FR Design Goal? Which is the "best" curve? - Page 3 - 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 22nd April 2013, 11:25 PM   #21
badman is offline badman  United States
diyAudio Member
 
badman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sunny Tustin, SoCal
As far as tuning goes, I generally prefer a halfway point between C4 and EBS3 alignments. This means a little more vent output and a bigger box than the C4, but smaller box and less pronounced "knee" than EBS3.
__________________
I write for www.enjoythemusic.com in the DIY section. You may find yourself getting a preview of a project in-progress. Be warned!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 08:59 AM   #22
6.283 is offline 6.283  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Black Forest
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
A true CD speaker up to 10 kHz and beyond needs a lot more axial response drop than a speaker with a beaming response.
A true constant directivity speaker does not change its directivity. That is all about CD.

But that says zero about dispersion width. An omni is constant directivtiy as well even if you disagree with this fact
A dipole or cardioid are CD as well in theory at least. And both would exhibit wider dispersion than 1" in a 15" WG.

For such EQ one needs to look at dispersion width and its interaction with the room.
__________________
2Pi-online.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 10:55 AM   #23
markusA is offline markusA  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
markusA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Gothenburg
Blog Entries: 1
Let's not go there, the war over semantics has been waged in other threads allready.
I think we're all pretty familiar with what Earl is referring to.
No need in poking the bear...
__________________
Current build to be found in my blog. Not so current anymore, everything is put on hold until march.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 05:05 PM   #24
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
I think that its a fair comment.

6.283:
Yes omni, dipole, cardiod are all CD with varying directivities. I think that the term you are looking for is Directivity Index (DI) which defines the differences. A flat DI means CD and the level at which it is flat determines how directional it is. An Omni is CD at 0 dB, a dipole is CD at 3 dB, cardiods are something like 4-5 dB and my waveguides are typically in the area of 7-9 dB. But all can be CD ( Omni, dipole, cardiod are all very difficult to maintain over a wide bandwidth.)

Now it appears that you comment implies that the amount of HF droop should depend on the DI, not just on if the system is CD. I am not saying that this is right or wrong, I just don't know if it is true or not. I know of no data to say either way. On what logic would you make such a claim (if in fact that is what you are saying).
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 06:02 PM   #25
Ronion is offline Ronion  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
The strange thing to me is that my personal experience is exactly opposite of 6.283's hypothesis (I think). Higher directivity speakers that measure flat on axis sound brighter(more trebly) to me than wider dispersion with the same on axis measurement.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 07:21 PM   #26
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Ronion

If you are talking about CD speakers in this comparison then your experience is exactly the opposite of everyone else that I know. If you are talking about a high DI CD speaker versus a rising DI speaker (typical of any speaker with a direct radiating tweeter)then I agree
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 09:50 PM   #27
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by markusA View Post
1" Compression driver + SEOS-15 waveguide will handle the HF.
15" Mid-Woofer flush mounted.
900Hz'ish crossover frequency.


I'll be aiming for a 45 degree toe-in (crossing in front of listener) and a 15-20 degree off axis listening position.
Have you found the drivers allready or have you not decided yet. I'm looking for a similar project and have my eyes on the Celestion TF1530 bass driver that was mentioned in the Ariel thread and a cheap polish 2 inch CD for the horn (IWATA or LMLC) Perhaps we could team up.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 10:28 PM   #28
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by burgunder View Post
Have you found the drivers allready or have you not decided yet. I'm looking for a similar project and have my eyes on the Celestion TF1530 bass driver that was mentioned in the Ariel thread and a cheap polish 2 inch CD for the horn (IWATA or LMLC) Perhaps we could team up.
The OP has stated he is using a 1" Compression driver on a SEOS-15 waveguide and a B&C 15TBX100 woofer.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 10:31 PM   #29
Ronion is offline Ronion  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
Ronion

If you are talking about CD speakers in this comparison then your experience is exactly the opposite of everyone else that I know. If you are talking about a high DI CD speaker versus a rising DI speaker (typical of any speaker with a direct radiating tweeter)then I agree
I'm talking about the later. Don't ask me for a "why?" Explanation though. I have no idea why. It seems to conflict with my intuition.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd April 2013, 10:40 PM   #30
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
I think that the later case is very clear. In a CD speaker there is a lot of energy going out from the tweeter at high frequencies and this energy gets back to the listener via the reverberant field. Our sense of tonal balance depends on both the direct field and the reverberant field. In the direct radiator case the HF are in a narrow beam and as such there is not HF in the reverberant field only the direct field. So it takes more direct field - axial response - to yield the same perception of the HF energy.

Basically even though the direct field of the CD speaker is lower than that of the direct radiator, the total energy at HFs is greater.

The question that was raised earlier had to do with the amount of indirect energy and its influence on the amount of direct field energy needed for proper perception. It seems that as the DI gets higher less of a falloff should be required, but that does not seem to be the case. I am not sure what the answer to this second issue is.
  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
"Retro"-Fit: Vintage Console Meets FR cogitech Full Range 29 2nd April 2013 10:42 PM
Can anyone suggest a cabinet design for the Audio Nirvana 8" FR? Toppsy Full Range 7 6th November 2009 01:25 PM
Question on Zaph's 5.5" and 6.5" FR measurement Jay_WJ Multi-Way 2 29th July 2007 05:33 AM
which common large FR offer good vocal "reproduction"? freddi Full Range 0 23rd July 2007 01:36 AM
WTB FR drivers for "bigger is better" speakers. Spasticteapot Swap Meet 2 28th October 2006 09:08 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:13 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