This is just to say thanks to everybody who gave input on my line array project. I'm done, they sound amazing. I have documented process, measurements, results, pics, references, etc in the website referenced in this message.
Line Array Documentation
Line Array Documentation
Bill Fitzpatrick said:
I second this request! I couldn't view all of it, it was just too sloooooooooooooooooow.
Nice work though. Are all those expensive tweeters necessary since only about 10% (pulling a number out of the air here) of the power spectrum is going to be handled by the tweeter package?
Hi,
Was there any reason you used the Neo3 over the Neo3PDR?
Also, a question for Jim G. - For a very high quality array, would your first choice be to use dome tweeters or some kind of ribbon/planar tweeter? Assume that a single planar and a single dome sound the same. When you put 12 or more together in an array, which is typically the better solution?
I have a hard time finding dome tweeters that are small enough to have a good center to center spacing. The best I can find are tweeters that have a 2.125 inch face plate.
Thanks.
Was there any reason you used the Neo3 over the Neo3PDR?
Also, a question for Jim G. - For a very high quality array, would your first choice be to use dome tweeters or some kind of ribbon/planar tweeter? Assume that a single planar and a single dome sound the same. When you put 12 or more together in an array, which is typically the better solution?
I have a hard time finding dome tweeters that are small enough to have a good center to center spacing. The best I can find are tweeters that have a 2.125 inch face plate.
Thanks.
I wonder how this:
would compare if you put it head-to-head with this:
(The one at the far right, the 6-6.)
They use the same tweeter, but I imagne the crossover design also has a lot to do with it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
would compare if you put it head-to-head with this:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
(The one at the far right, the 6-6.)
They use the same tweeter, but I imagne the crossover design also has a lot to do with it.
sorry about that.. and
Sorry for the large images - I think I shrunk the presentation but not the file sizes. Programming error.
Its the NEO3pdr - which is less effecient but has better dispersion than the (old) NEO3. Over a year I just started calling it shorthand.
I used 12 per side for 2 reasons:
1) The Neo's vertical dispersion is non existant - so I needed to cover a tall person standing up, and a short person sitting down, and in-between.
2) I wanted to match the line length of the woofers - this was the strong recomendation of BG, and Jim. BG had built an LA with Neo's - so the recco was based on some real experience rather than their desire to sell more tweeters. (Sounds naive doesn't it?).
LOL seeing the other Line Arrays - they better sound good for that kinda money! Based on field transition, I felt 40 inches was the minimum I could get away with given my listening position. I would have done more - but every new woofer in the line cost roughly 300 bucks for two new tweeters (to match length) and a woofer for both sides. The box is tall relative to the number of drivers so that 1) I could add some if I screwed up, and 2) I didn't need speaker stands.
Sorry for the large images - I think I shrunk the presentation but not the file sizes. Programming error.
Its the NEO3pdr - which is less effecient but has better dispersion than the (old) NEO3. Over a year I just started calling it shorthand.
I used 12 per side for 2 reasons:
1) The Neo's vertical dispersion is non existant - so I needed to cover a tall person standing up, and a short person sitting down, and in-between.
2) I wanted to match the line length of the woofers - this was the strong recomendation of BG, and Jim. BG had built an LA with Neo's - so the recco was based on some real experience rather than their desire to sell more tweeters. (Sounds naive doesn't it?).
LOL seeing the other Line Arrays - they better sound good for that kinda money! Based on field transition, I felt 40 inches was the minimum I could get away with given my listening position. I would have done more - but every new woofer in the line cost roughly 300 bucks for two new tweeters (to match length) and a woofer for both sides. The box is tall relative to the number of drivers so that 1) I could add some if I screwed up, and 2) I didn't need speaker stands.
Comparing to the expensive ones
Those pricy ones look square - what!? They forgot about internal standing waves in a 12,000 dollar speaker? It can't be.
Those pricy ones have a woofer line a foot longer that the tweeter line - which as far as I can tell will simply create spots with bad response. (Note that will occur in mine too since the woofers disperse vertically more than the tweeters. I think that if those are neo's in there they are wasting 1 woofer per side. Also, the tweets look pretty far apart. I wonder what sort of sonic choas that would cause.
Those pricy ones seem to have mounted the tweeter behind the baffle which might cause some strange artifacts with loading. For all I know its a "feature". I was comitted to flush mounting.
those pricy ones have internal crossovers (I assume) so are not very tweekable, and use Tangband drivers which, while I won't insult them, there's a reason they cost less than half as much I suppose.
I figured if I was gong to spend more on speaker parts than my car is worth, they better be damn good speakers when I was done - thus no compromize on parts. All my vifa systems have sounded good, and my experiments with Tangband have turned out ... ok. Not rigorous, I know, but in the end you make a decision. ted.
Those pricy ones look square - what!? They forgot about internal standing waves in a 12,000 dollar speaker? It can't be.
Those pricy ones have a woofer line a foot longer that the tweeter line - which as far as I can tell will simply create spots with bad response. (Note that will occur in mine too since the woofers disperse vertically more than the tweeters. I think that if those are neo's in there they are wasting 1 woofer per side. Also, the tweets look pretty far apart. I wonder what sort of sonic choas that would cause.
Those pricy ones seem to have mounted the tweeter behind the baffle which might cause some strange artifacts with loading. For all I know its a "feature". I was comitted to flush mounting.
those pricy ones have internal crossovers (I assume) so are not very tweekable, and use Tangband drivers which, while I won't insult them, there's a reason they cost less than half as much I suppose.
I figured if I was gong to spend more on speaker parts than my car is worth, they better be damn good speakers when I was done - thus no compromize on parts. All my vifa systems have sounded good, and my experiments with Tangband have turned out ... ok. Not rigorous, I know, but in the end you make a decision. ted.
"1) The Neo's vertical dispersion is non existant .."
actually they should have an excellent vertical dispersion
http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=plop.html
also looking at your measurements I'm not seeing comb-filtering effects until about 12kHz (if then). What I am seeing is of course a non-smoothed response which is perfectly normal, (only good true ribbons have a response that looks like its been smoothed). I think the nice thing here is that while the tweet line is acting as an array (rather than a true linesource), the acoustic center is fairly broad vertically - meaning that there is less vertical distance between drivers acoustic centers (resulting in less comb filtering in the audible range).
Remember.. price doesn't mean squat, no doubt the designer priced his creation in relation to other comercial speakers of what he believed had similar sonic merit. Also, I'm fairly certain you can buy these tweets (neo3 and neo8 -pdr versions as well) for about 10 US when purchased direct from Manila in lots of 500 (perhaps selling off the excess to other DIY'ers or traditional parts suppliers).
actually they should have an excellent vertical dispersion
http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=plop.html
also looking at your measurements I'm not seeing comb-filtering effects until about 12kHz (if then). What I am seeing is of course a non-smoothed response which is perfectly normal, (only good true ribbons have a response that looks like its been smoothed). I think the nice thing here is that while the tweet line is acting as an array (rather than a true linesource), the acoustic center is fairly broad vertically - meaning that there is less vertical distance between drivers acoustic centers (resulting in less comb filtering in the audible range).
Remember.. price doesn't mean squat, no doubt the designer priced his creation in relation to other comercial speakers of what he believed had similar sonic merit. Also, I'm fairly certain you can buy these tweets (neo3 and neo8 -pdr versions as well) for about 10 US when purchased direct from Manila in lots of 500 (perhaps selling off the excess to other DIY'ers or traditional parts suppliers).
I like this thread...
So if we like planar or ribbons over domes, How do you decide between the Neo3 and the Neo8, both PDR versions?
The real core of my question is, do you want the better dispersion of the Neo3? Does this give you a bigger, more powerful sound? The tweeters adding together becoming more efficient?
Or do we want as little dispersion overlap as we can get? Use the Neo8? Will the sound be as big or strong? Maybe it is cleaner because of less comb lines in the highest frequencies?
Any opinions?
Thanks.
So if we like planar or ribbons over domes, How do you decide between the Neo3 and the Neo8, both PDR versions?
The real core of my question is, do you want the better dispersion of the Neo3? Does this give you a bigger, more powerful sound? The tweeters adding together becoming more efficient?
Or do we want as little dispersion overlap as we can get? Use the Neo8? Will the sound be as big or strong? Maybe it is cleaner because of less comb lines in the highest frequencies?
Any opinions?
Thanks.
I think that even the neo 8's have a fair bit of vertical dispersion - so even here you're creating an array (as opposed to a line source). Again though, the neo 8's should have a broad acoustic center so comb filtering should be less of an issue.
What will be an issue is the gain the array has over the line source. As freq. decreases the array will increase in output level leading to a more eff. but downward sloping freq. response that can (and usually is) compensated for in the eq. portion of the crossover. Note however that the Neo 8's have an increasing freq. response - SO they might not need the eq. compensation (where as the neo 3's will). On the other hand the neo 3's have a better spectral decay higher in freq. with a much more extended freq. response and better off-axis horizontal dispersion in these higer freq.s (above 13kHz).
The breakdown is this:
Neo 8's
1. Longer vertical length = less drivers = less cost
2. Less extended freq. response = need for super tweeters = more cost
3. Much lower fs = lower possible crossover point = easier time integrating with midbass drivers = greater flexibility with crossover slopes
4. Increasing freq. response = less need for eq. tailoring in the circuit = bettersound = less cost = greater eff.
5. Poorer spectral decay higher in freq. = poorer high freq. sound
6. Better spectral decay lower in freq. = better midrange sound
Neo 3's
1. Shorter vertical length = more drivers = more cost
2. Greater extended freq. response = little or no need for super tweeters = less cost
3. Much higher fs = higher possible crossover point = much more difficult time integrating with mid bass drivers = much less flexibility with crossover slopes
4. Reasonably flat freq. response = need to compensate for downward freq. response tilt = worse sound = more cost = less eff.
5. Better spectral decay higher in freq. = better high freq. sound
6. Poorer spectral decay lower in freq. = worse midrange sound
More line source characteristics can be achieved with drivers that have virtually no vertical dispersion, such as the Hi-Vi Research drivers (which would make an excellent if costly supertweeter array to acompany a Neo-8 array). Essentially they do not "sum" like an array and will not have comb filtering problems or gain lower in freq..
What will be an issue is the gain the array has over the line source. As freq. decreases the array will increase in output level leading to a more eff. but downward sloping freq. response that can (and usually is) compensated for in the eq. portion of the crossover. Note however that the Neo 8's have an increasing freq. response - SO they might not need the eq. compensation (where as the neo 3's will). On the other hand the neo 3's have a better spectral decay higher in freq. with a much more extended freq. response and better off-axis horizontal dispersion in these higer freq.s (above 13kHz).
The breakdown is this:
Neo 8's
1. Longer vertical length = less drivers = less cost
2. Less extended freq. response = need for super tweeters = more cost
3. Much lower fs = lower possible crossover point = easier time integrating with midbass drivers = greater flexibility with crossover slopes
4. Increasing freq. response = less need for eq. tailoring in the circuit = bettersound = less cost = greater eff.
5. Poorer spectral decay higher in freq. = poorer high freq. sound
6. Better spectral decay lower in freq. = better midrange sound
Neo 3's
1. Shorter vertical length = more drivers = more cost
2. Greater extended freq. response = little or no need for super tweeters = less cost
3. Much higher fs = higher possible crossover point = much more difficult time integrating with mid bass drivers = much less flexibility with crossover slopes
4. Reasonably flat freq. response = need to compensate for downward freq. response tilt = worse sound = more cost = less eff.
5. Better spectral decay higher in freq. = better high freq. sound
6. Poorer spectral decay lower in freq. = worse midrange sound
More line source characteristics can be achieved with drivers that have virtually no vertical dispersion, such as the Hi-Vi Research drivers (which would make an excellent if costly supertweeter array to acompany a Neo-8 array). Essentially they do not "sum" like an array and will not have comb filtering problems or gain lower in freq..
Nice response
Thanks ScottG.
I like tha layout and logic in your response. Gives me more things to consider.
Here is something I am thinking about.
Use the Neo8s for tweeter array, maybe 6 or 8 per speaker. Also use maybe just 1 Neo3 to the side of the Neo8 line? Build a passive crossover for between the 8's and the one 3. Then consider I will be using a Marchand XM44 active crossover between the Neo8s and the midwoofer line. What crossover point and slope may work between the 8's and the one 3? I think very simple, maybe 12k, first order.
I this crazy, or would this sound good?
Thanks ScottG.
I like tha layout and logic in your response. Gives me more things to consider.
Here is something I am thinking about.
Use the Neo8s for tweeter array, maybe 6 or 8 per speaker. Also use maybe just 1 Neo3 to the side of the Neo8 line? Build a passive crossover for between the 8's and the one 3. Then consider I will be using a Marchand XM44 active crossover between the Neo8s and the midwoofer line. What crossover point and slope may work between the 8's and the one 3? I think very simple, maybe 12k, first order.
I this crazy, or would this sound good?
Your Welcome!
If I were you I'd try and keep the line with as little width as posible (gives better imaging), so..
the driver to the side isn't such a good idea, better above or below the line. (and try to get smaller midrange drivers to the side, perhaps 4 inch).
Also consider that the eff. of a neo 8 line will be fairly high and the neo 3 might not be eff. enough., instead consider a much more eff. "super tweeter" with a TRANSFORMER volume control.
The reason for this "configuration" is that a point source (or a small line source) like your super tweeter will be, will have a reduction of 6 db for every meter vs. only 3 db for the neo 8 line. So if the drivers are matched in level at a 1 meter distance then the supertweeter will be down 3 db at 2 meters and 6 db at 3 meters.
With the higher eff. super tweeter you can "bleed" off the excess eff./gain via the volume control to set the level for what ever listening distance you like to get a flat summed response.
Note: The volume control should NOT be resistive, instead it should be a transformer (typically 8 Ohms). It doesn't even need to have an exotic core like the kind available from Fostex and Sowter - instead just a cheap wall volume control will do (though try and find one with less than 3 db steps for greater control).
I'd think that the Fountek JP 2.0 would work rather well (though its a bit pricey), the transform could be from Atlas Sound or some such (like the kind you find in Radio Shack for mounting to your homes walls to control the volume of in-wall speakers).
Design would look something like this:
http://www.vmpsaudio.com/rmx.htm
(except of course that you should have a row of midranges to the side like a traditional line source speaker)
I would NOT use an active crossover. Instead a simple 1st order electrical crossover at each point. Because the line of midbasses will start to take a "nose-dive" in response around 1kHz you'll have an acoustic crossover point here so all you'll need is a high-pass crossover for your neo 8 line and again your neo 8 line will not need a low-pass crossover so that you'll only need a high-pass crossover for the transformer and super tweet.
Note that the 1st order high pass with super tweeter will give a 15 deg. polar tilt to the super tweeter's radiation. make sure the "tilt" fires down toward the line rather than left, right, or upward (if the super tweet is above the line). In otherwords rotate the driver for a more effective vertical radiation.
If I were you I'd try and keep the line with as little width as posible (gives better imaging), so..
the driver to the side isn't such a good idea, better above or below the line. (and try to get smaller midrange drivers to the side, perhaps 4 inch).
Also consider that the eff. of a neo 8 line will be fairly high and the neo 3 might not be eff. enough., instead consider a much more eff. "super tweeter" with a TRANSFORMER volume control.
The reason for this "configuration" is that a point source (or a small line source) like your super tweeter will be, will have a reduction of 6 db for every meter vs. only 3 db for the neo 8 line. So if the drivers are matched in level at a 1 meter distance then the supertweeter will be down 3 db at 2 meters and 6 db at 3 meters.
With the higher eff. super tweeter you can "bleed" off the excess eff./gain via the volume control to set the level for what ever listening distance you like to get a flat summed response.
Note: The volume control should NOT be resistive, instead it should be a transformer (typically 8 Ohms). It doesn't even need to have an exotic core like the kind available from Fostex and Sowter - instead just a cheap wall volume control will do (though try and find one with less than 3 db steps for greater control).
I'd think that the Fountek JP 2.0 would work rather well (though its a bit pricey), the transform could be from Atlas Sound or some such (like the kind you find in Radio Shack for mounting to your homes walls to control the volume of in-wall speakers).
Design would look something like this:
http://www.vmpsaudio.com/rmx.htm
(except of course that you should have a row of midranges to the side like a traditional line source speaker)
I would NOT use an active crossover. Instead a simple 1st order electrical crossover at each point. Because the line of midbasses will start to take a "nose-dive" in response around 1kHz you'll have an acoustic crossover point here so all you'll need is a high-pass crossover for your neo 8 line and again your neo 8 line will not need a low-pass crossover so that you'll only need a high-pass crossover for the transformer and super tweet.
Note that the 1st order high pass with super tweeter will give a 15 deg. polar tilt to the super tweeter's radiation. make sure the "tilt" fires down toward the line rather than left, right, or upward (if the super tweet is above the line). In otherwords rotate the driver for a more effective vertical radiation.
ScottG, now you have me more off track. Thats good. Before I built my first pair of speakers, I read this forum for 4 months. My plans changed many times. I am happy with the outcome.
I will need to soak this in. Why will the line of mid-woofers take a nose dive starting at 1K?
The mid-woofer I plan to use is a peerless on sale at Madisound, $13 each, 5.75 inch. Give your opinion on the peerless if you like.
Also, I would of used high quality resistors to attenuate the ribbon. I am not familar with using a transformer for volume. What is the advantage?
I am going to bed,
Tom
I will need to soak this in. Why will the line of mid-woofers take a nose dive starting at 1K?
The mid-woofer I plan to use is a peerless on sale at Madisound, $13 each, 5.75 inch. Give your opinion on the peerless if you like.
Also, I would of used high quality resistors to attenuate the ribbon. I am not familar with using a transformer for volume. What is the advantage?
I am going to bed,
Tom
"Why will the line of mid-woofers take a nose dive starting at 1K?"
seeing is believing so..
http://www.partsexpress.com/projectshowcase/Kuze3201/Kuze3201.html
Notice the difference between the "no eq smoothed" vs. "the eq. smoothed".
All ARRAYS (as opposed to linesources) exhibit this effect to some degree because the physical length of the freq. in conjunction with its summation with other driver(s). (and this was why I was explaining that the neo 8 already had the upward tilting freq. response so that you wouldn't need to eq. it.)
Since the response is already down anywhere between 3-6 db between 1 and 2 kHz you already have your lowpass filter "built-in" for your mid/bass line.
____________________________________________________
"Give your opinion on the peerless if you like."
Avoid Peerless - strictly mid-fi except for their subwoofers.
(In general avoid poly BASED woofers. Skanning is certainly an exception.)
With the possible exception of some of the hi-vi units and the tang band units there is only one speaker I would consider for less than 40 US. (in fact for the price its a "no-brainer".)
drum roll please.....
-The Audax AP100G0-
They retail for 14.50 at Madisound, but no doubt you could get a discount of at least a 1.00 each for 16+ drivers.
This is a 4 inch driver with a fairly low mass and is cellulose based with a poly coating (+ shielding is thrown in). Fs isn't very low BUT you really shouldn't be trying for a low freq. response with these midbasses. Audax also has very good component parts regardless of driver price (except for the crappy plastic baskets on some models - which is NOT the case here.)
Go to:
http://www.audax.fr
Now click on "Produits" (to the left side of the page)
Now click on "standard"
Now click on "Papier traite"
Now click on "AP100G0"
Not only do you have the TS params here for the driver, but you can also open up the windows for the the freq. response ("Courbe Response") and in particular the driver's cumulative spectral decay ("Attenuation Temporelle").
Take a long HARD look at that spectral decay.. VERY few drivers even come close to this. If its half as good as the published graph then your getting a bargain for your 14.50.
____________________________________________________
"Also, I would of used high quality resistors to attenuate the ribbon. I am not familar with using a transformer for volume. What is the advantage?"
Resistors overdamp the driver anything beyond about 2db of attenuation. This is particularly awfull for treble. When people have complained about the crappy sound exhibited by a ribbon tweeter this is usually the reason why. Transformer attenuators don't have this problem.
seeing is believing so..
http://www.partsexpress.com/projectshowcase/Kuze3201/Kuze3201.html
Notice the difference between the "no eq smoothed" vs. "the eq. smoothed".
All ARRAYS (as opposed to linesources) exhibit this effect to some degree because the physical length of the freq. in conjunction with its summation with other driver(s). (and this was why I was explaining that the neo 8 already had the upward tilting freq. response so that you wouldn't need to eq. it.)
Since the response is already down anywhere between 3-6 db between 1 and 2 kHz you already have your lowpass filter "built-in" for your mid/bass line.
____________________________________________________
"Give your opinion on the peerless if you like."
Avoid Peerless - strictly mid-fi except for their subwoofers.
(In general avoid poly BASED woofers. Skanning is certainly an exception.)
With the possible exception of some of the hi-vi units and the tang band units there is only one speaker I would consider for less than 40 US. (in fact for the price its a "no-brainer".)
drum roll please.....
-The Audax AP100G0-
They retail for 14.50 at Madisound, but no doubt you could get a discount of at least a 1.00 each for 16+ drivers.
This is a 4 inch driver with a fairly low mass and is cellulose based with a poly coating (+ shielding is thrown in). Fs isn't very low BUT you really shouldn't be trying for a low freq. response with these midbasses. Audax also has very good component parts regardless of driver price (except for the crappy plastic baskets on some models - which is NOT the case here.)
Go to:
http://www.audax.fr
Now click on "Produits" (to the left side of the page)
Now click on "standard"
Now click on "Papier traite"
Now click on "AP100G0"
Not only do you have the TS params here for the driver, but you can also open up the windows for the the freq. response ("Courbe Response") and in particular the driver's cumulative spectral decay ("Attenuation Temporelle").
Take a long HARD look at that spectral decay.. VERY few drivers even come close to this. If its half as good as the published graph then your getting a bargain for your 14.50.
____________________________________________________
"Also, I would of used high quality resistors to attenuate the ribbon. I am not familar with using a transformer for volume. What is the advantage?"
Resistors overdamp the driver anything beyond about 2db of attenuation. This is particularly awfull for treble. When people have complained about the crappy sound exhibited by a ribbon tweeter this is usually the reason why. Transformer attenuators don't have this problem.
well lets finish this "design" (couldn't stop thinking about it..)
1. Use the normal version of the Neo 8, NOT the PDR version. The reason for this is that you'll listen off-axis and the off-axis respons of the normal version is excellent. The Neo 8 array should be on the outside edge of the baffle. The Neo 8 array should be enclosed with its own back chamber for NON-dipole radiation (see LinkwitzLabs for reasons why).
2. (IF using a super tweeter) the super tweeter Fountek JP 2.0 should be at the bottom of the Neo 8 line and rotated so that the polar-tilt fires upward (i.e. typically inverted). The top edge of the ribbon should be about 26 inches from the floor with the Neo 8 array extending above it (presumably 6 Neo 8's).
3. The line of Audax midranges should be adjecent to the Neo 8 line. They should opperate essentially as dipoles but with a resistive cloth behind them to reduce rear anti-phase output above 600 Hz (again see LinkwitzLabs for the reasons why).
4. Make a second "column" for each loudspeaker that will be your bass (and sub-bass) dipole about 6 drivers in a line array. These drivers will do and are about 25 US each: Dynavox WP-1220. The same sort of resistve cloth should be surrounding the back of this line as with the midrange line.
http://www.dynavox.com/
(click on products to the left side; next "12" under the woofer category)
Esthetically the mid-tweeter line will look similar to Tomahak's speakers:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=281027&stamp=1071209830
Esthetically the bass dipole array will be similar to genesis loudspeakers stuff:
http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/prd_201zoom.html
(though with 6 woofers and as dipoles)
or infinity's system V:
http://oellerer.net/infinity_classics/IRS/IRS_4.jpg
1. Use the normal version of the Neo 8, NOT the PDR version. The reason for this is that you'll listen off-axis and the off-axis respons of the normal version is excellent. The Neo 8 array should be on the outside edge of the baffle. The Neo 8 array should be enclosed with its own back chamber for NON-dipole radiation (see LinkwitzLabs for reasons why).
2. (IF using a super tweeter) the super tweeter Fountek JP 2.0 should be at the bottom of the Neo 8 line and rotated so that the polar-tilt fires upward (i.e. typically inverted). The top edge of the ribbon should be about 26 inches from the floor with the Neo 8 array extending above it (presumably 6 Neo 8's).
3. The line of Audax midranges should be adjecent to the Neo 8 line. They should opperate essentially as dipoles but with a resistive cloth behind them to reduce rear anti-phase output above 600 Hz (again see LinkwitzLabs for the reasons why).
4. Make a second "column" for each loudspeaker that will be your bass (and sub-bass) dipole about 6 drivers in a line array. These drivers will do and are about 25 US each: Dynavox WP-1220. The same sort of resistve cloth should be surrounding the back of this line as with the midrange line.
http://www.dynavox.com/
(click on products to the left side; next "12" under the woofer category)
Esthetically the mid-tweeter line will look similar to Tomahak's speakers:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=281027&stamp=1071209830
Esthetically the bass dipole array will be similar to genesis loudspeakers stuff:
http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/prd_201zoom.html
(though with 6 woofers and as dipoles)
or infinity's system V:
http://oellerer.net/infinity_classics/IRS/IRS_4.jpg
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.