| VanJerry |
Hello all from Vancouver, BC
I've read a lot but I've reached a point where I can't get the answer to this question without hitting an us vs. them from both sides. From what I've read I'm attracted to the added presence a full range can provide. The idea that the brain does not need to decode a cross-over and reassemble signals coming from more than 1 point source intrigues me. But I must ask:
Can a larger full range with a 1 mm excursion provide the visceral weight and body to instruments and voices at lower to medium volumes? And is there such a thing as body independent of bass?
I want to build 5 speakers for an acoustically live 11 x 15 room. I have to decide between conventional 2-way or full range. The 2-ways would involve building 5 matching GR Research Neo 2X's [http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/...p?topic=54382.0] - a new XBL design. For the full range the fronts and center would be smaller variations of Commonsense's 2.8 MKII using the Audio Nirvana Super 12 Cast Frame with Minimonitor rears using the Super 8 Casts. Either case would be supported by a Rythmik/GR sealed servo sub.
I have to explain that I only have experience building or buying smallish 2-way speakers that could provide neutrality and detail at low levels. - Being an urban renter with my nature I just couldn't enjoy music if I felt it might be intruding on others.
I've moved to a place that allows me a little more latitude in volume and I crave experiencing a bit more body or weight adding to the presence of a sound. However I didn't want to give up the clarity and neutrality I've grown accustomed to and WAF demands speakers be modest in size.
I guess I should mention I've tried loudness EQ, an SVS subwoofer and increasing the amplification head room. Of these approaches only a subwoofer seemed natural, leading me in any case to plan on building a Rythmik sealed servo using a GR SW12-4 which I'll use at low volumes for music and a bit louder when I can.
I know a fast musical sub can add weight in it's range. But I worry about the lower midrange in either of the two choices I described above. So on the full range side one variation of the Nirvana build would be adding an Ambience matching driver facing up [http://www.commonsenseaudio.com/nirvana.html] which risks being too much for a small room. And for the 2-way adding a driver making an MTM. |
|
|
| OzMikeH |
Have a look at Hammer Dynamics. It might be what you're looking for.
Also look at BIBs. You can get an awful lot out of an 8 inch driver in a BIG cabinet without sacrificing midrange detail.
Curvy Chang looks interesting as well. They would be a tricky build though. |
|
|
| rjbond3rd |
Hi VanJerry, I also listen at lower volumes and thus want a slightly plumper bass than would be flat. And yes, there are lots of words like "body" to describe the quality of bass you'll get (some of my faves: boomy, tubby, plump, pleasing, tight, lean, recessed, not enough, and missing).
Having only used various 8" and 6" but with good results, I'd imagine a 12" would have even better bass (though high frequencies would presumably beam more), but, but, but.
You're saying you'll put those interesting drivers into somewhat "off the shelf" cabinets. That's a no-no. You should (a) search here on the driver name to see what more optimal designs have been created, if any, and (b) consider investing some of that big buget in an inexpensive "woofer tester" for the best results.
You might play around with the free and simple WinISD program (e.g., enter the internal dims of that cabinet you mentioned, along with the driver specs, and see what the bass response looks like). Bear in mind that WinISD doesn't take room factors and certain other factors into account, but it's a start.
Also, if you re-cast your question as, "What's the best cabinet design possible for these drivers, in this room, for these musical styles, for this volume level," etc. then some of the goodly folk here can help you reach the state of the art, as opposed to what GM recently called "a fart box." :)
Edit: trimmed the fat! |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Thank you OzMikeH.
Sorry about the delay. I've been looking all over for the xmax for the Hammer 12". Is it more than a mm? Darkmoebius' description of the Hammer is exciting. I can see why you suggest it. But I'd use up most of my budget for 5 speakers if I got the Hammer kit to make 2. Xmax for the Nirvana 12 is 1mm. Might it make as dynamic a result? Plus I'd really like a cross-overless full range experience. I was going to say single driver, but combining natural limits of 2 drivers did yield the Ikonoclast3 which is pretty cool for low level performance and kind of what started me thinking about full range as a solution to my quest. [http://www.warrengregoire.com/hifi-...ikonoklast3.htm]
Also, the Hammer is 48" big. Spouse won't approve. Goes double for BIB if this stands for "bigger is better" designs. Curvy Chang does look interesting, but definitely a challenging build. I plan to be resourceful but my tools and abilities are limited.
My aim was to take advantage of a very musical sub so that I wouldn't need the speakers to go down to more than 60 or 80Hz thus reducing the cabinet size. |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Hi rjbond3rd,
Oh, no, I wouldn't go off the shelf, like a Parts Express or something. (Besides that would cheat me of my fantasy to somehow involve some diy plyboo made out of vertical bamboo flooring.)
Commonsense doesn't sell cabinets any more anyway. The 2.8 I mention is simply the BR plans that David Dicks insists would work best for his larger Nirvana's. However, again, as in my reply to OzMikeH, I'm interested in a smaller variation. Unfortunately, I run an iMac so no affordable or free modeling programs for me. But I get what you mean about recasting my question and I'll do that: Like, what specific BR volume would allow me to get an F3 of 80Hz with a Nirvana Super Cast 12".
But while I'm in the middle of this thread I was curious why doubling up on the full range drivers a la bipole wouldn't be the best route to weight, regardless of the driver's size or weightiness to begin with. That is, whether there was a catch to this quick and dirty method besides added expense.
And specifically at low volumes, would a bipole using, say, a couple of CSS FR125SR's per speaker http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=FR125SR provide more weight than a single 12" Nirvana? |
|
|
| rjbond3rd |
Hi VanJerry,
Can you say what you mean by "weight"? Do you mean when you feel a rock kick drum in your chest or gut? Or that deep, bouncy dance-music kick drum (Roland 909)? Snare thwack? Or the rich resonance when the cello hits a low, slow note and the hairs stand up on the back of your neck? A distorted heavy metal guitar's I chun-chun-chunk? The bow-bow-bow of tympani?
You can definitely get Mac calculators, e.g. quickie simplistic ones you run in the browser (even works in Linux, Firefox etc.):
http://www.lalena.com/Audio/Calculator/Box/
A vastly better tool is Unibox if you have Excel (it's a spreadsheet but it doesn't work in Open Office, at least not for me, yet).
I don't think bipole gets you more "weight". It gives you the exact sound radiated (usually) in oppposite directions which gives you 3db more efficiency, lots of reflected sound (for better or worse), the ability (necessity?) of pulling the speakers away from the walls into the room w/o any BSC (baffle step compensation circuit) etc. etc. but in my opinion, bipole has the same "character" of bass.
The cabinet design you mention is "off the shelf" in the sense that it's not mated to a particular driver -- it's said to work with a range of drivers. That's old-school and I understand the appeal -- there's a cab here, a driver there, put them together and see if it sounds good. (I might be wrong but I also think it was "designed" separately from, and prior to, the cast-frame 12" becoming available.) Nothing wrong with that, I've done it myself and got mediocre to not-too-bad results, but there's this other notion of a more "optimal" cabinet done with simming.
On the other hand, given that you only want to get down to 80Hz, your troubles will be few because 80Hz is not hard to get. 40Hz is the challenge in my (relatively limited) experience.
Let's see what the gurus here say in terms of suggestions. I'd really love to hear this driver sometime. I'll ponder your post further in the meantime! |
|
|
| rjbond3rd |
Hi VanJerry,
While we wait for guru assistance, is it okay to kill a little time chatting about one of your fundamental choices? Since you only need down to 80Hz, I think the AN cast Super 12 might be overkill in that size room. Sounds like you could get by with something less extreme (by fullrange standards). Anyway...
Attached is an extremely crude sim I did in WinISD using the specs at:
http://www.commonsenseaudio.com/an12cfspecs.jpg
(It would be nice for Godzilla to chime in here since he's the WinISD guru in these parts.) It shows the bottom end you will get in a sealed box, as you go from 300 liters (wow!) down to 25 liters (ouch -- not sure the cast frame would even fit). (By the way, this sim ignores room factors.)
As basic as this is, I hope you see that scaling the box size "adjusts" the bass response. Make the box too big, and bass rolls off gently but too high. Make the box too small and you get that bump in the curve -- some people find the bump pleasing if there's no sub, but the bump is not desirable when mating with a sub.
Obviously you wouldn't build any of these boxes in reality. In fact, I'm not sure you want a sealed box at all (though some people feel they integrate with subs well), nor if you even want those humongous cast-frame 12" as front mains where you're only going down to 80hz. I'm not helping you much, am I? :)
Let's hope some more knowledgeable person will chime in. OzMikeH, are you still there? |
|
|
| rjbond3rd |
| Sorry -- previous image is too compressed to show the colors of the lines in the graph. This image is better. |
|
|
| Nihilist |
If you want full, tight, slam , go with the 12"s in a 2cu. ft. sealed cab . If you stuff with fibreglass , you can adjust the amount to give the exact bass "weight" you want , while the 2cu.ft. size is reasonable.
2 cu. ft. would correspond roughly to the 50Litre graph, but if you were to stuff the cabinet, then it could approach the 100Litre cabs rolloff. IME , stuffing will reduce some of the "snappyness"
of the sound.
Since you are using a sub for the very bottom end, the smooth response and gentle rollof of a sealed design should integrate nicely.
IMO, sealed cabinets have the best attack, sounding very snappy and tight. The combination of a 12" driver and tight snappy bass is a good one. Ever heard Klipsch Heresy's ? Not able to go very low, but they have a very good presentation for drum "attack".
Just my opinion, but you asked for it ! ! ! ;)
.......................Blake |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Wow, I thought I'd done some homework before I asked for help but it can take me days to look up enough background to be able make an intelligent response to some of the ideas I'm getting from you diyAudio members. On the other hand I didn't want to make anyone wait for my reply too long or you might think I didn't appreciate it. I do.
Hi rjbond3rd,
What do I mean by weight? What the heck do I mean by weight? It certainly would help my cause to express what it is. Or at least what I think it is. And I'll admit: I threw in "body" for good measure because I hoped whatever weight was, I hoped the comprehensive "weight and body" would take care to include all of it.
Well, I brought it up. It's my fault. Now 3 days searching and I'm back to where I started. I could find no better clue to it than in my own question when I mentioned the words "visceral" and "presence." And I can draw parallels from what happens in our visual experience...
So here goes:
Short of finding a doctoral thesis on chun-chun-chunk :) (is there such a term?) to me a sound's weight is it's ability to have an indismissable effect on the body and the mind.
It is in part visceral. On the body it is the amount of the energy that is felt: such as the amount of bass or of treble energy. Like a shock wave hitting the chest. If I were deaf and blind I would still know something is happening through the physical energy affecting the rest of my body. It could be direct, sustained and pleasurable like the low, slow note that cause the hairs to stand up on the back of the neck as you say, or masterfully confusing like the off, on, weak, strong roller coaster of a suspense movie's sound design.
It is in part a mental activity. On the mind it creates an effect which compels it to perform a calculation (left brain) or an appreciation (right brain) of what changes and contrasts our bodies are experiencing: dynamics. As much as our minds are compelled to stay engaged in performing these calculations this is presence. It's like a version of how we're into detecting visual movement.
Darting objects catch our visual attention. Rapid or complex changes in acoustic energy does the same. Small objects can still catch our attention if they behave in a compelling way. If not it helps to be big and colorful.
So I suppose, weight/body/presence - whatever it's called - is the combination of how much sound reaches us, and how much and how quickly its changes interest us. Bass requires more energy to register so if it is not boosted at low volumes one could alternately boost the capacity to notice its changes. And this would involve clarity and a quiet background.
In conclusion, weight is both an amount and a relative perception. Wait a second! Dang! I think I've just discovered relativity! ...again. |
|
|
| VanJerry |
rjbond3rd,
AN 12 overkill? Actually, it's motivated by ignorance and fear on my part. I just want to move some visceral air... And there's that 1mm excursion staring at me. And if I don't know enough about all the factors I generally over engineer everything I do.
But on a different front, there's the simple fact the freq resp curves of the Cast Nirvana's just get nicer - more balanced - as they increase in size. I also was concerned about the notorious single driver "shoutyness." The Cast 12's curve just looked like the best hedge against shout. By a little bit.
And of the two Affordable Audio reviews the 12 edged the 8 at little extra cost.
Finally, the biggest reason for going for overkill is that I need to reduce the risk of dissatisfaction. As much as it'd be fun to make slower and surer progress up the ranks of diy possibilities my health isn't the best and I wanted some reliable acoustic medicine now. With a solid foundation to feed my spirits I'll be able to play with this rewarding subject a bit more.
Thank you for the WinISD chart. According this this a 2.5 cu. ft (70 liter) for the 12 looks like only a moderate bump in sealed. What would that look like ported with one large 6" port the way it was done in the AA review? |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Hi Nihilist,
Thank you for the analysis on the 2 cu. ft. That's sort of an ideal size aesthetically. I take it reducing the "snappyness" too much is a bad thing. Half-stuffed would yield the 70 liter result. That'd be just a slight bump. Not bad. Or worst case size wise: an actual 2.5 cu. ft. enclosure with no stuffing to give maximum snap. Am I getting the hang of this?
I could have a variable size plug for a 6" single port Bass Relex (used in the review) and test this out. I appreciate your confidence the 12" driver and tight bass is a good combination.
Oh and rjbond3rd,
I forgot to respond about the bipole. I understand front and back bipoles demand the kind of distance from walls I just can't afford. It's the same reason I gave up on Open Baffles for my current space. Someday though...
David Dick's bipoles are actually top and front. Aside from ambiance - which may or may not be useful, the idea is the top mounted upwards firing driver loses much of it's treble and midrange so that the remaining bass is available to add to the bass of the front firing driver without using a cross-over. By using a larger or smaller top driver this balance can be adjusted.
I'm not sure I want any much more than a bit of this ambiance quality in my left and right mains but it could come in handy for a center.
I should say to everybody my wife just won't likely accept a huge 12"-based center. So though I'd like to stick with left and right mains using front firing Cast 12's this is my new plan for a center:
A front firing Cast 10 with either a full range like the FR125S or a wide range like a WR125 or the M165X firing up at the ceiling. No cross-over, no caps. The intent is that this combination would throw a wider sound and match the robustness of the mains 12's but afford me a narrower baffle and smaller box. Any thoughts on this: center outrage - or the ideal large Nirvana center? (Currently Nirvana owners of any size mains are guided to used the 8" Minimonitor as center mainly because of it's much more comfortable size.) |
|
|
| rjbond3rd |
| quote: | Originally posted by VanJerry
What do I mean by weight? ...Like a shock wave hitting the chest... |
Gotcha! Let's standardize on Blake's term of "slam." BTW I'm not a guru here, I'm just a chatty newb here to learn stuff.
| quote: | | Finally, the biggest reason for going for overkill is that I need to reduce the risk of dissatisfaction. |
Hmm, I think designing a speaker system is an inherently risky proposition, actually. The more risk-averse, the more I'd be inclined to build a design that others here have perfected over the years. But I salute your vision -- it's a big one!
| quote: | | According [to the WinISD chart] a 2.5 cu. ft (70 liter) for the 12 looks like only a moderate bump in sealed. What would that look like ported with one large 6" port the way it was done in the AA review? |
I wouldn't go for any bump at all -- bump is for small speakers without much extension -- it gives you a little impression of bass. I think if anything, you'd want a nice gentle roll-off in the range where your sub will roll in (since the two will sum in the region where they cross over).
In terms of simming the Affordable Audio vented cab, the cab looks like it's at least 3 cubic feet (so 85 liters or so, minus volume of the driver and port). However, I could not get WinISD to make a nice freq. response curve and reasonable port length in 85 liters. I attached what WinISD does suggest, but as you can see, while the curve is nice, the cab is too huge, and the vent length is, ahem, a little on the short side.
Maybe a guru can chime in here and interpret what this all means! |
|
|
| VanJerry |
| quote: | Originally posted by rjbond3rd
Gotcha! Let's standardize on Blake's term of "slam." BTW I'm not a guru here, I'm just a chatty newb here to learn stuff.
|
Couldn't find this reference about slam. Would this Blake go under the name Innerconflict in this forum?
Actually I'd prefer to build someone else's success. I would have loved to perfectly duplicate Commonsense's plans to establish a starting standard. Then go for the big vision. But there's simply no center plan available for the AN 10 or 12 and so that big 'ol Vas needs a big mirage - I mean vision :)
| quote: |
I wouldn't go for any bump at all -- bump is for small speakers without much extension -- it gives you a little impression of bass. I think if anything, you'd want a nice gentle roll-off in the range where your sub will roll in (since the two will sum in the region where they cross over).
|
Oh, I didn't mean I was actually looking for a bump. I just noticed that even a 100 Liter had a bump and guestimated the cabinet size corresponding to the largest bump I'd imagine tolerating would be about 70 Liters. That'd be unstuffed.
I have to admit, I have to research sealed a little further. I spent most of my reading finding the drivers that attracted me and whether there was any way I could get away with an OB in my small space.
| quote: |
In terms of simming the Affordable Audio vented cab, the cab looks like it's at least 3 cubic feet (so 85 liters or so, minus volume of the driver and port).
|
Commonsense's full size cab is 2.8 cu ft. But it turns out there is a BR 2.5 that David Dicks feels works just as well. Hence my recurring references to 2.5. I have little desire to go into uncharted territory on my own any more than I'm forced to. |
|
|
| rjbond3rd |
| quote: | Originally posted by VanJerry
Couldn't find this reference about slam. Would this Blake go under the name... |
Hi VanJerry, I meant Nihilist above, ninth post. (Come to think of it, yeah he must be InnerConflict on the FRD Forum...)
Maybe he can weigh in on whether these drivers would be good on OB. I see the specs say the Qts is .488 so that's an encouraging start.
I just did a search on "AN12" and there has been some conversation regarding OB though some of the posts refer to the stamped version. Might be worth cruising. If that doesnt' help, and you don't get more responses, I'd open a new thread with the driver's name in the thread title.
| quote: | | Oh, I didn't mean I was actually looking for a bump.. |
Oops, sorry on that.
edit: fixed formatting |
|
|
| rjbond3rd |
| quote: | Originally posted by VanJerry
I'm not sure I want any much more than a bit of this ambiance quality in my left and right mains but it could come in handy for a center. |
With 12" drivers toed in a bit, you should get lots of reflections off the opposite wall. I would think bipole 12" would be almost overwhelming in a live 11x15 foot room.
I haven't had good luck with bipole using two different drivers, though a backfiring or upfiring tweeter can sound cool.
I think the bipole is good where you want the bass + efficiency to avoid a BSC (and then roll off the secondary driver to cut down on the reflected sound).
I have to say, though, that I'm surprised your wife doesn't like the idea of a 12" center! Personally, I'd leave that one speaker "un-bipoled" because I'd think you'd want the dialogue to be strictly localized.
You are a lucky guy to have such dilemmas! |
|
|
| OzMikeH |
A few comments:
I'm no expert, I have built a total of ONE set of speakers in the last 10 years. Then found they were not quite what I needed so I researched a LOT to learn what I do need. I put in a comment here and there to help others avoid my mistakes or to help them learn things which took me some time to figure out.
You're asking for 5 speakers. Have you sure you really need them? To me a centre speaker is just a dodgy workaround for poor imaging from your front speakers. I've done the HT thing with 4 speakers and it sounds fine to me.
Fullrange and widerange drivers often beam a bit, the high frequency is not dispersed evenly and is quite narrow. Home theatre generally involves at least 2 people and needs a wider sweet spot to sound good to everyone. Bigger fullrange drivers generally beam more than smaller ones. (please correct me if I'm wrong here!)
You appear to me hung up on 1mm excursion. Have a look at the AER range of drivers, essentially the same cone but the price goes up drastically with excursion (better magnet assemblies) there are some glorious drivers with 3mm and more. You want well controlled excursion, with a cheap driver that means not using too much of it. Don't get the two confused. Low excursion means better behavior and less breakups in a poor driver, but it is not the only way to acheive good sound. Give me a well behaved 8 inch driver being pushed to 2mm excursion over a 12 inch any day. The smaller lighter cone has more life where it matters, 300Hz to 6kHz.
There is no such thing as (more than one note of) bass without a huge box. It is just not possible to do well.
I'm getting the idea that you want a natural immediacy and impact to your new speakers. I think you will lose that fine background detail that adds so much to the realism with a bigger driver.
Go listen to a good 8 inch fullranger in a correctly designed box before you spend any money.
Depending on your room I'd be lookin at a pair of Changs with FE207E and FT17H tweeters for the fronts. or maybe the Sachiko with the 206. Yes they are huge but they go to 40Hz with vigour. mock up something even bigger and campaign your wife with it for a few weeks. then show her the above cabinets and remark how much smaller they are.
for the rears go with the FE167 in a smaller BR box. The rears are mainly effects, all you need is similar tonal quality and efficiency.
These are all opinions, and what I want may be different to what you want. I can't tell you what you need, I'm trying to help you find the right questions to ask. Doing something smaller but correctly is prefereable to a compromised "bigger" design.
Believe me, the FE207 in a decent box with a good source and amp rocks. It starts to lose a little grace with Metallica and drum and bass techno is just a bit too much to do well loud. You just need to do a few simple mods to the driver to make it behave well at higher volume. I don't bother with the surround sound any more, I find rear channels in most recordings are just circus tricks. You get more added realism (hairs standing on end) from spending the same money spent on BETTER speakers, not more speakers.
If you want the oooh ahh kaboom stuff consider a pair of good subwoofers mated to the other cabinets. I keep looking at the Rythmik 15 inch sealed servo subs. I've never heard them. |
|
|
| Nihilist |
Hey guys,
I am the same Blake that posts on the FRD Forum as Innerconflict.
If you are looking for physical bass sensation, then a passive radiator or ported system will give you more of that than any other cabinet design (with a given driver).
My personal experience is that a passive radiator system has the best slam factor ( physical impact) but unfortunately have poor transient response, which is a problem for me.
Ports are a step away, with less "slam" than a passive radiator , but better transient response.
Sealed cabinets have the least "slam" of these three, but offer the tight , snappy articulation that I love (superior transient response).
I have only heard my current speakers with an OB cabinet, so I can't much comment on the sound of OB's , as I have limited experience. I will say the lack of cabinet coloration is AWESOME , and they seem to provide a very clean response. OB's supposedly reduce the room's effects on reflections. It would seem so.
IMO , for music I would NOT use a passive radiator. They are great for HT , but I've never heard one that sounded "right" with music.
If you listen to rock/heavy metal , then I would go for a ported system.
Otherwise, I would go for sealed or OB.
Problem with OB is you need a pretty tall/wide baffle to get any bass extension , although you can "cheat" and use a narrow baffle with sides and/or top and bottom plates .
The above are based on my experience , which is NOT unlimited.
I reread your original post. Since you are only looking for 80hz, extension, I would stick with my original recommendation of a sealed cabinet. Go with the largest one your wife will realistically allow , and your there.
If you can, try to position the center of the drivers slightly above seated ear level . Seems to work real nice.
The beaming at higher frequencies is not as bad as some make it out to be, at least not with my system. It's not really such a bad thing anyway, as it just means you aren't spraying your walls with a bunch of treble that will become reflections.
I don't mean to skip TL/Tuned pipes , but they are considerabley more difficult to build and require more tuning than the others mentioned. I've built a few , although they were probably not tuned properly.......
............................................Blake |
|
|
| VanJerry |
I appreciate the information I have received from everyone. But it's true I need to narrow things down if I'm to make the most of your help. So here's my best to do that right now.
I've decided on the liveness of full range w/no crossover. I'm going to order Nirvana Cast 12's or 10's to be used as front, left, center either as all 12's, all 10's, or 12's with a 10 in the center. Which? Well - I could use some help on that one. But I've finalized some other points I've listed below.
Including ordering a GR SW-12-04 and Rythmik A370PEQ direct servo amp now on their way. - Couldn't really discuss appropriate enclosures etc for low volume performance without knowing how they're supposed to integrate with a fast accurate sealed sub.
I've read conflicting opinions about this:
1. Some, including the manufacturer of the Nirvana's, advocate running full range speakers wide open, for example setting the sub to start blending into the full ranger's somewhere between their F3 and F10 at 12 dB/Octave. This would be fine for music but a concern for HT. Both because so much of the weight of HT is in the 80 - 200 Hz range and the sub may not reach there if it only starts politely. And out of concern for damaging the full range drivers - or at least chronically distorting them with LFE loads.
2. While in the 2-way speaker world I come from it's customary to use the receiver's cross-over and set as high as possible, short of the fact subs begin to localize above 80Hz.
The way I see it the Nirvana Cast 12 has a better low end so it would be the best driver if you folks suggest the sub be set up the first way. And any enclosure approach that allows some clean fullness in the mid bass would be preferable.
On the other hand that same low end would be wasted at a high cross-over in which case I'd be better off taking advantage of the Cast 10's better high end extension.
Other thoughts and suggestions I've tried to nail down, for better or for worse:
- I don't believe from what I've read that I'll have enough room from walls and such for OB to work in the small 11 x 15 room I'm using. But I'll certainly perform some experiments when I get the drivers. And I will always look forward to using OB should I move to a larger space in the future. (A question though. If there were a chance it could work, which am I more likely to get away with in a smaller room for OB: 12 or 10?)
- I don't normally listen to rock/heavy metal but what would an action film be without them? So looking at your menu, Nihilist, my programming fit would be for ported.
- I will build 2.5 cubic foot boxes. But to be flexible, I want to make them sealed so I can try this first before I cut any hole for a port. (A question: sealed would give the 12" the equivalent of the larger box it needs, but would a 12" do as well in a sealed environment as a 10"?)
- I know how great speakers free you from needing a center - I resisted a center myself till only recently. Certainly, for all those great movies originally made in stereo a center can even be worse. But for me it is now essential equipment for well designed 5.1.
- I accept with a larger driver I may lose that fine background detail. But I can't afford AER right now and I would only want an 8" if it was in this class. Besides, I'm gonna need something to research and look forward to :)
- 2.5 cubic feet is the limit of my wife's generosity. It may force compromise in "what could be" sound quality wise, but I want to try the big single driver experience and my wife has only ever had to contend with 1.5 and smaller!
- I'm postponing bipoles and will only consider adding small drivers firing towards the ceiling if I cannot later restrain my curiosity.
The Cast 10's have that higher extension that may come in handy in various ways. But with a sub duplicating some of the advantage of the 12's better low end, can someone explain the specific reason for the danger of going "too big" such as with the Cast 12"? To me the small difference in cost is unimportant. Whereas the success of a Super 12 in a 2.8 BR has been well established by John Hoffman's credible AffordableAudio review so that to me it is a known quantity.
I figure I'm not changing the thrust of the thread: it's still about how well large full range drivers might provide weight and presence at lower to medium volumes. (While allowing the drivers to survive the maybe not so occasionally loud action film as well. ) But if anyone experienced in this forum feels I should start this as a new thread I'll certainly do that. |
|
|
| rjbond3rd |
Hi VanJerry,
Interesting questions! I have only a moment but wanted to mention one thought in passing.
That AN12 cast frame is a dang sub-woofer. That is one big dog, and it seems to be begging to get off the leash and run as fast (low) as it can. Rolling it off to a sub seems like a shame, especially considering the cast frame, when by some accounts it can go down to 20hz. Crossing over to the sub at 40hz seems less of a shame.
But speaking of subs, it seems that a lot of people are mating full-rangers to subs on each channel, with the subs run up very high (e.g., 120hz or so):
http://www.bottlehead.com/loosep/S.E.Xy%20speakers.html
http://www.fullrange-speakers.com/e...ettsysteme/esra
http://store.hifiauthority.com/olsherkits.html
Using a sub on each channel would give you the option of choosing sealed or OB. Anyway, just a random passing thought, which I mention only because of your interest in thwack and thwump! I'm not suggesting these particular links except as examples of FR-oriented designs designed for lotsa bass.
edit: added third link |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Hi rjbond3rd,
Happy 4th!!
My previous 5.1 system actually included two Totem Dreamcatcher left/right subs. I still have the Arro fronts but I sold everything else to be able to go into hot pursuit of my described objective.
Those little subs were very fast but left me with one reason I'm interested in using "large." They had F3's of 30Hz but as should be expected for tiny woofers never gave me a relaxed physical presence. And imparted little body to action or instruments higher up the freq scale. They were from a time when the only requirement in our sound was neutrality and speed in a small package.
I never saw the fullrange-speakers.com version but those 3 systems there represent one direction I've considered. However with my 11x15 room these currently involve both the risk of bass cancellation and needing more space behind (for the open baffle.) Definitely designs that will top my list when I move to a larger space.
One of the remaining 2 requirements for this project that I have not mentioned so far is to keep risk down a bit. I need things to work out sort of reliably if not spectacularly. Mainly because I've put us through too exhaustive an effort swapping amps, speakers etc: basically bringing me to the edge of 2-way despair :) ...The effect of trying out a recent 2-way loudspeaker manufacturer's design that did an excellent job of trying to achieve a singularity and a transparency of enclosure and cross-over became the tipping point that brought me here.
The other requirement is to achieve the essence of current day HT, which to me requires clarity, dynamics and extension to 15 Hz (I suppose due to my middle age and the desire to keep whatever is left of my hearing I can happily do without the remainder of this essence: Dolby or THX ref level SPL's.)
I'm one of those that believes the biological science that indicates our natural hearing, through the mind as processor, uses the inaudible infrasonic and ultrasonic to inform what is heard in the audible range.
I specifically chose to go with the single Rythmik sealed direct servo 12 with the lighter GR paper driver to be able to affordably go flat to the low teens at a speed that I could just about count on to be able to keep up with whatever speaker directions I pursue. Eventually, I planned on using them just for 10 - 40 Hz so that I could some day be free to have something large and OB do the rest. |
|
|
| rjbond3rd |
Hi VanJerry,
And a happy 5th to you, sir!
Aha, I'm starting to get the picture. You've already tried and eliminated nearly all of the typical permutations -- gotcha! That's where I'm at, though I ended up in horn/SET country with a side-order of Fostex / woofer OB.
Does your sub amp let you adjust the slope? I think that would be a good thing to have for blending, especially where a sealed is being considered (first order). My sub has no such flexibility and does not blend well no matter what.
Regarding how much space you need for OB, I'm using some small ones in a 12x12 foot room, and I think it works despite the conventional wisdom, depending on your listening position, since every room is different.
Sorry I'm not more helpful -- I think you're much further along in the quest than I am. But I'm really interested in what you end up doing, especially if you do the sealed cabs. I think a lot of people are waiting to see systems using the AN12, especially the cast version.
edit: add the word "see" in last para, and also added this line you're reading right now. |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Yes, the Rythmik 370's allows diff slopes. I chose the A370-PEQ with a defeatable 1 band parametric EQ:
http://www.rythmikaudio.com/amplifiers.html
And yes, small driver OB's just might squeeze in. I did eventually want to get some EnABLed FR125SR's from Planet10 to play with...
A Question:
One other thing that's got me perplexed is a single full range driver center. The issue is beaming vs dispersion. Centers need some decent dispersion. But larger drivers, less dispersion. For its dispersion one would normally settle on Nirvana's Super Cast 8 but piecing together all the user information avail the midrange (and vocal) quality goes up a little bit with larger size.
My question to anyone theoretically or from experience: Would I actually get as wide or wider HF sweetspot using a 10" or 12" by angling it slightly higher or lower than ear level than an 8" aim straight on? |
|
|
| bvan |
I've been on a bit of a low volume mission the last few years after developing a mild case of hyperacusis in one ear.
Getting rid of my Dynaudios was the first worthwhile thing I did. Zu's were a definite improvement as were B200 with sealed DIY sub. What I've found a lot of love with at the moment is a Hawthorne's 15" coaxial (Sterling) and Augie bass driver in open baffle.
What I've learned it firstly, that high sensitivity drivers excel, especially full rangers as they have more sprightly microdynamic at low voumes (the Sterling has an XO being a coaxial but the compromise is worth it int his case). Secondly, a sub or biamped bass driver is a boon as it lets you tailor the bass for low vol listening. Assume youre familiar with the Fletcher Munson curves? I also run DEQ2496 on the Augie bass driver which allows different setting for however loud you want to listen. The Dynamic EQ feature will let you set slopes such that the lower you turn the volume the more the bass is automatically boosted, so you can theoretically have the same bass, subjectively experienced, at every volume.
Have also found tubes to be better at low volumes than SS, but that could have just been my luck.
cheers
Bevan
nearfield is best at low volumes, and full rangers and coaxials often better than conventional 2-ways in the near field as drivers dont need the distancwe to integrate. Horns probably the best for low vol listening but often such in the nearfiled |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Bravo Bvan on your low volume mission!
Checked out the TNT-Audio reviews Parts I and II on your OB's. Pretty nifty... at low volumes and otherwise. Effect of 15" size suggests to me the Nirvana 12's would be better at low volumes than 10's. Do you suppose the regular Duet config with non Sterling drivers would have anything like the same tactile and visceral quality? The combination of Silver and Augie is affordable while the Sterling and Augie is out of my budget. Though I do not have the minimal 3 feet from any wall. My room is 11 x 15 in area only. Unfortunately it zigzags for an effective width that's mostly only about 8.5' - Yikes! I've got to move. I can't breath! - [cough].
Reassured to know my going with full rangers is in the neighborhood of the right track what with their microdynamics at low volume and such...
That DEQ2496 is pretty cool. I like how it allows you to isolate your intervention to just a portion of the sound leaving the rest untouched. I've long known and used the loudness concept. But those one dimensional executions from the 70's onwards don't hold a candle to that DEQ... The idea of variable volume matching of subjective bass offers a great failsafe solution should I ultimately become frustrated achieving my own low volume mission using just organic means. I didn't notice, but could it be used simultaneously and independently with a servo sub in addition to bass augmenting drivers?
| quote: | | Horns probably the best for low vol listening but often such in the nearfiled |
Couldn't quite follow this last sentence... |
|
|
| bvan |
"Do you suppose the regular Duet config with non Sterling drivers would have anything like the same tactile and visceral quality?"
I think so, from what I've read. But I havent heard the stock silver Iris. It's mainly the tweeters which are different so I suspect so. Ask at the Hawthorne forum, they're pretty strait shooters there.
"could it be used simultaneously and independently with a servo sub in addition to bass augmenting drivers?"
It's got two sets of analogue outputs, in fact I use the second pair to a sealed sub for sub 25hz movie content.
"Horns probably the best for low vol listening but often such in the nearfiled"
Sorry, should have read "suck". Thinking big horns like Avantgardes where the drivers are pretty far from one another.
cheers
Bevan |
|
|
| nirvana |
| bomb effect in my 10 x 11 room. |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Nirvana,
You know that early scene in "2001: A Space Odyssey"? Now picture a 12" driver about 2/5 ths of the way down on that monolith. Remember the reactions that monolith caused in all those apes? That'd be the wives in all our homes! :) But still very cool... |
|
|
| REC1 |
Maybe the designers of the monolith were OB types?
ron |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by nirvana
bomb effect in my 10 x 11 room. |
Are you saying you've put the 12in AN into a BIB for one of their 8in drivers? I can well imagine that having no LF at all. Far too little Vb. |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Hi all,
Your advice combined with further email discussions with experts in the field has encouraged me to better align my ambitions with my constraints - such as having a small room and, for the time being, using a Denon SS receiver.
I want to thank everyone for your help on this thread. And I'll try to use this experience to conduct future threads with the kind of focus that befits the time and effort of the generous forum members here. |
|
|
| rjbond3rd |
| Hi VanJerry, what have you decided to do? Don't leave us hanging, guy! |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Oh. Of course. It's just that I was going to start a new thread real soon and didn't want to risk overlap. But sure...
So... very large full rangers would do a good job at providing low volume presence. What put the fear in me was that Dave of Planet10 told me to be careful which full rangers I attempted to power with the SS Denon. In fact, he only vouched that it would be the one's from CSS that were certain to be compatible. Now... I'm new to full rangers, and insecure... I thought it'd be tricky enough picking one that didn't have this or that "thing" that some liked and other's found unlivable. Those bigger AN's were a hedge. Their curves seemed to get better and better the larger they went. Anyway, somehow I knew going into this full range world the Denon would be my weakest link. But the prospect of not knowing which driver was going to fizzle on it was too much. Keeping risk down was always one of the factors on this project. I need this sound for restorative purposes, not the adventure! That can come later :)
That, linked with what I learned researching the ramifications of your innocent remark about how for 80Hz the larger AN might be "overkill." Overkill? I had never really worried about downsides to big. Beyond WAF. I know you didn't mean it that way but I got busy looking into the dangers of large drivers: bass overloading, cancelation, beaming etc. Risk again - especially in a small room. Plus perhaps an uncomfortably small sweet spot for 2 listeners what with the combination of beaming and virtually being in the near-field. So, I would have liked a few extra feet to feel OK about all this. But then I would have been free to open baffle... Besides, I came across a post where Dave counseled a small driver for a small room.
...Like the CSS FR125SR.
And so that's why I thought I'd start a new thread. Still about weight, presence and lower volumes, but no longer on topic for a thread about whether a 12" could deliver. In fact, more like: "Low level body/weight presence wanted: Can 4.5" FR125SR deliver?"
It'll have comedy, tragedy and all that stuff... I'll start it up as soon as I've done a little more research to pose the right scenario. |
|
|
| MJK |
Don't worry about your Denon SS amp, all full range drivers will work just as well with SS amps as with tube amps. You just have to make sure you design your speaker for the type of amp you want to use. I use 200 watts of SS with all of my full range drivers without any issues. In my opinion, going with a tube amp backs you into a corner and limits the number of options you have for the design of a full range speaker system.
The one piece of the puzzle I have not seen mentioned above is baffle step compensation, you will definitely need to address this issue if you want decent balanced SPL performance. |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Hi MJK,
My research indicated a high efficiency driver would provide the better low level performance. The thing with the Denon, I was told, was that it would be the very portion of it's power that would be used by a high efficiency driver that would also be it's poorest quality. I haven't researched power issues yet as I have a mounting backlog just keeping up with the speaker side of things. However, though I did not follow it adequately to be able to properly describe the phenomenon here, Dave was pretty adamant about it.
Maybe this is a matter of something that may not be very noticeable to most normal people, but I defer to Dave on it, as I have never been very normal at anything :)
As for baffle step, I've included a preliminary dimensionless sketch of my current contender for a crossover-less low level HT speaker system. Twin SDX7's when situated at opposite sides handle each other in this regard, no? And the front firing FR125SR is at 90 degrees to the bass from either SDX7 and though it is not paired I've located it on the wide dimension of the (likely aperiodic) boxes. To me this emulates the Calhoun, which is the other contending design and the one Dave recommended for my room, the Denon and my desire for low level performance. I'm willing to make this front facing baffle as wide as necessary to duplicate the Calhoun's ability to handle baffle step. |
|
|
| VanJerry |
I should explain crossover-less.
When I started this thread I was only strongly leaning towards full range single driver. In doing my research to keep up with all the related concepts and designs I have become an intense convert.
It pains me to deviate from single (point) source. But here I am proposing three drivers per box! And likely my design could use some caps or resistors to refine it to boot. But it's only in attempting a dual purpose system, that could satisfy in HT and at low levels, that I feel I must use multiple drivers. However, despite the obvious crassness of my proposed design I've got to at least keep crossovers out of it. So it ain't got no crossover and it ain't gittin' one either no how!
(After this one my next project will be a no holds barred best music pair and it will be single driver - with or without a tube amp.) |
|
|
| MJK |
| Obviously I do not agree with what you have been told about your Denon SS amp. It looks like you have decided on a path, best of luck. |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Thank you MJK,
And actually, I appreciate your ammunition. I need it to initiate any fair challenge of Dave's opinion. I feel like I'm in a logic loop. And if I defer it is only out of exhaustion from all the research but also from attempting to reconcile contradictory opinions.
I have a science background and blind agreement does not agree with me. So, I guess I'll have to add even more on my pressing research pile before I can say I've decided and not fallen upon a path. Is it common not to sleep much while you go through this newbie phase?
Do you suppose I shouldn't be worrying about a 10 or 12 inch Audio Nirvana either? Arghh... |
|
|
| Nihilist |
Perhaps you might try mounting the SDX7's down low on the sides. This would help them have better floor coupling and help remove some floor bounce (which causes frequency response deviations).
It may also help reduce the comb filtering caused as they blend with the FR125SR.
Not saying anything bad about the CSS stuff, as it looks killer and I haven't heard any, but perhaps you should look into where you got your info and why they recommended the CSS product line.
Somebody told me once: "If you wanna know the truth, follow the trail of money".
Of the drivers you said you were interested in, I'd go with the AN's. 12"s if you aren't gonna use a sub, or 10" if you are. Simple sealed design.
Without researching your exact Denon, typically an amps low powered output is it's BEST portion, as it is running in class A.
A high efficiency speaker would exploit this better than a lower efficiency speaker.
Also, if you were planning on running the SDX7's in parallel, you would be running a 4 ohm load to your reciever. Not your best option , IMO.
Just my $0.02 .
...................................Blake |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Yes Nihilist,
I've noticed that "down low" for the SDX7's since first seeing them on the RAW Acoustics HT3. It may be naively ludicrous, but I was hoping to minimize time smearing by keeping things as closely grouped as factors like comb and baffle step would allow. Go for some kind of trade off?
Do you really think comb filtering will be an issue if the front baffle is even wider than I drew? I could make that baffle up to 18" wide. I also considered making the tower an equilateral triangle in cross section allowing maximum directional separation as well as good internal reflection properties. Just didn't want to bounce at walls behind them too much so I can get closer to them.
I want to make it clear Dave has never promoted CSS products to me. That was my own wording.
When Dave first mentioned the characteristic that made the Denon problematic in his opinion it was I who attempted to pull from him the names of some solutions and he included some Fostex models. I'm the one who seized upon the FR125 because it had the greatest xmax and I was still hung up on how close I could get to the air movement of a 1 mm xmax 12" driver if constrained to a smaller one. The only other CSS related volunteering was in response to my pestering him with ideas I had for some combinations of 125's and SDX7's. It was only after a few days of this that he came out with the recommendation for the Calhoun which uses the WR125. Of all the Spawns only it, the Shadow and the Harvey are cleared for CSS. Dave never even specifically said the SDX7 would be preferable for the Denon. It was my own extrapolation based on it's also being XBL and having nearly identical electrical specs as the 125.
Also, now that I think about it: was it running high "sensitivity" or "efficiency" that was the issue with Denons. It was during a phone call - I'll have to check my info. |
|
|
| VanJerry |
| Sorry there tinitus but I'm confused... that link goes to some exodus speakers that use an EX-6.5 midwoofer as opposed to a fr125. Can you expand? |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Blake,
I have to step out for a bit, but I would sincerely appreciate if you could give your reasoning for going with the AN's including whether perhaps:
1. You don't think I'd risk "overloading" the small room? (I'm afraid I'm a bit weak on what that would entail, though I do understand room cancellation and that concerns me.)
2. You don't believe the beaming will be too excessive for HT purposes? (My wife and I are close but we're not newlyweds.)
3. In short, you figure whatever problems the AN's may have, at least I'd be getting true single driver coherency and that would beat all the problems I'd be introducing with more than 1 driver to equal or surpass the same amount of air?
4. Have you heard anything like the Calhoun - a big vent relex? This was a last second wild card for me and I admit I'm intrigued by it now. As a newbie I had limited my original exploration to extensions of what I knew: sealed and BR. |
|
|
| Nihilist |
I supose that I may have assumed too much. My apologies to Dave.
Dave, I do have a question for you though.
"Dave of Planet10 told me to be careful which full rangers I attempted to power with the SS Denon. In fact, he only vouched that it would be the one's from CSS that were certain to be compatible."
What is the compatibility issue ?
Jerry,
1. I don't think you would "overload" the room. You can always turn it down, but if you don't have enough , you just don't have enough !
2. HF beaming concerning large drivers; This will likely get alot of criticism, but I have been living with some 12" whizzer-coned FR units for over a year now, and have yet to experience any issues because of it (beaming). Granted, the listening position is a two person couch(aka loveseat) , but it shouldn't be an issue unless you are a good distance apart/off center.
The common thought is that a larger driver will beam high frequencies moreso than a smaller driver. True enough unless we are talking whizzer cones. Is the whizzer cone 8"-10"-12" ? NO, it is MUCH smaller , so why do so many expect it to beam like a large driver ?
Actually, the reduced midrange and/or beaming of the larger main cone can provide a smoother midband response, as it provides less overlap between the cone and whizzer, which reduces the comb filtering effect. You noticed the smoother response of the larger AN drivers. Now you know why.
A FR driver with a whizzer cone is a 2 way driver, it is just powered by a single motor without electronic/electrical crossover point. There is a "mechanical" crossover point , which is the part that is hard to get right (manufacturers problem).
3. I think you would be hard pressed to get any real volume from a 4.5" driver. Even with the addition of the SDX7's (which would do fine with the bass) , the 4.5" driver is still doing the brunt of the work , and from what I understand the unit you are talking about is only about 86db or so ?
86db 1w/1m = 106db 100w/1m (not taking power compression into account) , then move back 2-3 times that distance for your seated position , and you have only 100-94db at approximately 7-10 feet distance from the speaker ! And then consider this is your amp working HARD (100 watts output) and the speaker working HARD (is it even rated for 100 watts ? ).
4. Can't say I've heard any BVR designs. As far as I can tell, they are basically bass reflex with horn loaded ports .
I don't understand why you would consider vented designs if you are looking for only 80hz extension. Ports are used to either increase output (creating a bump in response) or extend frequency response , or a compromise of the two.
Sealed cabs offer the best transient response, have very simple construction, offer the most linear load (both electrically and mechanically) , and excellent phase response.
To put it in regular terms , they are easy to build, are tight and articulate (if built halfway right) , and are easy for the amp to drive.
................................Blake |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Just got in.
Thank you Nihilist. Leads such as these give my research renewed vigor. I'll study your information and try again to integrate everything I've learned so far. Looking forward to a long but productive night on the web. |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
| quote: | I supose that I may have assumed too much. My apologies to Dave.
Dave, I do have a question for you though.
"Dave of Planet10 told me to be careful which full rangers I attempted to power with the SS Denon. In fact, he only vouched that it would be the one's from CSS that were certain to be compatible."
What is the compatibility issue ? |
I'm not Dave, but I can make a fair guess at what he's saying. The CSS units have a middling Q & sensitivity; several of their rivals, such as the FE126E for e.g. have a substantially lower Q & if driven by an SS amp with the low output impedance, will have a falling LF response as the amp is doing nothing to counter their own heavily damped behaviour without some form of Eq. The CSS units don't have particularly high sensitivity either, so they like a few watts pumped into them. YMMV as always of course. |
|
|
| tinitus |
| quote: | Originally posted by VanJerry
Sorry there tinitus but I'm confused... that link goes to some exodus speakers that use an EX-6.5 midwoofer as opposed to a fr125. Can you expand? |
It means exactly as you write it
FR125 is a very small and VERY low sensitivity driver
Sensitivity may be more like 80db and cannot play loud
The Exodus is a very tough driver and would be much better suited, but its not a fullrange, I forgot that one
I have no clew about using FR drivers fore surround :confused: but in my youth some friends made quadrafonic setups with 4 Coral Beta8 FR drivers in quaterwaves, and it was quite impressive, not my style, I like plain stereo, but anyway its my impression that with BIG and powerfull stereo speaker you dont need any surround |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nihilist
Dave, I do have a question for you though.
"Dave of Planet10 told me to be careful which full rangers I attempted to power with the SS Denon. In fact, he only vouched that it would be the one's from CSS that were certain to be compatible."
What is the compatibility issue ? |
Scott covered off most of it. The FR125SR thrives on largish PP Class AB amps. They don't like SE amps much (SS or tube) -- they seem to exagerate the FR hitting its stops.
The Fostex tends to be very unforgiving of the typical Class AB SS amp weak areas.
With little FRs you can almost predict whether the CSS or the Fostex will sound better based on the amp.
dave |
|
|
| VanJerry |
| quote: | Originally posted by Scottmoose
....The CSS units have a middling Q & sensitivity; several of their rivals, such as the FE126E for e.g. have a substantially lower Q & if driven by an SS amp with the low output impedance, will have a falling LF response as the amp is doing nothing to counter their own heavily damped behaviour without some form of Eq. |
Scottmoose,
How would I determine if the Denon AV3805 has a low output impedance? Can this be interpreted from the specs by the electrically challenged or must it require an understanding of the approach taken by the manufacturer?
Specs:
http://ca.denon.com/AVR3805_DFU_ownersmanual.pdf |
|
|
| VanJerry |
Scottmoose,
MJK and Planet10 have opposing opinions on this matter at least as it concerns my aspirations. To my newbiehood these are like a Mamma and Pappa of full range drivers here! Sorry - not inferring which is which :)
I would like to settle on a driver I can use with my Denon now. Though I'm risk averse, if this doesn't work out terrifically I would not terribly mind joining the other side of this culture in pursuit of building a more appropriate amp.
Rather than be slowed by this gentlemanly difference could there be enough margin to move forward if I were to use the Denon at lower volumes and crossed over to a powered sub below 80Hz? Perhaps at the cost of accepting the possibility of reduced quality on those occasions that I ran a tad louder and otherwise having to pay attention to certain symptoms that might serve as warning to back off? Like a quality of sound, or a... sudden movement or scent? :)
Without a compromise I suppose my choices are to throw caution to the wind.
Or I could maybe glean something extrapolating my understanding of what Dave told me about how the CSS FR125 would work best, while the FE206e would be an example of something that wouldn't work, leaving the F200, FE207e and FE127e to sort of sneak by.
I could compare these drivers with some others:
----------------- Qes --------- Qms -------- Qts -------- SPL
CSS FR125 ---- 0.72 -------- 3.37 -------- 0.59 ------- 85.5
F200 ----------- 0.36 -------- 2.63 -------- 0.32 -------- 90
FE127e -------- 0.50 -------- 3.33 -------- 0.43 -------- 91
FE207e -------- 0.28 -------- 3.86 -------- 0.26 -------- 95
FE206e -------- 0.18 -------- 3.73 -------- 0.18 -------- 96
HA FR8C ------- 0.50 -------- 2.50 -------- 0.40 ------- 95.5
AN Cast 8 ----- 0.184 ------- 3.38 ------- 0.175 ------ 95.8
AN Cast 10 --- 0.275 ------- 3.42 ------- 0.254 ------- 95.9
AN Cast 12 --- 0.531 ------- 5.90 ------- 0.488 ------- 95.47
And I can wonder - if I can detect the pattern and admit the SPL is tricky - could the HA FR8C and the Audio Nirvana Cast 12 make it too? Or perhaps even just marginally, the Cast 10?
(I am trying to aim for 8" or larger drivers to ensure adequate single driver presence for HT at close quarters and variable volume.) |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
Volume / SPLs is neither here nor there. Your Denon will work with all of the drivers, but you'll have to Eq things if you used it with low Q units (which is what Martin will have primarily meant when he said 'you just have to make sure you design your speaker for the type of amp you want to use.') The better quality / more revealing drivers will tend to reveal the limitations of a middling amplifier though, as Dave pointed out, which is something that you'll want to keep in mind.
OK, if you want me to go out on a limb, as you say you're aiming for 8in drivers, for relatively close quarter HT use, then I'd go for them. My choice? An FE207E in a decent BR cabinet, such as Bob Brines's FB20: http://www.geocities.com/rbrines1/Pages/FB-20/Main.html That ought to do the job nicely, especially if you integrate a nice sub (or better, a pair of subs) with them. |
|
|
| planet10 |
output impedance / speaker impeadance = damping factor.
If the specs were complete we could figure out the output impedance. Probably low (feedback needed to get the measured THD that low almost guarantees it)
dave |
|
|
| planet10 |
Half-Chang should be on that list too... no stands needed.
dave |
|
|
| VanJerry |
| quote: | Originally posted by Scottmoose
Volume / SPLs is neither here nor there. Your Denon will work with all of the drivers, but you'll have to Eq things if you used it with low Q units |
Thank you Scottmoose. If avoiding a "low Q unit" is more important than rated SPL - well then that opens more room for compromise.
So, even set against Dave's more stringent criteria (though - OK, I'm pushing it Dave) where the CSS FR125 at a Qts of 0.59 qualified amply and the FE207e at 0.26 was acceptable, then of my list it seems the HA FRC8 at 0.40 and the AN Cast 12" at 0.488 might possibly do better with the Denon than the F200A at 0.32! While the AN Cast 10" at 0.254 shouldn't be that much worse than the FE207e.
I think I need a short description of what "a revealing of the limitations of a middling amplifier" might sound like?
| quote: | Originally posted by Scottmoose
to go out on a limb, as you say you're aiming for 8in drivers, for relatively close quarter HT use, then I'd go for them. |
Do I understand you correctly that you mean that of drivers that are 8" and larger that you would suggest 8" over a 10" or 12." Meaning you feel there is an inherent advantage to an 8" in closed quarters? Whether smaller room or possibly near-field.
I appreciate your going out on a limb with the FE207e. Coming across the FB-20 in my research was an important early influence that helped swing me towards the possibility of single driver HT. Is there something specific about it's character that suggests to you that it suits HT more than, say the F200A? |
|
|
| VanJerry |
| quote: | Originally posted by planet10
output impedance / speaker impeadance = damping factor.
If the specs were complete we could figure out the output impedance. Probably low (feedback needed to get the measured THD that low almost guarantees it)
dave |
I've left a message with Denon to get the damping factor. See if I have any luck.
Hm... Curvy(?) Half Chang... |
|
|
| VanJerry |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nihilist
1. I don't think you would "overload" the room. You can always turn it down, but if you don't have enough , you just don't have enough !
|
That's what I was thinking!
| quote: |
2. HF beaming concerning large drivers; This will likely get alot of criticism, but I have been living with some 12" whizzer-coned FR units for over a year now, and have yet to experience any issues because of it (beaming). Granted, the listening position is a two person couch(aka loveseat) , but it shouldn't be an issue unless you are a good distance apart/off center. |
Yes, there's theory, but if you've lived with these you are the final authority. This forum is full of things that weren't supposed to work until they did.
I hoped I could further expand the listening position (LP) by toeing in a bit. That was also one large motivation to choose the Cast 10". I thought the substantially greater HF extension the 10" has over the 12" might let me toe in even more and enlarge the LP without giving up any more HF than the 12" might have offered without the extra toe.
| quote: | | The common thought is that a larger driver will beam high frequencies moreso than a smaller driver. True enough unless we are talking whizzer cones. Is the whizzer cone 8"-10"-12" ? NO, it is MUCH smaller , so why do so many expect it to beam like a large driver ? |
Well, the proof is in your experience.
| quote: | | Actually, the reduced midrange and/or beaming of the larger main cone can provide a smoother midband response, as it provides less overlap between the cone and whizzer, which reduces the comb filtering effect. You noticed the smoother response of the larger AN drivers. Now you know why. |
I very much noticed that. I'd say that increased smoothness and overall flatness was every bit as important to me as the size. One of the things that postponed me committing to the Nirvana's was how much it pained me to have to decide between the bigger air and smoother midrange of the 12" and the extended HF, smaller VAS and lighter cone of the 10".
But could you just go over that a little more. It's good stuff but the information is just a little dense for me to be sure I get it in one sentence.
| quote: | | A FR driver with a whizzer cone is a 2 way driver, it is just powered by a single motor without electronic/electrical crossover point. There is a "mechanical" crossover point , which is the part that is hard to get right (manufacturers problem). |
The way mechanical solutions are free to replace or avoid the need for extra complexities: both of electronics and of perception, are what attracts me to single drivers in the first place! In fact a big reason I chose to recently audition the excellent Ascend Acoustics Sierra 1* was David Fabrikant's choice of using a vertical bamboo enclosure. And I chose Brian's Rythmik sub because of the inherent genius of the direct servo approach that allows the cone to be controlled in the fastest, cheapest and most direct way. (* Outstanding for 2-ways. I only didn't keep them because they hinted so well at what it'd be like to have a transparent point source that they helped me realize I had a closet need to come explore this world here. )
| quote: | | 3. I think you would be hard pressed to get any real volume from a 4.5" driver. Even with the addition of the SDX7's (which would do fine with the bass) , the 4.5" driver is still doing the brunt of the work , and from what I understand the unit you are talking about is only about 86db or so ? |
That was a big concern for HT. I was never sure if the 4.5's high excursion and my own willingness to not need reference level volumes would make a workable combination. Hence the 2 SDX7 + single FR125. I even thought of 4 FR125's in a standmount tetrahedron: one on each face wired in series/parallel [anyone up for that one?] - but then I remembered what I came here for: the simplicity of the single driver.
| quote: | I don't understand why you would consider vented designs if you are looking for only 80hz extension. Ports are used to either increase output (creating a bump in response) or extend frequency response , or a compromise of the two.
Sealed cabs offer the best transient response, have very simple construction, offer the most linear load (both electrically and mechanically) , and excellent phase response. |
Just wasn't sure how well the mains would handle the "HT zone" from 80 - 250 Hz. Hence an aspect of this thread title. One possibility had me using the Rythmik down from 60Hz to avoid localization. And have two midbass subs go from 60 to 250. I thought if that were the case I might not want to leave that little hole from 60 to 80. But you're right. When sealed the roll off would be pretty gradual. Plus the Rythmik is sealed. Might make the sub/mains transition that much more seamless. I'd like maximal transient and phase response.
An important thing I'd like to ask though: Might you have an effective way to keep internal reflections from coming back out through the cone other than packing the heck out of it? - I'd be wanting every bit of that snappyness you mentioned earlier. Aside from lining with acoustic pyramid foam and maybe nerf balls the only idea I have so far is to use a curved or angular box
Thanks for the long read |
|
|
| tinitus |
[QUOTE]
An important thing I'd like to ask though: Might you have an effective way to keep internal reflections from coming back out through the cone other than packing the heck out of it? - I'd be wanting every bit of that snappyness you mentioned earlier. Aside from lining with acoustic pyramid foam and maybe nerf balls the only idea I have so far is to use a curved or angular box
/QUOTE]
MATRIX will do a good job ... you devide the internal volume into smaller "rooms" with holes all over ... I would say around 100x100mm ... use about 6mm plate, glue could be what I think you call chalk
But be aware that matrix is known to result in very clean tight bass ... box ressonanse will be almost zero |
|
|
| udailey |
That nice frequency/spl curve on the ANs is true.
Its not shouty.
Its fantastic.
I prefer about 5% volume as a starting point, below that and the bass gets lost.
Wow your room is small for that many large speakers :) Should be fun.
ANs have a 30day money back. Trying them out is pretty much risk free. They are flat out fantastic.
I didnt like them with my commercial amp. Harmon Kardon AVR 135 with 50watts per channel. But I didnt like my Fostex or Aperion with it either. Everything sounded better on my tube amp and the ANs sound best on my ChipAmp. My fear here is that you may not enjoy any of these with the Denon like you would with most of the easy to build DIY chip amps. You dont have to know anything about anything to build an AudioSector or BrianGT chipamp.
I think, personally, your are over thinking it.
Basically, you want to run home theater and DIY seems neat and the FR seems even cooler. But you are trying to do it all perfectly the first time without previous experience with these speakers and you are not talking about a real simple system.
You dont have to do it all at once. Ultimately, you have to hear these speakers. Whichever you choose. So why not pick a driver, buy two, build the cabs and have a good listen?
Here is how easy it is to build enclosures for the ANs
http://picasaweb.google.com/udailey...anaSuper12Build
I think its 3.85 cubic feet. Wife likes them. Alot. I didnt think they had any WAF to them :)
This system stops people in their tracks. Sits their butts down on the couch. Puts a blank far off look on their face and after 3 or 4 minutes words like "wow, so you built this?" start coming from them. If they are geeky enough we get to trying different CDs and explanations of "what you are hearing/seeing is a soundstage" and discussions like "yeah, probably you could pay easy five grand for something like this at a store."
Unfortunately, its hard to get surround with a full DIY. So things like the Harmon Kardon and the Denon have their place, but there are also surround sound processors that have 5.1 outs and you could slap a chipamp channel on each one of those outs attenuated with a nice pre.
Dont pass up the ANs so quickly. Audio Guru Nelson Pass just bought several pairs of each version of the AN line. He is trying them all in open baffle and this is all around the time he is coming out with the F5 amp and the B1 Buffer Preamp. He will be publishing his findings soon. So, we can assume that he feels there is promise and worth in the AN FRs to pair them with his already legendary amplifiers.
Another thing, you are looking for advice and you began looking for advice with the ANs. Have you got any advice from someone who has used them, or from someone who has spent a decent amount of time playing with them to see what does and does not work?
Uriah |
|
|
| VanJerry |
| quote: | Originally posted by tinitus
[QUOTE
MATRIX will do a good job ... you devide the internal volume into smaller "rooms" with holes all over ... I would say around 100x100mm ... use about 6mm plate, glue could be what I think you call chalk
But be aware that matrix is known to result in very clean tight bass ... box ressonanse will be almost zero |
B &W found the matrix box to store ten times less energy than the same size concrete box. Very cool. Thank you tinitus.
I'm sorry but did you leave out a " :) " - I thought box resonance to almost zero would be nothing but a very good thing? But - oh, perhaps you mean carried too far this can make for a sterile/analytical sound?
I understand making an enclosure stiff and how this will make the box itself almost disappear. I desire this so much I've been looking into building with vertical bamboo because 3/4 inch bamboo has been measured to be equivalent to 3" of MDF.) But reading a few dozen pages citing the use of matrix bracing I couldn't find if this will also actually cancel the driver's back sound from coming back out through the cone? That is, matrix can make a box very stiff - but does it also cancel sound from being available to come back out through the cone?
Speaker review with image of Matrix |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by VanJerry
I thought box resonance to almost zero would be nothing but a very good thing? |
You can't build a box that doesn't resonate. You can only control where they do resonate & position it such that it is unlikely to get excited. This is the philosophy behind B&Ws Matix (and my boxes for that matter).
Dealing with the back wave is a completely different issue.
We have found bamboo plywood to be a very nice building material sonically. One has to take special care while building thou.
dave |
|
|
| VanJerry |
That's right - back wave. So that's separate. Thank you Dave. Then that's where angular and curved enclosures come in. What approach do you like to use in your aperiodic designs?
That'd be the plyboo? Is there a particular brand or supplier of low-chemical you like? Alternatively I considered making my own by laminating 2 layers of low-chemical vertical flooring - it might be cheaper than plyboo.
You would mean shreading? |
|
|
| VanJerry |
| quote: | Originally posted by udailey
That nice frequency/spl curve on the ANs is true.
Its not shouty.
Its fantastic. Trying them out is pretty much risk free.
I prefer about 5% volume as a starting point, below that and the bass gets lost.
|
Hi there udailey,
Great to hear the sound of your Super 12" matches that nice curve.
"5%" to get to a level response is quite significant information to a guy concerned about weight at low volumes. I understand this can vary with the amp but can I take this to mean the bass "comes alive" fairly easily? Was that somewhat as true on your HK?
| quote: | | I didnt like them with my commercial amp. Harmon Kardon AVR 135 with 50watts per channel. But I didnt like my Fostex or Aperion with it either. Everything sounded better on my tube amp and the ANs sound best on my ChipAmp. My fear here is that you may not enjoy any of these with the Denon like you would with most of the easy to build DIY chip amps. You dont have to know anything about anything to build an AudioSector or BrianGT chipamp. |
MJK would say that may have more to do with pairing that amp with Commonsense's recommended 2.8 cu. ft. bass reflex in which case some more details about that experiment could provide me with some good direction- if you could tell me what it was that you specifically didn't like when you ran your Nirvana's on the AVR 135 that might help guide me to a happier enclosure design for the Denon.
I'm taking Nihilist's suggestion of a sealed seriously. That might fair better with the SS amp by effecting the system impedance. The other 2 choices I'm looking at closely for Nirvana 10's or 12's are aperiodic and even a Metronome - there's measurements for both a 10" and a 12" in that table.
But, if I had to build an amp - I'm willing to do what it takes. (By the way, I also have an HK "all digital path" DPR 1001 7.1 receiver. Might that share any attributes of a chip amp? I've also got an old school Kenwood KR-A47 stereo receiver and there's more where that came from on Craig's list... Though building would probably be a better experience...)
| quote: | I think, personally, your are over thinking it.
Basically, you want to run home theater and DIY seems neat and the FR seems even cooler. But you are trying to do it all perfectly the first time without previous experience with these speakers and you are not talking about a real simple system.
You dont have to do it all at once. Ultimately, you have to hear these speakers. Whichever you choose. So why not pick a driver, buy two, build the cabs and have a good listen? |
You've got me down pretty good except that I'm a lot more keen on having the FR experience than I want to actually get down to cutting and gluing: the research has been a bit exhausting. It's funny though - I designed and fabricated quite a few of my possessions so far - short of cars and computers of course. So I have the DIY drive all right. Just that my level of exuberance is usually overshadowed by my sense of standards. Can't help but need the food to taste good and the music to sound nice.
But I agree. There is a lot to be said for starting with a reference point that can be personally experienced and moving from there. Especially when in new territory like this. Precious few frames of reference. I'll settle down soon. I couldn't survive this phase much longer any way. Im looking forward to relaxing and just appreciating the goods.
| quote: | | Another thing, you are looking for advice and you began looking for advice with the ANs. Have you got any advice from someone who has used them, or from someone who has spent a decent amount of time playing with them to see what does and does not work? |
Indeed, I almost let myself forget my beginnings... As for someone who has used them - well really that'd be good people like you and ranger3.
You're right how there's been a noticeable quiet over these drivers. I think things like the larger AN's not fitting into the DIY mainstream with their high VAS and Commonsense's tendency to emphasize BR to the exclusion of pretty much anything else means some otherwise satisfied people probably think twice about going public with their stories. Those two Affordable Audio reviews by John Hoffman, along with his personal posts - were pretty trustworthy and informative too.
AffordableAudio Super 12
AffordableAudio Super 8 |
|
|
| udailey |
| quote: | | I understand this can vary with the amp but can I take this to mean the bass "comes alive" fairly easily? Was that somewhat as true on your HK? |
Wish I had an SPL meter to tell you exactly because saying "low volume" is pretty vague since definition can be so different between you and I. So, what I am getting at is that at very low volumes I don't find it worth listening. Maybe the enclosure is to large to start helping the bass at this low volume. I would compare the volume I am describing as equal to a private conversation. Not a whisper at all, but that volume people drop into when they have some gossip and they dont want others to hear it. I like to listen at super low level when my daughter is sleeping. Listening at just above whisper level loses something.
I pretty much agree with what BVAN was telling you about low volume listening a while back. I would love to have bass boosted as the volume got quite low. | quote: | | if you could tell me what it was that you specifically didn't like when you ran your Nirvana's on the AVR 135 that might help guide me to a happier enclosure design for the Denon |
I had a big rant, suprise suprise, in here about how great ChipAmps are compared to my AVR and everything before it. Deleted it because none of it matters because its not a reality until you hear it. Then on top of that its not the best DIY amp, just the easiest and it does a great job with the ANs. I dont think my amp determines the enclosure as much as the driver does. That combined with not being qualified to answer enclosure questions leaves me with no direct answer for you.
You live about 58 miles from Planet10 :)
I mean, if he and I were good buddies (and I hold him in high regard) I would be over there in a flash for a listening session. Even a 3 minute one. Not that he has any ANs but I think you would have one of those AHA moments if you could listen to something that is of FrugalPhile quality. Then your decision making is going to get easier. You have no point of reference in DIY yet so its tough to drop down the cash and the work.
I bet he at least knows someone in your town who has a pair of DIY Fostex.
map link
| quote: | | Metronome - there's measurements for both a 10" and a 12" in that table |
:bigeyes: What!?! I never saw that before. I wonder if anyone has built them yet.| quote: | | and there's more where that came from on Craig's list... Though building would probably be a better experience |
Take this with a grain of salt cuz I am on the ChipAmp bandwagon at the moment, but YES building a ChipAmp is like a DIY right of passage. You will have another AHA moment. For me I have had 3 in the last month. Craziness and such a great thing to have happen recently. The ANs The Chippy and The PS1 all changed the music for the better so much that my view of everything music related has been turned on its head and I am thrilled. Many people remark that the LM3886 is similar to amps worth thousands. The gaincard that started this can clock in at 6500.
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/...5/gaincard.html
But you can build something similar for about $150-$200 depending on how exotic you go wit | | | |
