New Linkwitz "LX521" speakers.. - Page 5 - 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 13th November 2012, 04:04 PM   #41
diyAudio Member
 
5th element's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England
Wouldn't LW be wanting to keep the tweeter side active so that he can use an all-pass delay stage?
__________________
What the hell are you screamin' for? Every five minutes there's a bomb or somethin'! I'm leavin! bzzzz!
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2012, 04:05 PM   #42
dewardh is online now dewardh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by john k... View Post
it is true that the introduction of the Orion brought the argument to the surface again, and SL was vehement that a rear tweeter wasn't necessary.
He was correct with regard to power response, but not (as he later acknowledged) with regard to what he now calls the "acoustic image".

Quote:
Originally Posted by john k... View Post
I am suggesting that with theses extended midrange designs with tweeter crossover at 6 or 7k, the rear tweeter isn't all that necessary. My feeling is that the rear tweeter was required on designs like the Orion and the NaO II to fill in the rear radiation between above the comparatively low crossover of between 1.4 and 2.2k , depending on which speaker we are referring to.
Probably so . . . but mooted by the fact that a rear tweeter active from 7kHz up is dirt cheap and trivial to implement ($40 in LX521, and could be less, I expect). Without it there's a risk (not worth taking) of excessive brightness on axis to maintain uniform room response.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2012, 04:16 PM   #43
dewardh is online now dewardh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by john k... View Post
Well I have and continue to question that based on excursion. Plus, I would have placed the passive between the tweeter and upper mid. Makes more sense from a power spectrum point of view. And, what happen to direct connection to the amp yields better control argument.
In order: doesn't seem to be an issue in the actual implementation . . . the upper-mid never sounds strained; me too, but there are other issues invloved; fair question, although unless you're into current drive the "control argument" applies (always has applied) more to woofers and subs than it has to tweeters.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2012, 04:27 PM   #44
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by dewardh View Post
"Localization" is certainly not "lost" with the LX521 . . . "phantom" images were as-or-more concrete and localized than I have ever heard . . . far more than any other speakers on display . . . this despite the less-than-ideal room and (concrete) front wall. Quite amazing, actually . . .
I doubt that localization was actually improved. But it's also true that localization blur says nothing about perceived realism.
What you've experienced is most likely caused by specific strong early reflections. I'd like to see ETCs from such a configuration.
As I've said before, I doubt that a dipole speaker is the best way of achieving such perceptions.

Last edited by markus76; 13th November 2012 at 04:32 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2012, 04:43 PM   #45
dewardh is online now dewardh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
I doubt that localization was actually improved. But it's also true that localization blur says nothing about perceived realism.
What you've experienced is most likely caused by specific strong early reflections.
Localization was actually improved. And it remained surprisingly "fixed" over a range of listening positions (walking around the room, not just at one "sweet spot").

Yes, "reflections" do seem to enhance imaging, not detract from it. Turns out to be an advantage of dipoles, which turn out (when well done) to produce a better, more defined and more believable "acoustic image" than other (especially "in-wall") designs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2012, 05:00 PM   #46
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by john k... View Post
Part of the idea of my revision is provide grills so that the appearance will be similar to my other system. I'm old school and I don't want to see the drivers.

Aesthetics is difficult with such designs. It's cut and test and then there is the issue of structural rigidity. These small baffle can flex quite a bit in response to the forces applied by the midrange drivers.
It's not that difficult.

The new frame and "grill" is a good idea, and one I've suggested on many occasions to others.

It's the execution however that needs help.

The vertical angle to the front "panel" is a bad idea - made worse by the fact that it has no "arc". (..that's aesthetically of course, I realize that it's a necessary part of the design.)

The side cut panel on the sub looks really bad. It's a box - clean up the lines *first* and only then make decorative alterations that work with that shape.

If you are going to borrow from a design, consider the Monolith vs. III (..though obviously much smaller.) That design was pretty "clean". The vertical angle can largely be hidden by the new front "arc", and you can add (and should add) a rear "arc" to the rear sub panel..

..yeah, words don't really convey it do they?

Tonight I'll try a basic sketchup to provide a better idea of what I'm *trying* to describe (and will try to post it on your thread).


..btw, the lower cost implementation of the "new" sub drivers makes your design a LOT better from the perspective of value. It's just a lot more *accessible* now.
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2012, 05:24 PM   #47
lolo is offline lolo  France
diyAudio Member
 
lolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: somewhere by the border..
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
I doubt that localization was actually improved. But it's also true that localization blur says nothing about perceived realism.
What you've experienced is most likely caused by specific strong early reflections. I'd like to see ETCs from such a configuration.
As I've said before, I doubt that a dipole speaker is the best way of achieving such perceptions.
there is now enough scientific evidence that lateral reflexions are actually good, as long as they are spectrally close to the direct sound, which rules out 99% box speakers.
check this for example:

White Papers - Sausalito Audio

Dipoles do image very well because they have a stronger D/R ratio (3 over 1) and potentially better CD than standard speakers. The nice thing is that with a diffuse rear wall, you extend the scene and get extra ambiance. You still keep a sharp image. Certainly, if you want "razor" sharp stereo, than you can absorb everything behind. Stig Erik does that, his system is just plain scary in imaging department, it has to be heard really. Dipoles are not only good, they are adaptable!

Reading your comments I just feel your experience with dipoles is probably limited, am I wrong?

Last edited by lolo; 13th November 2012 at 05:31 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2012, 05:26 PM   #48
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by dewardh View Post
In order: doesn't seem to be an issue in the actual implementation . . . the upper-mid never sounds strained; me too, but there are other issues invloved; fair question, although unless you're into current drive the "control argument" applies (always has applied) more to woofers and subs than it has to tweeters.
Yes, but it's the two midrange drivers that are not directly connected. Still, I I have always been on the other side of that equation. The control issue is a red herring when a system point of view is taken.

Back to the 1st order x-o, if it sounds good that is fine. But my experience for sure is that my revised Note system sounds better with a higher order crossover between the mids. That is one thing that is nice about having the Bodzio Ultimate EQ. I can set the system up with different order x-o's with a point and a click and guarantee that I have the same axial response to with in a small fraction of a dB. Difference in the sound are thne totally a result of how the drivers overlap in the stop bands.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2012, 05:44 PM   #49
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottG View Post

The vertical angle to the front "panel" is a bad idea - made worse by the fact that it has no "arc". (..that's aesthetically of course, I realize that it's a necessary part of the design.)

The side cut panel on the sub looks really bad. It's a box - clean up the lines *first* and only then make decorative alterations that work with that shape.

If you are going to borrow from a design, consider the Monolith vs. III (..though obviously much smaller.) That design was pretty "clean". The vertical angle can largely be hidden by the new front "arc", and you can add (and should add) a rear "arc" to the rear sub panel..

..yeah, words don't really convey it do they?

Tonight I'll try a basic sketchup to provide a better idea of what I'm *trying* to describe (and will try to post it on your thread).


..btw, the lower cost implementation of the "new" sub drivers makes your design a LOT better from the perspective of value. It's just a lot more *accessible* now.
Vertical angle?

The side panels are from the NaO II RS. On that system the u-frame woofer is tapered so that the enclosure is hidden by the side panels.

Click the image to open in full size.

The dipole woofer in the new Note can not be tapered and retain the other aspects of the design. I could use the U-frame from the NaO II RS with the SLS woofers but I have decided to go full dipole because the u-frame is a little more complex and harder to set up correctly w/o measurements.

I'm not sure what you mean by Monolith vs. the (Monolith?) III. Just what is it you dislike about the Monolith I and II? I own a pair of II's (well I's updated to II's) and much prefer the look of them to the III's.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2012, 05:54 PM   #50
adason is offline adason  United States
diyAudio Member
 
adason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Maryland
when it comes to the look of dipole baffle, I very much like this infinity model
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IRS_Beta.jpg (87.1 KB, 697 views)
  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
"Reverse" Linkwitz Transform Relaxin Analog Line Level 9 23rd August 2012 02:19 PM
What makes an amplifier "bright", "warm", or "neutral"? JohnS Solid State 51 13th December 2009 06:42 PM
70cm tall, 3 way, diy speakers based on 10"/4"/1" japanese ken brown drivers. facundonu Multi-Way 34 9th March 2009 04:59 AM
Linkwitz "Transform" Circuit Help Shike Solid State 10 5th April 2008 11:44 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:50 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