Hello!
I plan to build a 3-Way Open Baffle and want to get the best out of it. The goal is to make compromises that do not limit the sound quality to much.
My wishlist 😀
- Overall good dispersion (horizontally and vertically [WMTMW?]) with a smooth target curve (see Toole)
- Transient XO passiv
- Flat response
- Enough low distortion
I dont hear loud music (never more then 90db), because of my neighborhood.
General Problems with 3-Way OB are that one driver can only play for 2-3 Octave. My solution so far:
Bass- Low Mids:
Some years ago i have seen a speaker that goes incredible low in an open baffle because of a stimulated movement of the complete baffle (there was made some acceleration measurements). Click here...
For my bass section and the low mids i will use 2 or 3 of the Monacor SP-225 per side. (Probably i have to make some test with different baffle-sizes)
I think i could use the SP-255 in this way from 20Hz to maximum 600Hz!
Tweeter:
I think the best solution we can see with the BG NEO 3 (vertical position) on the Aino Gradient Speaker.
Alternative....
.... Radian LT2, Dayton PTMini 6 (They aren't able to crossover so low like Neo3 and if crossed higher its harder to get a smooth vertical dispersion)
..... Peerless OC16SC04 (Higher crossover-frequency and most worse dispersion of all alternatives because of big dipol-width at 7-8khz)
..... Peerless TC5FC02 (At Cone Breakup probably loose of a good dispersion on the baackside of the driver at 5 khz. Compared to this the Neo3 will hold up till 7 khz)
Therefore i think the best selection is the Neo3 (additionaly it has a good reputation) and when we need a better distortion because of a low crossover point probably the TC5FC02 could be a second option!
THE MOST DIFFICULT PART - WHAT COMPROMISES TO DO?
Filler (600Hz-2,4khz):
If we go to ask for the best dispersion, we take 4 of the Filler in a
W
MM
T
MM
W
configuratioin. The best 1,5" i have found:
1,5" Peerless by Tymphany TC5FC07-04
Alternativly Dayton Audio DMA45-4 but not loud enough.
Or only two of Tang Band W23-1287SI
As Info for the Peerless driver, the 'd'Appolito crossover-frequency would be 570Hz and 2,2khz. With these little drivers i can simulate a very nice vertical and horizontal dispersion.
Or is distortion and dynamic that bad, that we should go for something bigger?
Other Ideas?
Best regards, Tomas
I plan to build a 3-Way Open Baffle and want to get the best out of it. The goal is to make compromises that do not limit the sound quality to much.
My wishlist 😀
- Overall good dispersion (horizontally and vertically [WMTMW?]) with a smooth target curve (see Toole)
- Transient XO passiv
- Flat response
- Enough low distortion
I dont hear loud music (never more then 90db), because of my neighborhood.
General Problems with 3-Way OB are that one driver can only play for 2-3 Octave. My solution so far:
Bass- Low Mids:
Some years ago i have seen a speaker that goes incredible low in an open baffle because of a stimulated movement of the complete baffle (there was made some acceleration measurements). Click here...
For my bass section and the low mids i will use 2 or 3 of the Monacor SP-225 per side. (Probably i have to make some test with different baffle-sizes)
I think i could use the SP-255 in this way from 20Hz to maximum 600Hz!
Tweeter:
I think the best solution we can see with the BG NEO 3 (vertical position) on the Aino Gradient Speaker.
Alternative....
.... Radian LT2, Dayton PTMini 6 (They aren't able to crossover so low like Neo3 and if crossed higher its harder to get a smooth vertical dispersion)
..... Peerless OC16SC04 (Higher crossover-frequency and most worse dispersion of all alternatives because of big dipol-width at 7-8khz)
..... Peerless TC5FC02 (At Cone Breakup probably loose of a good dispersion on the baackside of the driver at 5 khz. Compared to this the Neo3 will hold up till 7 khz)
Therefore i think the best selection is the Neo3 (additionaly it has a good reputation) and when we need a better distortion because of a low crossover point probably the TC5FC02 could be a second option!
THE MOST DIFFICULT PART - WHAT COMPROMISES TO DO?
Filler (600Hz-2,4khz):
If we go to ask for the best dispersion, we take 4 of the Filler in a
W
MM
T
MM
W
configuratioin. The best 1,5" i have found:
1,5" Peerless by Tymphany TC5FC07-04
Alternativly Dayton Audio DMA45-4 but not loud enough.
Or only two of Tang Band W23-1287SI
As Info for the Peerless driver, the 'd'Appolito crossover-frequency would be 570Hz and 2,2khz. With these little drivers i can simulate a very nice vertical and horizontal dispersion.
Or is distortion and dynamic that bad, that we should go for something bigger?
Other Ideas?
Best regards, Tomas
There are other competing factors that I think you have not included in your consideration.
On the one hand, making the baffle large reduces low frequency losses. A large baffle helps the drivers be usable over a wider range.
On the other hand, a large baffle is blocking the reflection of the rear radiation coming from the front wall. The speaker is trending more towards infinite baffle and you will lose some of the "magic" of the open baffle's soundstage and other attractive sonic characters.
You seem to want to use "more" in terms of drivers. This would make the system more capable in terms of SPL, but you say that is not a goal or need. Another approach is to use high sensitivity drivers, and the largest possible for each audio band. This would imply a 15" or 18" pro-audio bass unit, a 4 Ohm 6" home-audio midrange, and then a dipole tweeter, and then use as little baffle as possible, or even no baffle for mid and tweeters. You will find that you only need modest amplifier power even if you dont' use any baffle at all, because you are starting with very high driver sensitivities (e.g. >95dB @1W for the bass unit, and >90dB@1W for the midrange).
You still will not be able to get below about 60Hz-100Hz with this approach, so a separate subwoofer below this point will be necessary. It can be closed box (better for small to mid size listening spaces) or dipole using U-frame, H-frame, M-frame, etc (for larger listening spaces).
It's my opinion that OB systems with very small baffle size will bring the best sound. Since that seems to be your goal, that is what I advocate for your planned system.
On the one hand, making the baffle large reduces low frequency losses. A large baffle helps the drivers be usable over a wider range.
On the other hand, a large baffle is blocking the reflection of the rear radiation coming from the front wall. The speaker is trending more towards infinite baffle and you will lose some of the "magic" of the open baffle's soundstage and other attractive sonic characters.
You seem to want to use "more" in terms of drivers. This would make the system more capable in terms of SPL, but you say that is not a goal or need. Another approach is to use high sensitivity drivers, and the largest possible for each audio band. This would imply a 15" or 18" pro-audio bass unit, a 4 Ohm 6" home-audio midrange, and then a dipole tweeter, and then use as little baffle as possible, or even no baffle for mid and tweeters. You will find that you only need modest amplifier power even if you dont' use any baffle at all, because you are starting with very high driver sensitivities (e.g. >95dB @1W for the bass unit, and >90dB@1W for the midrange).
You still will not be able to get below about 60Hz-100Hz with this approach, so a separate subwoofer below this point will be necessary. It can be closed box (better for small to mid size listening spaces) or dipole using U-frame, H-frame, M-frame, etc (for larger listening spaces).
It's my opinion that OB systems with very small baffle size will bring the best sound. Since that seems to be your goal, that is what I advocate for your planned system.
You are right. I want to use small baffle in the midrange to preserve the 8-like radiation pattern.
Only for the bass section i will test others option, too. Please look in the above link for the spp-250. The driver was used in a U-Profile Bass array. I will go to try it probably with a H-profile. I think it gives enough bass in my combination.
The biggest problem is the selction of the filler driver. You mention a mid-driver with 6".
I want to find the best compromise between radiation pattern and dynamic and distortion for this setup.
I have to select something between 1-4x Middrivers in the sizerange 1,5"-6".
Some effects in this sizerange for 600hz-2,4khz:
1)
Cone Breakup on the Backside will give a bad radiation pattern at >=90 degree. Cone Breakup occurs more or less for driver....
1,5" at 5- 5,5khz
2" at 4- 4,5khz
2,5" at 3- 3,5 khz
3" at 2- 2,5 khz
2)
We have to use the driver under the dipole typical peak. If not we get a worse radiaton pattern. The radiation pattern ist best one octave under the dipole peak. Examples:
baffle width ----- dipol peak
1,5" 8,4khz
2" 6,8 khz
2,5" 5,4khz
3" 4,5khz
3,5" 3,9khz
4" 3,4 khz
3)
If in
MM. M
T. or. T
MM. M
we have to take a look at the vertical directivity: If the tweeter would be the Neo3 (vertical position like in Aino Gradient), then we can calculate the Lobing an the Nulls for different Middriver-Sizes (in this calculation is only the interaction between the Middrivers, The Tweeter is not ON):
Degree----Null occur at frequency
For 1,5"
45 2267Hz
60. 1851 Hz
70. 1706 Hz
80. 1628 Hz
For 2"
45. 2073 Hz
60 1693 Hz
70. 1560Hz
80. 1489 Hz
For 2,5"
45. 1910 Hz
60. 1560Hz
70. 1437 Hz
80. 1371 Hz
For 3"
45. 1709 Hz
60. 1395 Hz
70. 1285 Hz
80. 1226 Hz
These points show its the best to take 4 of the 1,5". So we get the best dispersion. But what is with distortion and with dynamics? Whats the best compromise for the filler driver?
Only for the bass section i will test others option, too. Please look in the above link for the spp-250. The driver was used in a U-Profile Bass array. I will go to try it probably with a H-profile. I think it gives enough bass in my combination.
The biggest problem is the selction of the filler driver. You mention a mid-driver with 6".
I want to find the best compromise between radiation pattern and dynamic and distortion for this setup.
I have to select something between 1-4x Middrivers in the sizerange 1,5"-6".
Some effects in this sizerange for 600hz-2,4khz:
1)
Cone Breakup on the Backside will give a bad radiation pattern at >=90 degree. Cone Breakup occurs more or less for driver....
1,5" at 5- 5,5khz
2" at 4- 4,5khz
2,5" at 3- 3,5 khz
3" at 2- 2,5 khz
2)
We have to use the driver under the dipole typical peak. If not we get a worse radiaton pattern. The radiation pattern ist best one octave under the dipole peak. Examples:
baffle width ----- dipol peak
1,5" 8,4khz
2" 6,8 khz
2,5" 5,4khz
3" 4,5khz
3,5" 3,9khz
4" 3,4 khz
3)
If in
MM. M
T. or. T
MM. M
we have to take a look at the vertical directivity: If the tweeter would be the Neo3 (vertical position like in Aino Gradient), then we can calculate the Lobing an the Nulls for different Middriver-Sizes (in this calculation is only the interaction between the Middrivers, The Tweeter is not ON):
Degree----Null occur at frequency
For 1,5"
45 2267Hz
60. 1851 Hz
70. 1706 Hz
80. 1628 Hz
For 2"
45. 2073 Hz
60 1693 Hz
70. 1560Hz
80. 1489 Hz
For 2,5"
45. 1910 Hz
60. 1560Hz
70. 1437 Hz
80. 1371 Hz
For 3"
45. 1709 Hz
60. 1395 Hz
70. 1285 Hz
80. 1226 Hz
These points show its the best to take 4 of the 1,5". So we get the best dispersion. But what is with distortion and with dynamics? Whats the best compromise for the filler driver?
An alternative is what Jahuzi with the aino gradient did.
He took a neo 8, so there was no problem with 1).
But he made a big compromise with point 3).
I think the neo 8 is superior to other bigger middrivers regarding the radiation pattern.
So the possible solutions per side:
4*TC5FC02 or DMA45
2* Tang Band w23
1* Neo8
What do you recommend?
He took a neo 8, so there was no problem with 1).
But he made a big compromise with point 3).
I think the neo 8 is superior to other bigger middrivers regarding the radiation pattern.
So the possible solutions per side:
4*TC5FC02 or DMA45
2* Tang Band w23
1* Neo8
What do you recommend?
Last edited:
Something I found with my similar Setup, (A 15" Faital 400 driver in a H-Baffle, a 6,5" Satori driver in a 45cm open baffle in the mids and a monopole tweeter) is, that a passive crossover is not the best solution for the transition from bass to the mids.
The system sounds better with correcting the mids for the dipole loss and couple to the woofer lower. Passively I have to cross to the woofer at 300Hz to the mids for a usable frequency response. Actively I can lift the bass on the satori, so I can cross as low as 180 Hz with acceptable distortion which sounds much better to my ears.
Dipole behaviour is pretty good up to 700 Hz where it falls apart and never recovers 🙂.
The system sounds better with correcting the mids for the dipole loss and couple to the woofer lower. Passively I have to cross to the woofer at 300Hz to the mids for a usable frequency response. Actively I can lift the bass on the satori, so I can cross as low as 180 Hz with acceptable distortion which sounds much better to my ears.
Dipole behaviour is pretty good up to 700 Hz where it falls apart and never recovers 🙂.
Sorry I don't those points 1-3
Is 3 dynamics? What is dynamics of a loudspeaker/driver? What makes you think it is compormized in AInOs?
Neo 10 would have been better upper mid than Neo8, giving lower distortion below 1kHz
Neo3 is horizontaly in AINOs, but I put felt on sides to get better dispersion. This was because I had the frames made for other tweeters and they happened to fit there sideways!
Anyway Tou, you are right, smooth dipole dispersion above 2kHz is very difficult to achieve!
Is 3 dynamics? What is dynamics of a loudspeaker/driver? What makes you think it is compormized in AInOs?
Neo 10 would have been better upper mid than Neo8, giving lower distortion below 1kHz
Neo3 is horizontaly in AINOs, but I put felt on sides to get better dispersion. This was because I had the frames made for other tweeters and they happened to fit there sideways!
Anyway Tou, you are right, smooth dipole dispersion above 2kHz is very difficult to achieve!
Attachments
Last edited:
Can´t help with your choice of mid and/or tweeter
but did you consider the WS25E from Visaton for bass?
Qts should be fine with a passive XO as well and xmax is quite a bit higher.
Nobbi
I´m thinking of "reducing" the size of my setup from h-frame with 15" (A&D R1524) to 2xWS25E. Simulation shows that these do really well without EQ but run out of steam/xmax very early. Might or might not be OK in your home setup. The SPP-255 has even less xmax; although 3pcs. might be fine/have more margin.
but did you consider the WS25E from Visaton for bass?
Qts should be fine with a passive XO as well and xmax is quite a bit higher.
Nobbi
I´m thinking of "reducing" the size of my setup from h-frame with 15" (A&D R1524) to 2xWS25E. Simulation shows that these do really well without EQ but run out of steam/xmax very early. Might or might not be OK in your home setup. The SPP-255 has even less xmax; although 3pcs. might be fine/have more margin.
Sorry I'm not familiar with Visatons and SEAS LROYs were kind of new and cool then, adapted by SL as well but doubled and dipole. Monopole sub-bass is mostly about Sd, Xmax and power handling, I don't believe there are any sound quality differencies! Peerless XLS12 was an option (XXLS didn't exist)
Because I was fixed with dsp, I didn't have to consider sensitivity and impedance. You have set yourself quite a challenge trying to go passive!
Because I was fixed with dsp, I didn't have to consider sensitivity and impedance. You have set yourself quite a challenge trying to go passive!
Last edited:
A good coax used bare can work quite well. Good directivity all the way down to the crossover point. At least that's what I experienced with a 12" coax. Nearly linear phase with IIR filters.
A tweeter on a properly terminated(foam or roundover)waveguide also works well.
Perfect dipole symmetry doesn't seem as important as overall directivity. I prefer to absorb the back wave to some degree.
Main advantage I hear for open baffle/bare drivers is lack of box issues and controlled directivity to low frequencies in a compact package. Disadvantage is output.
.
A tweeter on a properly terminated(foam or roundover)waveguide also works well.
Perfect dipole symmetry doesn't seem as important as overall directivity. I prefer to absorb the back wave to some degree.
Main advantage I hear for open baffle/bare drivers is lack of box issues and controlled directivity to low frequencies in a compact package. Disadvantage is output.
.
@ Jahuzi
Point 3 was the vertical radiation pattern.
The idea with the felt is very nice! I will try it, too.
I believe you, that neo 10 has better distortion. But it is bigger and will give a worse dispersion. Do you would anyway say that it will sound better i this configuration or your configuration? From experience or did you hear it in comperasion to Neo8?
@hop.sing
I want to make a transient speaker, because what i have read in the forum, i believe the overall sound is much better. Therefore i will use the Mid for two octaves (f.e. 600-2400Hz). Because of the Tweeter ist not possible to go much lower. Therefore the Woofer has to go till 600Hz.
I could only as alternative use the TC5FC07 as Tweeter. If i use it, then i could probably use the filler from 350Hz-1400Hz. Is it worth, to get worse dispersion over 3-4khz for this change?
Regarding the Woofer or Bass-Section:
I have right now some spp-250 therefore i would like to start with them. But in this section exists many solutions. I would make progression at this section on the end.
Regarding passiv XO:
Yes, its not that easy, but a transient 3-Way should have an acoustically LR2-BW1-LR2 Crossover. That means the most we take a look on the tweeter and the mids.
@ErnieM:
Do you have a example, which coax to buy or build?
At what frequency do you think a 8-pattern is not so important? Did you her it in comperasion?
Point 3 was the vertical radiation pattern.
The idea with the felt is very nice! I will try it, too.
I believe you, that neo 10 has better distortion. But it is bigger and will give a worse dispersion. Do you would anyway say that it will sound better i this configuration or your configuration? From experience or did you hear it in comperasion to Neo8?
@hop.sing
I want to make a transient speaker, because what i have read in the forum, i believe the overall sound is much better. Therefore i will use the Mid for two octaves (f.e. 600-2400Hz). Because of the Tweeter ist not possible to go much lower. Therefore the Woofer has to go till 600Hz.
I could only as alternative use the TC5FC07 as Tweeter. If i use it, then i could probably use the filler from 350Hz-1400Hz. Is it worth, to get worse dispersion over 3-4khz for this change?
Regarding the Woofer or Bass-Section:
I have right now some spp-250 therefore i would like to start with them. But in this section exists many solutions. I would make progression at this section on the end.
Regarding passiv XO:
Yes, its not that easy, but a transient 3-Way should have an acoustically LR2-BW1-LR2 Crossover. That means the most we take a look on the tweeter and the mids.
@ErnieM:
Do you have a example, which coax to buy or build?
At what frequency do you think a 8-pattern is not so important? Did you her it in comperasion?
A couple of comments. I marked them in RED above, where you say:
Although you were not specific what you mean when you say "a worse radiation pattern", in general this is not correct. In the "old days" models for dipoles showed crossing of the on and off axis response above the dipole peak, so proponents like Linkwitz aimed to stay below the peak only. But real world measurements on nude drivers, and more recent models, show that the off axis pattern simply narrows thru and above the peak until breakup. Therefore, you can use it as high as each driver's inherent pattern can support. Unfortunately there is no data on this available from the MFG, and you must buy and measure or rely on someone else who has done that.
Also, keep in mind that many of the rules of thumb for how high you should use a driver are based on a closed box application. A dipole system is different in that the low(er) frequencies have controlled directivity as a result of the response pattern. This means that the difference between HF (narrowing pattern due to driver size) and LF operation (a narrowed pattern due to the dipole operation) are less different compared to a closed box. To me this says you can use a larger driver than you normally would. Drivers with controlled breakup and other useful HF characteristics will be particularly attractive for a nude dipole type application.
Also, you said:
I find that for many small drivers, below about the 6" class, the basket and motor create many rear-side response problems WAY below where there would be breakup, e.g. in the 1k-2k Hz region. I found this out by measuring lots of drivers starting with 4" class, then 5.25" and finally trying 6" and 6.5" drivers. I found that to the rear, the larger drivers with an open basket had few to no issues of this kind. Since there is no way to fix such a problem via the crossover if you want to use the driver in that frequency range, the only option is to use a driver without these problems. I find that select 6" class drivers can be used up to about 2kHz with things like response pattern or breakup starting to be a problem above this frequency. But this is about the low end of where you can cross over many tweeter, e.g. Neo3, the GDP copy, etc. So I look to use the 6" class driver, and good examples are the SB17 drivers from SB Acoustics (many cone materials are available) or the NE180W from Peerless. Used nude these drivers do a very good job of covering the 500Hz-2kHz band where there are often problems. Of course the 8" or 10" class planar like the GRS PT5020 is also a good option, but it has worse distortion performance, which you mentioned was important to you.
The other nice thing about a 6" class driver used nude is that the dipole peak is not too narrow. Some smaller drivers (e.g. SS 10F) have a pretty narrow dipole peak that is difficult to tame in the crossover because it is not a the same frequency in the on and off axis responses. In general a larger driver will have a broader dipole peak compared to a smaller one when used nude. This seems to be the case even up to the 15" size based on what I have measured.
@CharlieLaub
Why to use the driver under the dipole peak (if possible): On the directivity of dipole tweeters
But you are right! With a distinct directivity of the cone there are no problems left with dipol-8. But it would be hard to make a BW1 crossover with good pattern. But probably we can find a way
Btw the same you can achieve with
.
Additionally, i have seen the same as you with 3, and 4". They dont have a good radiation pattern to the side and backward at high frequency. Therefore i would appreciate to see 6" example with radiation pattern all around.
Why to use the driver under the dipole peak (if possible): On the directivity of dipole tweeters
But you are right! With a distinct directivity of the cone there are no problems left with dipol-8. But it would be hard to make a BW1 crossover with good pattern. But probably we can find a way
Btw the same you can achieve with
.Additionally, i have seen the same as you with 3, and 4". They dont have a good radiation pattern to the side and backward at high frequency. Therefore i would appreciate to see 6" example with radiation pattern all around.
Last edited:
You will find some measurements in this document I posted a year or two ago:
In Pursuit of the 20-20k Dipole Loudspeaker
Unfortunately I had a HDD crash and lost about 4 years of data, including all the measurments of nude drivers I made during that time. Most of my measurements were not posted publicly, so they are gone. But the drivers I mentioned measured well to the front and rear sides. For example in the pdf, the section "A MIDWOOFER" features my measurements of an SB17MFC. It has some cone or surround issues around 800Hz that are "fixed" in variants like the SB17CAC (excellent all around and highly recommended in this application).
In Pursuit of the 20-20k Dipole Loudspeaker
Unfortunately I had a HDD crash and lost about 4 years of data, including all the measurments of nude drivers I made during that time. Most of my measurements were not posted publicly, so they are gone. But the drivers I mentioned measured well to the front and rear sides. For example in the pdf, the section "A MIDWOOFER" features my measurements of an SB17MFC. It has some cone or surround issues around 800Hz that are "fixed" in variants like the SB17CAC (excellent all around and highly recommended in this application).
I have here some diagrams with the distortion from the tang band w23. In comperasion to the TC5FC00 it has a worse distortion. Additionally the w23 is bigger and i can use only 2 per side. Unfortunately i have only measurements fromt the TC5FC00 and not from TC5FC07. But they are in the same famaly and the TC5FC07 has a bigger xmax. So i hope it is at least that good.
Possibilities:
TC5FC07 od DMA 45 (the dma 45 has a nice discription for dipoles)
Neo 8 or 10
@Charlie Laub
Thank you! I will take a look on the other thread.
A 6-6,5" driver. like the SB17CAC
Possibilities:
TC5FC07 od DMA 45 (the dma 45 has a nice discription for dipoles)
Neo 8 or 10
@Charlie Laub
Thank you! I will take a look on the other thread.
A 6-6,5" driver. like the SB17CAC
Last edited:
I used a prosound Ciare coax. I've also used the Seos 12 waveguide paired with a bare 10" around 1.2khz. A bit overkill in your case. I've also tried small tweeters and fullranges on small baffles. Many different setup can sound good when properly tuned and not pushed beyond their limits.
It really comes down to your personal preference of accuracy vs. spaciousness. I prefer late room reflections vs. the early reflections you get from a speaker placed near a wall. Cardioid is more my tastes. Dipole sounds good to me far from the wall or with heavy absorption on the wall.
I would also highly recommend going active for the best results(and your sanity).
It really comes down to your personal preference of accuracy vs. spaciousness. I prefer late room reflections vs. the early reflections you get from a speaker placed near a wall. Cardioid is more my tastes. Dipole sounds good to me far from the wall or with heavy absorption on the wall.
I would also highly recommend going active for the best results(and your sanity).
🙂
@ CharlieLaub: This is a good solution. But i want to recommend im this purpose the thread ober the aino gradient. Especially this site
Your driver is very close to the audax. At the end Jahuzi tested it in comperasion and found the Neo8 better.
So i think the Neo8 or Neo10 is superior to it.
We have only the Neo8 and 10 left.
And the TC5FC07 and DMA 45.
Nevertheless your explanations in the pdf are very interesting. The linked discription of the DMA 45 says it has a special frame so that the 8 patter behaves till high frequency.
I think now has to follow a distortion and spl comperasion between the big Neos and the 4* 1,5" Mids.
@ CharlieLaub: This is a good solution. But i want to recommend im this purpose the thread ober the aino gradient. Especially this site
Your driver is very close to the audax. At the end Jahuzi tested it in comperasion and found the Neo8 better.
So i think the Neo8 or Neo10 is superior to it.
We have only the Neo8 and 10 left.
And the TC5FC07 and DMA 45.
Nevertheless your explanations in the pdf are very interesting. The linked discription of the DMA 45 says it has a special frame so that the 8 patter behaves till high frequency.
I think now has to follow a distortion and spl comperasion between the big Neos and the 4* 1,5" Mids.
There is some Neo8´s in the "swap meet" up for grabs from sweden if you haven´t seen it:
Bohlender Graebner Neo8s
Bohlender Graebner Neo8s
Neo8 has distortion problem below 1kHz, Neo10 should be better. Neo3 can easily be crossed before Neo10 suffers from dispersion discontinuity. I have never seen or heard Neo10!
Vertical dispersion/interferences in AINOs are not a real problem, but an issue yes. LR2 crossover smooths out vertical directivity pretty well, but yes if I stand up treble is lower. However this is not a problem for normal listening or even mulitmic measurements within arm's length around my head.
"Transient perfect" and good 3- or 4-way speaker is mission impossible without FIR dsp manipulation! However I must say that a single driver playing 100-5000Hz sounds nice and different to multiway. How much of that comes from point source or smooth phase I don't know... Loudspeakers are always a compromise of many things!
Vertical dispersion/interferences in AINOs are not a real problem, but an issue yes. LR2 crossover smooths out vertical directivity pretty well, but yes if I stand up treble is lower. However this is not a problem for normal listening or even mulitmic measurements within arm's length around my head.
"Transient perfect" and good 3- or 4-way speaker is mission impossible without FIR dsp manipulation! However I must say that a single driver playing 100-5000Hz sounds nice and different to multiway. How much of that comes from point source or smooth phase I don't know... Loudspeakers are always a compromise of many things!
I have measured Audax HM100Z0 (4" mid) 0-180dg because it is said to be a fantastic midrange! More like a cardioid above 2kHz! That was in 2013 in process of developing AINOs.
Looking at magnet, one could have guessed! The reason for choosing MTM with Vifa 3" neos was because of theri small neo magnets. But the spiders made them problematic as well...
Looking at magnet, one could have guessed! The reason for choosing MTM with Vifa 3" neos was because of theri small neo magnets. But the spiders made them problematic as well...
Attachments
Last edited:
To get the best out from my speaker i have made a list (most important first):
1. Flat on-axis
2. Dispersion horizontal
3. no audible distortion till 90db
4. dispersion vertical
5. Crossover Network details (step response, tp? ....)
6. spl with low distortion (100db)
7. flat impedance
Do you would add something?🙂
So in my case Point 6 and 7 ist not important.
Regarding Point 5 i have seen some useful information in this forum:
An exercise in converting a speaker to time-phase coherent
So i will try it with a duelund-filter. I think this should be enough and somewhat easier then a B&O Filler, especially in an OB.
So Point 1-5 plays somewhat together.
Where can i make compromises without audible "cons"?
For example the vertical respone can be narrower but should not have peaks offaxis.
Whats about the horizontal dispersion? Jahuzi had took many effort to get a even dispersion for example at high frequencies or still at 60 degree off axis. Is it audible? I found the dispersion from the Aino gradient (only as measurement) better dispersion then the LX521.
Best regards, Tomas
1. Flat on-axis
2. Dispersion horizontal
3. no audible distortion till 90db
4. dispersion vertical
5. Crossover Network details (step response, tp? ....)
6. spl with low distortion (100db)
7. flat impedance
Do you would add something?🙂
So in my case Point 6 and 7 ist not important.
Regarding Point 5 i have seen some useful information in this forum:
An exercise in converting a speaker to time-phase coherent
So i will try it with a duelund-filter. I think this should be enough and somewhat easier then a B&O Filler, especially in an OB.
So Point 1-5 plays somewhat together.
Where can i make compromises without audible "cons"?
For example the vertical respone can be narrower but should not have peaks offaxis.
Whats about the horizontal dispersion? Jahuzi had took many effort to get a even dispersion for example at high frequencies or still at 60 degree off axis. Is it audible? I found the dispersion from the Aino gradient (only as measurement) better dispersion then the LX521.
Best regards, Tomas