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 9th February 2010, 01:28 PM   #1
keyser is offline keyser  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
keyser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Default Unbaffled Dipole

I'd like to showcase my latest loudspeaker design, a dipole loudspeaker that has practically no baffle at mid and high frequencies. Drivers are two Visaton W300S woofers in a small U-frame, a Visaton AL170 for the midrange and a Bohlender&Graebener Neo3W for treble. Crossing and EQ are done with digital equipment from Behringer - the Ultra-Curve equalizer and the DCX crossover.
The crossover between bass and mid is between 300 and 350 hz. The mid to high crossover is around 1.7 khz. I've tried a lower crossoverpoint between bass en mid, but I ran out of thermal dynamic range on the AL170; not so strange, considering the approximately 11 dB of boost needed at 200 hz. A lower crossoverpoint between mid and tweeter is not practical, as the natural rolloff of the Neo3W without baffle is very steep below 1700hz.

The speaker was finished only yesterday and the crossoverdesign is at this point based on measurements done inroom. This means anechoic to not much lower than 500 hz. Below 500 hz the response is optimized for steady-state response at the main listening position. When it gets a little warmer outside (It's freezing cold now), I'll do some anechoic measurements in the garden.

My previous dipole speaker was a passive design with a large baffle, used to not let efficiency become all to low. In direct comparison to the Linkwitz Orion it became clear there was room for improvement. My dipole had constant directivity up to approx. 800 hz, whereas the Orion has constant directivity up to almost 2 khz. The Orion delivered a much more credible and specious soundstage and the sound was less tiring. (side-note: Although the Orion was one of the best speakers I had heard at that time, in my opinion the Pluto - at mid and high frequencies - sounded even better than the Orion)

The reason to use no baffle for the midrange and treble is to keep dipole-radiation to as high a frequency as possible. By maintaining dipole radiation, dispersion remains well-controlled. Simulations in Tolvan Edge showed that using a very small baffle would be the optimum with respect to directivity-control. The midwoofer has its first dipole-bump (where sound radiated at the front and the rear add up in phase) at 1.5 khz. Below this frequency the response starts to roll off with 6 dB/oct. This means this speaker is very inefficient. That is the price to pay for a pure dipole radiation-pattern. The peak is very symmetrical and can thus be easily equalized.

Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.

Initially I wanted to use the B&G Neo3PDR, which has wider dispersion at higher frequencies than the Neo3W. However, this wide dispersion leads to much more severe diffraction effects in the high treble. The beaming of the Neo3W helps to keep dispersion well-controlled. The dipole-bump is centered around 3.5 khz. Below 1.7 khz it rolls of very steeply, due to both the dipole loss and the drivers' own frequency response. All in all it needs a lot less boost than the midrange.

There is not very much to say about the low end. The speaker uses two 12" woofers in a U-frame with a small depth. The quarter-wave resonance -centered around 400 hz - is not very pronounced and is easily equalized. I don't think it is audible. The response is pulled flat to 35 hz. Below this frequency a high-pass keeps the drivers from over-excursion.

Click the image to open in full size.

Well, how does it sound? Very good (a lot better than the prototype looks, anyway)! I'm not too good at describing sound. I think the measurements speak for themselves. I've not yet compared these directly to the Orion, but I think these dipoles sound even better! At least the measurements look quite a lot better than those of the Orion. As an experiment - to keep the sound-power-average as smooth as possible - the on-axis response above 10 khz is lifted. This is not really audible to me. Note that the green curve is the averaged response.

Click the image to open in full size.
Response from on-axis to 90 degrees off-axis + average curve.

The on-axis dip around 6.5 khz is there to compensate for diffraction-effects that are visible off-axis. I'll probably experiment a bit with dampening material at the edges of the tweeter to reduce diffraction.
With more time on tweaking the crossover between mid and tweeter I think I should be able to reduce the dip at 1.5 khz.
__________________
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" - Friedrich Nietzsche
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2010, 02:11 PM   #2
keyser is offline keyser  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
keyser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Oops.. Those images are a bit too large. Would any of you mods please make them a bit smaller?
__________________
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" - Friedrich Nietzsche
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2010, 04:12 PM   #3
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Funny,
just in the coldest part of winter some guys can't refrain from stripping their dipoles to bare nakedness.
Saurav's design
StigErik & Valentino

While I don't want to distract you from relishing those lovely curvatures and slim waists - just a question:
How do you think about setting the Neo back to the acoustic center of the AL 150 to achieve a better forward-backward symmetry? At 1.7 kHz even 5 cm fore or back can make a measurable (if not audible) difference.
Generally I like what I see in the measurement graphs. The pictures - well, it looks more like Picasso than Rubens. But who am I to complain?

Rudolf
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2010, 06:43 PM   #4
keyser is offline keyser  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
keyser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolf View Post
How do you think about setting the Neo back to the acoustic center of the AL 150 to achieve a better forward-backward symmetry? At 1.7 kHz even 5 cm fore or back can make a measurable (if not audible) difference.
Hi Rudolf,

I'll have a look at those other projects. Good to see more people moving towards a similar concept! I think it is the next logical step in de evolution of dipole loudspeakers.

The mounting of the tweeter was done this way mainly for mounting convenience. You have point, though. I think I'll experiment with it. However, I fear it will lead to both diffraction (from tweeter against the mid's basket), as well as even more awkward looks! The diffraction might be reduced by increasing the distance between tweeter and mid, but this will degrade vertical dispersion. What do you think would be the best compromise?
Do you have other suggestions or remarks?

Martijn
__________________
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" - Friedrich Nietzsche
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2010, 07:09 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
StigErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Congatulations! Very nice project, I bet it sounds very good.

Interesting that you see diffraction problems with the tweeter. I had huge problems with the big Beyma TPL-150 I used, but the smaller Mundorf AMT2340 was almost perfect in this respect.

Do you mind publishing your XO and EQ settings ?
__________________
dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles and dipoles
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2010, 10:40 PM   #6
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by keyser View Post
What do you think would be the best compromise?
Do you have other suggestions or remarks?
Hi Martijn,
probably there is no easy answer to where the best compromise would be. Movement of the Neo3 along the z-axis will only affect the crossover region. Maybe it can help in reducing the beaming tendency around 1.5 kHz.
I just get curious when people mount drivers at 'obvious' positions which don't automatically need to be 'best' positions.

Keeping in mind that your unbaffled dipole already has passed the Orion as your personal reference, my proposal surely could only be good for a very small improvement - if at all.
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2010, 10:42 PM   #7
keyser is offline keyser  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
keyser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by StigErik View Post
Congatulations! Very nice project, I bet it sounds very good.

Interesting that you see diffraction problems with the tweeter. I had huge problems with the big Beyma TPL-150 I used, but the smaller Mundorf AMT2340 was almost perfect in this respect.

Do you mind publishing your XO and EQ settings ?
Thanks!

The diffraction I measure didn't show up in the simulations. I'm not sure as to what exacly causes it.
I've been working my way through your topic btw. It's a great resource! However, I haven't seen many measurement plots (which I like so very much ). I may have missed it, but I'd like to see measurements of the Mundorf.

I sure don't mind publishing the settings. Yet I think I'd better wait until I've further optimized things. Furthermore, is there an easy way of publishing the settings? I mean, I don't have to make a list of every single correction, do I?
__________________
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" - Friedrich Nietzsche
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2010, 10:50 PM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Melbourne
Martijn,

did you really need the DEQ as well as DCX ? I would have thought that DCX would alone be able to cater for dipole equalization required as well as crossover duties. Maybe I'm overestimating the DCX ? In which case another toy to buy .. hmmm.

Bratislav
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2010, 09:28 AM   #9
keyser is offline keyser  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
keyser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Netherlands
It's just that I have both devices and with the Ultra-Curve it is a little easier to do EQ. This way I don't continuously have to make my way through the menu of the DCX to switch between crossover settings and EQ .

Something else: I think I shouldn't have insisted on doing the crossover between mid and tweeter as low as possible. The AL170 actually has excellent polar response up to 2 khz, with only about -10dB at 2 khz vs. the -6dB theoretical ideal. The Neo3W falls off rapidly below 2 khz. It's difficult to get them properly phase-aligned through the crossover region. Crossing around 2 khz is probably a better idea. That'll have to wait till Friday, though.
__________________
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" - Friedrich Nietzsche
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2010, 10:42 AM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
StigErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
I recommend using the PC remote software for the DCX, far easier to work with, and you can do screenshots to show us EQ graphs...

Also - I think its better to EQ each driver individually than to use global EQ after XO. You can't do that if you do EQ with the DEQ and XO with the DCX.

Your're right - I should present measurements of my own dipoles. Will look into that. Problem is that its more fun to listen to music than do measurements all the time...
__________________
dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles and dipoles
  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
Dipole Ribbon tweeter isolation from dipole mid-woofer array Bent Planars & Exotics 5 21st May 2009 12:10 PM
What about a dipole? 95Honda Subwoofers 4 12th April 2008 02:43 PM
(WW) MMTMM dipole 4 vs 3 way / dipole benefit frequencies? charliemouse Multi-Way 25 7th July 2007 11:19 PM
To dipole or not to dipole? Glowbug Multi-Way 3 17th August 2006 08:10 PM
When is a dipole not a dipole anymore? Bas Horneman Multi-Way 5 5th December 2003 03:02 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:41 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