| BHD |
How about a BIB line array?
Nine FE126's in a really tall BIB, tuned lower than a regular sized FE126 BIB. Wired series-parallel they'd be what, 100 db 1W/1M and 8 ohms? I'm sure there would be lobing issues, but...
They would SERIOUSLY rock.
:D
Whaddaya think? |
|
|
| chrisb |
| quote: | Originally posted by BHD
How about a BIB line array?
Nine FE126's in a really tall BIB, tuned lower than a regular sized FE126 BIB. Wired series-parallel they'd be what, 100 db 1W/1M and 8 ohms? I'm sure there would be lobing issues, but...
They would SERIOUSLY rock.
:D
Whaddaya think? |
combing issues, ya think?
why not just a bipole metronome with FE207's & FE83 - I'd dare say that would rock, and cost far less |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
Yup. Combing will be the order of the day.
It's an interesting idea actually, but you've have to make it a focused array (which would screw the flare), or resort to massive HF eq to get them working right over about 3KHz. FR units and arrays doth not a happy combination make. |
|
|
| BHD |
| quote: | combing issues, ya think?
why not just a bipole metronome with FE207's & FE83 - I'd dare say that would rock, and cost far less |
Er, well I meant combing when I said lobing. Ooops. :cannotbe:
I figured the FE126 might be small enough where one could get away with it. Actually, I've thought about a pair of metronome bipole FE168 sigmas. |
|
|
| ronc |
The only way i can see to beat the comb filter effect is to curve the front baffle and establish a focus point. However the inner divider would have to be curved also.
ron |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by BHD
I figured the FE126 might be small enough where one could get away with it. |
To do that you need to be able to space the drivers on the order of 35-40 mm centre-to-centre
dave |
|
|
| chrisb |
| quote: | Originally posted by planet10
To do that you need to be able to space the drivers on the order of 35-40 mm centre-to-centre
dave |
Well, I guess it could be possible to get FE83 or FF85K to fit within those dimensions, but the inevitable question would be ; exactly why a line array, unless just for the experience?
FWIW, the LA subject was rode hard and put away wet many months ago. To say the least it is as controversial a subject as any in the DIY arena, and proper execution is fraught with issues that most FullRange junkies would rather soon avoid.
To be fair, the only DIY example I've heard is one of Terry Olsen's experiments. Sorry, Terry just not my cup of tea - the little RS40-1197 cleaned its clock AFAIC. |
|
|
| BHD |
| quote: | | To do that you need to be able to space the drivers on the order of 35-40 mm centre-to-centre |
Even the little Jordan drivers are bigger than that.
:bawling:
| quote: | | the inevitable question would be ; exactly why a line array, unless just for the experience? |
It's simple. Efficiency and power handling. By wiring multiple drivers in series-parallel you can get significant increases in efficiency and power handling. Since the BIB is a tall relatively narrow cabinet anyway, I thought it was an interesting idea. But if it means getting poor sound it doesn't really matter.
:whazzat: |
|
|
| BHD |
| quote: | | Line arrays are replacing horns in large venues. |
In most of the PA line arrays, they're doing the exact opposite of the concave curve in home line arrays that focus at one point like Scottmoose and ronc said. The PA systems I've seen are convex.
But if the distances between driver centers that Dave said are correct (and I assume they are), the point is moot anyway.
Too bad. The little Fostex FE83E looks like it'd make a killer OB line array.
:( |
|
|
| Geoff H |
| My effort was convex, so I guess we can rule out LAs in confined spaces. |
|
|
| Variac |
There WAS that guy that made some speakers with 4 vertically aligned Bandor drivers and claimed they were great and they were going to be released as a product.
I really can't remember who the was- seemed knowlegable though- and from England. |
|
|
| Colin |
That would be 7th Veil.
I heard the earlier incarnations at a HiFi show back in the 90s and they sounded good. There was also a speaker using something like 19 or 20 Bandors in a line array, but I didn't think it sounded any better than Steve's 4-unit boxes. The same idea is used in the Jordan Linear Array , which I've also heard. Both systems give a spooky solid image when you move around the room. |
|
|
| Variac |
| Yes, that would be... ;) |
|
|
| BHD |
I love the second site. Just what the world needs, more vanity patents...
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| chrisb |
| quote: | Originally posted by BHD
I love the second site. Just what the world needs, more vanity patents...
:rolleyes: |
legendary, indeed
:D :D :D |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by BHD
I love the second site. Just what the world needs, more vanity patents...
:rolleyes: |
And using googles patent search the numbers bring up 2 completely unrelated patents? |
|
|
| BHD |
| quote: | | And using googles patent search the numbers bring up 2 completely unrelated patents? |
But... but... you don't understand. He has the seal of the US patent office in at least TWO PLACES on his site - that makes it official.
:clown: |
|
|
| joe carrow |
WOW! I haven't seen such obvious BS in a while. The *actual* patent number 4,267,205 is for something to do with semiconductors!
Is he really claiming to have invented stereo line arrays, and equalization? |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by joe carrow
Is he really claiming to have invented stereo line arrays, and equalization? |
He did get a patent a long time ago when he was a young fellow at McIntosh. After reading Taylor & Griffin, it is obviiously full of holes.
dave |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
True. Oh, how true.
Of course, only problem with a curved array is, er, it's a curved array, not a line-array, so you loose some of the major benefits (giant stereo sweet area rather than tiny sweet spot etc). I'm not suggesting they sound bad -far from it, but they do have their limitations.
I still don't buy these Jordan / Bandor mini arrays. Massive respect for TJ though I have, not even he can break the laws of physics. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Scottmoose
I still don't buy these Jordan / Bandor mini arrays. Massive respect for TJ though I have, not even he can break the laws of physics |
With a 4 unit array at about 8" tall is fairly easy to get into the far field if you have a largish room. At that point it acts much like a 2x8" oval.
Those that have tried more find that 4 is about the limit of the number you can stack.
dave |
|
|
| footstony |
Roger got da patent number rong
see here http://www.google.com/patents?vid=U...EBAJ&dq=4267405
I like the idea of a focussed array. I have used 6 X 5.5 inch drivers in a vertical line on a largish open baffle and they do integrate around 12 feet away.
I now have 9 X 5.5 inch drivers. I was thinking of a 3X3 array, curved slightly in both vertical and horizontal axis to focus the sound at the listening position. much less room interaction I think from early experiments.
The downside is a small sweet spot.
upside is:
9X powerhandling
much more efficient
lower distortion (smaller cone movement)
9 holes to cut + srews and etc.
puts the full back into full range :)
Regards Philip |
|
|
| Scottmoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by planet10
With a 4 unit array at about 8" tall is fairly easy to get into the far field if you have a largish room. At that point it acts much like a 2x8" oval.
Those that have tried more find that 4 is about the limit of the number you can stack.
dave |
Good point Dave. Reckon I'd still rather have a larger driver though. ;-) |
|
|
| Geoff H |
I had the joy of hearing the 2" Jordans 30 years ago, they were an amazing little driver. In a vertical straight array of 4, the vertical dispersion was very narrow, height was critical. And they lacked lower midrange "bite" needed for sax etc. IMHO
It seems though, if the array is much higher, a true cylindrical wave front is created, and dispersion is no longer an issue.
http://www.apogeespeakers.com/revie...bestofaudio.htm
http://www.aca.gr/paper34.htm
Out of my budget. More $ than my first home. |
|
|
|
