Planetarium + Swarm v Linkwitz or other open baffle? - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Subwoofers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 7th September 2009, 07:10 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
otto88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Planetarium + Swarm v Linkwitz or other open baffle?

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/...-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 by otto88; 7th September 2009 at 07:16 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2009, 01:41 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
otto88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default 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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2009, 02:31 PM   #3
DorinD is offline DorinD  Romania
diyAudio Member
 
DorinD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bucharest
Don't you read yet Earl's (Geddes) multisubwoofer aproach for smooth bass in small rooms? There is a thread on this matter and were discussed all kind of comparations (OB, others multisubwoofer aproaches etc.).
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2009, 02:52 PM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
otto88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
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)

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
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2009, 03:13 PM   #5
cuibono is offline cuibono  United States
diyAudio Member
 
cuibono's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: City of Angles
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: Measured monopole and dipole room responses

One of the things I took away from it is that in some rooms, below 40Hz, monopole and dipole may act the same.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2009, 03:07 AM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
otto88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2009, 02:38 AM   #7
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
I use my multiple subs up to about 150 Hz.

I have heard the Orions and I'd say that bass was their best asset, but, I find my multiple sub setup to be just as good. Above the bass there is no contest.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2009, 03:33 AM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
otto88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2009, 01:39 PM   #9
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
I still use Summas, but "crossed over" is incorrect. for much of the bandwidth below 150 Hz the Summas operate along with the subs.

The Summas excel at imaging and dynamics, both aspects that I found lacking in the Orions.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2009, 02:15 PM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
otto88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
"imaging and dynamics, both aspects that I found lacking in the Orions"

Mmm, I certainly wasn't impressed by the Orion's dynamics

better re-read your white paper

Thank you
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does open baffle suffer from baffle step? 454Casull Multi-Way 15 19th May 2012 03:12 PM
Open-baffle baffle length matejS Multi-Way 2 21st September 2010 04:49 PM
Murphy baffle radios [ open baffle ] keithpeter Full Range 10 11th September 2007 07:59 PM
what effect does baffle have on open-baffle system? kappa546 Multi-Way 6 24th January 2006 10:21 PM
Australians- what solid timbers for baffle? (open baffle loudspeaker) tktran Multi-Way 13 29th November 2004 11:09 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:45 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2