Hi, I've never heard a dynamic subwoofer that mates well with an electrostatic speaker. I heard conventional cone woofers (Martin Logans and Sound Lab Pristine) and transmission types (Innersound Eros). The Innersound has better integration than ML or SL, but I can still hear discrepancy between the different transducers. I've also heard standalone subwoofers from Vandersteen, Thiel, Veladyne, M&K mated to electrostats, but still I it bothered me. I've heard dipole subwoofers are better suited in this application. I know there were some discussions about dipole subwoofers but I don't recall anyone trying to use it with electrostats and comparing to other types of subwoofers. Anyone have any success? Thanks.
Start here:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/dipolesub.htm
The best possible match for a dipole main speaker - is a dipole subwoofer. I use a dipole sub using 2x12 for music with very satisfiying results .http://www.linkwitzlab.com/proto.htm#PW1
For very high output, ultralow bass - like pipe organ tracks or HT, I also use a sealed sub below 35hz in conjunction with the dipoles to extend output below 20hz at high levels. 95% of my listening is done with the dipoles only.
The dual woofer H-frame version of this is pretty much like mine and might work for you also: http://www.musicanddesign.com/craw.html
cheers,
AJ
http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/dipolesub.htm
The best possible match for a dipole main speaker - is a dipole subwoofer. I use a dipole sub using 2x12 for music with very satisfiying results .http://www.linkwitzlab.com/proto.htm#PW1
For very high output, ultralow bass - like pipe organ tracks or HT, I also use a sealed sub below 35hz in conjunction with the dipoles to extend output below 20hz at high levels. 95% of my listening is done with the dipoles only.
The dual woofer H-frame version of this is pretty much like mine and might work for you also: http://www.musicanddesign.com/craw.html
cheers,
AJ
MGH said:
Well not quite dipole or a sub, I am building a line array mid-bass bolted to the top of an infinite baffle sub matted to a Martin Logan SL-3 panel as my new center. See details on this DIY Audio thread
That concept could be extened by a couple more drivers and some greater length to do frequencies down to 30Hz or so.
As for the best sub to match ESL’s, my opinion is that a good infinite baffle is the trick.
My IB delivers outstanding results with my all Martin Logan system. Here’s a pic:
The key is the crossovers and phase matching. Use a good high-end speaker processor like the Drive rack 260 and tune it to your system /room and presto, audio nirvana.
Hi,
thanks for the praise
The box blow the panel will be replaced by a smaller box, that will only house the electronics. But with enough volume to have a 2-channel digi-amp and active crossover built in -future plans-.
The system runs the woofer drivers from app. 35Hz to 250Hz, where the panel takes over. The panel is crossed over with a 2nd order butterworth filter with a Q around 2 to counter the falling freq-response and a notch on its ground resonance (160Hz). Acoustically this gives app. 4th order chebycheff.
The woofers are filtered with a 4th. order chebycheff and the acoustical behavior is the same. So both channels experience equal slopes -different slopes, i.e different group delays is imo one of several reasons why most hybrids integrate bass and panel so badly.
The bass channel is completed with a subsonic and bass boost (0-10db @ 35Hz..I run it at app. 6dB).
The drivers are bought from a sell-out. I knew them before and that they are able to be used in dipoles, but the sound-experience I have now is far better than I believed could be possible in my room. Playing a double bass like in Rebecca Pidgeon´s Spanish Harlem led to strong booming at distinct frequencies. Now I have clear and highly precise bass without any tendency to boom at any frequency at all.
What surprised me even more -and I don´t know any explanation for this- is, that the exceptional bass quality leads to even better mid-highs!!
Though I´m absolutely happy with the results, I´m a bit ashamed that both towers -as You can see them on the pics- costed about 200€
jauu
Calvin
thanks for the praise
The box blow the panel will be replaced by a smaller box, that will only house the electronics. But with enough volume to have a 2-channel digi-amp and active crossover built in -future plans-.
The system runs the woofer drivers from app. 35Hz to 250Hz, where the panel takes over. The panel is crossed over with a 2nd order butterworth filter with a Q around 2 to counter the falling freq-response and a notch on its ground resonance (160Hz). Acoustically this gives app. 4th order chebycheff.
The woofers are filtered with a 4th. order chebycheff and the acoustical behavior is the same. So both channels experience equal slopes
-different slopes, i.e different group delays is imo one of several reasons why most hybrids integrate bass and panel so badly.The bass channel is completed with a subsonic and bass boost (0-10db @ 35Hz..I run it at app. 6dB).
The drivers are bought from a sell-out. I knew them before and that they are able to be used in dipoles, but the sound-experience I have now is far better than I believed could be possible in my room. Playing a double bass like in Rebecca Pidgeon´s Spanish Harlem led to strong booming at distinct frequencies. Now I have clear and highly precise bass without any tendency to boom at any frequency at all.
What surprised me even more -and I don´t know any explanation for this- is, that the exceptional bass quality leads to even better mid-highs!!
Though I´m absolutely happy with the results, I´m a bit ashamed that both towers -as You can see them on the pics- costed about 200€
jauu
Calvin
Nice work Calvin. This is just the kind of project that I had in mind for my SL3s, using GR Research's new XBL^2 drivers (in development) that are meant to be used open baffle.
Any pittfalls I should know about?
I plan to use my Dbx Driverack PA as the crossover for the open baffle line array, running it between 250hz and about 80hz, where my subs will take over.
What do you think?
Any pittfalls I should know about?
I plan to use my Dbx Driverack PA as the crossover for the open baffle line array, running it between 250hz and about 80hz, where my subs will take over.
What do you think?
Linkwitz used 8 x 12" per side in W baffles to get down to 20Hz at good spl in the Beethoven grand
A good starting point
Rob.
A good starting point
Rob.
Dabler said:
Good choice for the DriveRack. I would recommend around 315Hz as the crossover for the SL3.
I also highly recommend bypassing the passive crossover in the SL3.
I posted full details on how to mod the SL3 crossover and a bunch of measurements of my DriveRack based SL3-eXtreme Center speaker over on the Martin Logan club
.
5 pages of build and test chock full of pics and graphs.
Thanks guys. I've been running my SL3 panels direct (w/o the Driverack) and using the Driverack for the woofers and subwoofers only.
I was doing this on the assumption that adding on an extra A/D then D/A conversion would give me digitidus, particularly at the high frequencies. I listen to a lot of vinyl.
I get the impression that you think what is gained exceeds what is lost by taking out the passive X-over?
I thought about by-passing the passive X-over on the SL3 woofer, but I know that it does all sorts of funky things with the phase that I didn't think I could replicate with the PA.
If I do go that route, I'll be taking my SL3s to my local mod guy, since I don't trust my skills to that degree.
As for the tower, my plan is to see what Danny at GR Research comes up with using his new drivers.
Why did you decide not to go open baffle / dipole?
Thanks for your help.
I was doing this on the assumption that adding on an extra A/D then D/A conversion would give me digitidus, particularly at the high frequencies. I listen to a lot of vinyl.
I get the impression that you think what is gained exceeds what is lost by taking out the passive X-over?
I thought about by-passing the passive X-over on the SL3 woofer, but I know that it does all sorts of funky things with the phase that I didn't think I could replicate with the PA.
If I do go that route, I'll be taking my SL3s to my local mod guy, since I don't trust my skills to that degree.
As for the tower, my plan is to see what Danny at GR Research comes up with using his new drivers.
Why did you decide not to go open baffle / dipole?
Thanks for your help.
As for why full active, just do a search under my ID (JonFo) on the ML Club site. You see all the arguments I posit around the benefits of full active.
You must, I repeat, must, have a calibrated mic along with test and evaluation software like ETF 5 or R+D for tuning the active x-overs. Big learning curve, but the payoff is there.
A measurement rig is recommended regardless, but is required if you are into DIY speaker work.
The gains from the correct phasing, time alignment and frequency response adjustments far, far outweighs any potential resolution loss or other effects of the D/A – A/D. This is the 21st century and A/D/A is quite transparent by now (if you adjust gains correctly).
As for why no dipole, well it’s because I was trying to address an inherent issue with dipoles in the first place: rear wave cancellation. So I chose a sealed box. It does need more power, but then I still have channels left over in my rig, so could still do a 2x200w feed just for the Line Array. But it runs great on 1x200w.
Also, for the Center channel, a monopole dispersion is preferable due to all the dialog intelligibility issues with a early reflection (4ms) rear wave. So by now, I’ve fully damped the rear wave of the SL3 with an absorbent element on top of the front wall diffuser.
You must, I repeat, must, have a calibrated mic along with test and evaluation software like ETF 5 or R+D for tuning the active x-overs. Big learning curve, but the payoff is there.
A measurement rig is recommended regardless, but is required if you are into DIY speaker work.
The gains from the correct phasing, time alignment and frequency response adjustments far, far outweighs any potential resolution loss or other effects of the D/A – A/D. This is the 21st century and A/D/A is quite transparent by now (if you adjust gains correctly).
As for why no dipole, well it’s because I was trying to address an inherent issue with dipoles in the first place: rear wave cancellation. So I chose a sealed box. It does need more power, but then I still have channels left over in my rig, so could still do a 2x200w feed just for the Line Array. But it runs great on 1x200w.
Also, for the Center channel, a monopole dispersion is preferable due to all the dialog intelligibility issues with a early reflection (4ms) rear wave. So by now, I’ve fully damped the rear wave of the SL3 with an absorbent element on top of the front wall diffuser.
Thanks again Jonathan.
I only have the Driverack PA, not the 260. I have the mic that plugs into the PA and I also have the Radio Shack mic with the companion Rives CD of test tones. I prefer using that to tune the EQ. Playing the test tones also helps me identify what's rattling in my room...
Is there any way I can stick with just that? The PA doesn't offer phase adjustments anyway, but it does have time delay.
If I build a seperate (open) box that houses the line array, could I not just move it forward and backwards and angle it left and right to adjust both phase and time delay?
Would this be possible by ear? Or am I really looking at a more sophisticated setup?
What do you mean by adjusting gains correctly on the Driverack?
I only have the Driverack PA, not the 260. I have the mic that plugs into the PA and I also have the Radio Shack mic with the companion Rives CD of test tones. I prefer using that to tune the EQ. Playing the test tones also helps me identify what's rattling in my room...
Is there any way I can stick with just that? The PA doesn't offer phase adjustments anyway, but it does have time delay.
If I build a seperate (open) box that houses the line array, could I not just move it forward and backwards and angle it left and right to adjust both phase and time delay?
Would this be possible by ear? Or am I really looking at a more sophisticated setup?
What do you mean by adjusting gains correctly on the Driverack?
Dipole Sub Tower
Unfortunately (or fortunately) side-by-side-driver floor-coupled dipole systems generate a mirror image source-size benefit meaning the system's output can be exactly like it was twice its actual size.
Towers offer very little of this benefit and their small horizontal baffle size causes a loss in radiation impedance generating more wasteful cancellation. The unfortunate part is that the best shape factor is to have the dipole source twice as wide as it is high and sitting on the floor (no air gap).
Laying the woofers down on the floor isn't as beautiful as is a tall tower (especially when the full range system is a tower) and it takes a lot of floor space.
But excursion is a very precious commodity for bass dipoles (8 times the excursion for every octave lowering in frequency 
) so, if you can, lay them down on the floor (2:1 ratio).
Unfortunately (or fortunately) side-by-side-driver floor-coupled dipole systems generate a mirror image source-size benefit meaning the system's output can be exactly like it was twice its actual size.
Towers offer very little of this benefit and their small horizontal baffle size causes a loss in radiation impedance generating more wasteful cancellation. The unfortunate part is that the best shape factor is to have the dipole source twice as wide as it is high and sitting on the floor (no air gap).
Laying the woofers down on the floor isn't as beautiful as is a tall tower (especially when the full range system is a tower) and it takes a lot of floor space.
But excursion is a very precious commodity for bass dipoles (8 times the excursion for every octave lowering in frequency ) so, if you can, lay them down on the floor (2:1 ratio).Hi,
Thanks. My thinking was that I would match a line source woofer with a line source panel. While at it, I figured I might as well make it a dipole woofer with the dipole panel.
Danny (at GR Research) tells me his new driver in a line source dipole could make it down to about 100hz, from as high as 3khz if I chose to go that high - I'd probably cross it over at 400hz.
I don't entirely understand the technical aspect of your post. I wouldn't have the room to lay all those drivers on the floor, and wouldn't that defeat my idea of matching the two line sources?
Pardon my total ignorance.
Is the long and short of it that I should go with a sealed box line source? That would certainly get dramatically lower down.
Many thanks.
Thanks. My thinking was that I would match a line source woofer with a line source panel. While at it, I figured I might as well make it a dipole woofer with the dipole panel.
Danny (at GR Research) tells me his new driver in a line source dipole could make it down to about 100hz, from as high as 3khz if I chose to go that high - I'd probably cross it over at 400hz.
I don't entirely understand the technical aspect of your post. I wouldn't have the room to lay all those drivers on the floor, and wouldn't that defeat my idea of matching the two line sources?
Pardon my total ignorance.
Is the long and short of it that I should go with a sealed box line source? That would certainly get dramatically lower down.
Many thanks.
Box vs. Dipole
I'm not a believer in box subs except for special effects and maybe below 30Hz. From 30Hz up, I'd try to use a dipole if at all possible. I only mentioned the horizontal positioning because it's soooo much better than vertical positioning from an acoustic energy standpoint. But if you don't have the space (or don't want to take the space) you simply have no choice but either a box or a vertical dipole. If you use enough woofers with adequate displacement, a vertical stack can be used (of course).
I'd use a dipole no matter the cost (just my opinion) and live with the dynamic range and LF cutoff you end up with. Like I said, if you want to reproduce/produce special effects (thunder, trains, helicopters, electronically produced sounds) then you'll have to use a box to get adequate dynamic range below 30Hz. But boxes make "a bowl of jello" sounding bass in a room which won't integrate well with the clarity and direct cound you'll get from the rest of the frequency range of a dipole. IMO
A single 15" woofer at the floor junction can get down to ~40Hz in dipole operation at good (but not killer) SPLs. Similarly, a pair of 12" can do the same if stacked vertically. But the narrower the baffle and smaller the woofer, the more trouble you'll have with a tower/column to get good dynamics at 40Hz or even more so, 30Hz.
It depends what you expect to listen to (as far as bass depth), how loud, and how much you prize a dipole's direct sound vs. a box's rumbly "room mode rich" sound. Some people like the sense that the room's walls are shaking as if the bass is trying to bust out of the room. :devil_r:
On special effects this can be a "neat" and "fun" effect. But for accurately reproducing music...it can be annoying. So, it's mostly up to the listener/owner. It's like having an F1 highly responsive engine (that can respond slowly if asked to) vs. a big block Chevy with a heavy flywheel that can only respond slowly.
A tall tower box system can help reduce the "floor to ceiling" room modes but still, it's not as effective as a dipole (but is more practical regarding the needed excursion and ability to generate high SPLs at very low frequencies)
There is no easy answer. But dipole bass is astonishing superior in "re"producing sound rather than just producing sound.
I'm not a believer in box subs except for special effects and maybe below 30Hz.
From 30Hz up, I'd try to use a dipole if at all possible. I only mentioned the horizontal positioning because it's soooo much better than vertical positioning from an acoustic energy standpoint. But if you don't have the space (or don't want to take the space) you simply have no choice but either a box or a vertical dipole. If you use enough woofers with adequate displacement, a vertical stack can be used (of course). I'd use a dipole no matter the cost (just my opinion) and live with the dynamic range and LF cutoff you end up with. Like I said, if you want to reproduce/produce special effects (thunder, trains, helicopters, electronically produced sounds) then you'll have to use a box to get adequate dynamic range below 30Hz. But boxes make "a bowl of jello" sounding bass in a room which won't integrate well with the clarity and direct cound you'll get from the rest of the frequency range of a dipole. IMO
A single 15" woofer at the floor junction can get down to ~40Hz in dipole operation at good (but not killer) SPLs. Similarly, a pair of 12" can do the same if stacked vertically. But the narrower the baffle and smaller the woofer, the more trouble you'll have with a tower/column to get good dynamics at 40Hz or even more so, 30Hz.
It depends what you expect to listen to (as far as bass depth), how loud, and how much you prize a dipole's direct sound vs. a box's rumbly "room mode rich" sound. Some people like the sense that the room's walls are shaking as if the bass is trying to bust out of the room. :devil_r:
On special effects this can be a "neat" and "fun" effect. But for accurately reproducing music...it can be annoying. So, it's mostly up to the listener/owner. It's like having an F1 highly responsive engine (that can respond slowly if asked to) vs. a big block Chevy with a heavy flywheel that can only respond slowly.
A tall tower box system can help reduce the "floor to ceiling" room modes but still, it's not as effective as a dipole (but is more practical regarding the needed excursion and ability to generate high SPLs at very low frequencies)
There is no easy answer. But dipole bass is astonishing superior in "re"producing sound rather than just producing sound.
Anyone heard these: www.musicalsubwoofers.com
From Audiophile Audition Review:
Haven't heard them as thay are not available locally (as far as I know), but they look interesting.
Regards
James
From Audiophile Audition Review:
Haven't heard them as thay are not available locally (as far as I know), but they look interesting.
Regards
James
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.