/NEO10DataSheet.pdf . I wonder if you could still press it to deliver 100 dB under the circumstances. Zaph's remarks seem to indicate this, but it would be interesting if someone really tested it.
I may perhaps have been a bit instrumental in the Neo10 release talking both to BG and Meniscus. I asked for delivery in the Easter time this year when I could have had them transported to Sweden avoiding transport cost and import VAT. But release was not until later. At 177 $ they are pricy.
I play now with 18Sound 6ND430 and Neo3W without back cup in OB crossed at 200 Hz and 3 kHz to a very high satisfaction.
keyser, thank you for further clarification.
/Erling
Last edited:
You are right, at least in theory. My current setup is a fullrange dipole from 35 hz up. If I were to redesign the entire system, I'd probably make it dipole from about 100 hz and up. Then it simply could be kept a lot smaller. In the transition-range in my experience a dipole still has advantages, though.
A friend has a setup with corner woofers that run as high as 250 hz. He has a pc-based crossover, which enabled him to switch instantly between dipole bass and his cornerwoofers. It was very difficult to hear the difference. The corner woofer system was however able to play a lot louder and deeper, when the music asked for it.
Skorpion, why is the crossover between mid and tweeter so high? Do you have a topic on this forum in which you describe your system?
Neo 10 project
I have a discussion going on over at HTGuide about my current project with the Neo 10s.
HTGuide Forum - Raal, Neo 10 open baffle
Greg
I have a discussion going on over at HTGuide about my current project with the Neo 10s.
HTGuide Forum - Raal, Neo 10 open baffle
Greg
It'll depend on the room and subjective listener preferences, but the directivity glitch from crossing at the Neo3's low limit of 1.8kHz or so should comparable to the rear wave dip I'm getting on the 8W4Ps. I wouldn't say that's a major issue, but I do find it to be audible and so I'd expect to be able to hear the vertical disparity on a Neo3 to Neo10 cross.
2% is my error. Looking over Hobby HiFi and Zaph's results again I think 90dB peak at 300Hz might be workable, though it's marginal. Between that, sketchy directivity at the cross, and the high price of the Neo10 I remain inclined towards cone driver solutions. But the probability of acceptable results with nude Neo10s is good enough it seems reasonable to give it a try if one's SPL requirements are modest.
The threshold of localization varies from listener to listener and mine seems to be lower frequency than most, but 100Hz sounds a bit high. Personally I'd suggest a transition to sealed box subs at 50-60Hz, LR4 or steeper, so that you're more solidly down in the omni range of perception.
Keyser, I'm away from home and only on Iphone let me comeback later.
Greg, very interesting what you do even
if I would have tried Neo10 with Alpha15s and Neo3. But your setup is very like an ideeal.
Todd, yes let's see how Greg succeds.
/Erling
Greg, very interesting what you do even
if I would have tried Neo10 with Alpha15s and Neo3. But your setup is very like an ideeal.
Todd, yes let's see how Greg succeds.
/Erling
keyser, the 3 kHz crossover is playing a bit on the safe conservative side. I have tried to listen to differences and I am at loss finding great differences between a 2 kHz or a 3 kHz crossover between the 6ND430 and the Neo3. And with the 6ND430 unit giving the presentation it really does I have been going with the convention 300 - 3000 Hz from the same unit.
But, and this is my firm belief, all measurement (except perhaps Zaph's), including some of my own, indicate a rising distortion from 2 kHz downwards at 90 dB SPL for the Neo3. There is a kind of break at precisly around 2 kHz so I would not go below this frequency for my crossover.
Independent measurements can be found in both Hobby HiFi and Klang + Ton, the German DIY magazines.
I'll experiment with 6ND430 and Neo3W nude and try crossing down to 2 kHz to see how it works. More on this later.
/Erling
But, and this is my firm belief, all measurement (except perhaps Zaph's), including some of my own, indicate a rising distortion from 2 kHz downwards at 90 dB SPL for the Neo3. There is a kind of break at precisly around 2 kHz so I would not go below this frequency for my crossover.
Independent measurements can be found in both Hobby HiFi and Klang + Ton, the German DIY magazines.
I'll experiment with 6ND430 and Neo3W nude and try crossing down to 2 kHz to see how it works. More on this later.
/Erling
- Status
- Not open for further replies.