|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| 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 |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kenfield, CA, USA
|
How would one go about best designing a crossover between a AMT and a cone driver.
In my winter dipole project I am currently thinking about using a 6.5" cone driver on a minimal baffle matched to a Beyma AMT with a low XO point of around 1300Hz. However I am wondering if I am going to have power response issues since although horizontal dispersion will approximately match up there is a difference in the vertical dispersion of a tall AMT compared to the cone. What are people's thoughts? I have been considering if a MTM design could be used to restrict vertical dispersion all the way up from the XO between the woofer and the MTM array, thus providing a smoother handoff to the AMT. |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Hi,
I havn`t posted here before, but as IŽm pretty interested in AMTs and open baffle, too, IŽll give it a try: As far as I understand, youŽll always have lobing problems once the driver distance goes past about half of wavelength at the chosen crossover point. The resulting diffraction pattern depends on the chosen crossover type. IŽm thinking of building a three-way box design or a four way OB thing with a small AMT according to the principles of the Horbach-Keele-crossover (FIR based) - not built for ultimate dynamics, but for high resolution and perfect diffractional integration. If you donŽt like digital crossovers youŽll have to make other compromises... Greetz! |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
@Zodiac
Don't let those issues keep you from trying an AMT, provided you have the funds. Yes, a "big" AMT will always have different vertical and horizontal dispersion, but, who cares (literally !) ? - those speakers sound great, no matter how. The main disadvantage of AMT is their price. Mating the TPL with a 6.5" should do pretty. There's been an analogue project in German DIY audio magazine with very good data shown - though its been a boxed speaker there. @audioandmusic Lobing problems from two chassis is not related to diffraction (as such), its a simple time of flight problem with subsequent issues in constructive and destructive interference, Whatever you do - audio is all about compromises - meaning, give it a try and have a look how much it counts for YOU, instead of considering a looooot of theories for " The Ultimate Solution" and never get started. Michael
__________________
Audio and Loudspeaker Design Guidelines |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
The TPL150 is a bit problematic in dipole operation, as my measurement below shows. Because of its size, the polar pattern is rather ugly as well. This is why I ditched the TPL and use a much smaller Mundorf AMT.
__________________
dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles and dipoles |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
@Michael Thanks for explaining, your right. Everybody is tolerant to other degradations of quality and thereŽs no better way of learning than personal experimentation. Fortunately or not, IŽm rather quite busy actively making music...
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
What do you think of the Mundorf? In comparison to a RAAL for instance. I'm thinking the Airborne AMT's look decent as well, especially for the price.
Later, Wolf
__________________
Photobucket picture pages: http://photobucket.com/Wolf-Speakers_and_more Writeups/thoughts/blogs: http://techtalk.parts-express.com/blog.php?u=4102 |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Anonymityville
|
A 2-way AMT/6.5" has been on my to-do list for some time now. I already have the drivers.
I have four 6.5" drivers and haven't decided on whether to do MTM's or bi-poles. I've already played around with the drivers using an "on the fly" digital crossover. I would close my eyes and move the crossover point around until I liked the sound; which would be right around 1.8kHz. Anything lower than 1.8kHz made the AMTs sound "shouty".
__________________
"If you don't like funerals don't kick sand in Ninja's face." - Ninja |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Mundorf make great AMT's, my favourite tweeters so far. Never tested the RAAL ribbon, and probably will not since they are not dipole.
__________________
dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles dipoles and dipoles |
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Quote:
But this dipole tweeter is not available yet AFAIK. My hope is he will make loooots of funds with it as to proceed to AMT finally - its just such a small step for a man of his profession and expertise - but he might be "mind blocked" and may need some more some time.... Michael
__________________
Audio and Loudspeaker Design Guidelines |
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Increase cone mass to rid cone resonance; worth it? | bikinpunk | Multi-Way | 6 | 30th July 2010 05:08 PM |
| Digital XO vs Op-amp XO, which would be best to use in active speakers? | MikeHunt79 | Analog Line Level | 11 | 16th November 2009 05:06 PM |
| Repair Vifa D6.8 Plastic Speaker Cone with hole in cone | excetara2 | Multi-Way | 0 | 30th August 2009 02:32 AM |
| 1st Order XO with -6dB XO frequency. Has anyone tried this? | primalsea | Multi-Way | 20 | 28th May 2004 06:10 AM |
| Planar vs. cone dipole LF | amt | Planars & Exotics | 6 | 5th March 2004 11:21 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.10608 seconds (78.77% PHP - 21.23% MySQL) with 10 queries |