I'd think with 3" drivers (70mm frame) that combing would be an issue............................ I'd think 2" would work better, but the new xbl designed 3" with 6mm xmax, 12mm p-p, has more excursion and low end. And the use a subwoofer (as would / do I). Maybe a woofer at 200hz would work better.
I'm amazed at the excellent comments on the 8 unit arrays.
http://www.audience-av.com/loudspeakers/
but stereophile liked it. 2007 rmaf comment on 16 unit
http://blog.stereophile.com/rmaf2007/
"The sound of the 16-driver version in the RMAF room was a little lacking in top-octave air, but was otherwise very detailed."
positive feedback liked it (2008)
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue36/ces08jm.htm
"No room at CES this year sounded better than the Audience set up. No room sounded as sonically accurate, as emotionally and aesthetically beguiling, as musically truthful and flat out startling with dynamic rightness of weight and timbre—as melodically, angelically charismatic."
stereotimes liked it 2009
http://www.stereotimes.com/CES2009DSa.shtml
I'd watched his 8 minute viedo on youtube, sounded better than I thought it would, but I don't buy the comment that the baffle is wide enough to not have to deal with baffle step.
Maybe the combing in the highs bring them down, acting as free baffle step.
What ya think ?
Norman
I'm amazed at the excellent comments on the 8 unit arrays.
http://www.audience-av.com/loudspeakers/
but stereophile liked it. 2007 rmaf comment on 16 unit
http://blog.stereophile.com/rmaf2007/
"The sound of the 16-driver version in the RMAF room was a little lacking in top-octave air, but was otherwise very detailed."
positive feedback liked it (2008)
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue36/ces08jm.htm
"No room at CES this year sounded better than the Audience set up. No room sounded as sonically accurate, as emotionally and aesthetically beguiling, as musically truthful and flat out startling with dynamic rightness of weight and timbre—as melodically, angelically charismatic."
stereotimes liked it 2009
http://www.stereotimes.com/CES2009DSa.shtml
I'd watched his 8 minute viedo on youtube, sounded better than I thought it would, but I don't buy the comment that the baffle is wide enough to not have to deal with baffle step.
Maybe the combing in the highs bring them down, acting as free baffle step.
What ya think ?
Norman
New update to the 4 driver mini array using the audience a3 driver !!!!!
"I've just finished up this four driver array. The cabinets are now 24 liters, have 2-1" ports, and the cabinet walls lightly lined with real wool. I used Audience's Auric hook up wire for optimal sound quality. They are very detailed in sound out of the box with no break in. They have a very high quality sound for such a small full range loudspeaker.....................Concerning any combing issues, I don't notice any. If the drivers had more spacing between them, then there might be a combing issue."
The a3 driver seems nice but $170 each, it ain't cheap. Then again, you have 6mm xmax...........
You could run 4 of the tang band 2" x 3" drivers (.9mm Xmax for $25). But one of the A3 drivers moves a squeek more air than 6 of the 2" x 3" (both near sd of 32cm2). Four of the tang bands in a sealed box of .25ft3 have an f3 near 185hz if I remember correctly.
The a3 driver has a 70mm wide frame.
4 in a vertical stack make an 11" long array.
I'm thinking 4 of the 2"x3" tang bands should not have a combing problem. I'm not a poly cone fan, but the cone mms is a very light 1.5 grams. Perhaps the 2"x3" has better breakup modes than a circular speaker. And the freq climb into the top octave helps far field as dispersion narrows.
I was hot to recommend the 2" tang band w2-803sm (or the 2" peerless 830970), but its sd of 13cm2 is really small, especially for $15. For 1.6 times the price, you gain 2.5 times the area while only adding 50% more weight.
An 8 driver array might be fun (of the 2"x3"), that would be shorter than the line length of the 8 driver clairaudient loudspeaker (about 22" versus 16").
I imagine 4 or the a3's would smoke 4 of the 2"x3".
The a3's should go much louder before sounding harsh.
The 2"x3" would probably need to be crossed over maybe 200-300hz.
4 of the a3 should move 24 times the air of 4 of the 2"x3" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(I estimated this by sd times Xmax)
The paperwork on the A3 driver has the thd very low until it reachs 3mm xmax.
Then again, the a3 has a peak near 8khz that may add too many s's and t's............................
Norman
"I've just finished up this four driver array. The cabinets are now 24 liters, have 2-1" ports, and the cabinet walls lightly lined with real wool. I used Audience's Auric hook up wire for optimal sound quality. They are very detailed in sound out of the box with no break in. They have a very high quality sound for such a small full range loudspeaker.....................Concerning any combing issues, I don't notice any. If the drivers had more spacing between them, then there might be a combing issue."
The a3 driver seems nice but $170 each, it ain't cheap. Then again, you have 6mm xmax...........
You could run 4 of the tang band 2" x 3" drivers (.9mm Xmax for $25). But one of the A3 drivers moves a squeek more air than 6 of the 2" x 3" (both near sd of 32cm2). Four of the tang bands in a sealed box of .25ft3 have an f3 near 185hz if I remember correctly.
The a3 driver has a 70mm wide frame.
4 in a vertical stack make an 11" long array.
I'm thinking 4 of the 2"x3" tang bands should not have a combing problem. I'm not a poly cone fan, but the cone mms is a very light 1.5 grams. Perhaps the 2"x3" has better breakup modes than a circular speaker. And the freq climb into the top octave helps far field as dispersion narrows.
I was hot to recommend the 2" tang band w2-803sm (or the 2" peerless 830970), but its sd of 13cm2 is really small, especially for $15. For 1.6 times the price, you gain 2.5 times the area while only adding 50% more weight.
An 8 driver array might be fun (of the 2"x3"), that would be shorter than the line length of the 8 driver clairaudient loudspeaker (about 22" versus 16").
I imagine 4 or the a3's would smoke 4 of the 2"x3".
The a3's should go much louder before sounding harsh.
The 2"x3" would probably need to be crossed over maybe 200-300hz.
4 of the a3 should move 24 times the air of 4 of the 2"x3" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(I estimated this by sd times Xmax)
The paperwork on the A3 driver has the thd very low until it reachs 3mm xmax.
Then again, the a3 has a peak near 8khz that may add too many s's and t's............................
Norman
oops..................
4 of the audience a3 move 6.6 times as much air as 4 of the 2"x3"
6mm x 32cm2 x 4 drivers versus .9mm x 32cm2 x 4 drivers.
norman
4 of the audience a3 move 6.6 times as much air as 4 of the 2"x3"
6mm x 32cm2 x 4 drivers versus .9mm x 32cm2 x 4 drivers.
norman
norman bates said:
Could that be due to combing? I did the math for a post on another forum <4500 we start getting combing.
same here... based on the driver width, baffle step F3 is going to be 300-350 Hz.
dave
Given a baffle step near 300-350hz, I estimate the baffle width is 13"-15".
18" wide baffle would be -3db near 250hz (great midrange in a buddy's diy wide speaker).
If I remember correectly, it was reported a baffle needed to be 30" wide to ignore baffle step.
The 7th veil had 4 bandor drivers (coated with 3 coats of c37), the jordan array had 4 drivers, I think 8 is a stretch esecially for the 70mm frame on the A3. I remember 7th veil being against any crossover. And 4 drivers will make cleaner mids than 2 drivers with 2 used as baffle step only. A crossover would be even cleaner but again, we are back to those evils. Even 6db with 1 cap removes something.
Soundstage.com will review the Clairaudient 8+8 system in the future.
I assumed that system uses a crossover.
We have to remember that they at rmaf ran a dual 12" with it (2007 and 2009 at least).
We have no idea if array was passive, active crossover, or if the array run wide open.
I think a 4 array crossed actively 24db at 200hz (with baffle step) would work very well.
I saw where someone (online years back) ran a 4 driver vert array with w3-871s and loved it (larger frame).
I think the small light cones will have the edge in resolution.
I have a feeling that two or four 1 gram cones have better resolution than a 4" or 5" cone, especially my 4" bamboo.
I think $170 each A3 is outrageous, but the sheer xmax and tricky design justifies the cost.
And the area moved smokes other small light coned drivers with much smaller xmax.
Meaning they go a lot louder before they sound harsh (distorted).
Too bad the alpair 5 has a 100mm frame size.
I think the bread and butter of the diy full range crowd is close to or under $100 per driver, or $100 per left or right for speaker components, whether it is 1 driver or 4 drivers.
Norman
18" wide baffle would be -3db near 250hz (great midrange in a buddy's diy wide speaker).
If I remember correectly, it was reported a baffle needed to be 30" wide to ignore baffle step.
The 7th veil had 4 bandor drivers (coated with 3 coats of c37), the jordan array had 4 drivers, I think 8 is a stretch esecially for the 70mm frame on the A3. I remember 7th veil being against any crossover. And 4 drivers will make cleaner mids than 2 drivers with 2 used as baffle step only. A crossover would be even cleaner but again, we are back to those evils. Even 6db with 1 cap removes something.
Soundstage.com will review the Clairaudient 8+8 system in the future.
I assumed that system uses a crossover.
We have to remember that they at rmaf ran a dual 12" with it (2007 and 2009 at least).
We have no idea if array was passive, active crossover, or if the array run wide open.
I think a 4 array crossed actively 24db at 200hz (with baffle step) would work very well.
I saw where someone (online years back) ran a 4 driver vert array with w3-871s and loved it (larger frame).
I think the small light cones will have the edge in resolution.
I have a feeling that two or four 1 gram cones have better resolution than a 4" or 5" cone, especially my 4" bamboo.
I think $170 each A3 is outrageous, but the sheer xmax and tricky design justifies the cost.
And the area moved smokes other small light coned drivers with much smaller xmax.
Meaning they go a lot louder before they sound harsh (distorted).
Too bad the alpair 5 has a 100mm frame size.
I think the bread and butter of the diy full range crowd is close to or under $100 per driver, or $100 per left or right for speaker components, whether it is 1 driver or 4 drivers.
Norman
norman bates said:
That is the number GM threw out... depends on how close to the wall.
But didn't it allow you to switch out the outside 2.
Didn't Brian Cherry try 8 & 16 if the Jordan Jr6 and decide to stick with 4 -- and those were a 2"
It does have xbl and does do bass... and knowing Wiggins it is probably pretty flat. It is really inefficient thou. Rules out using the best amps.
Question is, how does it do mid & top. My current 3" favorite is my FF85KeN. The difference between it and the Audience buys a lot of nice bass driver. I hope i can make the Alpair 6 do as well or better.
One of the things i like about Mark Audio is that they seem to be prepared to listen and respond. Alpair 6 is available in rectangulasr basket.
dave
Hiya Dave !!!!!!!!!!!
In the 7th veil nonsuch 4 (as far as I know), all 4 drivers are run wide open at the same time.
He was adamant about any parts in the path mucking up the sound.
He even was against crossing them low for excursion protection purposes.
And I assume, zero baffle step also.
It's too bad that the passive parts add some haze.
But we choose our priorities and tolerate their weaknesses.
Speed, clairity, detail, at the expense of medium to high volume levels.
And yes, Bcherry stuck with 4 x 2" jordans back when I was tag posting with him.
But he added a bit of passive hf boost also, (similar to the css xbl 4 driver array).
Everyone that heard them (bcherry) loved them.
Longer jordan arrays added more dynamics but mucked up the highs.
And the cost skyrocketed with bunchs of un-cheap drivers.
There was a pair of diy 4 driver array 2" bandors for sale on audiogon a month back.
They didn't sell. Seems this is a very small niche for the micro driver thing.
Someone else (if I remember correctly) listened to the Audience lsa4 versus the 8 array and 16 array and said that the 4 sounded best in the highs.
You're playing with the alpair 6 ?
The alpair 10 comments have been very positive versus the jordan jx92s.
And they are on sale for $109 USA dollars now (from $129).
But that is a different animal than the micro stuff.
A response about the alpair 5 on loudspeaker forum here was interesting that explained how the small drivers work well for Japanese music because over here (and europe) the music is bass oriented instead of strings and flutes. And their homes are more anechoic (paper walls) versus ours echoic (wood, drywall, plastar).
Seems to me, the alpair 5 may be an option with its 1.5 gram cone. 3 of those in a line array may be interesting.
Norman
Norman
In the 7th veil nonsuch 4 (as far as I know), all 4 drivers are run wide open at the same time.
He was adamant about any parts in the path mucking up the sound.
He even was against crossing them low for excursion protection purposes.
And I assume, zero baffle step also.
It's too bad that the passive parts add some haze.
But we choose our priorities and tolerate their weaknesses.
Speed, clairity, detail, at the expense of medium to high volume levels.
And yes, Bcherry stuck with 4 x 2" jordans back when I was tag posting with him.
But he added a bit of passive hf boost also, (similar to the css xbl 4 driver array).
Everyone that heard them (bcherry) loved them.
Longer jordan arrays added more dynamics but mucked up the highs.
And the cost skyrocketed with bunchs of un-cheap drivers.
There was a pair of diy 4 driver array 2" bandors for sale on audiogon a month back.
They didn't sell. Seems this is a very small niche for the micro driver thing.
Someone else (if I remember correctly) listened to the Audience lsa4 versus the 8 array and 16 array and said that the 4 sounded best in the highs.
You're playing with the alpair 6 ?
The alpair 10 comments have been very positive versus the jordan jx92s.
And they are on sale for $109 USA dollars now (from $129).
But that is a different animal than the micro stuff.
A response about the alpair 5 on loudspeaker forum here was interesting that explained how the small drivers work well for Japanese music because over here (and europe) the music is bass oriented instead of strings and flutes. And their homes are more anechoic (paper walls) versus ours echoic (wood, drywall, plastar).
Seems to me, the alpair 5 may be an option with its 1.5 gram cone. 3 of those in a line array may be interesting.
Norman
Norman
norman bates said:
I'm pretty sure you could just completely disconnect the top & bottom (listen to just 2) or switch to all 4.
I have 5/6/10, but so far have only actually listened to the CHR70. It will also be my experimental driver for modding. I also have 2 pair of J6T (A5 precursor). I've already done 1 set up and have been playing an odd pair in my office for the last while. Need to haul them upstairs and compare them. Just not enuff hours in the day.
dave
ah yes, 70mm = cutout, 83mm or so is the frame.
The 2"x3" has a 2" frame.
The 2" w2-803sm has a 2.25" frame.
I think the bandors are 2.5" frame.
Norman
The 2"x3" has a 2" frame.
The 2" w2-803sm has a 2.25" frame.
I think the bandors are 2.5" frame.
Norman
Hi,
since some weeks I have 8 Peerless fr35 per side in closed 18l. Actively crossed so a sub (per side) at 150Hz, this is really great stuff. I use a little passive boost for the hights 15u // 1,2R.
Dynamics, soundstage, tonality is great. But the little beasts quite difficult if you have to find the right position.
But if you found it...
since some weeks I have 8 Peerless fr35 per side in closed 18l. Actively crossed so a sub (per side) at 150Hz, this is really great stuff. I use a little passive boost for the hights 15u // 1,2R.
Dynamics, soundstage, tonality is great. But the little beasts quite difficult if you have to find the right position.
But if you found it...
Yea, combing.........................
I noticed it big time on accident.
My 2 tang band 4" vertical stacked loudspeaker was sitting on a speaker.
I raised the back of the speaker by 1 cd.
Bang !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My highs were present (at 12' away).
My 4" tang band have 5" frames.
I figure my vertical sweet spot is 4" at 12'.
I remember the article on curved open baffle line array.
http://www.geocities.com/dmitrynizh/labaffles.htm
a friend of his said "he said no more than 3 per flat section"
Seems 1' is the limit to flat array (without much combing).
His lack of ultra highs was due to the 69 cent wonder with its 8khz ringing anf not much above that.
I assume Jordan had already came up with those numbers or he would have ran more drivers.......................
4 driver (less than 3" frame) mini array plus bass help should work well.
Norman
I noticed it big time on accident.
My 2 tang band 4" vertical stacked loudspeaker was sitting on a speaker.
I raised the back of the speaker by 1 cd.
Bang !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My highs were present (at 12' away).
My 4" tang band have 5" frames.
I figure my vertical sweet spot is 4" at 12'.
I remember the article on curved open baffle line array.
http://www.geocities.com/dmitrynizh/labaffles.htm
a friend of his said "he said no more than 3 per flat section"
Seems 1' is the limit to flat array (without much combing).
His lack of ultra highs was due to the 69 cent wonder with its 8khz ringing anf not much above that.
I assume Jordan had already came up with those numbers or he would have ran more drivers.......................
4 driver (less than 3" frame) mini array plus bass help should work well.
Norman
Shure they are combing, like every "more than one point"-source does. But I think that is not the issue. The vertical placement is not that difficult, just adjust the hight so that your ears are in front of the line.
The placement in the horizontal plane is the trick. If I place them like my other speakers, they are good. Sonically surprising in their correctness and very dynamic but not confusing. The stage presented is exact and clear but very (VERY!) narrow and captured between the speakers, a little like watching TV with a too small tvset.
You have to pull them apart much more than other speakers, almost 90° between the speakers from the listening position, and turn them a little outside, away from you. The effect you get then ist really impressive, never heard anything like that. The first impression could be described as a "wall of sound". After the first tones, you notice, that it is not a wall, that it is deep. Perhaps a little too large but still realistic, filling all the room.
If you found the correct position, this effect is not very dependent of your position. Of course there is a sweet spot but it is large and you get an image of the stage almost everywere in the room.
Fascinating effect that makes you neglect all those combing issues.
Best regards
Flo
The wall of sound, that scares me.
I don't like that any more.
I've heard 3' long tweeter arrays from 20' away.
The sound was tall to me, big top tall..........
Like a close up of lips on a movie screen.
If I like my 4 driver (5" frames) focused array (ships tues), then I'll go for more drivers.
I wonder if I'd think this focused array sounds tall to me ?
http://www.atssounds.com/ImageGalle...000000&i=f03cf6c8-c7db-44fe-915e-c9d581199ef5
If I like my 4 focused array (ships tues), then I'll go for more drivers.
Norman
I don't like that any more.
I've heard 3' long tweeter arrays from 20' away.
The sound was tall to me, big top tall..........
Like a close up of lips on a movie screen.
If I like my 4 driver (5" frames) focused array (ships tues), then I'll go for more drivers.
I wonder if I'd think this focused array sounds tall to me ?
http://www.atssounds.com/ImageGalle...000000&i=f03cf6c8-c7db-44fe-915e-c9d581199ef5
If I like my 4 focused array (ships tues), then I'll go for more drivers.
Norman
Me I am new to that.
O.k. me setup sounds not that extereme. At least that's what I think at the moment.
I think, the effort for a focused array is only justified for a well defined listening distance. It is shurely the best solution if you know that distance. But you might loose a lot of universality and you will shrink the size of the sweet spot in the horizontal plane.
Best regards
flo
tc9, nice driver.
The 2 gram paper cone brother of the tg9 driver (fiberglass cone).
They (tc9) are near $14 each at madisound in 10+ quantity.
http://www.tymphany.com/datasheet/pdf/TC9FD-18-08.pdf
I'd almost changed my mind last night from the tg9 until I saw these links.
here is a long post using 1 crossed at 600hz
http://translate.google.com/transla...earch?q=%22TC9FD-18-08%22&hl=en&sa=N&start=10
here is the waterfall (looks good), maybe a squeek of upper mids but no ringing s's and t's.
http://translate.google.com/transla...earch?q=%22TC9FD-18-08%22&hl=en&sa=N&start=10
I think the notch for the pico lina 2 project may help, increase resistor for more effect, 330uH + 2.2 ohm + 15uF
http://audio.kubarth.com/pico_rucksack/
Since I'll be investing a big amount in the box and shipping, I'll go for the tg9.
But a cost savings diy version pair (or a flat array), I'd go for the tc9 and save hundreds.
9 of the tg9 or tc9 move about the same amount of xmax times sd of 6 of my 4" bamboo drivers (xmax similar).
Since doubling up the area halves the excursion and has 1/4 the harmonic distortion (at same volume), I'd wager 9 of the tg9s will have 1/2 the distortion than 4 of my bamboos (having 50% more sd). And the cone is a squeek lighter. And I think a cu-cap works better than a shorting ring.
Also I've had woven fiberglass cones before. I think the mesh does a better job breaking up standing waves than even paper. I'd imagine that is why most kevlar cones are using a mesh design helping to alleviate some of their resonances. You hear cone resonances, even if 20db down after the crossover point when above 1khz. I detest the sound soggy found in a typical perfect measuring poly cone. I also dislike the "ringing bell" tone found in most metalic cone mixtures. They can be trapped out to measure flat, but they are audible.
You probably have a wonderful sounding setup with 8 of the tc9s that has the benefit of great sound everywhere. And they'll go beaucoup loud crossing at 150hz. And you spent little and probably made the boxes yourself.
You can stack the 2 boxes to make 1 tall array, then play with eq and get back to us on your results. Or get some more, mount them on cardboard and concave curve them, and share your results.
When standing above my 2x4", there is combing big time, but turning up the treble knob, it sounded fine to me. More drivers may not work as well doing this. I'm sure it measures more jaggedly, but often I trust my ears more. Still way better than any non time aligned tweeter !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And much better than my old thiel model 04's. Granted the thiel's 6.5" has a hard time going crisp up to the crossover point, and the differing materials (cone vs dome) make for a discontinuity also.
Norman
The 2 gram paper cone brother of the tg9 driver (fiberglass cone).
They (tc9) are near $14 each at madisound in 10+ quantity.
http://www.tymphany.com/datasheet/pdf/TC9FD-18-08.pdf
I'd almost changed my mind last night from the tg9 until I saw these links.
here is a long post using 1 crossed at 600hz
http://translate.google.com/transla...earch?q=%22TC9FD-18-08%22&hl=en&sa=N&start=10
here is the waterfall (looks good), maybe a squeek of upper mids but no ringing s's and t's.
http://translate.google.com/transla...earch?q=%22TC9FD-18-08%22&hl=en&sa=N&start=10
I think the notch for the pico lina 2 project may help, increase resistor for more effect, 330uH + 2.2 ohm + 15uF
http://audio.kubarth.com/pico_rucksack/
Since I'll be investing a big amount in the box and shipping, I'll go for the tg9.
But a cost savings diy version pair (or a flat array), I'd go for the tc9 and save hundreds.
9 of the tg9 or tc9 move about the same amount of xmax times sd of 6 of my 4" bamboo drivers (xmax similar).
Since doubling up the area halves the excursion and has 1/4 the harmonic distortion (at same volume), I'd wager 9 of the tg9s will have 1/2 the distortion than 4 of my bamboos (having 50% more sd). And the cone is a squeek lighter. And I think a cu-cap works better than a shorting ring.
Also I've had woven fiberglass cones before. I think the mesh does a better job breaking up standing waves than even paper. I'd imagine that is why most kevlar cones are using a mesh design helping to alleviate some of their resonances. You hear cone resonances, even if 20db down after the crossover point when above 1khz. I detest the sound soggy found in a typical perfect measuring poly cone. I also dislike the "ringing bell" tone found in most metalic cone mixtures. They can be trapped out to measure flat, but they are audible.
You probably have a wonderful sounding setup with 8 of the tc9s that has the benefit of great sound everywhere. And they'll go beaucoup loud crossing at 150hz. And you spent little and probably made the boxes yourself.
You can stack the 2 boxes to make 1 tall array, then play with eq and get back to us on your results. Or get some more, mount them on cardboard and concave curve them, and share your results.
When standing above my 2x4", there is combing big time, but turning up the treble knob, it sounded fine to me. More drivers may not work as well doing this. I'm sure it measures more jaggedly, but often I trust my ears more. Still way better than any non time aligned tweeter !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And much better than my old thiel model 04's. Granted the thiel's 6.5" has a hard time going crisp up to the crossover point, and the differing materials (cone vs dome) make for a discontinuity also.
Norman
About the fr35.....................
"the upper midrange sounds slightly overcast. the "sweet point" is rather small, as expected. " from the above link.
That bit of hash 1-5khz on the waterfall response may be what he's hearing.
The fr35 (tc9) is used in the original Pico Lino 1
Norman
"the upper midrange sounds slightly overcast. the "sweet point" is rather small, as expected. " from the above link.
That bit of hash 1-5khz on the waterfall response may be what he's hearing.
The fr35 (tc9) is used in the original Pico Lino 1
Norman
- Status
- Not open for further replies.