Aino gradient - a collaborative speaker project - Page 30 - 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 19th September 2013, 04:09 PM   #291
Juhazi is offline Juhazi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Juhazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jyväskylä
Examining the graphs above puzzles me. But in Rudolf's german pdf we can read/see that when we of far off-axis the dipole peaks shifts to lower frequencies. This is perhaps the explanation to off-axis peaking at 2kHz.

2" cone drivers can't go low and are not smooth up high - no use here
2" domes don't have any rear radiation - no use here
Neo8 and Neo3 are roughly 89mm wide - a possibility used open-back with "no baffle"
opposing 1" domes ala Rudolf - a possibility, with waveguides???

The requirements of upper mids and tweeter(s) for AINOs are:
- LR2 xo around 800Hz
- dipole peak as high as possible
- HM to T xo as smoothly as posoible both on- and off-axis

The responses of both Neo8 and Neo3 is shattered at high end. I really like the sound of NeoCD3,5H, it shines when crossed around 4-5kHz. John K's NaoO Note has highest xo around 4,5 kz and he says that he doesn't see back-firing tweeter needed.

ps. theoretically, Audax HM100 has 100mm frame and it should have its dipole peak even lower than NE95 with 95mm frame - a bad thing. But Audax has square frame which distributes dipole peak a little - we will see....

This thinking chain leads me strongly towars replacing NE95 pair with BG or to replace NeoCD with opposing domes... keep bubbling!
-
__________________
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; 19th September 2013 at 04:23 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2013, 04:24 PM   #292
zmyrna is offline zmyrna  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Juha, please see the links in my last post.
We are getting there.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2013, 04:26 PM   #293
zmyrna is offline zmyrna  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Here once again:

http://meniscusaudio.com/images/NEO8...eet%20Rev1.pdf

www.audioexcite.com RAAL 140-15D
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2013, 04:48 PM   #294
Juhazi is offline Juhazi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Juhazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jyväskylä
zmyrna, I am familiar with those links yes.

Here is a link to Rudolf's dipole tweeter tests On the directivity of dipole tweeters

I have read these many times...
__________________
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 19th September 2013, 05:52 PM   #295
Juhazi is offline Juhazi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Juhazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jyväskylä
One possibility for me is to use LR2 for HM to T xo. But it means that I must use only one HM and that means 3dB more distortion...

In early stages of protoing I had this LR2 3500Hz and it measured very well. Then concern of mtm lobing and tweeter distortion made me go to LR4, first at 3500 then gradually to 2300Hz. LR48 doesn't change things.

The advantage of mtm symmetric vertical lobing is here - the horizontal peaking is compensated by vertical valley! The end result is seen in my room responses that are very smooth around 2kHz. It means that this 2kHz "problem" is not really a problem! Only those with a turntable for horizontal measurements will "see" it I believe that this compensation is what makes mtm speakers sound so good regardless of critisism to lobing etc., the other reason is reduced distortion.
Attached Images
File Type: png ainog vx2 mix of hor vert 20ms 13.png (85.1 KB, 142 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; 19th September 2013 at 06:00 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2013, 06:35 PM   #296
Juhazi is offline Juhazi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Juhazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jyväskylä
Open back BG Neo3-PDR neasures quite well in minimal baffle. Extracted from the thread mentioned above, post #75
Attached Images
File Type: png Neo3 open bac cuibono.png (721.0 KB, 141 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 19th September 2013, 06:57 PM   #297
Rudolf is offline Rudolf  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Rudolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juhazi View Post
"If you are referring to the loss of the 90° hole, I would relate that to the transition from dipole mid to omnipole tweeter"

No it's not. The peaking at around 2kHz is there also when I play NE95 without upper xo. The same with just one or twin drivers. When I set xo to 4500Hz I see that peak in directivity and also the on-axis response gets wimpy. These phenomenoms must be esplored more!
I'm not sure that we are talking about the same things.

Just for the record: The effective cone diameter of the NE95 is 6 cm, the basket diameter + basket rim depth (has to be taken twice) is 10,5 cm. To that you have to add the wooden baffle depth. All peaks and valleys in your NE95 measurements relate to the baffle dimensions, none to the cone dimensions. That's why I say that the Klippel chart tells nothing about the problems you have (or believe to have ).

Your left measurement in post #288 is a stunning example of "dipole vs monopole" directivity. Below 2 kHz we see the dipole directivity, where SPL diminishes progressively with angle. Above 2 kHz we see monopole directivity where SPL diminishes linearily. I'm thinking about adding your diagram to my website/PDF, because it is so instructive (Will ask for permission separately ).

I have seen quite a few dipole measurements where the 60° (or 90°) SPL is raised somewhat at the first dipole notch. It happens to cone drivers as well as to the Neo3 PDR. It even happened with my back-to-back dome tweeters. So don't hope this phenomenon will disappear with some other driver. I have no cue why it happens in some configurations and not always.

Rudolf
__________________
www.dipolplus.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2013, 08:02 PM   #298
Juhazi is offline Juhazi  Finland
diyAudio Member
 
Juhazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Jyväskylä
You are right Rudolf, my understanding is vague and I don't always get what others say. This is a learning process!

I have monopole tweeter, it was a decision done for many reasons - one was your conlusions about difficulties with dipole tweeters and John K's opinion that is is not needed with higher xo. Then I didn't know about difficulties of the mid driver to go dipolic above 2kHz.

I went back to my v4 that used LR2 (nearly) for M/T xo. It has the bst directivity of all, because of wide overlapping from dipolic to monopole radiation. I think that I'll give it a listen again!
Attached Images
File Type: png ainog ice v42 0 30 60 90¤ 9ms 13.png (53.0 KB, 123 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; 19th September 2013 at 08:08 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2013, 11:20 PM   #299
diyAudio Member
 
Patrick Bateman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juhazi View Post
I have given that horizontal position a thought too. The problem is that then the radiating area is roughly 170mm wide. This means that is starts beaming horizontally progressively from around 1000Hz up. Vertically positioned has width ~40mm and then it starts to beam at around 4,5kHz. It is hard to know how this works when going dipole. The curved baffle of Mosaic changes this a little too. The Neo8 datasheet doesn't show vertical directivity.

But I think that ML is intentionally using the membrane-diameter-determined directivity of the horizontal setting. It's baffle looks to be 20cm wide so acoustic dipolic directivity is practically disabled in it's range. They use a horn for the Neo3. Does anyone know? MartinLogan | Mosaic

It would be fantastic if you could show your measurements of Neo8S, can you do directivity both vertical and horizontal too?
Click the image to open in full size.

Here's my measurement of the NEO8 PDR on axis, 45 degrees off axis horizontally, and 45 degrees off axis vertically.

Basically it's horizontal directivity is really good, due to the flat diaphragm and the narrow width. Vertically it starts to beam like crazy.

If you flipped it on it's side, you'd get wide *vertical* directivity, which *could* lead to a nasty floor bounce. But running it dipole will help to offset that. Running it on it's side will definitely make aiming it trickier. At the same time, it may increase the ratio of direct to reflected energy.

I have some more measurements of this, including the NEO8 in a Paraline, over on my '28 days later' thread.

Also, this is an oddball of a NEO8; it's a NEO8 that Danny Ritchie at GR-Research has. It's a custom unit that is made exclusively for him, IIRC. (Not even sure if this variant is listed on his web site.)
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2013, 11:55 PM   #300
diyAudio Member
 
Bob Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Portland Oregon, USA
Google "Roger Russel" or "IDS25" and check out his vertical line array speakers. Many people are building clones of these (rather than paying the $19K). If your room has a conventional 8-9 ft. flat ceiling, it's arguable that these will work much better with the effects of room acoustics. I've developed an active EQ circuit for the IDS25 clones that I can share.
  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 06:55 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