EDITOR'S NOTE:
As requested this thread is split off from the thread "MiniDSP as Linkwitz Orion ASP"
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/minidsp/174145-minidsp-linkwitz-orion-asp.html
This is a new thread for discussion of the new LXmini speakers from Siegfried Linkwitz and their associated MiniDSP processors.
Variac
diyAudio Editor
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Gents,
Sorry if a i'm going off topic, but with regards to Mini DSP I was think of using a pair of LJH 1969 Amps kit (40 v dual rails to get max o/p-35Watts? ) to to Mini DSP and then a pair of Pluto clones (can't Afford to to the Orions sadly)
Does anyone know if this combo would get down to 40 Hz (similar to the plutos, or even if the damping factor of the amp is sufficient to do this?)
I have time but no money, this looks like it could "get me there" for PC or nearfield speakers for less cash than buying the Plutos outright (which i cant afford anyway!
), any thoughts gents
thank you
JOHNNY
As requested this thread is split off from the thread "MiniDSP as Linkwitz Orion ASP"
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/minidsp/174145-minidsp-linkwitz-orion-asp.html
This is a new thread for discussion of the new LXmini speakers from Siegfried Linkwitz and their associated MiniDSP processors.
Variac
diyAudio Editor
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Gents,
Sorry if a i'm going off topic, but with regards to Mini DSP I was think of using a pair of LJH 1969 Amps kit (40 v dual rails to get max o/p-35Watts? ) to to Mini DSP and then a pair of Pluto clones (can't Afford to to the Orions sadly)
Does anyone know if this combo would get down to 40 Hz (similar to the plutos, or even if the damping factor of the amp is sufficient to do this?)
I have time but no money, this looks like it could "get me there" for PC or nearfield speakers for less cash than buying the Plutos outright (which i cant afford anyway!
), any thoughts gentsthank you
JOHNNY
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Varaic,
looks like a challenge! On the site mr Linkwitz states the damping factor of the amp should be over 50, any one know how the jhl 1969 designe holds in in this respect (chip amps\classD don't seen to do so well in that respect- but then again that's what he uses on his Pluto amps?)
Any one built the new speakers yet ( bit premature to ask I know
)
Regards
Johnny
looks like a challenge! On the site mr Linkwitz states the damping factor of the amp should be over 50, any one know how the jhl 1969 designe holds in in this respect (chip amps\classD don't seen to do so well in that respect- but then again that's what he uses on his Pluto amps?)
Any one built the new speakers yet ( bit premature to ask I know
)Regards
Johnny
I was in the process of constructing the 2.1’s, but will be seamlessly migrating over to the mini. One puzzling question is why SL has chosen to “attenuate” or “scatter and diffuse” the rear radiation from the dipole, whereas in the LX & Orion he did not. And, how much does the rear pipe contribute to other HF design parameters – FR etc. In straight forward terms... how can I get rid of it! Ouch! I can already feel the cringing out there. But I have no doubt that, for better or worse, we are going to see all sorts of weird alternative suggestions showing up soon.
Obviously I can not criticize a unit that I haven’t even heard yet, but I do suggest that the issue of rear radiation is very much a personal preference and hence a one-size-fits-all solution will never please everybody. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a way to accomodate each’s personal taste and space by being able to adjust rear radiation?
And...oh yes, about the rear of the dipole being 180 out-of-phase at the XO. How worried should I be?
Dan
Obviously I can not criticize a unit that I haven’t even heard yet, but I do suggest that the issue of rear radiation is very much a personal preference and hence a one-size-fits-all solution will never please everybody. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a way to accomodate each’s personal taste and space by being able to adjust rear radiation?
And...oh yes, about the rear of the dipole being 180 out-of-phase at the XO. How worried should I be?
Dan
He states that the rear pipe is so you can put it up close to the wall, which is great for most people. Possibly he could make a open space version, but that would have to be at least 3' from the wall I'd think. It would be a very intriguing option as the driver would be pretty cool looking floating above the woofer, and would maybe sound even more like the Big LX in a room or people that allow the speakers to ramble around the room..
Not sure about it , but I suspect chip amps have fine damping factors. The Pass class A amps - not so much, but needs investigating, also how big a difference that makes..
I have a lot of Pass amps so I'd like to know too..
Not sure about it , but I suspect chip amps have fine damping factors. The Pass class A amps - not so much, but needs investigating, also how big a difference that makes..
I have a lot of Pass amps so I'd like to know too..
Last edited:
Dan,
Is it an omni your after? If you want to build one of those, you can certainly do that.
This system has a different objective than an omni. One that I thought was pretty clear in his description.
Anyways, getting way off topic from the original. I've taken a look at the miniDSP setup file for the new LXmini system and it really does make use of the capabilities that a DSP box can bring to the table. It's probably worth starting another thread.
Cheers,
Dave.
Is it an omni your after? If you want to build one of those, you can certainly do that.
This system has a different objective than an omni. One that I thought was pretty clear in his description.
Anyways, getting way off topic from the original. I've taken a look at the miniDSP setup file for the new LXmini system and it really does make use of the capabilities that a DSP box can bring to the table. It's probably worth starting another thread.
Cheers,
Dave.
Last edited:
Here is a link to his web site:
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/LXmini/Introduction.htm
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/LXmini/Introduction.htm
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2006
"The full-range driver cone operates in break-up mode" ...and ...that's it?
now this is something seriously new, revolutionary new I would even say, both for SL's design and in the multiway camp of the DIY community generally
I seldom post any more but when the door opens...
The LXmini is very similar in concept to a speaker I presented at DIY New England back in 2008 called the Bird House. Monopole woofer crossed into dipole mids with an even order crossover to yield a cardioid response in the transition region. My design was a 3-way with Neo 2 tweeter and I used back to back 4" mids. I commented on it here several times.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100392-beyond-ariel-675.html#post2249498
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...idrange-baffle-width-study-2.html#post1993570
Also made used of the monopole to dipole cardioid transition in my old NaO Mini. NaO Mini Design Objectives "It is also noted that, contrary to other open baffle designs, the Mini uses a sealed box, monopole woofer system. There is sound reasoning behind this. A recent AES article by Backman[1] examined dipole, monopole and cardioid woofer systems with regard to room interaction and sensitivity to listening/system position. His results indicate that in the sparsely populated modal region of the response, which is centered around 100 Hz for a typical listening room, cardioid woofers exhibit the least sensitivity to changes in system or listening position. Backman found dipole woofers to be the most sensitive. Additionally, below the room fundamental Backman shows that the dipole response drops off rapidly due to the inability of a dipole source to pressurize a room. The behavior of cardioid and monopole woofers are similar in nature below the room fundamental, however, the monopole woofer system benefits from higher sensitivity. [This is a result of the 6dB/octave roll off of 1st order gradient type speakers; dipoles and cardioids.] These results are similar to those discussed in the Music and Design articles on Room Response. Backman thus suggests that a woofer system which operates in cardioid mode through the sparsely populated modal region and undergoes a transition to a monopole response below the room fundamental could be optimum for low frequency reproduction."
And I understand that SL has now changed his position on rolling off the top end of his speakers. I recall we had a very long thread about that some time ago where one of my reasons that I disagreed was that if the recording engineers were using speakers which flat response during the mixing process then and such correction should already be in the recording. SL is now saying he was mistaken and apparently was correcting for poor recording.
This is a major reason I don't post anymore. I simply can not believe that so many in the DIY community continue to follow such misdirection, be it from SL or others. Go back and read the extended arguments SL gave about why the top end needed to be rolled off, about how critical the shape of the equalization curve was, how the correction should be adopted by the recording industry, about what a breakthrough this was. And now it's reduced to "I was correcting for bad recording". It's all too laughable. Not SL. He is a tinkerer and he will continue to be such. No, rather it's those in the DIY community who simple choose not to think for themselves and buy into the nonsense.
The LXmini is very similar in concept to a speaker I presented at DIY New England back in 2008 called the Bird House. Monopole woofer crossed into dipole mids with an even order crossover to yield a cardioid response in the transition region. My design was a 3-way with Neo 2 tweeter and I used back to back 4" mids. I commented on it here several times.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100392-beyond-ariel-675.html#post2249498
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...idrange-baffle-width-study-2.html#post1993570
Also made used of the monopole to dipole cardioid transition in my old NaO Mini. NaO Mini Design Objectives "It is also noted that, contrary to other open baffle designs, the Mini uses a sealed box, monopole woofer system. There is sound reasoning behind this. A recent AES article by Backman[1] examined dipole, monopole and cardioid woofer systems with regard to room interaction and sensitivity to listening/system position. His results indicate that in the sparsely populated modal region of the response, which is centered around 100 Hz for a typical listening room, cardioid woofers exhibit the least sensitivity to changes in system or listening position. Backman found dipole woofers to be the most sensitive. Additionally, below the room fundamental Backman shows that the dipole response drops off rapidly due to the inability of a dipole source to pressurize a room. The behavior of cardioid and monopole woofers are similar in nature below the room fundamental, however, the monopole woofer system benefits from higher sensitivity. [This is a result of the 6dB/octave roll off of 1st order gradient type speakers; dipoles and cardioids.] These results are similar to those discussed in the Music and Design articles on Room Response. Backman thus suggests that a woofer system which operates in cardioid mode through the sparsely populated modal region and undergoes a transition to a monopole response below the room fundamental could be optimum for low frequency reproduction."
And I understand that SL has now changed his position on rolling off the top end of his speakers. I recall we had a very long thread about that some time ago where one of my reasons that I disagreed was that if the recording engineers were using speakers which flat response during the mixing process then and such correction should already be in the recording. SL is now saying he was mistaken and apparently was correcting for poor recording.
This is a major reason I don't post anymore. I simply can not believe that so many in the DIY community continue to follow such misdirection, be it from SL or others. Go back and read the extended arguments SL gave about why the top end needed to be rolled off, about how critical the shape of the equalization curve was, how the correction should be adopted by the recording industry, about what a breakthrough this was. And now it's reduced to "I was correcting for bad recording". It's all too laughable. Not SL. He is a tinkerer and he will continue to be such. No, rather it's those in the DIY community who simple choose not to think for themselves and buy into the nonsense.
I don't know.
If you've been following my comments through the years, you'll note I hardly ever comment on subjective evaluations of equipment. The miniDSP equipment sounds fine to me, but that's just my opinion. If you have a concern regarding "sonics" you're the only one who can evaluate.
In this case, an ASP is probably not an option because the equalization applied to the dipole driver is somewhat extensive. SL has used the capability of DSP to move beyond his SOP of EQ'ing trends in response.
Cheers,
Dave.
At least he always openly correct it
. In any case that's what the 'Y' for in DIY to test it our self and enjoy/discard as pleased With LXMini I have few scepticism like operating that midrange to 20khz as dipole. There is no polar plot available yet but one can have educated guess that it won't be very smooth.
But until I build one myself I won't know! In any case I have an even better midrange (3" tangband) so there's no stopping me to convert my Pluto clone to LXMini clone
One thing is for sure though, the designs gets ugly and uglier
.. I thought that the Orions was a spot-on compromise between aesthetics and performance. And the Pluto was a very cool design.Hi,
Maybe better for you the MiniSharc Kit (allow phase correction also) with two I2S DAC Curryman (which are near the Subbu but with JG buffer alredy embeded) : a little more expensive but more serious for your tastes (IIRC the ref of your main DAC
)miniSHARC Kit | MiniDSP
check if this one can be connected to the miniShark : USBStreamer | MiniDSP
Then ask Gary for two ready ultra low noise ready maid PS kit fot the Curry Dacs boards Curryman DAC (ES9023) | MiniDSP and myself to swap the alum caps of the DAC section...
Nearer solution to challenge what you have and good toys for adults like us (Will try it for myself if active speakers)
But Notice Hypex have a good all in one solution with low price in this moment with a good embeded AK Dac chip... (can resolve your question about USB input and good sounding embeded DAC output with active filter)... and have an option to be transformed to a numeric preamp for multiple sources! Trade offs trade offs !
Last edited:
At least he always openly correct it
With LXMini I have few scepticism like operating that midrange to 20khz as dipole. There is no polar plot available yet but one can have educated guess that it won't be very smooth.
But until I build one myself I won't know! In any case I have an even better midrange (3" tangband) so there's no stopping me to convert my Pluto clone to LXMini clone
One thing is for sure though, the designs gets ugly and uglier
I'd say it's obvious that the midrange isn't a dipole above ~ 3000 hz, as the rear off axis response falls off above that with a 3-4" driver. I'd describe it more as a forward firing speaker. It would be interesting if he added another backwards mounted driver so we get symmetric front / back response.
Which is exactly what he didn't want.
Dipole to 20khz?
Are you guys reading the pages?
Dave.
Which is exactly what he didn't want.
Dipole to 20khz?
Are you guys reading the pages?
Dave.
Hmm, now that you say it I remembered that he shows quite clear it isn't a dipole further up. Would still be interesting if it was though, the forward firing tests I've done just doesn't sound as good as when I also use a rear firing tweeter.
Getting back to the LXmini...
I'm somewhat intrigued by the idea of using dipole+monopole pairings in each band of the speaker to reduce reflections from a rear wall, so that the speaker can be positioned near the rear wall without too much change in the sound.
So what is the prospect for a 4-driver, two band system like this:
1. dipole tweeter operating 1.5k Hz and higher
2. small bandpass monopole driver operating from 500Hz to 1.5k Hz
3. Dipole midbass operating up to 1.5Hz
4. Monopole driver operating up to 500Hz
The question that I have is how to position driver pairs 1+2 and 3+4 so that their acoustic centers are close enough that the combination does not introduce more problems than it solves!
This speaker could be constructed to be visually small like the LXmin, but could have a cardioid pattern over a much wider range of frequencies. I think!
I'm somewhat intrigued by the idea of using dipole+monopole pairings in each band of the speaker to reduce reflections from a rear wall, so that the speaker can be positioned near the rear wall without too much change in the sound.
So what is the prospect for a 4-driver, two band system like this:
1. dipole tweeter operating 1.5k Hz and higher
2. small bandpass monopole driver operating from 500Hz to 1.5k Hz
3. Dipole midbass operating up to 1.5Hz
4. Monopole driver operating up to 500Hz
The question that I have is how to position driver pairs 1+2 and 3+4 so that their acoustic centers are close enough that the combination does not introduce more problems than it solves!
This speaker could be constructed to be visually small like the LXmin, but could have a cardioid pattern over a much wider range of frequencies. I think!
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.