Bg Neo 10 and Neo 8 - Page 11 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Planars & Exotics

Planars & Exotics ESL's, planars, and alternative technologies

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 27th February 2012, 12:56 AM   #101
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Orlando, FLA
You might want to take a few deep breaths before looking at this:

PIEGA SA | SWITZERLAND
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2012, 01:18 AM   #102
Remlab is offline Remlab  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mission Viejo Ca
Greg
That's right! I forgot about Piega. I was in switzerland recently and wanted to visit their showroom, but never got around to it.I asked Igor a while back if he ever thought about designing a "Piega" style point source drive unit. His responded by saying that it was an interesting design, but would be prohibitively expensive to produce. He also said compressing and separating the mylar tweeter section in the center of the unit would be sub-optimal for the best midrange perfomance.
But man, I would love to hear that dipole version!
Seth

Last edited by Remlab; 27th February 2012 at 01:22 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2012, 02:59 AM   #103
Remlab is offline Remlab  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mission Viejo Ca
Here's an interesting article with pictures of the Piega coax in various stages of assembly. The cool Swiss dude is the guy that assembles all the planar magnetic units.
piegaloudspeakers
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2012, 05:23 AM   #104
Remlab is offline Remlab  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mission Viejo Ca
Here is another article with the larger coax being assembled..Sorry, It's actually the smaller one..
http://www.piega.ch/download/Fidelity42_Piega.pdf

Last edited by Remlab; 27th February 2012 at 05:37 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2012, 08:38 PM   #105
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remlab View Post
Greg
Interesting design. Very expensive to implement(because of the high acoustic cut off point of each driver, you have to use many progressively larger drivers to pull the design off.)and ultimately flawed because each baffle(The driver becomes it's own baffle) is round and the acoustic response of round baffles at just above the lower cutoff point is terrible..
Seth
Very interesting comment. I use 18Sound 6Nd430 which Greg tested and did try it without baffle. I didn't like the sound of this driver baffle-less compared to when it was mounted on a 20 cm wide baffle. This is a bit contrary to what proponents of the 'Constant Directivity' trend advocate. But there might be some things I overlooked for an explanation that you have a clue to.
My system: Ultimate OB Gallery .

/Erling
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2012, 10:30 PM   #106
Remlab is offline Remlab  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mission Viejo Ca
Quote:
Originally Posted by skorpion View Post
Very interesting comment. I use 18Sound 6Nd430 which Greg tested and did try it without baffle. I didn't like the sound of this driver baffle-less compared to when it was mounted on a 20 cm wide baffle. This is a bit contrary to what proponents of the 'Constant Directivity' trend advocate. But there might be some things I overlooked for an explanation that you have a clue to.
My system: Ultimate OB Gallery .

/Erling
Erling
This design could work very well if each driver was offset mounted in a tiny rectangular baffle with golden, or at least Fibonacci ratios. For example, lets say you are dealing with a 7" driver. You could offset mount it in a baffle that is 7.5" x 12"(Obviously works the same for cm) The baffles length dimensions would actually be placed horizontally(but far enough away from each other to breath. If they are placed too close together, they effectively become one giant baffle) for closer driver spacing... The ultimate goal for a baffle would be to have every part of the outside edge be at different distances from the acoustic center of the driver.(Impossible? Yes. but that's the goal..) The best possible shape for a baffle would probably be a golden ratio nautilus starting at the edge of the driver, and working it's way out..
Seth

Last edited by Remlab; 27th February 2012 at 10:58 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2012, 09:46 AM   #107
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Seth,

What I wanted your comment on was really this sentence: 'and the acoustic response of round baffles at just above the lower cutoff point is terrible..'
In the more general context I think I can share intuitively a good argument for Golden Rule baffle measures.

/Erling
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2012, 02:07 AM   #108
Remlab is offline Remlab  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mission Viejo Ca
Quote:
Originally Posted by skorpion View Post
Seth,

What I wanted your comment on was really this sentence: 'and the acoustic response of round baffles at just above the lower cutoff point is terrible..'
In the more general context I think I can share intuitively a good argument for Golden Rule baffle measures.

/Erling
Erling
Sorry about that... The reason that I brought that up is because I assumed(wrong) that if you didn't realize that a round raw driver acted as it's own circular baffle, that maybe you also weren't aware of the effect of baffle shape on driver response. My bad.
Seth
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2012, 05:43 AM   #109
Remlab is offline Remlab  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mission Viejo Ca
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remlab View Post
Erling
Sorry about that... The reason that I brought that up is because I assumed(wrong) that if you didn't realize that a round raw driver acted as it's own circular baffle, that maybe you also weren't aware of the effect of baffle shape on driver response. My bad.
Seth
The reason they sound bad? because the defraction effects aren't offset by different distances. It basically adds up to one big off axis difraction ripple at the same frequencies, in all directions..
seth
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2012, 05:31 PM   #110
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Seth,

To ascertain that we talk about the same phenomenon. What you call 'the lower cut off point' I suppose is what commonly is referenced as 'the dipole peak' which is dependent upon baffle size, and the effects of, also of baffle appearance and speaker placement.

/Erling
  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
F/S (3) BG NEO:10 Planar Magnetic Panels rubicon Vendor's Bazaar 1 31st December 2011 05:39 PM
BG Neo 10 (Neo10) vs. Alcons RB401, SA8535, ESS AMT, or Beyma's TPL-150 tiefbassuebertr Multi-Way 1 6th December 2011 12:54 AM
BG NEO 10 pair as new inertial Swap Meet 20 31st January 2009 06:20 PM
Bg neo 10 measured inertial Multi-Way 12 7th October 2008 05:42 PM
BG neo 10 measured inertial Planars & Exotics 0 30th September 2008 09:00 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:55 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