No negative implications assumed; I was noting broad principles for interest only.
[Relatively] broadband gain slightly above the anechoic nominal. Seen on & off in the pro audio market; stage monitors sometimes take this approach, especially for acoustic material where you rarely need extension below ~42Hz (open E string double bass) as it can help provide a bit of extra subjective 'slam' in the region it's generally needed most. There's only so far you can go with an untapered QW in terms of operating BW of course; if you need more (e.g. for drivers with a higher mass corner frequency) then sooner or later you'll need to resort to horn loading, although even that has limits.
Taking impedance as a broad principle, reactive loads see large, often rapid changes in magnitude with frequency (i.e. the impedance is bouncing about like a spacehopper). That applies to both enclosures and crossovers. Reactive loads require the amplifier to be able to slew currently rapidly due to the constantly changing impedance; not ideal, especially if it's in the lower frequencies where current draw is typically at its greatest. Not all amplifiers can handle such loads very well, so all other things being equal the less reactive (i.e. the flatter) the load you present the amplifier, the easier the time it has, which should result in lower distortion and allow simpler, potentially more linear amplifiers to be used. As far as enclosures are concerned, any decent modelling software that can handle vented boxes and allow you to vary the damping coefficients will show at least some of the effects on the impedance load.
Last edited:
giantstairs,
I certainly thought about smaller drivers. In my first (and only) build so far I used the Pluvia 7. I think they sound great. And the fact that they have remained in the family room for the last six months is due only to the fact that my wife loves the sound too. But she's made it clear that their days are numbered.
Visitors are split on the appearance, but it's hard to know if they are being honest, or being influenced by my wife's glare!
Anyway, my thought was that if I'm going to build another set, I should step up to a better driver. Obviously, this doesn't have to mean bigger, but that's the way I'm leaning.
As far as using proven designs, well, that just takes all the fun out of it.
Eric
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Easy - just add day-glo glitter, some Innagaddava - baby, a black light, and anyone in the room can get a hit of that big pipe, dude. Contact high, and all that.
Oops, wrong forum again? Too many operating (web bowser) tabs, man.
Oops, wrong forum again? Too many operating (web bowser) tabs, man.
Went over to my friend's house last night for dinner and to check up on the speakers. Listening with 2 friends, both musicians, we decided to remove the BSC I had installed. We got a nice full sound with good bass even pulled out over half a meter from the back wall. There is a slight amount of sibilance, really noticeable with s's on the new Nick Cave album, that I didn't notice when I had the speakers in my studio. Could be from the amp? 😕
Sorry for the photo quality -- should've taken them before we finished 2 bottles of Rioja wine!
Sorry for the photo quality -- should've taken them before we finished 2 bottles of Rioja wine!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
In the world of MLTLs: For a given design the length of the enclosure directly relates to the bass cutoff point--taller would yield a lower frequency. The diameter of the driver relates directly to the cross-sectional area of the box. Thus if you can tolerate a higher bass frequency, then a shorter box would work. A smaller diameter driver would enable you to have a smaller enclosure.
I'll point out that all of my MLTLs have cross-sectional area equal (or even less) than a small monitor speaker with the same driver. Thus the tradeoff for additional MLTL height is significant (and satisfying) bass output. The height also acts as a built-in stand that positions the driver at in-room listening level.
I tell people that a MLTL is a mini-monitor size speaker that grew legs!
I'll point out that all of my MLTLs have cross-sectional area equal (or even less) than a small monitor speaker with the same driver. Thus the tradeoff for additional MLTL height is significant (and satisfying) bass output. The height also acts as a built-in stand that positions the driver at in-room listening level.
I tell people that a MLTL is a mini-monitor size speaker that grew legs!
Amp, DAC, rooms, etc... will alter the sounds in subtle or extreme ways. What sounds good in one room with one's system, might not sound as good with a different system and room.
I like that analogy! 🙂
RE: could sibilance be due to amp?
IME, yes, although not very common. I had a SS amp which was horribly sibilant with Fostex FE206e divers. Switching amps cured all!
Cheers, Jim
IME, yes, although not very common. I had a SS amp which was horribly sibilant with Fostex FE206e divers. Switching amps cured all!
Cheers, Jim
- Status
- Not open for further replies.