OB MTM w/ Dipole Waveguide - 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 9th February 2010, 09:48 PM   #1
thadman is offline thadman  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: west lafayette
Default OB MTM w/ Dipole Waveguide

With the recent popularity of open baffles and waveguides, I have been surprised to see little mention of combining the technologies.

If a waveguide was able to match the figure-eight response of the dipole, perhaps some interesting results could arise.

There are several candidates currently available which might be suitable for a dipole waveguide, specifically the B&G Neo3, ESS AMT, Beyma TPL150 AMT, among others.

An MTM might be able to provide the gradual transition necessary to match the horizontal directivity of the aforementioned tweeters.

Topics for discussion:

Crossover

Waveguide expansion (Le'Cleach, Min Phase, OS, etc)

Best Regards,
Thadman
__________________
"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2010, 10:20 PM   #2
D OB G is offline D OB G  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Thadman,

What would you think about forward and rearward facing waveguides with compression drivers, which would achieve a dipole pattern? A decision would need to be made as to whether to compromise the vertical coincidence by offsetting the magnets- diaphragms in the same plane, or a different sort of disruption to an ideal dipole pattern by having the magnets as close together as possible in the horizontal plane, front to back.

I do this with the magnets offset, and I roll off the response of the rear waveguide, about 3 dB per octave from about 4 kHz, where I believe the dipole pattern can't be maintained properly anyway at the wavelengths involved. (It sounds better this way!).

David
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2010, 02:54 AM   #3
thadman is offline thadman  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: west lafayette
Quote:
Originally Posted by D OB G View Post
Thadman,

What would you think about forward and rearward facing waveguides with compression drivers, which would achieve a dipole pattern? A decision would need to be made as to whether to compromise the vertical coincidence by offsetting the magnets- diaphragms in the same plane, or a different sort of disruption to an ideal dipole pattern by having the magnets as close together as possible in the horizontal plane, front to back.

I do this with the magnets offset, and I roll off the response of the rear waveguide, about 3 dB per octave from about 4 kHz, where I believe the dipole pattern can't be maintained properly anyway at the wavelengths involved. (It sounds better this way!).

David
Interesting

Assuming your dipole waveguide transitioned to an open baffle alignment, how close were you able to match the response throughout the crossover? Were you able to achieve a similar figure-eight response or did it simply balance the reverberant field?
__________________
"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2010, 03:45 AM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
LineSource's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SiliconValley
Minimal size dipole baffles could have some advantages over waveguides for the mid-tweet. A dipole ribbon might add a minimal frame for diffraction reduction and limited directionality control. RAAL is recommending alternative bezel solutions for diffraction control.

If you have a digital crossover, it may be simplier to experiment with a minimal baffle mid-tweet before constructing larger waveguides that will better control but also greater limit dispersion angles. Dipole ribbons, planars, and Heil tweeters are getting a second look.

Goals? constant power at 45? 90? 120? 180? degrees?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20des2009-1.jpg (122.9 KB, 515 views)
File Type: jpg Piston.jpg (83.0 KB, 495 views)
File Type: jpg Pictureraal.jpg (38.6 KB, 494 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2010, 07:34 AM   #5
keyser is offline keyser  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
keyser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Netherlands
I've been thinking along the same lines. As is said above, planar tweeters can get you almost there, potentially extending dipole behavior to about 6 khz. By adding a small wave-guided tweeter for frequencies above approximately 5 khz, or replacing the planar tweeter altogether, you might be able to extend the radiation-pattern even further.

However, physical alignment will be difficult and you'll probably get notable diffraction from the midrange driver against the wave-guide. Also, the center-to-center distance between mid and tweeter might become large, jeopardizing integration in the vertical plane.

If you can overcome these problems the idea could be very promising!
__________________
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" - Friedrich Nietzsche
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2010, 10:58 AM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: -
My implementation about the same theme is a bit different. It is Waveguide resistance box combination. Dipole does not work very close to the wall behind speaker but resistance loading (see the black areas on main unit sides) makes it to radiate only forward.
The picture below is not from the latest setup. Today the bass unit is different.
The main unit consist of 12 Hivi B3N and Infinity Emit II "ribbon". It is actually not pure line source because the acustical lenght of the line depends on the frequency so that on upper x-over range only two 3BN below tweeter are active and more and more comes in when frequency goes down.
radiation pattern to sides doesn not change with frequency. Sound in way just fades out.

Proto
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2010, 11:15 AM   #7
keyser is offline keyser  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
keyser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Hi Electron, the picture is not visible if you don't have an account on that forum.
__________________
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" - Friedrich Nietzsche
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2010, 12:47 PM   #8
D OB G is offline D OB G  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Yes thadman, I'm really only balancing the reverberant field. I'm attempting to achieve the most even power response I can get.

I can't move the current speakers into the centre of the room to measure the rear polar response, but I can get an idea from previous iterations.

The rear radiation of the mid on the open baffle only produces a decent dipole up to about 500 Hz. By the 900 Hz of the crossover the back of the mid is getting a bit lumpy, even on axis (magnet?, although Linkwitz has an alternative view).

The dipole pattern actually improves again for a while where the tweeters do duty with the waveguides.

But in any case, mapping the rear radiation to the front, to determine the dipole pattern, is, IMHO, thwarted at higher frequencies by the room effects. I don't have a symmetrical room, nor are the speakers placed symmetrically in it. The furnishings behind and in front are different from side to side. This is not a dedicated HT room!!

And quite apart from the different absorptions at different frequencies at the rear of the speakers, and different reflected path lengths, I'm introducing a further complication by using a DEQX digital crossover, which time aligns at the FRONT, but makes things worse at the rear.

With diffraction issues, the waveguide is elliptical (18sound XT1086) and flush mounted hard up to the mid in the middle of the baffle. So I don't believe there are any more issues than the normal open baffle diffraction, TO THE FRONT.

Obviously I'm optimising for the front, pre-reflection response.

In summary I think a proper listening room might be necessary to obtain the true dipole benefits at higher frequencies (although constant directivity might only be realizable with waveguides i.e other methods may beam, as you imply), but the power response benefits apply in any case.

David
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2010, 02:08 PM   #9
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by keyser View Post
However, physical alignment will be difficult and you'll probably get notable diffraction from the midrange driver against the wave-guide. Also, the center-to-center distance between mid and tweeter might become large, jeopardizing integration in the vertical plane.
Those above are only a few questions indeed

If we look at a dome tweeter like the DT-300 with WG it will measure like this:

Click the image to open in full size.

This WG of 16 cm diameter will become truly CD only above 3 kHz. The gain of the WG (red line in second diagram) is barely utilized in that region.

If we mount two of these waveguides back to back on a baffle in the most narrow manner possible, we would need a baffle of 25 cm height, 16 cm width and 8 cm depth. This is already assuming the smallest imaginable magnet size of a neodymium tweeter instead of the big DT-300.
Simulating two such DT-300 in the appropriate positions on a baffle of above dimensions will result in this horizontal response:

Click the image to open in full size.

The simulation program does not account for the WGs off-axis-rolloff, so you have to imagine the 30 and 60 line somewhat lower in SPL. But it becomes obvious how the sheer size of the WGs will destroy any CD at 2-5 kHz.

Quote:
If you can overcome these problems the idea could be very promising!
I believe that for any given frequency a waveguide with true constant directivity must be too large in size to allow for an appropriate dipole length (distance of the two dipole sources) at that frequency. CD waveguides that work in a truely dipole fashion are physically impossible IMHO.

Rudolf
Attached Images
File Type: gif Monacor DT300_WG1.gif (64.6 KB, 468 views)
File Type: gif Monacor DT300_WG2.gif (8.3 KB, 465 views)
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2010, 02:44 PM   #10
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Why is nobody evaluating the dipole proposal Earl made? He mentioned putting the driver in a donut shaped form several times.
  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
PR170M0 OB dipole x-over points. AudioGeek Multi-Way 25 2nd January 2009 04:26 AM
Why so few commercial OB / dipole speakers? keyser Multi-Way 6 21st June 2007 12:23 AM
Measurements from MTM with tweeter waveguide Few Multi-Way 2 12th January 2007 08:04 PM
Strange OB dipole behaviour ... paulspencer Multi-Way 24 17th June 2006 02:42 PM
Mtm Dipole Question trusound Multi-Way 5 27th January 2006 11:51 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:27 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