Would that not widen the baffle quite a bit? And wasn’t there a maximum KING could bear?
TM is easier.. save the money and use it for a bass unit. If you don’t want to widen the baffle, put it on the side. You’ll probably end up with a 3-way anyway.
TM is easier.. save the money and use it for a bass unit. If you don’t want to widen the baffle, put it on the side. You’ll probably end up with a 3-way anyway.
I looked through and didn't see any particular constraint on baffle width. Still, you are only talking about an extra 3", and again: the wider the baffle the greater the chance of having a better result near the wall as far as diffraction is concerned. (..it should move the linearity problem lower in freq.)
-Yes, a 3-way is a better idea, but as long has he picks a more appropriate small driver (longer stroke, lower distortion lower in freq. with a good high-pass): a single midbass driver TM is still an option given that baffle-step loss will be minimal at lower freq.s.
-Yes, a 3-way is a better idea, but as long has he picks a more appropriate small driver (longer stroke, lower distortion lower in freq. with a good high-pass): a single midbass driver TM is still an option given that baffle-step loss will be minimal at lower freq.s.
Subwoofer Suitable for 300HZ Here is says there is a width limitation.. those 3” are 75% extra.. that’s why it’s always better to keep to one topic..
-that's the width limitation for the driver, not the baffle.
If it's for the baffle then he is in real trouble. (lol.)
If it's for the baffle then he is in real trouble. (lol.)
You only need sufficient air-flow and mounting.
Note: with smaller drivers (actually any driver without a substantive low-pass 500 Hz or lower), you are often best off doing a chamfer to the rear of the baffle around the driver inset. This largely avoids resonant conditions.
Zaph's test baffle:
Attachments
I'll also reiterate what's posted here:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/349391-subwoofer-suitable-300hz.html#post6078192
That combination as a 3-way should do (well) exactly what you are interested in.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/349391-subwoofer-suitable-300hz.html#post6078192
That combination as a 3-way should do (well) exactly what you are interested in.
This will serve two purpose one being home theater experience and second being Hi-Res audio experience. Hi-Res audio is the main reason to go for RAAL tweeter and ScanSpeak mids as I want most transparent and plain listening experience possible.
Center channel will be 3-way WMTMW(horizontal) and side and surround 3-way TMMWW(vertical).
Center should be:
...T
WMW
(..and you can move the T and W closer together relative to pair of "W's".)
I should note "most transparent" driver is not a phrase I'd use to describe the Scan Speak.
A better adjective for them would be "neutral", even "natural". But they don't "render" absolute perceived clarity: that appellation I'd apply to some of the midrange Accuton's, or some of the better horn mid. compression drivers, or better yet: ESL's, AMT's, or Planars. (Plasma I'm sure would be top-of-the-heap, but I've never heard a Plasma in the midrange ..considering it's almost impossible to achieve.)
BTW, that shouldn't be discouraging: I really like the Illuminator mid. in designs I've heard (..particularly the Maestro GSE from Audiomachina).
...T
WMW
(..and you can move the T and W closer together relative to pair of "W's".)
I should note "most transparent" driver is not a phrase I'd use to describe the Scan Speak.
A better adjective for them would be "neutral", even "natural". But they don't "render" absolute perceived clarity: that appellation I'd apply to some of the midrange Accuton's, or some of the better horn mid. compression drivers, or better yet: ESL's, AMT's, or Planars. (Plasma I'm sure would be top-of-the-heap, but I've never heard a Plasma in the midrange ..considering it's almost impossible to achieve.)
BTW, that shouldn't be discouraging: I really like the Illuminator mid. in designs I've heard (..particularly the Maestro GSE from Audiomachina).
Last edited:
Yes "Neutral" and "Natural" is what I want. I will look into your recommendations.
For center channel if you are referring Tweeter to be placed above Mids and Woofers then that is not possible for I am going for sleek design as you can tell with baffle size of vertical speakers being limited to 6". Center will be one row of horizontal array of drivers WMTMW. That is the second reason to go for RAAL over other ribbons dues to its decent vertical dispersion compared to other ribbons.
Doing a MTM (horizontal) is asking for problems (unless the crossover is low and has a "steep" slope). Not only that, the result won't sound the same as your L & R speakers.
The RAAL actually has poor vertical dispersion (even among other ribbons) because of its line length, what improves on this is the foam pads that restrict the vertical window at higher freq.s.. You can do the very same with any other ribbon. (..and it looks like about 40 ppi foam.) Basically the shorter the apparent vertical line height, the less directive the result at higher freq.s, this is why smaller ribbons have better (less directive) vertical results than longer ribbons.
Zaph has a good group to display the vertical results (0,15, & 30 degree off-axis vertically) with different line-heights:
Zaph|Audio
I should also note that I've liked the subjective results I've heard with that RAAL. I'm not discounting it, but I am stating that it isn't particularly good for the objective reason you've chosen it (..and that you can get better results with your own DIY pads depending pads placement and on the ribbon tweeter).
Gornir has it measured here with those foam pads ("deflection pads") at different positions:
www.audioexcite.com >> RAAL 140-15D
The RAAL actually has poor vertical dispersion (even among other ribbons) because of its line length, what improves on this is the foam pads that restrict the vertical window at higher freq.s.. You can do the very same with any other ribbon. (..and it looks like about 40 ppi foam.) Basically the shorter the apparent vertical line height, the less directive the result at higher freq.s, this is why smaller ribbons have better (less directive) vertical results than longer ribbons.
Zaph has a good group to display the vertical results (0,15, & 30 degree off-axis vertically) with different line-heights:
Zaph|Audio
I should also note that I've liked the subjective results I've heard with that RAAL. I'm not discounting it, but I am stating that it isn't particularly good for the objective reason you've chosen it (..and that you can get better results with your own DIY pads depending pads placement and on the ribbon tweeter).
Gornir has it measured here with those foam pads ("deflection pads") at different positions:
www.audioexcite.com >> RAAL 140-15D
Last edited:
My recipe for MTM with 12MU and the ribbon would be with SRT7. Faceplate seems to be easily removable, I would have it machined to make cutouts for 12MU at the top and the bottom. Or just make new faceplate. This would minimize CTC to absolute possible minimum.
I have considered lot many Ribbons and Palanars from Aurum Cantus, Fountex, Viawave, HiVi, Bohlender. But if they are decent vertically they are compromising on horizontal coverage. If they are good on covering horizontal area the vertical coverage is bad. RAAL is decent enough(even-though you say its bad the graphs I have seen so far show decent performance vertically) on vertical coverage while not going down on horizontal coverage as well.
www.audioexcite.com >> RAAL 140-15D
How is Accuton C90-6-72. Compared to ScanSpeak Illuminator 12MU-4731T0 is it better or worse.
-as an upper midrange I'd say it's inferior (overall) objectively.. depending on input level.
Subjectively though: (..assuming it's got a proper enclosure) it's likely very much as a described before - greater "transparency"/clarity vs. the Scan Speak's more neutral character. (..I've not heard that Accuton however.)
I'd ask HiFiCompass about the subjective differences between the two.
Subjectively though: (..assuming it's got a proper enclosure) it's likely very much as a described before - greater "transparency"/clarity vs. the Scan Speak's more neutral character. (..I've not heard that Accuton however.)
I'd ask HiFiCompass about the subjective differences between the two.
Last edited:
So Accuton is more transparent and clear than Scan Speak. Hmmmm.......
I will have to dig deeper for more info.
But if I had to go for Accuton over scan speak I think I will also have Accuton as Mid-Woofer. Accuton C158-6-851 as Mid-Woofer. If I trim its Sides it will be around 140mm in width. Will trimming sides of the ring cause any problem.
If I go ScanSpeak I will probably pair it with SB Acoustics SATORI MW13P-8.
5” SB15CAC30-4 / Ceramic – Sbacoustics
-x2 in series (8 ohm net) to accompany the Accuton..
It should be better than this one:
SB Acoustics SB15NBAC30-4 | HiFiCompass
-and that one is crazy good (objectively).
I've no idea about modifying pricey driver frames (..though I've done so before on cheap frames).
The Satori would be excellent with the Scan Speak.. (..I'd personally prefer that subjectivly, and the total cost would be a lot cheaper.)
-x2 in series (8 ohm net) to accompany the Accuton..
It should be better than this one:
SB Acoustics SB15NBAC30-4 | HiFiCompass
-and that one is crazy good (objectively).
I've no idea about modifying pricey driver frames (..though I've done so before on cheap frames).
The Satori would be excellent with the Scan Speak.. (..I'd personally prefer that subjectivly, and the total cost would be a lot cheaper.)
Last edited: