Thanks. My polar measurement is pretty bad due to the aftermentioned problem. I need to build a larger turntable to rotate the speakers right at their acoustic axis.
I'm Indonesian and the language Bahasa (which is similar to Malay) use the same word for gender, plural, and past/present times. Only with added words. I should not complain about English though as I heard French and German are much more difficult in expressing them.
.
Well done!
Maybe the dipole has smaller 'tail' after the impulse?
A well-designed sealed box usually has a tight and clean bass sound, might be somewhat muted when overdamped. It's a (pleasingly) surprise that a severely EQ'ed box has a good lower bass.
And, well, it can never be apple to apple in this comparison, but once you have bigger cone area for the dipole, it can also excel in low bass, at least for hearing. (good low 30's give a sense of 'very deep', under that, it becomes vibrations but not sound.... )
Also, on dipole, I found multiple subs benefit, too. I'm using 3 channels now. It's obvious better than 2.
Talking about the senses of dynamic and impact (or slam... etc) of bass sound, the most powerful one I've heard is horn bass - front loaded with sealed back chamber and full size mouth (not those commercial ones with severe truncation). Just overwhelming.
Interestingly, dipole bass (in its best condition) can deliver that kind of 'feel' - huge contrast, very fast rise and fall... Not the same level of sheer power, but the 'feel' can be very close
Thanks. My dipole sub is actually equalised for -3 at 20hz. In fact I rather sacrifice maximum SPL rather than cutting the bass. Although not entirely audible they are important for the foundation of music (I think).
Indeed I've seen pictures of GOTO horns and if people are willing to do that, there must be a damn good reason
Multiple dipole sub hey... now that's something new for me. Although have been reading the multiple sub approach, I could never do this in my room, to have stuff scattered around (and for Geddes approach, one needs to be at ear level I read??).
Thanks. Indeed I had expected the 12" Beta to be more dynamic than Seas 8". So it must be something else which contributed to the perception. My guess is that the topology contributes more than individual drivers. I don't understand this subject (and how to measure "dynamics" anyway?). I heard the unity horn before and these Econowaves have the same exact presentation when it comes to dynamic. The unities were more smoother, from memory. But that's different drivers, amps, xo, etc.
With regards to Omni vs. CD vs. Dipole, and cosidering limitations I put on the implementation (cost, driver quality, etc). I must say there is no clear winner. The Omni sounds very natural but lacking SPL severely and not sounding as transparent (that pipe resonance). And CD vs Dipole as discussed in my initial post.
Had the CD "Blown the dipoles" as in many rave reviews out there I would be really pleased. But they are not a panacea. Nor are dipoles and omnis.
Being a fan of sportsbikes, the CD must be something of a Ducati: Fast, loud, and exciting. But try to ride them for long journey and your back will scream in protest. The dipoles would be those japanese bikes: smooth and forgiving. I ride a Kawasaki Ninja, and my preference is ......... Dipoles
But that vocal range needs to be fixed. Still.
Your guess is as good as mine on the perception of dynamics. I'd love to see a thread investigating that. I know Dr. Geddes and John K. have hashed out that one a bit(over my head at the time), but no real conclusions were drawn if I remember correctly. I believe it was essentially a heat build up in the motor discussion. I do think dipoles actually have a perceived dynamic advantage in general probably d/t simply not wasting half the energy of the driver. Of course horns have a big advantage as well as do pro drivers--pretty much build exactly for it.
That stinks about the pipe resonance. I really figured SL would have a novel way of vanquishing it. I really haven't studied up on his stuff enough.
Thanks again,
Dan
That stinks about the pipe resonance. I really figured SL would have a novel way of vanquishing it. I really haven't studied up on his stuff enough.
Thanks again,
Dan
Nice thread!
Be careful though, not to draw too hard conclusions based on these listening sessions. You are still comparing specific loudspeakers in a specific setting. Therefore you can not simply generalize your findings. A reworking of either speaker may change the outcome of the comparison.
A side-note on dynamics: subjective dynamics and technical dynamic ability probably aren't the same thing. Listen to a small conventional 2-way system of medium quality in the free-field (in you garden for instance) and you will probably be able to turn it up a lot higher before you notice dynamic congestion. You might even blow some drivers before you realize it. I think subjective dynamic compression has more to do with a non-uniform power-response and a high amount of reflected sound.
Be careful though, not to draw too hard conclusions based on these listening sessions. You are still comparing specific loudspeakers in a specific setting. Therefore you can not simply generalize your findings. A reworking of either speaker may change the outcome of the comparison.
A side-note on dynamics: subjective dynamics and technical dynamic ability probably aren't the same thing. Listen to a small conventional 2-way system of medium quality in the free-field (in you garden for instance) and you will probably be able to turn it up a lot higher before you notice dynamic congestion. You might even blow some drivers before you realize it. I think subjective dynamic compression has more to do with a non-uniform power-response and a high amount of reflected sound.
Hi gainphile ,
Nice that your comparing two way CD with dipole. I am struggling with the idea trying to build a dipole. Now i am not motivated to try a OB as the advantages aren't that obvious.
I am using horn loaded drivers as long I build speakers my self (24years now). What I hear and read of many other users of horn loaded drivers that voices are very realistic. Also I hear a very good placeable sound stage, and also a CD advantage more depth in the soundstage. Some listeners to my system also say voices are very clear and near to the listener and at the same time very spatial sound. The sound stage of my set now begins at the speakers some times it sounds a bit in front of the speaker overall to say it simple it is around the speaker placement and not what I hear common a bit behind the speaker placement.
Before you go further with listening impressions you have to improve the baffle. It is very important to make a angle at the top and sides of the baffle. 45degrees or so the angle doesn't matter as long it isn't flat like you have now.
It is common no-ledge that it works but often forgotten to do so. Or people think it is done to look nice. But it is a important improvement to control reflections on the baffle and linear distortion caused by these reflections.
Nice that your comparing two way CD with dipole. I am struggling with the idea trying to build a dipole. Now i am not motivated to try a OB as the advantages aren't that obvious.
I am using horn loaded drivers as long I build speakers my self (24years now). What I hear and read of many other users of horn loaded drivers that voices are very realistic. Also I hear a very good placeable sound stage, and also a CD advantage more depth in the soundstage. Some listeners to my system also say voices are very clear and near to the listener and at the same time very spatial sound. The sound stage of my set now begins at the speakers some times it sounds a bit in front of the speaker overall to say it simple it is around the speaker placement and not what I hear common a bit behind the speaker placement.
Before you go further with listening impressions you have to improve the baffle. It is very important to make a angle at the top and sides of the baffle. 45degrees or so the angle doesn't matter as long it isn't flat like you have now.
It is common no-ledge that it works but often forgotten to do so. Or people think it is done to look nice. But it is a important improvement to control reflections on the baffle and linear distortion caused by these reflections.
Last edited:
Helmuth
What about if the waveguide/ horn is simply sitting on top of the box, in the "free field", with no baffle?
like this
http://homepage.mac.com/marc.heijligers/audio/files/altec.html
What about if the waveguide/ horn is simply sitting on top of the box, in the "free field", with no baffle?
like this
http://homepage.mac.com/marc.heijligers/audio/files/altec.html
Last edited:
That will also be better it is common no-ledge that the edges of a horn are important to sound good. I made a super tweeter horn and made a nice housing with flat front the bright sound was gone a angled baffle solved the problem.
It was easy to test I was standing with the horn in my hand playing music and I pulled it in and out the flat baffle I was stunned by the difference and the improvement by a little angle.
You know I love your compendiums - but is it really only me who has constantly difficulties with displaying your pages?
Look here:
maybe you may once consult an experienced web designer to ensure compatibility with different browsers ?
Michael
You know I love your compendiums - but is it really only me who has constantly difficulties with displaying your pages?
Look here:
maybe you may once consult an experienced web designer to ensure compatibility with different browsers ?
Michael
Hi Micheal,
What browser are you using? You seem to be having trouble displaying the correct font. I've tested on 4 different PCs using Explorer and Fire Fox without problems. Try it now. I changed some fonts around.
Anyone else having any problems with this or any pages on my site?
I would think that if this was a common problem I would be getting emails about it.
Yes with google chrome. The result is ugly.
There are some web browsers more IE and Firefox. See Here :
Informations relatives aux navigateurs Web
Not very easy to be compatible with all.
The problem is the Microsoft trust with IE and The European commission imposes to Microsoft others browsers.
There are some web browsers more IE and Firefox. See Here :
Informations relatives aux navigateurs Web
Not very easy to be compatible with all.
The problem is the Microsoft trust with IE and The European commission imposes to Microsoft others browsers.
Just downloaded Google Chrome and it look good to me. Looks more like something specific to your PCs than the browser. I can't fix it if it isn't a problem. Sorry.
From what I see in Micheals picture it looks liek a problem with font size/type.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
John,
I mostly use Opera, pretty common actually, but with slightly different behaviour under Linux / Ubuntu
When I do web pages I always check if they are fully compatible.
The W3C page is easy to use and points you directly to compatibility issues :
Both Opera and Firefox have no (less) problems with the compatibility issues in your pages at a standard XP but that does not hold in Linux (Firefox being more forgiving than Opera)
Your font changes did not have any influence.
Michael
Last edited:
Thanks. Very good point there, indeed the observation is very limited to my room and bias (need).
That is my finding, and also apparently the finding of that canadian group when comparing Orions to Behringer.
For my personal preference, however, the presentation was make or break. The dipoles are simply natural and untiring to listen to (with their 'quirks').
Had I not owned and accustomed to dipole presentation, I would happily have these CD speakers as a reference.
Thanks for your tips. I may do the necessary box modification, round-over etc. It's in an early stage and my 'conclusion' is not final (what is?
)I never lived with horns long enough, but had brief listening to the acapella. They are impressive at first but quickly I notice the disintegration with the monopole woofer etc. so it seems they have their 'problems' too. I simply don't have the skills nor funds to build them.
John,
I mostly use Opera, pretty common actually, but with slightly different behaviour under Linux / Ubuntu
When I do web pages I always check if they are fully compatible.
The W3C page is easy to use and points you directly to compatibility issues :
Both Opera and Firefox have no (less) problems with the compatibility issues in your pages at a standard XP but that does not hold in Linux (Firefox being more forgiving than Opera)
Your font changes did not have any influence.
Michael
Downloaded Opera 11 and tired it. No problems. Sorry, I am not going to worry about Linux OS. Even on my W7 machine which doesn't have all the fonts I used on some pages the display is correct but unsupported fonts default to New Times Roman.
I don't know how much I consider Markup Validation Service results. Seems just about every web page I go to have lots of errors and warnings, this http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/ has 25 errors and 2 warnings itself.
Last edited:
Sorry John it's under Linux
I use the two systems on several computers and i unfortunately made my test under Linux Ubuntu 9.04. Under Win XP it is OK Sorry Gainphile for the out of subject
That is my finding, and also apparently the finding of that canadian group when comparing Orions to Behringer.
For my personal preference, however, the presentation was make or break. The dipoles are simply natural and untiring to listen to (with their 'quirks').
Had I not owned and accustomed to dipole presentation, I would happily have these CD speakers as a reference.
Thanks for your tips. I may do the necessary box modification, round-over etc. It's in an early stage and my 'conclusion' is not final (what is?
I never lived with horns long enough, but had brief listening to the acapella. They are impressive at first but quickly I notice the disintegration with the monopole woofer etc. so it seems they have their 'problems' too. I simply don't have the skills nor funds to build them.
On topic, I am not at all surprised by your results. They are pretty much consistent with comparisons even with ordinary direct radiator speakers and OB systems. It more about direct and reflected sound than it is about narrow beam CD (wave guides) vs wide beam CD (dipoles) with rear radiation. Also, I don't see a lot of comparison when listening distance is considered. Move closer to a dipole system with the speakers positioned a little closer together and the direct sound comes more into play.There are a lot of variable to consider because it is really the room that is the system (old diya thread) and setting up a room for any given speaker is not plug and play.
Thanks, I hadn't put that together. Makes sense. FWIW, I've made a couple of eWaves and found the set using the QSC waveguide to seem much smoother sounding and not at all tiring (less so than my planar dipoles in that regard). There are a lot of other variables with either so that may not mean a lot, though.
The toe-in with the eWaves is pretty much essential in my setup to get them to work correctly (ultra wide stable image, no oddities with listener movement). Pointed straight ahead they lose a huge amount.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.