I have now made a pair of baffles. I connected the tweeters with 0.82uF and listened just out of curiosity.
OK, the tonal balance is very light without any EQ but two things stand out that remind me of the experience at Mr. Linkwitz :
The speakers disappear and there is no preasure on the ear.
OK, the tonal balance is very light without any EQ but two things stand out that remind me of the experience at Mr. Linkwitz :
The speakers disappear and there is no preasure on the ear.
LineSource, I had a similar idea for my next pair of speakers, but I doubt this solution will be stable enough. I think I will build something like a bridge over my 2x15" horizontally placed u-frame woofers (Eminence Deltalite II 2515) to hold the baffle with a swinging 12" midbass (18sound 12NMB420) + second baffle with 8" widerange (TB W8-1772) and AMT tweeter (AC AST2560) in double waveguide.
hehe I'm also playing with this. I used a higher efficiency 8" BC 8ndl51 and currently have a lowpass shelf instead of eq the low end. Was hoping to maybe go passive on the top module and active on the bottom but looks difficult.
Eagerly waiting Mr. Gerhard's comments on presentation and implementation. Thanks for starting this thread! At some point I will probably make a pair of LX521 via the flatpacks. The baffle pics in this thread look awesome!
Eagerly waiting Mr. Gerhard's comments on presentation and implementation. Thanks for starting this thread! At some point I will probably make a pair of LX521 via the flatpacks. The baffle pics in this thread look awesome!
Hi Johachim,
I presume the curves you show are 0 degree ? Taken from the listener position ?
Higher Mid have a beautifull curve, i like the little dip in the M-F curve where the ears are very sensible.
I have two questions please :
- With 7000 hz LP for the tweeter, do the upper mid not have directivity problems in its higher range ?
For distribued bass, what would you choose in current vendors catalogs for a 10/12"mid bass with a 80 hz XO High pass filter to the 1 Khz Low pass ? Any exists which allow avoiding Linkwitz transform or too much active filter to increase its mid-bass ?
I would like myself find a 1000 hz to 6/8 khz to avoid filtering in this range but finally was unable to find a theorical good enough mid-bass from datashhet with the few research maid with Google !
regards
I presume the curves you show are 0 degree ? Taken from the listener position ?
Higher Mid have a beautifull curve, i like the little dip in the M-F curve where the ears are very sensible.
I have two questions please :
- With 7000 hz LP for the tweeter, do the upper mid not have directivity problems in its higher range ?
For distribued bass, what would you choose in current vendors catalogs for a 10/12"mid bass with a 80 hz XO High pass filter to the 1 Khz Low pass ? Any exists which allow avoiding Linkwitz transform or too much active filter to increase its mid-bass ?
I would like myself find a 1000 hz to 6/8 khz to avoid filtering in this range but finally was unable to find a theorical good enough mid-bass from datashhet with the few research maid with Google !
regards
You both take the liberty to change drivers, change DSP and amplification. But you cling to a baffle shape that yells "LX 521". Is this respect for the master, deep insight into the finer acoustic effect of those midwoofer "ears" or just "playing it safe"?
Rudolf
I'm somewhat surprised by your question. Why are you asking ?
I guess when you cling to a dipolar speaker with baffle and you're looking for the best possible off-axis behavior, then you will automatically end up with such a shape, which might as well yell NaO Note II RS.
Playing it safe ends as soon as you change drivers, especially high-mid and tweeter. At longer wavelengths there is some liberty.
In version 0.5 when I started the curved lines I actually did observe a subtle improvement in the off-axis behavior. Probably not audible and maybe unique to my drivers but this and the visual aspects made me keeping it.
I guess when you cling to a dipolar speaker with baffle and you're looking for the best possible off-axis behavior, then you will automatically end up with such a shape, which might as well yell NaO Note II RS.
Playing it safe ends as soon as you change drivers, especially high-mid and tweeter. At longer wavelengths there is some liberty.
In version 0.5 when I started the curved lines I actually did observe a subtle improvement in the off-axis behavior. Probably not audible and maybe unique to my drivers but this and the visual aspects made me keeping it.
Last edited:
@6.283
When comparing your V 0.61 baffle shape to the shapes of the Note and the LX 521, everybody would identify it as a LX 521 "clone" and not a Note "clone". There is no doubt that the upper and lower midrange baffle width of such 4-way dipoles has a common optimum value. Both loudspeakers above reflect that.
But what about the 25° "shoulder" instead of the ~45° of the Note? And what about the widening at the upper end? Is it just a bow to SL or do you see specific advantages of the LX 521 shape? That is the heart of my question.
In case of Joachims tweeter baffle I believe that it is pure mimicry yet. The polar patterns of domes and planars are too different imho to result in a common optimal shape.
Rudolf
When comparing your V 0.61 baffle shape to the shapes of the Note and the LX 521, everybody would identify it as a LX 521 "clone" and not a Note "clone". There is no doubt that the upper and lower midrange baffle width of such 4-way dipoles has a common optimum value. Both loudspeakers above reflect that.
But what about the 25° "shoulder" instead of the ~45° of the Note? And what about the widening at the upper end? Is it just a bow to SL or do you see specific advantages of the LX 521 shape? That is the heart of my question.
In case of Joachims tweeter baffle I believe that it is pure mimicry yet. The polar patterns of domes and planars are too different imho to result in a common optimal shape.
Rudolf
Not only iyho but also imho.
I use a 6", not an 8". I only make sure that the lower and upper midrange mate well, horizontally and vertically. That is not really difficult at a wavelength of around 30cm. I'm not sure but I think that the angle in my shape is in between.
That jury is still out and subject to change because I am going to try a brand new tweeter. I was ready to stay with the OX20SC, which I like a lot from Demokrit-T until this guy came along. At least worth a try. There are a few more alternatives. We'll see.
It is the most difficult part of the speaker although maybe not the most critical one if you manage to pass the 5...7KHz "border" in a clean manner.
And so much about a "clone". It is the whole nine yards altogether.
But yes, I do respect the work of SL and also JK's. And of course Joachim's.
Rudolf, i asked Linkwitz why the treble baffle has that particular shape.
He said that he had in the beginning problems that " the back tweeter came around to the front ". That argument sounded strange to me although it could spread the difraction. Nevertheless the subjective sound of his system was amazing. Also his back tweeter is vertically offset so it is likely that this shape is not optimum for the single AMT i use plus the AMT has more beaming vertically and horizontally. That beaming should make it more tolerant to the shape of the baffle i reasoned but that is speculation so i may be wrong.
He said that he had in the beginning problems that " the back tweeter came around to the front ". That argument sounded strange to me although it could spread the difraction. Nevertheless the subjective sound of his system was amazing. Also his back tweeter is vertically offset so it is likely that this shape is not optimum for the single AMT i use plus the AMT has more beaming vertically and horizontally. That beaming should make it more tolerant to the shape of the baffle i reasoned but that is speculation so i may be wrong.
Eldam, yes that 7kHz crossover is rather high. I would theoretical prefer a lower crossover, say 5kHz. Again, i can only say that Linkwitz system sounded much more coherent then any 3 way, notwitstanding 4 way, i ever heard.
Maybe a bit beaming in the upper presence is even an advantage.
You are searching for an 8" that goes from 80Hz to 1kHz without EQ in a slim baffle ?
Good luck, you need a Qts of much more then 1 for this. This will reduce sensitivity of the driver and will give the magnet much less control.
Maybe a bit beaming in the upper presence is even an advantage.
You are searching for an 8" that goes from 80Hz to 1kHz without EQ in a slim baffle ?
Good luck, you need a Qts of much more then 1 for this. This will reduce sensitivity of the driver and will give the magnet much less control.
Thanks Joachim,
In fact I was asking for 10" to 12" drivers in the spirit of the thread Juhazzi fellow wrote. The idea below my question was to use an high efficient and size enough driver just to pad it down with EQ in its higher frequencies and not increase the bass at the low end of it because the lake of box and wide bafle. 80 hz is because I believe it will be easier for me to have distributed bass cabinets in the room à la Geedle with no hearable transition because the distance with main cabinet.
But your answer is very clear : control of the cone (so low Qs) is more important than less EQ for the final quality sound result.
Finally I don't understand if you have to go for the lower mid with a 8" max for the Linkwitz shape and design you want to try.
I find also your answer with the upper mid very interresting : yes why not, only the final result is important ! In my mind a good upper mid-treble would have XO far from the 1.K Khz to 7 Khz because fletcher-Munson and BBC experiments... and from around 100 hz to around 1 khz for the lower driver (because have myself 2 speakers with Xo around 100 hz). But for me it is just readings and never experiment myself. I suppose now with the 32 bits chips and phase and curve controls they allow , Xovers are less hearable and offer more liberties to choose the drivers the designer like for its tonal qualities for example...
But maybe just a last question please, we talk often about soundstage, bass with OB. At least did you listen to some classic instruments on the Linkwitz speakers ? If yes did you find the tonal timbres more acurate than some others 4 ways DIY (or on shelves speakers) of the same final price you hear before in your life (not just OB but also with CD drivers, planars ?)?
I will follow your experiments with no more questions as my understanging is too low (just read the Van Dickason book... no personal practice). But find myself that all the experiments on which you work, (You: all people of OB (and cardioid for some of you) world are very impressives.
In fact I was asking for 10" to 12" drivers in the spirit of the thread Juhazzi fellow wrote. The idea below my question was to use an high efficient and size enough driver just to pad it down with EQ in its higher frequencies and not increase the bass at the low end of it because the lake of box and wide bafle. 80 hz is because I believe it will be easier for me to have distributed bass cabinets in the room à la Geedle with no hearable transition because the distance with main cabinet.
But your answer is very clear : control of the cone (so low Qs) is more important than less EQ for the final quality sound result.
Finally I don't understand if you have to go for the lower mid with a 8" max for the Linkwitz shape and design you want to try.
I find also your answer with the upper mid very interresting : yes why not, only the final result is important ! In my mind a good upper mid-treble would have XO far from the 1.K Khz to 7 Khz because fletcher-Munson and BBC experiments... and from around 100 hz to around 1 khz for the lower driver (because have myself 2 speakers with Xo around 100 hz). But for me it is just readings and never experiment myself. I suppose now with the 32 bits chips and phase and curve controls they allow , Xovers are less hearable and offer more liberties to choose the drivers the designer like for its tonal qualities for example...
But maybe just a last question please, we talk often about soundstage, bass with OB. At least did you listen to some classic instruments on the Linkwitz speakers ? If yes did you find the tonal timbres more acurate than some others 4 ways DIY (or on shelves speakers) of the same final price you hear before in your life (not just OB but also with CD drivers, planars ?)?
I will follow your experiments with no more questions as my understanging is too low (just read the Van Dickason book... no personal practice). But find myself that all the experiments on which you work, (You: all people of OB (and cardioid for some of you) world are very impressives.
This could be a good candidate :http://www.tymphany.com/files/P830668 Spec sheet Rev 2_0.pdf
There is also a 12" version.
Yes, that 8" midrange in the LX521 moved a lot at higher volumes, still i could not hear distortion. I will stick to the 8" driver. It playes loud enough for me.
As i said the transition between the 8" and the 10cm Scan-Speak is passive.
Actually those drivers add very well although they overlap over a wide area. The resulting response is not flat though. That will be linearized by the DSP.
Actually we did not listen much to classical. I was so struck by the sound that we started talking and then time ran out. The closest was The King Singers that sounded mavelous.
I have no doubt that it will sound great with clasical. Siegfried is in good contact with the sound men of the San Francisco Symphonie.
There is also a 12" version.
Yes, that 8" midrange in the LX521 moved a lot at higher volumes, still i could not hear distortion. I will stick to the 8" driver. It playes loud enough for me.
As i said the transition between the 8" and the 10cm Scan-Speak is passive.
Actually those drivers add very well although they overlap over a wide area. The resulting response is not flat though. That will be linearized by the DSP.
Actually we did not listen much to classical. I was so struck by the sound that we started talking and then time ran out. The closest was The King Singers that sounded mavelous.
I have no doubt that it will sound great with clasical. Siegfried is in good contact with the sound men of the San Francisco Symphonie.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.