Active or passive? In any case I'd start around 1200hz LR4. The heil might/will need a boost at 2400hz with a Q 1.5. That will help match up the xo levels. The woofer may need a helper knee also at around 1320hz Q 2.0 -1db just to get it out of the heils way.
Long term think of some subs you can place in the room for lf duties. I like larger mids ,too.
Long term think of some subs you can place in the room for lf duties. I like larger mids ,too.
Don't be so specific! The heil is unfortunately inconsistent. The original diaphragms had different responses from each of the following generations.
It's not a matter of liking...
A design using a 15" and a tweeter needs a midrange, and if it's an OB design it needs it more.
I think that you can imagine an OB design different from monopole design but with the same speakers, just raise at max the bass control of your preamplifier.
The woofer will suffer much of IMD if midrange is asked from it, so better leave the midrange to a specialized unit.
Or, applying the lowshelving to the woofer, the midrange speaker can be chosen from average drivers, full range or similar. In this case, the one that fits
Hi picowallspeaker.It's not a matter of liking...
To each their own. As TNT posted there are large drivers that can work.
You make good points and are part of diy learning. Any case, I would not task that woofer with lf duty in an OB system for the reasons you stated.
The Great Heil benefits drastically from some care around the profile:
Heil AMT1 And The Heil Horn Article By Jeff Poth
Just extending the horn walls gives you a lot more output available for 1k-2k above cutoff (where forward and rear lobes stop being directed by the magnet walls)
Heil AMT1 And The Heil Horn Article By Jeff Poth
Just extending the horn walls gives you a lot more output available for 1k-2k above cutoff (where forward and rear lobes stop being directed by the magnet walls)
Hi badman.
I remember checking that very concept back when you were experimenting with the heil horn. My experience doesn't line up with the assertion of improved 1-2khz response. All I perceived was an altered sound stage and reduced stereo image. I'm not big on eq myself but it is required to some degree in that frequency area.
I remember checking that very concept back when you were experimenting with the heil horn. My experience doesn't line up with the assertion of improved 1-2khz response. All I perceived was an altered sound stage and reduced stereo image. I'm not big on eq myself but it is required to some degree in that frequency area.
I should qualify my last post to include the diaphragm has short comings in the frequency area mentioned. Placing a horn,of any type , won't improve on a response that isn't there to start with. OB configuration may see a frequency cancellation improvement by adding a baffle configuration as such:
<[heil]>
My setup then had the open end of the V's lined up with the plastic case depth and the V tip extended out about 5". This didn't alter imaging at all. I've sinced moved to monopole use of the heil in a "sort of" econowave type system. Just what I was looking for.
<[heil]>
My setup then had the open end of the V's lined up with the plastic case depth and the V tip extended out about 5". This didn't alter imaging at all. I've sinced moved to monopole use of the heil in a "sort of" econowave type system. Just what I was looking for.
Hi kec.
I included a quick mock up of the heil baffle used with the OB system.
The other two are of the arrangement now.
I also removed the mesh veil on both diaphragms. This lowered the peak around 6-7khz by about 3-4db. Removal also brought back some sonic details I remember that the originals had. Oddly, the veils seemed adhered in spots acting as would a damping effect. Both diaphragms measured much closer to each other afterwards as well.
I included a quick mock up of the heil baffle used with the OB system.
The other two are of the arrangement now.
I also removed the mesh veil on both diaphragms. This lowered the peak around 6-7khz by about 3-4db. Removal also brought back some sonic details I remember that the originals had. Oddly, the veils seemed adhered in spots acting as would a damping effect. Both diaphragms measured much closer to each other afterwards as well.
Attachments
Last edited:
It's not a matter of liking...
A design using a 15" and a tweeter needs a midrange, and if it's an OB design it needs it more.
I think that you can imagine an OB design different from monopole design but with the same speakers, just raise at max the bass control of your preamplifier.
The woofer will suffer much of IMD if midrange is asked from it, so better leave the midrange to a specialized unit.
Or, applying the lowshelving to the woofer, the midrange speaker can be chosen from average drivers, full range or similar. In this case, the one that fits
Actually, I have used a 15" driver directly with a dipole tweeter formed from two 1" domes, back to back, in a recent project (see attached pic). The only way this is possible is if:
1. The tweeter can be crossed over pretty low, below 2kHz
2. The woofer can play pretty high, e.g. to almost 2kHz or more
3. The woofer must be used "nude"
There are very few 15" woofers that can do it. I would have to measure the AE driver to know for sure, both on and off axis.
But even with this strange pairing, I had to add a subwoofer below about 150-200Hz because of the dipole losses on the 15". But when crossed over there, the system was capable of some pretty good SPL and the bass (from an M-frame) was impressive. Do NOT try to make a 2-way nude dipole, and even most 2-way open baffle speaker designs will have lots of issues.
P.S. I have no idea why the picture is rotated 90 degrees. It is not on my computer. Forum software to blame?
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.