A Study of DMLs as a Full Range Speaker

[bdjohns]

Hello Eric.
This is the XO I have use for many years now.
It is so flexible, with every gadget you could think of.
I mainly use this for XO and digital delay but it does have eq also if needed.
There is an LE version that does away with the digital input for about £166 in the UK, but I'm not sure of the sound quality of this unit , as I only use the digital input.
I just use cheap digital amps, as the quality is so good now days.
i did use a car audio XO at one time, which is in a cupboard somewhere.
Steve.

https://www.thomann.co.uk/behringer...fU86a7HtfgMXh-oWrBr_un6JWdjQLdtUaAi6JEALw_wcB

I also use the Behringer crossover. I drive it digitally with the Wiim Mini Pro streamer. Much lower noise than the analog input and only one D/A conversion needed.

 

[Eucyblues99]

Hello Eucy,
With which exciters did you test this arrangement?
Christian

 

[Eucyblues99]

Lots of temporary sticky stuff going on - and I see I put it on the same side as the main exciter, not the diagonally opposite side

 

[Veleric]

Eric...I suggest you try placing a smaller exciter near to but inboard of the top corner of a panel to work full range with the main exciter..Pref the diagonally opposite corner of the main exciter. How you wire it depends on your equipment... If they're 4 ohm units try them in series. I found this arrangement to be a 👌surprise

Eucy,
Yep, I did try this last year when I was doing a series of outdoor measurements. On my panel, I did get the best result with the exciter at the "opposite corner", rather than the close corner, but I suspect it depends on the panel and exactly what feature of the response you are looking at.
Eric

 

[Leob]

If I do experiment with separate plates or exciters for treble, I will probably go with simple 1st order passive filters. With DML I'm not that worried about a lot of overlap between the exciters, so can use a very simple filter basically just to take a bit of load of the treble exciter.

In my case a 3-way active setup would add too much complexity. It is a lot of cables, and since I do quad surround that would mean a lot of DSP channels, and my 8 outs would not be enough.
And it does seem to make sense to design the combination as one unit tweaked into balance on a hardware level before applying EQ to tune it.

 

[Eucyblues99]

Eucy,
Yep, I did try this last year when I was doing a series of outdoor measurements. On my panel, I did get the best result with the exciter at the "opposite corner", rather than the close corner, but I suspect it depends on the panel and exactly what feature of the response you are looking at.
Eric

Hi Eric - I deduce it didn't work for you??
Eucy

 

[Veleric]

Eucy
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that. I would say it actually worked pretty good.
Curiously, the best thing it did was to smooth out a hump in the middle of frequencies which I hadn’t expected. But the highs were still a little weaker than I was hoping for.
Eric

 

[Veleric]

Eucy
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that. I would say it actually worked pretty good.
Curiously, the best thing it did was to smooth out a hump in the middle frequencies which I hadn’t expected. But the highs were still a little weaker than I was hoping
Eric

 

[Mark'51]

The added mass of the secondary exciter may have contributed to its effect on the panel's FR. Adding mass(es) here & there is a known way to tweak panel FR.