Planetarium + Swarm v Linkwitz or other open baffle?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I just saw a comparison of the Planetarium Beta and Swarm version 2 subwoofer system, with several great (and $$$) commercial systems, inc one (unnamed) of Linkwitz

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=60103.20 Reply #37

for any not familiar:

The Swarm uses 4 sealed boxes, spread asymmetrically around the room. The dissimilar room response patterns of the 4 subs sum for more natural-sounding bass, with an average that is much smoother than two bass sources.

Linkwitz’ systems to minimize room (and box) effects – are open baffle/ dipole.

The latest Orion is full range dipole, with front & rear firing closed tweeters, a system with active XO and tailored FR filters, needing 6 * 3 channels of amplification. Nearly all who’ve heard them esp the Orion are very enthusiastic, often esp about the natural musical bass . .

For bass, I was intending to go this system: custom drivers
http://www.audiojunkies.com/product/299/gr-research-sw1216fr-servo-reviews
with a matching Rythmik plate amp with servo control, and tailored FR filters for OB use.

with OB midbass above that (and possibly LeCleac'h horns above that . .)

Any who’ve heard one of Linkwitz’/ good open baffle bass . . and the Swarm etc

Which open baffle did you hear?

Can you comment at all on how the bass (and the mids) compare with the Swarm v 2 (and Planetarium mids)


Much appreciated
 
Last edited:
practical issue

Since I posted, it occurred to me that a practical advantage of multiple bass cabinets is that while dipole bass needs to be at least 4 – 6 feet/ 1.2- 1.8 m from the 'front' wall, the multiple bass units can be positioned very close to room boundaries. (Adjacent to?).

In a medium or small room and/ or with SAF, this could be a deciding factor.

But relative bass quality?
 
Yes I saw the thread a while back. As you know, its a very big thread, I havent read all of it (was without home web access for several months while I moved house) :mad:

when i read the parts that I saw, i didnt think of multiples subs as an alternative to dipoles, thinking while multiples subs are much better than 1 or 2, dipoles were best.

After reading the post I linked to, I'm not so sure . .

Can you comment?

thank you
 
I can't comment, because I haven't heard enough to compare, but I might add that every room/speaker/design will have multiple variables, so it can be difficult to pin a difference down to one aspect. You might like this thread: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145876&highlight=monopole+dipole

One of the things I took away from it is that in some rooms, below 40Hz, monopole and dipole may act the same.
 
I'll search through the multiple small subs thread.

Thanks cuibono, I'll read that thread too.

Though the main frequency range advantage of dipoles over monopoles, is from c 30 Hz (depending on room size) up to the Schroeder frequency (which also depends on room size), typically c 200 Hz. http://www.linkwitzlab.com/rooms.htm#C2

And the multiple small subs approach is “only” for the subwoofer range, ie < 50 – 80 Hz.

So in my enthusiasm I overlooked the FRs: both multiple small subs and dipoles are very valid, but dipoles address a wider range of problem
 
Earl

Thanks for chiming in

> I use my multiple subs up to about 150 Hz.

Which speakers are you then crossing to? (No longer the Summas?)

> I have heard the Orions and I'd say that bass was their best asset

Agreed

> but, I find my multiple sub setup to be just as good.

I could believe that

> Above the bass there is no contest.

And the prime strengths of . . . are I imagine dynamics + . . . ?

Cheers
 
You might like this thread: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145876&highlight=monopole+dipole

One of the things I took away from it is that in some rooms, below 40Hz, monopole and dipole may act the same.

the main thing I took away from it is from this post
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...e+bass+dipole+show+identical+room#post1884538

* 20 Hz - 35 Hz:

1 a ) Monopole bass and dipole bass show identical room time response in all locations A - D.
In all cases the envelope closely follows the input signal envelope.





* 35 Hz - 100 Hz:

2 a ) Dipole shows clearly better room time response than monopole in all locations A - D.

2 b ) Monopole room time response is the most sensitive to placement A - D.

2 c ) Dipole room time response is less sensitive to placement A - D than monopole, but more sensitive than dipole line array.

2 d ) Dipole line array room time response is the least sensitive to placement A - D.

2 e ) Dipole line array room time response is almost identical to dipole room time response in all locations A - D. This is due the limited hight (1.5m) of the array and thus the array directivity in this freq range is not enough to improve the response over the dipole.





* 100 Hz - 1 kHz:

3 a ) Monopole has worse room time response than dipole or dipole line array.

3 b ) Dipole has better room time response than monopole but worse than dipole line array.

3 c ) Dipole line array has the best room time response over monopole and dipole.

3 d) Monopole room time response is the most sensitive to placement A - D.

3 e) Dipole room time response is less sensitive to placement A - D than monopole, but more sensitive than dipole line array.

3 f) Dipole line array room time response is the least sensitive to placement A - D.

3 g) When approaching 1 kHz monopole and dipole room time responses are getting similar. This can be due to increased directivity of the monopole and decreased directivity of the dipole because of cone and baffle size.

3 h) At 1 kHz dipole line array still has the best room time response.


So while my thread started off re bass, I'm now exploring dipole line arrays

Thank you!
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.