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 24th July 2004, 08:44 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
paulspencer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Dave,

I assume that on your site with that link (#6 brute force approach) you are essentially talking about a 2.5 way speaker where the .5 woofer is placed on the rear of the box?

When bipole is mentioned I usually think of a speaker that has the same response on axis front and back, like a dipole but not wired with reverse polarity.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2004, 08:59 PM   #12
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by paulspencer
I assume that on your site with that link (#6 brute force approach) you are essentially talking about a 2.5 way speaker where the .5 woofer is placed on the rear of the box?
This could be thot of as the right way to do a x.5 way speaker, hiding the phase anomalies of the x.5 driver in the shadow of the enclosure. Not really a bipole, but often differs only by the filter on the back.

Quote:
When bipole is mentioned I usually think of a speaker that has the same response on axis front and back
Officially that is the case... but most of the time i am dealing with a FR as the primary driver, any tweeter on the front just helps with a bit of sparkle at the top.

Quote:
like a dipole but not wired with reverse polarity.
usually a dipole is achieved by having an open baffle with a single driver, a bi-pole is really a different beast. The 2-driver dipole for surround use is purely an anomaly from the short-comings of Dolby Prologic and really should not be considered too much when talking about dipoles -- the major examples of which are electrostats and large electrodynamic planars like magnepans or BG ribbons.

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2004, 06:28 AM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
paulspencer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Quote:
Originally posted by planet10
usually a dipole is achieved by having an open baffle with a single driver, a bi-pole is really a different beast. The 2-driver dipole for surround use is purely an anomaly from the short-comings of Dolby Prologic and really should not be considered too much when talking about dipoles -- the major examples of which are electrostats and large electrodynamic planars like magnepans or BG ribbons.

dave
Yes, I'm familiar with open baffle and have had some lengthy discussions re OB dipoles ...


I'm curious about your comments on surround dipoles. Do you see no other good use for these speakers? What about surrounds for DTS? Are you saying they are n't a good approach? As I see it, surround dipoles are used in this way as the *front* and *rear* waves (in this case the front wave from each set of TM) are used with equal importance given to each ... therefore an open baffle isn't suitable due to the effect of the magnet and basket assembly on the midrange of the rear wave.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2004, 07:03 AM   #14
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by paulspencer
surround dipoles. Do you see no other good use for these speakers?
I think surround sound is a moving target... all the surround schemes you see today will likely be superceeded by something that really works. It will likely require full-speakers that are all the same.

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th July 2004, 04:34 AM   #15
JinMTVT is offline JinMTVT  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MTL
i thought that bipolar smaller woofers were used for surrounds
at something like 90 angle from each other
was told it is for wide dispersion of high hz as it should be at the rear ..

i have to say that i am not a fan of surround sound at all
never been impressed by any systems i've heared
and let me tell you that there are quite lots of those
at the Montreal's "Soud and Image" festival ..
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th July 2004, 06:05 AM   #16
Ap is offline Ap
diyAudio Member
 
Ap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
From what I have read on surround sound, the rear speaker should be in fact placed at the sides of the room. (Just as it is in the cinema) As this is not easy, the idea of a dipole came into play, which created a more diffuse sound so as to reduce the localisation.
With regards the bipole / Mirage concept,
For my current project I will be adding a second rearward driver (probably a dome mid) with a variable resistor to attenuate the output. I think bipole does create a lot of depth & size (albeit due to comb-filtering). If it were reduced in level to the front drivers I think you could have the best of both worlds.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th July 2004, 06:23 AM   #17
JinMTVT is offline JinMTVT  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MTL
with the mirage case..
( as most bipolar loudspeaker would be i guess )

the speakers have to be placed far from rear walls or else you will get serious stereo imaging problems since reflections from the rear drivers will arrive way too fast ..this is one problem i had with the OM-9 when they were in my small "untreated" room ...
way to many reflections from all over the place, creating a warm but not really what i am looking for sound ..

i don't know what would your idea do to this,
if you reduce the output of the rear driver, you are also changing the cancellation thing happening inside the enclosure nah ?
wich one driver's wave overpowering the other's...

but i am more interested into learning what is happening inside than outside the box as far as bipolar concept...


talking about bipolar/dipolar stuff..

ESL beeing dipolar drivers, what problems do we encounter when dipolar drivers are working in free space?
and please i need to understand how big the baffle needs to be to prevent the rear wave to reach the front ..
is it 1 wavelentgh? 1/2? and do we calculate the total frontal area of the oudspeaker or doest the measurement start from each side of the driver's end?



if the baffle is large enough for no wave to reach other side intact, and the driver is far from side walls and front wall, i guess that secondary reflections would be controlled pretty easily nah ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th July 2004, 06:24 AM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
paulspencer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Some people are very hard to impress!!!

I think surround is a lot of fun, and some time later I'd like to build some monopole surrounds with dipoles - like M&K's "tripole surrounds," assuming that my experiments confirm that it's the way to go ...

But I think 90% of our enjoyment of the theatre experience is the big screen, the stereo channels and the sub, so I'm working on them first as I can do them all diy (including the projetor). Going to surround can actually cost as much as a diy projector, sub and mains!
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th July 2004, 06:29 AM   #19
JinMTVT is offline JinMTVT  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MTL
Quote:
Originally posted by paulspencer
Some people are very hard to impress!!!
..... Going to surround can actually cost as much as a diy projector, sub and mains!

ahaha well i've hear quite a lot of dam good stereo setup at the hi-fi shows in here !!! so quite often in surrond setups all the quality of the components is down since cost as to matter at some point, and it just brings down all the experience..

my guess is that a well treated rooom with really good quaity stereo setup + sub is really hard to beat for movies..

and it is true that 5.1 and + setups are quite expensive
and unless you are running a really good processor with seperate high quality DACs ( or a good computer setup like mine ;p )
you ought to loose some quality ... but hey
it doesn't matter as much when watching a movie as when reproducing a quality recorded music..to me at least

SPL takes an important place in HT setups!
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th July 2004, 11:35 AM   #20
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
ESL beeing dipolar drivers, what problems do we encounter when dipolar drivers are working in free space?and please i need to understand how big the baffle needs to be to prevent the rear wave to reach the front ..
is it 1 wavelentgh? 1/2? and do we calculate the total frontal area of the oudspeaker or doest the measurement start from each side of the driver's end?
Keep in mind that the back wave/front wave cancellation isn't an either/or, it is a gradual and approximate phenomenon. Because baffles are rectangular, this spreads the loss frequency out even a bit more. So, yes, you can use 1/2 wavelength as a rough guide to cancellation from the effective baffle width, but it's going to be only an approximation; there will be cancellation above and below that frequency, it's just the midpoint of the cancellation curve. An approximation to effective baffle width is the square root of the driver/baffle area, but this will not be a good approximation as the baffle gets farther and farther away from being square. If you haven't looked at the stuff on Sig Linkwitz's web site, I'd recommend it.

Now, all of this is lovely for free space, where the back wave obligingly goes away after the first order cancellation. But stick that speaker in a room and everything changes. One of the dipole gurus will no doubt have some software which will enable you to calculate the free space response for a given baffle geometry more precisely, but in the end, you'll still have to measure the results and eq to your particular situation. So don't be afraid of back-of-the-envelope calculations and order-of-magnitude approximations.
__________________
"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous."- H. L. Mencken
  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
pros/cons of a 845 VS 211 jarthel Tubes / Valves 2 18th June 2007 12:57 PM
Pros and cons of corner placement nunayafb Multi-Way 9 5th May 2006 09:08 AM
TL vs MLTL, pros and cons Tomac Multi-Way 5 29th December 2004 12:55 PM
Filterless DAC - pros and cons? mr_push_pull Digital Source 1 11th August 2004 02:56 PM
Pros and Cons of this technique? G Tubes / Valves 35 23rd October 2003 05:37 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

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