Martin,
Thanks a lot for your answer.
Actually, I have looked absolutely everywhere on the internet for a 12 inches suitable driver- with a Qts above 1. and the required efficiency of 94 db/W/m or more - and I could not find it anywhere any at any price. Maybe this is not a viable driver from the manufacturers point of view.
So, I would prefer not to use an EQ, as I want to keep things as simple as possible, and go for your original design with the 18" Goldwoods.
I also thought that with few inches more should not be a WAF problem at all.
Best regards
Antonio
Thanks a lot for your answer.
Actually, I have looked absolutely everywhere on the internet for a 12 inches suitable driver- with a Qts above 1. and the required efficiency of 94 db/W/m or more - and I could not find it anywhere any at any price. Maybe this is not a viable driver from the manufacturers point of view.
So, I would prefer not to use an EQ, as I want to keep things as simple as possible, and go for your original design with the 18" Goldwoods.
I also thought that with few inches more should not be a WAF problem at all.
Best regards
Antonio
>>> I also thought that with few inches more should not be a WAF problem at all.
lol... most wives i know would prefer a few inches more.
You can use 15" alphas in slightly smaller H-frame or 18" goldwoods. I'd imagine 18" would go deeper.
Godzilla
lol... most wives i know would prefer a few inches more.
You can use 15" alphas in slightly smaller H-frame or 18" goldwoods. I'd imagine 18" would go deeper.
Godzilla
Marin,
I lately have an idea to switch from active to passive crossover since I have difficulty in setting the loudness between 2 drivers. I'd follow exactly the same with your design for the 1858 at 100 hz , I wonder if I could try to set my Alpair 12 @ 200hz. I come up with 80uf and 7.8mH from one of the web site.
Please kindly advise before I place my order for the parts.
Thanks
Albert
I lately have an idea to switch from active to passive crossover since I have difficulty in setting the loudness between 2 drivers. I'd follow exactly the same with your design for the 1858 at 100 hz , I wonder if I could try to set my Alpair 12 @ 200hz. I come up with 80uf and 7.8mH from one of the web site.
Please kindly advise before I place my order for the parts.
Thanks
Albert
Did you use an active crossover to set the 200 Hz frequency? I crossed both of my full range driver a little higher at 250 Hz. If you have heard the combination with the active crossover and it sounds good then I would proceed, I don't have a pair of Alpair 12 drivers so I cannot really confirm your intended set-up.
Martin,
Thanks for the reply.
The crossover I've been using is basically a low pass filter and it only has a single switch to dial into whatever from 60 - 160hz, but only cuts off at one single frequency for both drivers. 200 hz is what I thought I should be at, but of course I would follow your precious idea. Please let me have the numbers for 250hz.
Albert
Thanks for the reply.
The crossover I've been using is basically a low pass filter and it only has a single switch to dial into whatever from 60 - 160hz, but only cuts off at one single frequency for both drivers. 200 hz is what I thought I should be at, but of course I would follow your precious idea. Please let me have the numbers for 250hz.
Albert
Albert,
I don't know the answer to your question. I don't have those drivers and have not done any work on designs based on the manufacturer's specs. You could try the on-line calculator you used to calculate the components for your previous crossover, see how it sounds, and then adjust the values if necessary. You will probably be close.
Martin,
Did you ever do the Alpha 15 in an H-Frame with passive crossover? I saw that your paper says 125Hz low-pass is needed, but have not found anywhere that you published values you used for that low pass.
For now will start with 15 mH and 108 uf.
Thanks,
Craig
Did you ever do the Alpha 15 in an H-Frame with passive crossover? I saw that your paper says 125Hz low-pass is needed, but have not found anywhere that you published values you used for that low pass.
For now will start with 15 mH and 108 uf.
Thanks,
Craig
'Any decent large diameter pro driver with a high Qts will behave as a piston over this frequency range. There will be no flapping cone or booming resonant bass. The driver will be under complete control of the amp.'
(???)
Absolutely untrue. My listening tests of the Alpha 15a versus the Pyle PA15 revealed to me a distinction so clear that a non-audiophile could pick it up. Motor size has ALOT to do with control. The Alpha 15a is muddy sounding, no matter what amp you use, because a 25 oz magnet is far too small for a 15" cone. Don't think the small magnet is a big deal? Scale it back further, to five ounces, and then try it. I'm sure your Q will be 3.0 and I'm sure some of you will still think the sound is amazing. I can't take any project that uses the Goldwood 18" driver or the Alpha, seriously. You cannot mate a light-coned fullrange driver with a muscle car motor to a big heavy cone with a Yugo motor and expect synergy. So I sit back and watch with amazement as this type of design continues to gain appeal. Sadly, it misses the sonic mark - by miles.
The only review of Carver's high-Q dipole system that I believed was the one that admitted the bass was 'ill-defined'. The only one that admitted the truth.
(???)
Absolutely untrue. My listening tests of the Alpha 15a versus the Pyle PA15 revealed to me a distinction so clear that a non-audiophile could pick it up. Motor size has ALOT to do with control. The Alpha 15a is muddy sounding, no matter what amp you use, because a 25 oz magnet is far too small for a 15" cone. Don't think the small magnet is a big deal? Scale it back further, to five ounces, and then try it. I'm sure your Q will be 3.0 and I'm sure some of you will still think the sound is amazing. I can't take any project that uses the Goldwood 18" driver or the Alpha, seriously. You cannot mate a light-coned fullrange driver with a muscle car motor to a big heavy cone with a Yugo motor and expect synergy. So I sit back and watch with amazement as this type of design continues to gain appeal. Sadly, it misses the sonic mark - by miles.
The only review of Carver's high-Q dipole system that I believed was the one that admitted the bass was 'ill-defined'. The only one that admitted the truth.
InclinedPlane:
The first review I could find posted on Carver's "Amazing Loudspeaker" [their name not mine!] says "Bass extension is very good, with decent impact, but don't expect amazing bass quality and definition." (Stereophile: Carver Amazing Loudspeaker (Platinum Edition)). In the measurements section they wrote: "The bass can be seen from fig.5 to be elevated by more than 6dB compared with the treble region, with extension really only down to 30Hz. Certainly in my room, the speaker sounded unmusically "slow," which correlates nicely with this measurement". (Stereophile: Carver Amazing Loudspeaker (Platinum Edition)).
There were many problems with this speaker documented by Stereophile including a very poor ribbon design but one of the largest difficulties was (for Stereophile) reviewing this speaker was liking hitting a moving target. Carver changed it faster than they could complete a review. I would submit based on their review that the issue with the bass of these speakers was a function of it being 6dB too loud which contributed to the "slow" sound they heard. And... had little to do with the use of large woofers with smaller magnets.
The first review I could find posted on Carver's "Amazing Loudspeaker" [their name not mine!] says "Bass extension is very good, with decent impact, but don't expect amazing bass quality and definition." (Stereophile: Carver Amazing Loudspeaker (Platinum Edition)). In the measurements section they wrote: "The bass can be seen from fig.5 to be elevated by more than 6dB compared with the treble region, with extension really only down to 30Hz. Certainly in my room, the speaker sounded unmusically "slow," which correlates nicely with this measurement". (Stereophile: Carver Amazing Loudspeaker (Platinum Edition)).
There were many problems with this speaker documented by Stereophile including a very poor ribbon design but one of the largest difficulties was (for Stereophile) reviewing this speaker was liking hitting a moving target. Carver changed it faster than they could complete a review. I would submit based on their review that the issue with the bass of these speakers was a function of it being 6dB too loud which contributed to the "slow" sound they heard. And... had little to do with the use of large woofers with smaller magnets.
"Absolutely untrue. My listening tests of the Alpha 15a versus the Pyle PA15 revealed to me a distinction so clear that a non-audiophile could pick it up"
Did you do a blind test? Just curious because i'm about to build a h-frame based on MJKs design.
Did you do a blind test? Just curious because i'm about to build a h-frame based on MJKs design.
InclinedPlane has made a number of similar comments before and his opinions of many drivers I really like seems to be 180 deg out of phase with mine. I have no problem with that. His tastes in music, HT, desired volume level, ... are probably significantly different from what I look for in a speaker system with my music in my room. I obviously don't agree with his comments about higher Qts drivers in dipole speakers, but in the end if we are both happy with our respective systems all is good.
I promised a while back to give impressions comparing the Goldwood and the Alpha when I finished the Alpha. Here is what I found on the Alpha. Sounded terrible when I first hooked it up. Muddy midrange and some real boominess. Went back and re-read Martin's article where it says the H-frame needs to roll off at 125 Hz instead of 200 for the OB. So had to scrounge up a 125 Hz cross over. Got real close with 15 mH and 92 uf which actually sounds pretty good. That and the Eminence is finally breaking in.
So, comparisons. Can't find much difference but have not done real detailed comparisons yet. Got sidetracked with a couple of Alpair 7's and a couple of Alpair 12's. Trying to get it all built out for the Arizona DIY get together next weekend. For now spending more time on matching in the 7's and 12's. I am close at about 200 Hz, based on what is in the parts drawer. Running 5.6 mH and 110 uf on the 7's with 10 mH and 92uf on the 12's for now.
Initial impression is that I am really blown away by the detail from the 7's and they blend in very nicely. The 12' are also impressive but don't quite have the detail or stage yet that the 7's show. They do sound a bit richer on female vocals, so I am going to let it all burn in for a while before doing more serious comparisons, which will wait until after the DIY get together next weekend. Both sound more detailed than the Jordan mini-monitors.
So, comparisons. Can't find much difference but have not done real detailed comparisons yet. Got sidetracked with a couple of Alpair 7's and a couple of Alpair 12's. Trying to get it all built out for the Arizona DIY get together next weekend. For now spending more time on matching in the 7's and 12's. I am close at about 200 Hz, based on what is in the parts drawer. Running 5.6 mH and 110 uf on the 7's with 10 mH and 92uf on the 12's for now.
Initial impression is that I am really blown away by the detail from the 7's and they blend in very nicely. The 12' are also impressive but don't quite have the detail or stage yet that the 7's show. They do sound a bit richer on female vocals, so I am going to let it all burn in for a while before doing more serious comparisons, which will wait until after the DIY get together next weekend. Both sound more detailed than the Jordan mini-monitors.
might have to try one of the Alpair - are they sounding clean and not moving much at higher levels? - re:Goldwood18 = fun driver in MJK's H-frame - maybe a bit phat and sluggish for some but would hunker down nice on hiphop - I tried an out of spec Peavey stiff (fs ~40)and Qt ~0.7 (free air) old 18" with very low Le = much more lower midrange output than the Goldwood so "faster" and less bottom extension than Goldwood in a kluged setup. That PV was good on old films of Mario Del Monaco (greatest Canio? - who could beat him?) with JBL alnico 8 - a cheap modern 200W Carvin amp was driving the mess and more taut than Behringer EP2500. (I probably hit 200W peaks on drums during shakedown so the FR must have a good choke across it to limit excursion) Are a lot of folks here preferring the H-baffle+FR combos to BLH FR? - my BK20 sounded like the bass out of its mouth was about half a block late on drums relative to the direct radiation.
Last edited:
>>> Are a lot of folks here preferring the H-baffle+FR combos to BLH FR? - my BK20 sounded like the bass out of its mouth was about half a block late on drums relative to the direct radiation.
Interesting comment Freddi. I have a pair of H-frames setup connected to my BIBs. Sonically the combination is EXCELLENT but the footprint is disgusting. There are magazines and cds on the H-frames (and screws, screwdriver, wire clipper, a ruler, nunchucks) and they are well in front of the BIBs which hide in corners conveniently. I shut the lights when listening. But the bass is fuller and richer than with the BIBs by themselves so it got me thinking about simply mounting a smaller 'monitor' type speaker right atop the H-frames and listening to that for a while. But will i miss the 'back horn' contribution? Not yet sure... i look forward to playing with different small boxed speakers (full range and two ways) just to hear what's new (and cheap). As for your delayed bass from the BK20s I also heard this with the BK101s i built and was unhappy. The BIBs do not seem to have this issue.
Godzilla
Interesting comment Freddi. I have a pair of H-frames setup connected to my BIBs. Sonically the combination is EXCELLENT but the footprint is disgusting. There are magazines and cds on the H-frames (and screws, screwdriver, wire clipper, a ruler, nunchucks) and they are well in front of the BIBs which hide in corners conveniently. I shut the lights when listening. But the bass is fuller and richer than with the BIBs by themselves so it got me thinking about simply mounting a smaller 'monitor' type speaker right atop the H-frames and listening to that for a while. But will i miss the 'back horn' contribution? Not yet sure... i look forward to playing with different small boxed speakers (full range and two ways) just to hear what's new (and cheap). As for your delayed bass from the BK20s I also heard this with the BK101s i built and was unhappy. The BIBs do not seem to have this issue.
Godzilla
- Status
- Not open for further replies.