Conflicting Design Claims - Is there really a right answer

[planet10]

Originally posted by jag
Are your bipoles the BD-Pipes you keep referring to. I have been thinking about attempting those, but if the space requirement is as mentioned above then I guess they are ruled out.

Yes BD-Pipes are my bipoles. By adding a filter to the back speaker at or just above the baffle-step frequency you can turn them into a monopole with (my term) brute force baffle-step compensation and the doubling of the driver area at low frequencies (ie a 1.5 way speaker).

dave

[jag]

Yes BD-Pipes are my bipoles. By adding a filter to the back speaker at or just above the baffle-step frequency you can turn them into a monopole with (my term) brute force baffle-step compensation and the doubling of the driver area at low frequencies (ie a 1.5 way speaker).

Most of this is way over me though I am sure after spending some more time on these forums I will eventually be able to make sense of this

[planet10]

Go check the Wiki for Baffle Step info.

dave

[navin]

from what little i know...

1. a direct monitor like a good 6" 2way with a small baffle or even a good 5/6" MTM seem to image better atleast laterally but over a smaller listening area (I dont know why but MTM have an even "tighter" image over a smaller area than a MT.

2. bipoles and bose tend to spread a less "tight" image but over a larger listening area.

I have liked both on various occasions. However today most hifi speakers tend to do double duty with HT. a speaker designed for HT use would prefer a larger spread. Hence the resurgence of bipoles.

and, Dave, speaker of budgetophile...my drivers cost me $40 per channel....it is still a kings ranson for me in India (every Rs. we ern = 2 cents American or 2.25 cents Canadian).

regards
Navin

[planet10]

Posts that with wandering OT were moved here

most of them were mine.

dave

[navin]

who is competing?