No object?
Ok, so cost is no object at all? Here are some possible projects.
1) Lowther line array
2) Raven Rs line array, obviously with a wall of IB subs
3) Servo controlled electrostatic wallpaper
4) Industrial diamond fullranger, probably with that servo control
5) Massless piston (from this thread )
I guess I should have asked- is this just for music, or also home theater?
Here's what I think each would cost-
1) At $1,000 each, and 24 per side- $24,000 for the drivers. Go ahead and triple that for the enclosure, passive and active electronics, and double it again for a cost-no-object amp. call it $100,000.
2) At $2-3,000 each if you can find them, probably $50-$75,000 for the ravens. You could get by on $15,000 in subs, and a $20,000 reinforced wall to hold it all. About $110,000.
3) I don't even know if this exists. You've heard of a servo sub? Go ahead and spend the R&D to have positional feedback control of the entire surface of the electrostatic at a 100khz+ sampling rate. This one could cost millions.
4) To avoid what people call "doppler distortion" and all the other nastiness that people flung at CW in the AA thread on a new japanese fullranger, you'd need some fancy electronics. The diamond could probably be constructed for around $3mil, plus a control system that would probably be cheaper to implement than the above.
5)
Ok, so cost is no object at all? Here are some possible projects.
1) Lowther line array
2) Raven Rs line array, obviously with a wall of IB subs
3) Servo controlled electrostatic wallpaper
4) Industrial diamond fullranger, probably with that servo control
5) Massless piston (from this thread )
I guess I should have asked- is this just for music, or also home theater?
Here's what I think each would cost-
1) At $1,000 each, and 24 per side- $24,000 for the drivers. Go ahead and triple that for the enclosure, passive and active electronics, and double it again for a cost-no-object amp. call it $100,000.
2) At $2-3,000 each if you can find them, probably $50-$75,000 for the ravens. You could get by on $15,000 in subs, and a $20,000 reinforced wall to hold it all. About $110,000.
3) I don't even know if this exists. You've heard of a servo sub? Go ahead and spend the R&D to have positional feedback control of the entire surface of the electrostatic at a 100khz+ sampling rate. This one could cost millions.
4) To avoid what people call "doppler distortion" and all the other nastiness that people flung at CW in the AA thread on a new japanese fullranger, you'd need some fancy electronics. The diamond could probably be constructed for around $3mil, plus a control system that would probably be cheaper to implement than the above.
5)
Re: No object?
If you did the lowther arrary, the interdriver spacing would dictate a tweeter line of Ravens -- biamped of course.
Better would be the 4-space cycliner or sphere (i'm ignoring the time dimension so this puts us in 3-space) being moved thru 3-space, creating the massless pulstating cylinder or sphere.
dave
joe carrow said:
If you did the lowther arrary, the interdriver spacing would dictate a tweeter line of Ravens -- biamped of course.
Better would be the 4-space cycliner or sphere (i'm ignoring the time dimension so this puts us in 3-space) being moved thru 3-space, creating the massless pulstating cylinder or sphere.
dave
on a more serious note than a massless piston driver 
I would really consider doing a pair of huge electrosatic
pannels, something in the 8feet tall by 4 feet each..
drived directly by an HV output amp, mono for each of course...
of you could only use plitron nice ESL transformers with good good amplifiers ...( that is prety cheap in fact, 340$CAD each transfo *2)
Pannels would be divided based on quadrative residue formula for best possible output ..
Xoed at 300-500hz
lower freq. would be coverd by 8 18" drivers
in 2 towers ...deisgn would have to be think of
maybe bipolar TL style ( just to please Dave )
I guess that would make some good system .
Room would need to be at least 20' by 20'+ with 9' ceiling.
That would be a project i would go in if i had ressources
( time and money )
( at least mine is kinda realistic haha )
I would really consider doing a pair of huge electrosatic
pannels, something in the 8feet tall by 4 feet each..
drived directly by an HV output amp, mono for each of course...
of you could only use plitron nice ESL transformers with good good amplifiers ...( that is prety cheap in fact, 340$CAD each transfo *2)
Pannels would be divided based on quadrative residue formula for best possible output ..
Xoed at 300-500hz
lower freq. would be coverd by 8 18" drivers
in 2 towers ...deisgn would have to be think of
maybe bipolar TL style ( just to please Dave
)I guess that would make some good system .
Room would need to be at least 20' by 20'+ with 9' ceiling.
That would be a project i would go in if i had ressources
( time and money
)( at least mine is kinda realistic
haha )
Hi,
Without a doubt, the answer you are looking for is the Manger 103 speaker. Plans are available from various places (email me if you have searched the net and can't find them). Manger provide very good support for DIY versions of their speakers. Apparently, so much so; they have been known to travel from Germany to the UK to listen to some. Dedication on a par with Pass Labs!
They are the most SUPERB speakers you will ever have the pleasure to listen to. BTW I am not affiliated with Manger in any way, but I have lived with the 109 speakers for a while and am building some 103 speakers at the moment.
See Manger Audio UK for details of various products. They are expensive - but try and get a listen! I guesstimate:
6 Manger Drivers....£2500
4 Visaton Subs.......£320
2 Sub Amps............£250
Misc (wood etc)......£150
Components..........£50
Finish (Reference)..£200
Total: £3470
I intend to run mine from Class-T amps and Behringer DCX2496 (or whatever the speaker control part number is!)
Good luck!
Gaz
Without a doubt, the answer you are looking for is the Manger 103 speaker. Plans are available from various places (email me if you have searched the net and can't find them). Manger provide very good support for DIY versions of their speakers. Apparently, so much so; they have been known to travel from Germany to the UK to listen to some. Dedication on a par with Pass Labs!
They are the most SUPERB speakers you will ever have the pleasure to listen to. BTW I am not affiliated with Manger in any way, but I have lived with the 109 speakers for a while and am building some 103 speakers at the moment.
See Manger Audio UK for details of various products. They are expensive - but try and get a listen! I guesstimate:
6 Manger Drivers....£2500
4 Visaton Subs.......£320
2 Sub Amps............£250
Misc (wood etc)......£150
Components..........£50
Finish (Reference)..£200
Total: £3470
I intend to run mine from Class-T amps and Behringer DCX2496 (or whatever the speaker control part number is!)
Good luck!
Gaz
Have a microphone array which can compare the input source signal with the signal taht the microphone array "hears." Making adjustments to Reverberance, Frequency response and delay to further keep the system "in-tune." This would be done by use of a computational device, perhaps a PIC will do?
Massive Electrostatic array opinion
For those dreaming of a huge electrostatic speaker, Think again. I have come close to this using 6 stacked Acoustat panels of 11" by 48" for a radiating surface of about 20 square feet per side. This was driven by a pair of tweaked Acoustat servo X direct drive tube amps. The results excelled in some areas and were limited in others. Detail and transparency and cohesiveness and tonal balance were outstanding, The best I've heard. The soundstage was huge, awesome at first but unnaturally large after listening for a while - as if a sax was 6 feet tall. Dynamics were limited, the "slam factor" was about 7 out of 10, not on par with the best. Placement in the room hindered the low end as well as the lack of dynamics. They should be placed about 1/3 of the way from the back wall to the front and away from the sides, and will still not do justice to the bottom end. One needs a large, dedicated listening room. Highs were wonderful but it was hard to place the position of the instrument since the sound eminated from so large an area.
While they were very, very good they were a bit shy of Perfect. The shortcomings were enough to make me want to move on.
I have CloneAc 2.5's right now and can live with them comfortably. I'm still searching for something better within my budget. Need to listen to Mangers. Have not yet heard them.
For those dreaming of a huge electrostatic speaker, Think again. I have come close to this using 6 stacked Acoustat panels of 11" by 48" for a radiating surface of about 20 square feet per side. This was driven by a pair of tweaked Acoustat servo X direct drive tube amps. The results excelled in some areas and were limited in others. Detail and transparency and cohesiveness and tonal balance were outstanding, The best I've heard. The soundstage was huge, awesome at first but unnaturally large after listening for a while - as if a sax was 6 feet tall. Dynamics were limited, the "slam factor" was about 7 out of 10, not on par with the best. Placement in the room hindered the low end as well as the lack of dynamics. They should be placed about 1/3 of the way from the back wall to the front and away from the sides, and will still not do justice to the bottom end. One needs a large, dedicated listening room. Highs were wonderful but it was hard to place the position of the instrument since the sound eminated from so large an area.
While they were very, very good they were a bit shy of Perfect. The shortcomings were enough to make me want to move on.
I have CloneAc 2.5's right now and can live with them comfortably. I'm still searching for something better within my budget. Need to listen to Mangers. Have not yet heard them.
I think the loudspeaker is the most important component of the audio chain for one simple reason - it is the weakest link by far. Any improvements here make a big difference. Obveusly you reach deminishing returns. Perhaps I am stating the obvious, but no one's budget is unlimited, as there is always a bigger house you can buy to have a bigger listening room etc etc etc.
There is a point to this I promise: The loudspeaker driver has really evolved lately and you can get some cool components using exotic materials (some favorites are the ATC dome, large Raven Ribons, plasma tweeters, dimond tweeters, the very beutiful TAD bass and mid-bass drivers. And the TAD compression drivers if that is your cup of tea. And also the elusive TAD berrilium midrange which Nelson Pass spoke of). Let's say you spend some bux and round up enough of these super cool drivers to blow your house to pieces (after all, you have to play at a fraction of max capability for respectable distortion figures ) What next? What will take your loudspeaker to the next level when you already have the best drivers money can buy, and the best cabinet construction using exotic materials? TacT Audio.
These guys should pay me I think
There is a point to this I promise: The loudspeaker driver has really evolved lately and you can get some cool components using exotic materials (some favorites are the ATC dome, large Raven Ribons, plasma tweeters, dimond tweeters, the very beutiful TAD bass and mid-bass drivers. And the TAD compression drivers if that is your cup of tea. And also the elusive TAD berrilium midrange which Nelson Pass spoke of). Let's say you spend some bux and round up enough of these super cool drivers to blow your house to pieces (after all, you have to play at a fraction of max capability for respectable distortion figures
) What next? What will take your loudspeaker to the next level when you already have the best drivers money can buy, and the best cabinet construction using exotic materials? TacT Audio.These guys should pay me I think
From Lynn Olson's article on speaker design and construction:
If you relax and make a mental journey to the far future, it is easy to imagine the perfect loudspeaker. It would made of an immense number of tiny point sources that would create a true acoustic wavefront (or soundfield). Resonances due to massive drivers, cabinets, or frames would be a thing of the distant past. A myriad of waveform distortions (harmonic, intermodulation, crossmodulation, frequency, phase, and group delay) would
be utterly absent ... the sound would be literally as clear as air itself. This perfect loudspeaker would be made of trillions of microscopic coherent light and sound transducers, integrated with signal processing circuits all operating in parallel. (This is similar to present-day military phased-array radars, with tens of thousands of tiny antennas with integrated electronics subsystems.) It would be constructed by a combination of nanotechnology and genetic engineering and operate at the
molecular level, appearing simply as a very thin film when not in
operation. Just for a moment, imagine a thin-film mirror for 3-dimensional sound and images with a near-infinite random-access memory that is also connected to all other mirrors; it would be "transparent" in a lot more ways than one.
If you relax and make a mental journey to the far future, it is easy to imagine the perfect loudspeaker. It would made of an immense number of tiny point sources that would create a true acoustic wavefront (or soundfield). Resonances due to massive drivers, cabinets, or frames would be a thing of the distant past. A myriad of waveform distortions (harmonic, intermodulation, crossmodulation, frequency, phase, and group delay) would
be utterly absent ... the sound would be literally as clear as air itself. This perfect loudspeaker would be made of trillions of microscopic coherent light and sound transducers, integrated with signal processing circuits all operating in parallel. (This is similar to present-day military phased-array radars, with tens of thousands of tiny antennas with integrated electronics subsystems.) It would be constructed by a combination of nanotechnology and genetic engineering and operate at the
molecular level, appearing simply as a very thin film when not in
operation. Just for a moment, imagine a thin-film mirror for 3-dimensional sound and images with a near-infinite random-access memory that is also connected to all other mirrors; it would be "transparent" in a lot more ways than one.
one ting i question myself about ..
( Beware of NOOB type of question and comment here .. )
wouldn't the best loudspeaker presently
( not in 200 years with nanoscopic stuff , cool stuff but far away stil )
have the less drivers possible ?
by that i mean that when a flat surface of a certain extent ( more than a conventional round 6 to 20" driver ) vibrates, i would think that it should produce a very good quality sound wave
( compared to let's say 10 8" drivers )
wouldn't it be mmm how should i say.. homogenous
( please excuse my poor scientific english knowledge )
thus have a better sound quality ?
that is why i personally think that pannel type drivers are really efficient ( electrostatic, ribbons and such )
if a pannel speaker could be placed in an infinit baffle woldn't it have a nice sound presentation with much less complications in room accoustics? since it is by definition really directional type of driver, and we are here talking about ultimate speakers,
i would say that better imagine and sound quality could be out of that kind of driver
also about the distance of listening, would placing speakers closer to the listener ( personal listening i am talking here )
like 1m or closer have a really big effect on quality, since requirment for spl = less power thus better efficiency and less distortion?
depends alot on your definition of ultimate speakers, if personal or fill the 15 seat room type
( Beware of NOOB type of question and comment here .. )
wouldn't the best loudspeaker presently
( not in 200 years with nanoscopic stuff , cool stuff but far away stil
)have the less drivers possible ?
by that i mean that when a flat surface of a certain extent ( more than a conventional round 6 to 20" driver ) vibrates, i would think that it should produce a very good quality sound wave
( compared to let's say 10 8" drivers )
wouldn't it be mmm how should i say.. homogenous
( please excuse my poor scientific english knowledge
)thus have a better sound quality ?
that is why i personally think that pannel type drivers are really efficient ( electrostatic, ribbons and such )
if a pannel speaker could be placed in an infinit baffle woldn't it have a nice sound presentation with much less complications in room accoustics? since it is by definition really directional type of driver, and we are here talking about ultimate speakers,
i would say that better imagine and sound quality could be out of that kind of driver
also about the distance of listening, would placing speakers closer to the listener ( personal listening i am talking here )
like 1m or closer have a really big effect on quality, since requirment for spl = less power thus better efficiency and less distortion?
depends alot on your definition of ultimate speakers, if personal or fill the 15 seat room type
JinMTVT said:one ting i question myself about ..
( Beware of NOOB type of question and comment here .. )
wouldn't the best loudspeaker presently
( not in 200 years with nanoscopic stuff , cool stuff but far away stil
have the less drivers possible ?
by that i mean that when a flat surface of a certain extent ( more than a conventional round 6 to 20" driver ) vibrates, i would think that it should produce a very good quality sound wave
( compared to let's say 10 8" drivers )
wouldn't it be mmm how should i say.. homogenous
( please excuse my poor scientific english knowledge
thus have a better sound quality ?
that is why i personally think that pannel type drivers are really efficient ( electrostatic, ribbons and such )
if a pannel speaker could be placed in an infinit baffle woldn't it have a nice sound presentation with much less complications in room accoustics? since it is by definition really directional type of driver, and we are here talking about ultimate speakers,
i would say that better imagine and sound quality could be out of that kind of driver
also about the distance of listening, would placing speakers closer to the listener ( personal listening i am talking here )
like 1m or closer have a really big effect on quality, since requirment for spl = less power thus better efficiency and less distortion?
depends alot on your definition of ultimate speakers, if personal or fill the 15 seat room type
A single driver has many advantages over a multiple driver setup. Even if you exclude the detrimental effects of mid/high slope crossovers and increase the number of the same driver, interferences will occur to some degree or another. However, as with any engineering tradeoff, there are advantages of going the other way. Just depends what is important to your application and ears. Same can be said about moving the electro stats closer to your listening position. There is much to be gained from locating your self in the near field of the point source, however I prefer to move around when I listen, and will rarely sit down with the sole purpose of just listening (perhaps when I have a system that is captivating enough to keep me on my butt, this will change). If the near field idea is important to you, then line source arrays should be of interest, because their sound radiation puts the listener in the near field for a much longer distance (perhaps the entire room!) But unless you use electro stats, your single driver idea will have to be "traded off'.
Konnichiwa,
Absolutely and plenty of ideas.
Now first, I interpret "cost no object" as meaning "I can use expensive drivers".
Otherwise I'd suggest by starting with the room and build/design in a suitable hornloaded array for LF with a true 20Hz horn and suitable (options) for the midrange/high frequency arrays. Something like multiple Oris 150's as lower midrange and a 2" Compression driver equipped spherical horn for the upper mids plus some form of supertweeter system might work great. The room should of course follow the use of fortuitous numbers in it's geometry, have maybe a cathedral ceiling and a horsehair plaster over wood consytruction.
Back to "it has to fit into existing rooms but it can cost quite a bit of money.
Truth 1: The actual woofer system between 30....50Hz to around 150...300Hz should be (must be?) dipolar to minimise room interaction. Below this you can apply a sealed woofer system. The upper boundary is set either by the lower boundary of the directivity control of the Mid/Hi Array or the beginning of the (IIRC) sabine region in the rooms modal behaviour where individual room modes are no longer observable and the sound field becomes diffuse.
A pair of 21" or 24" pro audio woofers can be adapted to operate well in such an LF system (unipole) if the lower midrange and upper bass array shows a good directivity control.
Truth 2: The system covering the formant range and lower treble must have constant and fairly well defined directivity. Failure to control directivity tightly will promote the rooms ambient sound over that of the recording, often eliminitaing recording ambinence. Extreme examples of how not do it is Bose 901, Shainian, other omnidirectional system and most ribbon/magneplanar/electrostatic dipoles.
A large horn or large format coaxial driver (of the Tannoy Style type it should be added, meaning using the cone as hornextension) on a dipole can fulfill the above requirement well, shop at Tannoy or Pro Audio. Another option is something like a Oris 150 or 200 horn with a suitable driver, somewhat reminiscent of Avant Garde.
Truth 3: There is an inherent link between distortion, compression and sensitivity. Low sensitivity invariably means relatively high distortion and compression, though high sensitivity does not gurantee low distortion and compression it is a good pointer, together with some other pointers.
This in effect excludes any "High Fidelity" driver of the common kind from use. Pro and Pro Studio Drivers become a fundamental requirement.
It should also be obvious that a fairly large number of drivers and ways comes into this. My proposal for a well designed "domestic monitor system looks a little like this:
Infrawoofer (aka Subwoofer/Superwoofer etc.), largest format driver available and affordable in small sealed enclosure, equalised in ELF or Linkwitz fashion. Minimum dual Pro Audio 18" , preferable 21" to 24", optimal Fostex 32" Driver mounted into wall using another room as rear chamber.
Woofer, large format driver on dipole, fundamental resonance around 30Hz, electronically equalised with it's own Amplifier, active. Crossover should allow blending with the upper bass unit without requiring high slope higpass filtering on the Upper bass unit. A 21" to 24" unit seems desirable, 18" may suffice.
Lower Mid, large format coaxial Cone section, preferably in vestigal front horn (waveguide). This should be allowed to be driven passive and any dipole LF rolloff and Driver losses due to excessively low Qt (if present) should be equalised by manipulating the crossover slope of the Woofer, to use the woofer as "fill in".
Upper Mid, medium to large format compression driver in coaxial frame, coaxial cone profile forming horn extension. A 1" driver is mandatory, a 2" exit 4" Vocie coil driver seems perferable, ideally a low compression ratio driver is used.
Coaxials comming to mind are Tannoy, Various Beyma, Ciare, P.Audio and others, 12" to 15".
The crossover between woofer and compression driver should be low slope (ideally 1st order with the HF section reverting to 2nd order below the compression drivers natural resonance) and the horizontal offset between Driver and Cone system should be corrected. This suggests a digital, active crossover system though other methodes (passive) exist.
Finally, compression drivers invariably struggle above around 8..10KHz, so rather than attempting to equalise the topend flat add a supertweeter. Ribbon, Horn, active, passive, the options are infinite.
That is my take on a nice domestic monitor grade speaker, which minimises it's interaction with the roiom and is not materially limited by distortion and compression at any more or less desirable or feasible SPL, something which if well implemented one may call a "blameless" speaker.
Active Multiamplification with Valve (SE?) Amplifiers for the lower and upper mid seems desirable, big, hugely powerfull Solid State amplifiers for the LF sections, probably digital aka Tripath et al.
A somewhat more sensible solution could incoporate a plate Amp (modified) for the woofer and use a passive crossover for Coaxial Driver and supertweeter, making the whole thing in essence stand alone. The extra Infra Woofer can then be a stand alone cabinet (coffee table?). Such a system could be made relatively compact, the main pannels would need to be no larger than 2' X 3' 6" and not very deep.
Sayonara
benoz said:
Absolutely and plenty of ideas.
Now first, I interpret "cost no object" as meaning "I can use expensive drivers".
Otherwise I'd suggest by starting with the room and build/design in a suitable hornloaded array for LF with a true 20Hz horn and suitable (options) for the midrange/high frequency arrays. Something like multiple Oris 150's as lower midrange and a 2" Compression driver equipped spherical horn for the upper mids plus some form of supertweeter system might work great. The room should of course follow the use of fortuitous numbers in it's geometry, have maybe a cathedral ceiling and a horsehair plaster over wood consytruction.
Back to "it has to fit into existing rooms but it can cost quite a bit of money.
Truth 1: The actual woofer system between 30....50Hz to around 150...300Hz should be (must be?) dipolar to minimise room interaction. Below this you can apply a sealed woofer system. The upper boundary is set either by the lower boundary of the directivity control of the Mid/Hi Array or the beginning of the (IIRC) sabine region in the rooms modal behaviour where individual room modes are no longer observable and the sound field becomes diffuse.
A pair of 21" or 24" pro audio woofers can be adapted to operate well in such an LF system (unipole) if the lower midrange and upper bass array shows a good directivity control.
Truth 2: The system covering the formant range and lower treble must have constant and fairly well defined directivity. Failure to control directivity tightly will promote the rooms ambient sound over that of the recording, often eliminitaing recording ambinence. Extreme examples of how not do it is Bose 901, Shainian, other omnidirectional system and most ribbon/magneplanar/electrostatic dipoles.
A large horn or large format coaxial driver (of the Tannoy Style type it should be added, meaning using the cone as hornextension) on a dipole can fulfill the above requirement well, shop at Tannoy or Pro Audio. Another option is something like a Oris 150 or 200 horn with a suitable driver, somewhat reminiscent of Avant Garde.
Truth 3: There is an inherent link between distortion, compression and sensitivity. Low sensitivity invariably means relatively high distortion and compression, though high sensitivity does not gurantee low distortion and compression it is a good pointer, together with some other pointers.
This in effect excludes any "High Fidelity" driver of the common kind from use. Pro and Pro Studio Drivers become a fundamental requirement.
It should also be obvious that a fairly large number of drivers and ways comes into this. My proposal for a well designed "domestic monitor system looks a little like this:
Infrawoofer (aka Subwoofer/Superwoofer etc.), largest format driver available and affordable in small sealed enclosure, equalised in ELF or Linkwitz fashion. Minimum dual Pro Audio 18" , preferable 21" to 24", optimal Fostex 32" Driver mounted into wall using another room as rear chamber.
Woofer, large format driver on dipole, fundamental resonance around 30Hz, electronically equalised with it's own Amplifier, active. Crossover should allow blending with the upper bass unit without requiring high slope higpass filtering on the Upper bass unit. A 21" to 24" unit seems desirable, 18" may suffice.
Lower Mid, large format coaxial Cone section, preferably in vestigal front horn (waveguide). This should be allowed to be driven passive and any dipole LF rolloff and Driver losses due to excessively low Qt (if present) should be equalised by manipulating the crossover slope of the Woofer, to use the woofer as "fill in".
Upper Mid, medium to large format compression driver in coaxial frame, coaxial cone profile forming horn extension. A 1" driver is mandatory, a 2" exit 4" Vocie coil driver seems perferable, ideally a low compression ratio driver is used.
Coaxials comming to mind are Tannoy, Various Beyma, Ciare, P.Audio and others, 12" to 15".
The crossover between woofer and compression driver should be low slope (ideally 1st order with the HF section reverting to 2nd order below the compression drivers natural resonance) and the horizontal offset between Driver and Cone system should be corrected. This suggests a digital, active crossover system though other methodes (passive) exist.
Finally, compression drivers invariably struggle above around 8..10KHz, so rather than attempting to equalise the topend flat add a supertweeter. Ribbon, Horn, active, passive, the options are infinite.
That is my take on a nice domestic monitor grade speaker, which minimises it's interaction with the roiom and is not materially limited by distortion and compression at any more or less desirable or feasible SPL, something which if well implemented one may call a "blameless" speaker.
Active Multiamplification with Valve (SE?) Amplifiers for the lower and upper mid seems desirable, big, hugely powerfull Solid State amplifiers for the LF sections, probably digital aka Tripath et al.
A somewhat more sensible solution could incoporate a plate Amp (modified) for the woofer and use a passive crossover for Coaxial Driver and supertweeter, making the whole thing in essence stand alone. The extra Infra Woofer can then be a stand alone cabinet (coffee table?). Such a system could be made relatively compact, the main pannels would need to be no larger than 2' X 3' 6" and not very deep.
Sayonara
Re: Re: ultimate DIY speakers - Ideas?
As per Mr. S. Linkwitz (perhaps one of the more vocal supporters of dipole systems, in some part due to his own dipole offerings): The TacT correction system makes a sealed box sound just about like a dipole, only requireing 1 driver for every 8 that a dipole would require due to power loss. This is not a quote but an acurate paraphrase from his site. There are many ways to limit room interactions, of which going dipole is just one. The tradeoff is that you will have to rig up too many drivers to have a good bass slam. And if you are going dipole, I think you have to go all the way, from subs to mids, with perhaps only the tweeter going point source. To me the idea of a sealed sub with dipole mid-bass and sealed mids is a little incohisive.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
As per Mr. S. Linkwitz (perhaps one of the more vocal supporters of dipole systems, in some part due to his own dipole offerings): The TacT correction system makes a sealed box sound just about like a dipole, only requireing 1 driver for every 8 that a dipole would require due to power loss. This is not a quote but an acurate paraphrase from his site. There are many ways to limit room interactions, of which going dipole is just one. The tradeoff is that you will have to rig up too many drivers to have a good bass slam. And if you are going dipole, I think you have to go all the way, from subs to mids, with perhaps only the tweeter going point source. To me the idea of a sealed sub with dipole mid-bass and sealed mids is a little incohisive.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.