I'm throwing around a few line array ideas as I finish up a set of line arrays that use the JBL 4.5" Buyouts and Fountek JP-2.0 tweeters. I built a cheap pair of OB computer speakers with the Hi-Vi B3N speakers and absolutely love their sound. I know many have praised OB speakers and I was thinking of maybe trying some with the Dayton RS150 and the Dayton PT2-B planars. I would go 9 RS150s and 8 PT2-Bs, with an infinite baffle subwoofer that housed four 15" woofers (either the Atlas 15, Dayton IB15 or the AE15s).
Any pros/cons to a setup like this? I know I will need to keep them a few feet from the back and side walls, which shouldn't be a huge problem.
Thanks!
Any pros/cons to a setup like this? I know I will need to keep them a few feet from the back and side walls, which shouldn't be a huge problem.
Thanks!
The Dayton (HiVi) planars don't match the quality of the Dayton RS woofers. Fountek's would sound better but of course they cost more.
http://www.mfk-projects.com/tweeter_data_1.htm#RT2H
http://www.mfk-projects.com/tweeter_data_1.htm#RT2H
Thanks for the info. I have heard the PT2s in a few setups and actually am quite fond of them, especially for their price. There's no way I can afford the Founteks, and if I could I would get them.
I'm more or less looking for pro/cons on the woofer side for an OB line array with the RS150s.
Thanks!
I'm more or less looking for pro/cons on the woofer side for an OB line array with the RS150s.
Thanks!
I've been reading up about the results of testing the dayton reference series, and it appears that the RS180 seven inch is the pick of the litter.
The problem with the five and six inch drivers is that there is a greater portion of the cone covered by the magnet to the rear, they have reduced Xmax, reduced radiating area, and their breakup modes aren't much higher than those of the RS180.
You can take this with a grain of salt since I haven't heard any of them for myself. Definitely search the archives for line array stuff- it might push you in a different direction based on your goals for the project.
Joe
The problem with the five and six inch drivers is that there is a greater portion of the cone covered by the magnet to the rear, they have reduced Xmax, reduced radiating area, and their breakup modes aren't much higher than those of the RS180.
You can take this with a grain of salt since I haven't heard any of them for myself. Definitely search the archives for line array stuff- it might push you in a different direction based on your goals for the project.
Joe
The problem with the RS180 is the center-to-center spacing would be over 7 inches, meaning you would need to cross over fairly low to avoid combing.
I'll throw it all out there. I jumped the gun and already purchased the RS150s and the PT2Bs! I was sold on doing a set of sealed speakers and using an infinite baffle sub to cover the low end, but want to see what everyone thought about doing an open baffle line array?
Thanks!
I'll throw it all out there. I jumped the gun and already purchased the RS150s and the PT2Bs! I was sold on doing a set of sealed speakers and using an infinite baffle sub to cover the low end, but want to see what everyone thought about doing an open baffle line array?
Thanks!
I recently build a system with the RS150 and the PT2(no MTM).
They build a perfect pair! The only thing is, I modified the PT2. It sounds better and it's much easier to xover.
Even Tony Gee(the guy from Humble Homemade Hifi)was impressed, he told me that he liked the way I matched them, it sounded very coherent. So, in quality they match eachother now, else it wouldn't sound coherent.
Here you can see them along with Tony's new creation! http://www.symfocity.demon.nl/IMG_1121Large.JPG and http://www.symfocity.demon.nl/IMG_1120Large.JPG
I also think (seen in a recent german magazine test) that the RS150 is the one that is pretty easy to xover. It has also lots of resonances in the upper high end but they die remarkably faster then the resonances of the RS180.
They build a perfect pair! The only thing is, I modified the PT2. It sounds better and it's much easier to xover.
Even Tony Gee(the guy from Humble Homemade Hifi)was impressed, he told me that he liked the way I matched them, it sounded very coherent. So, in quality they match eachother now, else it wouldn't sound coherent.
Here you can see them along with Tony's new creation! http://www.symfocity.demon.nl/IMG_1121Large.JPG and http://www.symfocity.demon.nl/IMG_1120Large.JPG
I also think (seen in a recent german magazine test) that the RS150 is the one that is pretty easy to xover. It has also lots of resonances in the upper high end but they die remarkably faster then the resonances of the RS180.
Member
Joined 2003
I'm using OB with IB subs and am thoroughly satisfied with the "boxless" sound of both...they integrate very, very well.
One suggestion is to run the RS150s through SL's "SPL" spreadsheet to make sure your intended baffle gives you enough oomph on the bottom end.
One suggestion is to run the RS150s through SL's "SPL" spreadsheet to make sure your intended baffle gives you enough oomph on the bottom end.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Paul W,
WOWZERS! Is there any way you could provide more pictures and information on those speakers? I've seen your IB before on the "cult" and that is very, very impressive!
You can post the info here or shoot me an e-mail at mazeroth8@yahoo.com
Thanks!
WOWZERS! Is there any way you could provide more pictures and information on those speakers? I've seen your IB before on the "cult" and that is very, very impressive!
You can post the info here or shoot me an e-mail at mazeroth8@yahoo.com
Thanks!
The modfication of the PT2 sounds very simple but is a b.... to execute. It all comes down to this, the PT2 has some bad inner damping. The cavity behind the mylar foil has to be damped with felt (I hope this is the correct translation of the dutch word "vilt").
The results can be seen in these pics.
The results can be seen in these pics.
Attachments
As you can see, the frequency response is improved, it can now be easily xovered at 2,5 hz or even 2khz.
In the decaygrafic you can see how much the resonancefrequency decay has been improved.
Oh, one more thing. This mod seen here is done with the old version of the Pt2.
Soon I'll be posting the 1st results of the new version of the Pt2.
In the decaygrafic you can see how much the resonancefrequency decay has been improved.
Oh, one more thing. This mod seen here is done with the old version of the Pt2.
Soon I'll be posting the 1st results of the new version of the Pt2.
Member
Joined 2003
Member
Joined 2003
...and here is the next generation which, if I get up early enough, may be running tomorrow. (the guy on the right is just a test proto, the other one is final-in-process)
As you can see I like the OB/IB combo enough to do it again.
As you can see I like the OB/IB combo enough to do it again.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
catapult said:
I'm playing around with some of the monsoon planar drivers in a more-or-less OS waveguide, and my initial results are very promising. I'm hoping to have my 'more advanced prototypes' making noise tomorrow. The combination of controlled directivity and better LF loading for a lower xover freq make this a great combo. I think the BG's could also benefit.
Makes for pretty honkin' big speakers, though.
Member
Joined 2003
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.