Comparison Bohlender & Graebener Neo3W and Neo3PDR in dipole mode - 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 7th April 2011, 01:09 PM   #1
keyser is offline keyser  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
keyser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Default Comparison Bohlender & Graebener Neo3W and Neo3PDR in dipole mode

Today I did some measurements on the B&G Neo3W and Neo3PDR. Biggest differences:

- Neo3W has approximately 3 dB higher sensitivity
- Neo3PDR has better dispersion in the top octave
- Neo3W has a smoother transition from dipole to beaming

EDIT: too bad, the pdf is too big to upload. Try this link: [removed link]
I hope it works.

EDIT2: apparently not too well. I'll have to try something else.

EDIT3: I've got a zip uploaded, but without the pictures.

EDIT4:

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

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6...ementsetup.jpg
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/5...thtweeters.jpg
__________________
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Last edited by keyser; 7th April 2011 at 01:29 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2011, 03:09 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quite the bloom on the PDR. The sonograms are derived from the 15 degree data?
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2011, 03:19 PM   #3
keyser is offline keyser  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
keyser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Netherlands
The sonograms are derived from the same data as the frequency response curves: 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 degrees. I omitted the data at greater angles, as the exact setting of the angles becomes very critical if you want to be able to accurately compare the drivers.

BTW, I've been using the Neo3W up till now, but I think I'll give the PDR's a second chance.
__________________
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" - Friedrich Nietzsche
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2011, 04:18 PM   #4
cuibono is offline cuibono  United States
diyAudio Member
 
cuibono's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: City of Angles
Nice work, this has needed doing for a while.

If you're interested, try adding foam edging front and back to the PDR, about 15mm thick total. It helps smooth things around 7kHz, but preserves the top octave performance.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2011, 08:09 PM   #5
erjee is offline erjee  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Overijssel
Nice job!

You can try adding some foam/felt/etc on the outside of the Neo3W to create a narrow source for high frequencies, similar to the Neo3PDR. You might be able to reduce the beaming in the top octave while avoding the bloom at 7.5 kHz.

Good luck!
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2011, 09:27 PM   #6
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Keyser, this is a very informative comparison!

From your 3rd picture in the pdf I see a difference of 5 dB at quite some places. Since the PDR has foam added behind half of the openings, they appear to be almost blocked (total blocking would result in 6 dB difference imho). I would have hoped for a less radical solution by BG.

In consequence the active driver width (source) has been halved, while the baffle width has stayed the same. The differencies between the polars very nicely document the difference between a wide source and a smaller source on the same baffle:

-the baffle width dictates the position of the dipole notch (6 kHz in this case)
-the smaller source will start to beam later than the wide one - regardless of baffle size.
- this opens the "blooming" region between the dipole notch and the onset of beaming. Polars of the ORION for instance show the "excessive" (compared to the Neo3) width of that region clearly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erjee View Post
You can try adding some foam/felt/etc on the outside of the Neo3W to create a narrow source for high frequencies, similar to the Neo3PDR. You might be able to reduce the beaming in the top octave while avoding the bloom at 7.5 kHz.
As desribed above: By widening the baffle you draw the dipole notch to lower frequencies. You get the same width of the "blooming" region as with the PDR, with everything starting at lower frequencies only.
The most elegant (I would say "best") solution would be to have the widest source in the narrowest baffle.

Rudolf
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2011, 03:05 AM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oregon, USA
Now I too own a pair of PDRs as well as regular Neo3's. I'll try and run equivalent comparisons like this some day. Subjectively, I prefer the sound of the PDRs, even though the measurements show a deeper notch. My theory is that the wider upper treble dispersion somehow works better in my room.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2011, 03:09 AM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oregon, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by twest820 View Post
Quite the bloom on the PDR. The sonograms are derived from the 15 degree data?
I think they're referenced to 0, so the 'bloom' you see at 7kHz is really the on-axis dip affecting the data normalization. I think. Keyser, if you have the data saved, could you plot the same charts, un-normalized? I find it useful to look at it both ways.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2011, 03:24 AM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Regardless of how the data's displayed the finding's still the same; more bloom on the PDRW than the W.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolf View Post
The most elegant (I would say "best") solution would be to have the widest source in the narrowest baffle.
For nude and near-nude drivers such as in this study, yes. Horns represent the opposite end of the design continuum and appear to be viable too---it's mainly midway between the extremes where performance gets dicey. Certainly easier to mill down the flange on the Neo3 than to build a horn (or waveguide), though the desirability of doing so depends on how low the Neo3 needs to cross.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2011, 03:39 AM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oregon, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by twest820 View Post
Regardless of how the data's displayed the finding's still the same; more bloom on the PDRW than the W.
I would disagree You could have two drivers with identical off-axis curves, and one of them has a deeper notch on-axis. The normalized curves would show this same difference. Would you describe that as one driver blooming more than the other? I wouldn't. I guess technically you would be correct, but that's not what I think about when I think 'bloom'.
  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
Bohlender&Graebener Neo 8 Magnetostat capslock Multi-Way 78 7th June 2013 12:24 PM
Which Bohlender Graebener Neo3? otto88 Multi-Way 36 7th April 2011 05:56 PM
Which Bohlender Graebener Neo3? otto88 Multi-Way 6 1st April 2011 02:52 PM
FOR SALE Bohlender Graebener (B&G) Neo8 pair $75 shipped Ray Tremblay Swap Meet 6 4th August 2010 01:39 AM
Bohlender & Graebener transducers setmenu Multi-Way 13 25th August 2002 05:07 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:07 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