Aino gradient - a collaborative speaker project - Page 24 - 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 28th July 2013, 06:34 PM   #231
Juhazi is offline Juhazi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Juhazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jyväskylä
I got the boxes back from the painter, but the colour went too blueish because of pearl-fillers used with lacquer. However we decided to keep them as such, and the painter didn't charge much for the work because of the colour mismatch.

One speaker is now wired finally, except for the protective cap for the tweeter. I fiddled with bass peq and xo in the room (final listening position) After these measurements I changed LM high-pass,eq between 200-500Hz and level for even better results. Outdoor and indoor sessions will follow this, but I think that I'm close...

Room mode bumps at 60, 120, 240Hz

Single speaker 1,5m response at 60ms and room response at 200ms (each line average of 6 measurements at 1m sphere)
Attached Images
File Type: png ainogice 81 room r 0¤ all indiv 60ms 13.png (74.7 KB, 229 views)
File Type: png ainogice v7 room l r lr aver 200ms 16.png (54.6 KB, 221 views)
__________________
AES Associate Member / My DIY speaker history: -74 Philips 3-way, -82 Hifi 85B, -07 Zaph L18, XLS10+PR/Hypex, -08 CSS125FR, -08 Hifitalo AW-7, -08 TangBand FR, -09 MarkK ER18DXT, -13 PPSL470, -13 AINOgradient

Last edited by Juhazi; 28th July 2013 at 07:03 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2013, 01:12 PM   #232
Juhazi is offline Juhazi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Juhazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jyväskylä
I have exhaged some PMs with Greebster -thank you Mike! We are figuring out/trying to understand and improve dipole behavior of the mids. I chose the mtm arrangement after chosing to use 3" high-mids because of their smaller diameter. This creates some other problems - vertical lobing, interferences from the tweeter's body and the baffle/frame all these are mounted on. Frame is 8mm thick. The lower mid suffers from the nearness of high-mids, top of bass box and the post behind it. Post's cross section is elliptic to minimize diffractions.

Poor quality photos of ready-made AINOgradients attached!

I also attach graphs that may help to analyze the behaviour of my mids. All measured outdoors, version AINOgradient Ice v61. All elements attached all the time, just different electrical connections and rotation.

From these graphs we can also see what parametric eq and xrossover setting do. Dipole corrections loses a lot from efficiency! I use minimal boost and only in the region of highpass xo, to avoid digital clipping in minidsp.

My selection of amplifiers is working well. B&O Icepower 125ASX2 are drivin W and LM, 50ASX2 are driving HM and T. I use a Yamaha RXV-630 AV-receiver as preampifier and "mixer". SPL with AINOs is a bit louder than a pair of MarkK ER18DXTs at same volume setting. I don't have a meter but max spl is far above 100dB (my ears started hurting at -10dB) and there was no clipping, distortion or resonaces. LM membrane was moving some 4mm. I use LT type eq in minidsp for SEAS L26ROY woofers, something like -7dB between 30 and 70Hz.

Sorry, I don't want to say anything new about the sound, because I want to get more opinions.

W SEAS L26ROY in sealed 25 liter, polyfill (monopole)
LM Beyma 12MWNd nude, tilted (dipole)
HM Vifa NE95-4 nude, pair in series (dipole)
T Fountek NeoCD3.5H (monopole)
minidsp 4x10HD, acoustic xo's 150HZ LR4 800Hz LR2 3100Hz LR4
Bang&Olufsen Icepower 125ASX2+50ASX2 modules (total 4 channels/speaker)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg AINOgradient ready.jpg (276.5 KB, 321 views)
File Type: jpg AINOgradient ready back.jpg (309.8 KB, 212 views)
File Type: png ne95 pair vs single 0 90¤ 3ms nosmo text.png (102.9 KB, 197 views)
File Type: png beyma 12 0¤ raw vs eq xo 90¤ 12ms nosmo.png (92.1 KB, 35 views)
__________________
AES Associate Member / My DIY speaker history: -74 Philips 3-way, -82 Hifi 85B, -07 Zaph L18, XLS10+PR/Hypex, -08 CSS125FR, -08 Hifitalo AW-7, -08 TangBand FR, -09 MarkK ER18DXT, -13 PPSL470, -13 AINOgradient

Last edited by Juhazi; 1st August 2013 at 01:16 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2013, 01:36 PM   #233
Juhazi is offline Juhazi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Juhazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jyväskylä
Here is HM pair in same scale as LM in the post above, for easier comparison.
Attached Images
File Type: png ne95 pair raw eq 0 90¤ 6ms nosmo.png (96.8 KB, 31 views)
__________________
AES Associate Member / My DIY speaker history: -74 Philips 3-way, -82 Hifi 85B, -07 Zaph L18, XLS10+PR/Hypex, -08 CSS125FR, -08 Hifitalo AW-7, -08 TangBand FR, -09 MarkK ER18DXT, -13 PPSL470, -13 AINOgradient
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2013, 06:24 PM   #234
Juhazi is offline Juhazi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Juhazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jyväskylä
More evaluation of MTM vs. MT arrangement

I played a little more with my old measurements, v61 outdoors. Here I use 6ms IR window. Pair of M is always darker line, single(lower) M is pale color.

There are differencies, but no consistency to my eyes.

However I can hear lobing effects with MTM when playing sine waves. More listening test will be done with pink noise, sine and music when I have an opportunity. SPL, distortion etc. -wise a serial pair and single are equivalent. A benefit from MTM is symmetric vertical directivity and perhaps some more "attack" in transients.
Attached Images
File Type: png ne95 pair 0 90¤ 6ms nosmo.png (110.0 KB, 12 views)
File Type: png ne95 single 0 90¤ 6ms nosmo.png (92.0 KB, 8 views)
File Type: png ne95 pair vs single 0 60¤ 6ms 16.png (78.2 KB, 9 views)
File Type: png ne95 pair vs single 30 90¤ 6ms 16.png (66.8 KB, 9 views)
__________________
AES Associate Member / My DIY speaker history: -74 Philips 3-way, -82 Hifi 85B, -07 Zaph L18, XLS10+PR/Hypex, -08 CSS125FR, -08 Hifitalo AW-7, -08 TangBand FR, -09 MarkK ER18DXT, -13 PPSL470, -13 AINOgradient
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2013, 07:37 PM   #235
diyAudio Member
 
Greebster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: South of the Skyway
A benefit of MTM setup is wide horizontal directivity and narrow vertical directivity. This way we can reduce floor and ceiling reflections.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2013, 08:16 AM   #236
Juhazi is offline Juhazi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Juhazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jyväskylä
After sleeping over previous post I noticed that I was mixing indoor and outdoor measurements. A new outdoor measuring session will come some day... and critical listening with friends. I don't want to cut off the upper 3" mid unless I am confident that it is better than mtm.

The problem with lobing and many other intermodulation effects is that they are difficult to catch with measurements. Even more difficult is to identify them (what is causing each) to be able to do something about them.

A dipole multiway speaker never behaves perfectly dipolic. Interferences can't be avoided, only compromized and minimized.
__________________
AES Associate Member / My DIY speaker history: -74 Philips 3-way, -82 Hifi 85B, -07 Zaph L18, XLS10+PR/Hypex, -08 CSS125FR, -08 Hifitalo AW-7, -08 TangBand FR, -09 MarkK ER18DXT, -13 PPSL470, -13 AINOgradient
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2013, 07:39 PM   #237
Juhazi is offline Juhazi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Juhazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jyväskylä
The weather doesn't permit outdoor measurements, so indoor... I made some changes to xo, its now all LR4 acoustic, xos 200,1000,3300. Horizontal response is the same as before, nothing new.

Front wall distance affects response a lot. Pseudoanechoid 6ms vs 60 and 100 cm to front wall 200ms - first attachment.

I measured vertical directivity of mtm and mt arrangement. Now I got some sensible results and I must say that mt has perhaps better vertical directivity. However mtm is reasonably even till +/- 10¤ which means +/- 50cm at my listening distance. I'll stick with mtm. I also mesurend +10¤ at 30¤ horizontal and it is just like 0¤, not shown here.

Room response average of 5 mic positions, R speaker at 60cm to wall and bass too heavy. Just to show how much this means.

Horizontal directivity, this time short IR only 4ms. This is mtm. Please notice that 2-3kHz is a bit hot here, but same range is cool at vertical offset - compensates total power response..
__________________
AES Associate Member / My DIY speaker history: -74 Philips 3-way, -82 Hifi 85B, -07 Zaph L18, XLS10+PR/Hypex, -08 CSS125FR, -08 Hifitalo AW-7, -08 TangBand FR, -09 MarkK ER18DXT, -13 PPSL470, -13 AINOgradient

Last edited by Juhazi; 8th August 2013 at 07:48 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2013, 07:33 AM   #238
lolo is offline lolo  France
diyAudio Member
 
lolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: somewhere by the border..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greebster View Post
A benefit of MTM setup is wide horizontal directivity and narrow vertical directivity. This way we can reduce floor and ceiling reflections.
Yep. Also the drivers will have different path lengths hence different cancellations freq that will flatten each other out.

Last edited by lolo; 9th August 2013 at 07:40 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2013, 07:39 AM   #239
lolo is offline lolo  France
diyAudio Member
 
lolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: somewhere by the border..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juhazi View Post
Front wall distance affects response a lot. Pseudoanechoid 6ms vs 60 and 100 cm to front wall 200ms - first attachment.
Hello!

60cm? You won't be able to get good midrange response that close IMO. It shows on the graphs, response flattens only around 1k. In my experience, dipoles are a b.... to place, where the midrange is great, bass is crap. Theoretically best place for bass is near side walls/corners. Further away one might manage to excite only one or two modes and use EQ. Or sit very, very close to the speakers..
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2013, 09:58 AM   #240
zmyrna is offline zmyrna  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Juha,
Why don't you ditch your dual cone mids and get yourself a pair of B&G Neo8S?
Then you would have the same set of drivers as myself (my Founteks are on the post).
Well, almost same: my 12" PA is Faital 12PR300.
You can do a quick OB vs sealed cabinet experiment and go from there.
I really like the driver placement on Greg's new studio monitor.
  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



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:04 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