Hello everyone. This is my first post here. I've been reading through the archives for the past couple weeks. It's been great. I'm really glad I stumbled onto this site.
After 5 or so years with my same diy speakers, I'm finally thinking about upgrading things. This all sort of started when watching dvd's and not being able to understand the dialogue!!! That was driving me nuts, so I want to do something about it.
I've done a bit of reading about dipoles, and I like the idea of less room interaction. Back when I was at school 5 years ago, we made a few open baffle speakers and they were great.
But just about the time I'm ready to start building an open baffle dipole, it dawns on me that lots of my listening is either off-axis or in another room. I really don't spend that much time "in the zone" doing serious listening so that makes me wonder if a dipole is a wise choice for me.
I guess here's a few requirements that I think might rule out a dipole. Note that these aren't the most important things to me, but they are nonetheless important.
1) I occasionally have movie nights where 4-8 friends come over and sprawl out on the couches to watch. for some of the people they're probably getting the 45 deg off-axis response from the speaker. With a dipole are things going to be really quiet? Granted this doesn't happen too often, but I'd like to things to not just be good in one small spot.
2) Lots of my listening is when I'm about the house doing things other than serious listening. Am I going to have to really really turn up the volume to hear things elsewhere in the house?
There's another part of me that figures if I did have some decent dipole speakers with excellent midrange, I might want to spend some more time "in the zone" doing serious listening.
Surely someone must have thought through this before or actually has dipoles now and can give their opinion.
If I did build a dipole I was thinking some sort of ribbon tweeter (aurum cantus probably), PHL mid, and Eminence 15 or 18 low, with two sealed box subs (15" titanics) for really low stuff.
Part of me wonders if I should just build some monopoles with decent off-axis responce, and then put some effort in to taming room acoustics. Perhaps purchasing Cara or something...
Hm, this is way too long already. Please give me some suggestions or share your dipole experience. Many thanks!
- Robert
After 5 or so years with my same diy speakers, I'm finally thinking about upgrading things. This all sort of started when watching dvd's and not being able to understand the dialogue!!! That was driving me nuts, so I want to do something about it.
I've done a bit of reading about dipoles, and I like the idea of less room interaction. Back when I was at school 5 years ago, we made a few open baffle speakers and they were great.
But just about the time I'm ready to start building an open baffle dipole, it dawns on me that lots of my listening is either off-axis or in another room. I really don't spend that much time "in the zone" doing serious listening so that makes me wonder if a dipole is a wise choice for me.
I guess here's a few requirements that I think might rule out a dipole. Note that these aren't the most important things to me, but they are nonetheless important.
1) I occasionally have movie nights where 4-8 friends come over and sprawl out on the couches to watch. for some of the people they're probably getting the 45 deg off-axis response from the speaker. With a dipole are things going to be really quiet? Granted this doesn't happen too often, but I'd like to things to not just be good in one small spot.
2) Lots of my listening is when I'm about the house doing things other than serious listening. Am I going to have to really really turn up the volume to hear things elsewhere in the house?
There's another part of me that figures if I did have some decent dipole speakers with excellent midrange, I might want to spend some more time "in the zone" doing serious listening.
Surely someone must have thought through this before or actually has dipoles now and can give their opinion.
If I did build a dipole I was thinking some sort of ribbon tweeter (aurum cantus probably), PHL mid, and Eminence 15 or 18 low, with two sealed box subs (15" titanics) for really low stuff.
Part of me wonders if I should just build some monopoles with decent off-axis responce, and then put some effort in to taming room acoustics. Perhaps purchasing Cara or something...
Hm, this is way too long already. Please give me some suggestions or share your dipole experience. Many thanks!
- Robert
1) I occasionally have movie nights where 4-8 friends come over and sprawl out on the couches to watch. for some of the people they're probably getting the 45 deg off-axis response from the speaker. With a dipole are things going to be really quiet? Granted this doesn't happen too often, but I'd like to things to not just be good in one small spot.
all the off axis listener will miss is some low end response from the dipole, they'll be able to hear what's going on, they'll still get bass from the conventional subs, you don't get an absolute null in the sound at 90 degrees off axis.
2) Lots of my listening is when I'm about the house doing things other than serious listening. Am I going to have to really really turn up the volume to hear things elsewhere in the house?
I've found my dipole speakers to be more penetrating through the house than my conventional speakers were.
all the off axis listener will miss is some low end response from the dipole, they'll be able to hear what's going on, they'll still get bass from the conventional subs, you don't get an absolute null in the sound at 90 degrees off axis.
2) Lots of my listening is when I'm about the house doing things other than serious listening. Am I going to have to really really turn up the volume to hear things elsewhere in the house?
I've found my dipole speakers to be more penetrating through the house than my conventional speakers were.
I'd be more concerned about placement than off axis response - ie. they are meant to be placed with space behind them, preferably 1m. Given their size, generally larger than conventional speakers of comparable output, they have more visual impact in a room - you can't simply put them against a wall out of the way. Also you have to consider protecting the rear of the speaker.
Perhaps the biggest impediment, however, is the difficulty in designing them. To do them properly, they really need a lot of electronics. The Linkwitz approach seems the best to me, but is out of reach of my DIY'ers as far as design goes - you may be better off following his Phoenix or Orion design.
I'd also consider making them full range dipole, not just the mids (although it's not necessary with the tweeter) - the naturalness of the bass and freedom of room effects in the bass is one of the main strong points of a dipole system. You should only need a monopole sub for the bottom octave 20-40 Hz and if it turns out that dipole is really your thing then I doubt you will use a sub much if at all for music, perhaps only for HT.
cheers,
Paul
Perhaps the biggest impediment, however, is the difficulty in designing them. To do them properly, they really need a lot of electronics. The Linkwitz approach seems the best to me, but is out of reach of my DIY'ers as far as design goes - you may be better off following his Phoenix or Orion design.
I'd also consider making them full range dipole, not just the mids (although it's not necessary with the tweeter) - the naturalness of the bass and freedom of room effects in the bass is one of the main strong points of a dipole system. You should only need a monopole sub for the bottom octave 20-40 Hz and if it turns out that dipole is really your thing then I doubt you will use a sub much if at all for music, perhaps only for HT.
cheers,
Paul
In my experience the sweetspot get significantly larger with dipoles and the response is some 6dB down at 90 degrees. When moving towards one speaker the stereo collapses towards that speaker, but that one sounds right like it should.
I've come to the same conclusion as Robert concerning listening in other rooms. If you visit Audio Artistrys Beethoven pages they specifically list that feature as being superior to normal speakers.
/Anders
Konnichiwa,
Well, design a dipole right (from the right materials) and the visual impact is small.
Why? The basket and magnet of the driver by far protects the rear better than the plain open cone on the front....
Is it? I didn't notice when I designed mine....
How do you come up with that particular delusion? In my sytem I have exactly the following electronics:
1) Passive Preamp (Transformer based)
2) Balanced line cable
3) Push-Pull DHT Amplifier (works with 45, 2A3/300B between 4 and 10W output depending upon valves fitted)
4) Copperfoild speaker cable
5) Speakers
Sayonara
paulspencer said:
Well, design a dipole right (from the right materials) and the visual impact is small.
paulspencer said:
Why? The basket and magnet of the driver by far protects the rear better than the plain open cone on the front....
paulspencer said:
Is it? I didn't notice when I designed mine....
paulspencer said:
How do you come up with that particular delusion? In my sytem I have exactly the following electronics:
1) Passive Preamp (Transformer based)
2) Balanced line cable
3) Push-Pull DHT Amplifier (works with 45, 2A3/300B between 4 and 10W output depending upon valves fitted)
4) Copperfoild speaker cable
5) Speakers
Sayonara
First off, major thanks to everyone who responded so far.
I'm starting to think that dipole may be the way to go for the L and R speakers at the least. It does look like maybe it's not the best way to go for the center speaker, since that's pretty much back right up against the rear wall.
The only major stumbling block may be the distance to the back wall. I can easily have about 2/3 meter to the back wall. 1 meter might not be too unreasonable. Does putting some sort of sound absorber or diffuser on the back wall seem like a reasonable idea?
I actually haven't seen anything saying they need ~1m or more behind them. Paul Spencer - where did you read this? Perhaps you could share a link with some further reading. I'm still reading through all of the linkwitz stuff - it's really great that he's written all of that down and shared it with everyone.
I think I can probably manage a ~.6 to 1.0 meter wide baffle with the space given. Looks like that should get me down to ~80 Hz or so without needing a boost (f=0.17v/D, right?). I imagine I can either xo to subs at that point, or boost a bit to get the mains down to 50 Hz or so and then xo to subs.
I think I'd prefer a flat baffle as opposed to the H pattern, as then I don't have to notch out the upper resonance. Right now I'm leaning towards all active crossovers. My reciever will XO to subs at anywhere between 50 and 100 Hz. From there I can split the mains with a 3-way active crossover (probably pro-sound equipment -- any suggestions?). Seems like active xo's avoid a major hassle in sorting out a decent passive xo, and will let me try different drivers easily w/o having to constantly re-work a passive xo. I have a fair number of adcom amps to use.
So current fuzzy concept for L and R speakers would be:
3-way
all active xo's
tweeter - not sure
mid - PHL 6.5" or 8"
woof - probably eminence 12, 15 or 18, high Q
I generally look for drivers with high BL / low Mms and high efficiency
baffle probably ~.8m on the bottom tapering up to ~.4m ? on the top
Any thoughts so far?
Going with an 18 for the woofer would probably allow me to try things out with a boosted lower response. I could then turn off the subs and be true dipole and compare all dipole vs. dipole from 50Hz up. I did play with the room responce calculator on FRD Consortium and found a sub location that gives a reasonable response w/o any nasty peaks or dips. So I think there's a decent chance I may be OK with monopole subs below 50 Hz.
Kuei Yang Wang -- that glass baffle is awesome! Not sure I want to attempt that with a 3-way though. Very nice.
- Robert
I'm starting to think that dipole may be the way to go for the L and R speakers at the least. It does look like maybe it's not the best way to go for the center speaker, since that's pretty much back right up against the rear wall.
The only major stumbling block may be the distance to the back wall. I can easily have about 2/3 meter to the back wall. 1 meter might not be too unreasonable. Does putting some sort of sound absorber or diffuser on the back wall seem like a reasonable idea?
I actually haven't seen anything saying they need ~1m or more behind them. Paul Spencer - where did you read this? Perhaps you could share a link with some further reading. I'm still reading through all of the linkwitz stuff - it's really great that he's written all of that down and shared it with everyone.
I think I can probably manage a ~.6 to 1.0 meter wide baffle with the space given. Looks like that should get me down to ~80 Hz or so without needing a boost (f=0.17v/D, right?). I imagine I can either xo to subs at that point, or boost a bit to get the mains down to 50 Hz or so and then xo to subs.
I think I'd prefer a flat baffle as opposed to the H pattern, as then I don't have to notch out the upper resonance. Right now I'm leaning towards all active crossovers. My reciever will XO to subs at anywhere between 50 and 100 Hz. From there I can split the mains with a 3-way active crossover (probably pro-sound equipment -- any suggestions?). Seems like active xo's avoid a major hassle in sorting out a decent passive xo, and will let me try different drivers easily w/o having to constantly re-work a passive xo. I have a fair number of adcom amps to use.
So current fuzzy concept for L and R speakers would be:
3-way
all active xo's
tweeter - not sure
mid - PHL 6.5" or 8"
woof - probably eminence 12, 15 or 18, high Q
I generally look for drivers with high BL / low Mms and high efficiency
baffle probably ~.8m on the bottom tapering up to ~.4m ? on the top
Any thoughts so far?
Going with an 18 for the woofer would probably allow me to try things out with a boosted lower response. I could then turn off the subs and be true dipole and compare all dipole vs. dipole from 50Hz up. I did play with the room responce calculator on FRD Consortium and found a sub location that gives a reasonable response w/o any nasty peaks or dips. So I think there's a decent chance I may be OK with monopole subs below 50 Hz.
Kuei Yang Wang -- that glass baffle is awesome! Not sure I want to attempt that with a 3-way though. Very nice.
- Robert
I haven't built an open baffle myself so a lot of information comes from Linkwitz site. I'm intersted in doing OB at a later date, but I'm held back at the moment by 2 things - placement issues and active filters.
1. Placement - 1m rear wall clearance recommended by Linkwitz
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/faq.htm#Q31
2. Active filters - personally I'm convinced that the Linkwitz approach is the way to go. Having read through all the filters that are required, I realised that I would have to either follow Linkwitz design for the Orion and buy the plans (over my current budget) or design my own, which I don't yet have the ability to do. I like to take on each projects without too many things I don't know how to do.
What I would like to do is first gain more mastery of conventional designs, then later go on to a modified version of the Phoenix, perhaps using different but similar drivers and making aesthetic changes.
Do you want the best open baffle you can afford or do you have an insatiable urge to design your own from scratch? I think it's important to ask that question, as for many, the best result usually doesn't come from your own design. (but that usually doesn't stop us anyway!!!)
I have a few links that you might find interesting:
Bob - phoenix with different drivers
Stephen Moore - phoenix dipoles and a budget version
Line array OB
Mini OB's
Anderz OB's
Roist OB FAQ with good diagrams
Technical Details on Carver's Line Source Dipole - interesting article
You say that you can live with a 1m wide baffle. With 1m behind it, your speakers will occupy 2 sq metres!!! Why do that when you don't need to? ... I suppose it comes down to what compromises you are willing to make and it is a personal decision.
I'd be interested to see what you come up with
cheers,
Paul
1. Placement - 1m rear wall clearance recommended by Linkwitz
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/faq.htm#Q31
2. Active filters - personally I'm convinced that the Linkwitz approach is the way to go. Having read through all the filters that are required, I realised that I would have to either follow Linkwitz design for the Orion and buy the plans (over my current budget) or design my own, which I don't yet have the ability to do. I like to take on each projects without too many things I don't know how to do.
What I would like to do is first gain more mastery of conventional designs, then later go on to a modified version of the Phoenix, perhaps using different but similar drivers and making aesthetic changes.
Do you want the best open baffle you can afford or do you have an insatiable urge to design your own from scratch? I think it's important to ask that question, as for many, the best result usually doesn't come from your own design. (but that usually doesn't stop us anyway!!!)
I have a few links that you might find interesting:
Bob - phoenix with different drivers
Stephen Moore - phoenix dipoles and a budget version
Line array OB
Mini OB's
Anderz OB's
Roist OB FAQ with good diagrams
Technical Details on Carver's Line Source Dipole - interesting article
You say that you can live with a 1m wide baffle. With 1m behind it, your speakers will occupy 2 sq metres!!! Why do that when you don't need to? ... I suppose it comes down to what compromises you are willing to make and it is a personal decision.
I'd be interested to see what you come up with
cheers,
Paul
Kuei Yang Wang said:
The glass idea is nice but it still occupies more space than a conventional speaker of comparable output, which was my point. For some this is not acceptable. I may well be building an open baffle with a glass baffle in the future, the transparency appeals and it mirrors the open baffle concept nicely.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
A conventional speaker would have a grille on the front and the rest is box - nothing that attracts the attention of children as something to touch. Without a grille, a speaker is likely to be fascinating to children, they will want to get their hands on them. Even worse if they have scissors or a knife - you know what some kids are like!!! ... my ideal of the glass baffle with no grille on front or rear may be hard to realise ....
Kuei Yang Wang said:
If you look at Linkwitz site and his description (if you haven't already) you will see that it's not for the faint of heart! Yes a simpler approach is possible, but it wouldn't be my preference.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
It isn't a delusion. Please be respectful of my views.
Granted, OB can be done without active filters. Implicit in my statement but not explicitly stated were a number of goals along similar lines as Linkwitz which make active filters virtually essential.
regards,
Paul
Konnichiwa,
This is less critical than you think, as you can see with the placement of my own speakers. You can get awa y with less than 1m distance.
A baffle of around 0.8m X 0.6m will show a -3db point in the 50Hz region, based on the Math present by Backmann in his AES Paper. Placing the baffle on the floor (with no or only a minimal carpet filled gap) will add the floor image boosting the LF SPL by around 6db for frequencies starting (+3db) at a frequency with a wavelength around 4 times the distance to the floor - so with 35cm driver distance to the floor you get around 250Hz as the point belkow which the floor boost becomes noticable.
I use a main driver (8" Fullrange) with Qt = 0.8 and Fs = 50Hz and cross over at 50Hz to my (sealed box) subwoofer. Even without subwoofers the speakers sound fine, broadly in line with a decent standmounting 6.5" 2Way speaker for general LF performance.
Absolutely agreed.
Get (a) digital one, like the Behringer DCX2496, modify this (Op-Amp's, Capacitors and added PSU filtering) and then build decent Chip-Amp's (say LM3875 Bridged for MF and Treble plus LM3886 Bridge/Parallel for the Woofer - select 4 Ohm or lower Z woofer).
With a digital X-Over you can easily eqaulise drivers etc in addition to the X-Over function.
My choice would be likely Aurum Cantus R2S ribbon.
Use the 6.5" that is development on from the AUdax PR170M0 (ask Andre Perrrault - he will know), perhaps 2 of these in a MTM with the ribbon?
Have a look at the Eminence Kappa 18 - we used this one quite succesfully in a dipole woofer.
Thanks, it's based on ideas from this speaker
http://www.dietiker-humbel.ch/micromag.htm
I use the Supravox 215 Siganture Bicone Driver, giving around 50Hz-18KHz on this open baffle, 96db/2.83V/1m and an easy 8 Ohm nominal load.
Sayonara
batdorf9 said:
This is less critical than you think, as you can see with the placement of my own speakers. You can get awa y with less than 1m distance.
batdorf9 said:
A baffle of around 0.8m X 0.6m will show a -3db point in the 50Hz region, based on the Math present by Backmann in his AES Paper. Placing the baffle on the floor (with no or only a minimal carpet filled gap) will add the floor image boosting the LF SPL by around 6db for frequencies starting (+3db) at a frequency with a wavelength around 4 times the distance to the floor - so with 35cm driver distance to the floor you get around 250Hz as the point belkow which the floor boost becomes noticable.
batdorf9 said:
I use a main driver (8" Fullrange) with Qt = 0.8 and Fs = 50Hz and cross over at 50Hz to my (sealed box) subwoofer. Even without subwoofers the speakers sound fine, broadly in line with a decent standmounting 6.5" 2Way speaker for general LF performance.
batdorf9 said:
Absolutely agreed.
batdorf9 said:
Get (a) digital one, like the Behringer DCX2496, modify this (Op-Amp's, Capacitors and added PSU filtering) and then build decent Chip-Amp's (say LM3875 Bridged for MF and Treble plus LM3886 Bridge/Parallel for the Woofer - select 4 Ohm or lower Z woofer).
With a digital X-Over you can easily eqaulise drivers etc in addition to the X-Over function.
batdorf9 said:
My choice would be likely Aurum Cantus R2S ribbon.
batdorf9 said:
Use the 6.5" that is development on from the AUdax PR170M0 (ask Andre Perrrault - he will know), perhaps 2 of these in a MTM with the ribbon?
batdorf9 said:
Have a look at the Eminence Kappa 18 - we used this one quite succesfully in a dipole woofer.
batdorf9 said:
Thanks, it's based on ideas from this speaker
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
http://www.dietiker-humbel.ch/micromag.htm
I use the Supravox 215 Siganture Bicone Driver, giving around 50Hz-18KHz on this open baffle, 96db/2.83V/1m and an easy 8 Ohm nominal load.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
I previuously had a speaker of "comparable output" (except a bit over one octave lower reaching bass) in the same location, it took up more space and excited room modes quite badly, making the use of room EQ a must. True, being a 15" Coax system this speaker could play louder uncongested than 8" Fullrange drivers, but the difference is more modest than one would think. I fill in the sub 50Hz region using a sealed box Sub (dual 12"), so system LF response is no worse than before.
My wife thought these a major improvement on my 230 Liter Corner Reflex (Tannoy Corner York) Speakers.... ;-)
All a question of perspective.
Rarely in my house. I have yet to hear a speaker that does not sound better without grille. Grill's are for BBQ, not speakers.
I am quite familiar with the work of SL. His Problem is that he tries to coax Drivers onto open baffles inherently unsuited to be operated on onpen baffles and that he insists on making the baffles WAY too small.
Open baffles need a driver with a Qt at or above 0.7 and a suitably large baffle, - voila, no EQ needed. Then simply take drivers with a flat in-band response and at least 1 octave overlap and a textbook active X-Over (I would prefer subtractive over Linkwitz Reiley) will do the job nicely.
It certainly is my preference and works great.
Hm, shall we then call it a completely unprooven and erronious assertation, not founded and many times repudiated by reality? I thought the "D" word conveyed that with less verbiage.
Active filtering is essential only if you attempt to use Speaker drivers designed to REQUIRE an acoustic rear load to give an even frequency response. I would consider a design crutch as it would be much easier to use suitable drivers from the start.
True, you could not use any of the oh so fashionable "High End" drivers, but what the heck- in terms of subjective and objective qualities I find most of them severely wanting, using them to me has no other reason than to be "fashionable".
Sayonara
paulspencer said:
I previuously had a speaker of "comparable output" (except a bit over one octave lower reaching bass) in the same location, it took up more space and excited room modes quite badly, making the use of room EQ a must. True, being a 15" Coax system this speaker could play louder uncongested than 8" Fullrange drivers, but the difference is more modest than one would think. I fill in the sub 50Hz region using a sealed box Sub (dual 12"), so system LF response is no worse than before.
paulspencer said:
My wife thought these a major improvement on my 230 Liter Corner Reflex (Tannoy Corner York) Speakers.... ;-)
All a question of perspective.
paulspencer said:
Rarely in my house. I have yet to hear a speaker that does not sound better without grille. Grill's are for BBQ, not speakers.
paulspencer said:
I am quite familiar with the work of SL. His Problem is that he tries to coax Drivers onto open baffles inherently unsuited to be operated on onpen baffles and that he insists on making the baffles WAY too small.
Open baffles need a driver with a Qt at or above 0.7 and a suitably large baffle, - voila, no EQ needed. Then simply take drivers with a flat in-band response and at least 1 octave overlap and a textbook active X-Over (I would prefer subtractive over Linkwitz Reiley) will do the job nicely.
paulspencer said:
It certainly is my preference and works great.
paulspencer said:
Hm, shall we then call it a completely unprooven and erronious assertation, not founded and many times repudiated by reality? I thought the "D" word conveyed that with less verbiage.
paulspencer said:
Active filtering is essential only if you attempt to use Speaker drivers designed to REQUIRE an acoustic rear load to give an even frequency response. I would consider a design crutch as it would be much easier to use suitable drivers from the start.
True, you could not use any of the oh so fashionable "High End" drivers, but what the heck- in terms of subjective and objective qualities I find most of them severely wanting, using them to me has no other reason than to be "fashionable".
Sayonara
Well spoken T! I'm sure that those of us who have actually tried the 'simple' (large full-range driver) approach to OB speakers agree with you 100%.
Or perhaps perspextive! 😀
Or perhaps perspextive! 😀
Kuei Yang Wang said:
The benefit of a large baffle is clear, in terms of response and efficiency on the low end. One thing I'm curious about, and based not on experience but on reading up on speaker design, is the notion that a small baffle is better for the mid's, with respect to imaging. In fact, many box speaker designs have a baffle that narrows for the mid and tweater, ala your Wilson clone. A dipole mid is also supposed to create a greater sense of space. How do your large baffle speakers compare in this regard?
Sheldon
Well that is the theory . However, when I have experimented with the same drivers/crossover in different shaped cabinets, it seems to make no difference whether the baffle is narrow or wide. In fact, the wider baffles seem to produce a better sound for some reason.
I have seen people talking about 'wave launch' which is supposedly better on a larger baffle. Then again, the problem of beaming is theoretically worse.
Currently, I am using very large open-baffles but the beaming is not really a problem. But that could be to do with having a sheet of polystyrene on the front of the baffles.
There are many aspects of building loudspeakers which IMHO have never been properly investigated (or if they have, the results have not been broadcast). That's why, if you want to be a successful DIYer, the key word is 'experiment'. Theory can only start you off! 😉
I also have quite large baffles, 75cm x 120cm, and they image better than anything else I've come up with previously, actually the first speakers where I could actually percieve noticable "depth" in the sound stage.
well i'm think i'm fairly convince that a dipole will be my next speaker. if nothing else it'll be the next prototype.
i've been looking into drivers. the kappa 18 you mention looks decent although the Qts is a bit low at .41. to go completely off the deep end there's the kilomax 18 which has a Qts of .56, decent efficiency and xmax of 9.8 mm. I imagine that would respond well to a bit of low end equalization as well. street prices for that are surprisingly reasonable. that may be a bit of overkill though. the deltalite 15 looks ok as well. very efficient, Qts of .52. Xmax is the only downside at 2.9mm, but that might be fine for what i'm looking for. Delta 15LF looks good as well, Qts of .58, xmax of 4.8mm.
not clear on which one you're refering to -- 1040, 1120 or 1660? I'd prefer to stay away from a MTM for sake of both simplicty and cost. i expect a PHL 6.5" mid will be plenty loud for me.
I'm not seeing an R2S. Perhaps you mean the G2Si ?
The digital crossovers look interesting. I need to read a bit more to understand the advantages and how they work. Modifying the guts of one of those is completely beyond my capabilities. Is it that bad when left "stock"?
I'll be using a yamaha rxv1400 reciever as a pre-amp. This has a built in 10-band parametric eq for all channels. Knowing yamaha, I would guess this is done digitally, but I'm not sure right now. If it is done digitally then I may not need the capabilities in a digital crossover. That said, the digital eq's are pretty cheap considering all of the flexibility you get, so that might be a worthwhile investment.
Paul Spencer -- many thanks for the list of links you listed. those were great, particulary the Bob!
I showed the glass baffle speaker pic to my girlfriend and she's now convinced that this is what I should make. 😱 she'll probably be pretty bummed when she sees the ugly prototype monstrosities that get created. perhaps a lexan baffle might be easier to build?
Many thanks for the fine replies here.
- Robert
i've been looking into drivers. the kappa 18 you mention looks decent although the Qts is a bit low at .41. to go completely off the deep end there's the kilomax 18 which has a Qts of .56, decent efficiency and xmax of 9.8 mm. I imagine that would respond well to a bit of low end equalization as well. street prices for that are surprisingly reasonable. that may be a bit of overkill though. the deltalite 15 looks ok as well. very efficient, Qts of .52. Xmax is the only downside at 2.9mm, but that might be fine for what i'm looking for. Delta 15LF looks good as well, Qts of .58, xmax of 4.8mm.
not clear on which one you're refering to -- 1040, 1120 or 1660? I'd prefer to stay away from a MTM for sake of both simplicty and cost. i expect a PHL 6.5" mid will be plenty loud for me.
I'm not seeing an R2S. Perhaps you mean the G2Si ?
The digital crossovers look interesting. I need to read a bit more to understand the advantages and how they work. Modifying the guts of one of those is completely beyond my capabilities. Is it that bad when left "stock"?
I'll be using a yamaha rxv1400 reciever as a pre-amp. This has a built in 10-band parametric eq for all channels. Knowing yamaha, I would guess this is done digitally, but I'm not sure right now. If it is done digitally then I may not need the capabilities in a digital crossover. That said, the digital eq's are pretty cheap considering all of the flexibility you get, so that might be a worthwhile investment.
Paul Spencer -- many thanks for the list of links you listed. those were great, particulary the Bob!
I showed the glass baffle speaker pic to my girlfriend and she's now convinced that this is what I should make. 😱 she'll probably be pretty bummed when she sees the ugly prototype monstrosities that get created. perhaps a lexan baffle might be easier to build?
Many thanks for the fine replies here.
- Robert
Konnichiwa,
This rather incorrect. A narrow baffle will simply lead to changes in dispersion and wavelaunch which due to a slightly anaemic fundamental range hghlight the upper midrange.
I find the large baffles to image superbly, but I also never had any problems with the imaging from wide baffle box speakers.
Sayonara
Sheldon said:
This rather incorrect. A narrow baffle will simply lead to changes in dispersion and wavelaunch which due to a slightly anaemic fundamental range hghlight the upper midrange.
Sheldon said:
I find the large baffles to image superbly, but I also never had any problems with the imaging from wide baffle box speakers.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Yes, a bit mass loading lowers Fs and a modest series R raises the Qt.... ;-)
We looked originally at the D15LF but decideded for my friend we wanted the better volume dispacement from the 18....
I'd think a pair of these each in a modified W-Frame dipole around 20" Cube should work out great.
Me neither, but it would look like this:
Fs 100..150Hz, Qt around 0.5...0.7 and SPL in the 95db/2.83V+ range.
Yes, my bad. These where various re-badged version of the AC ribbons and I mixed the dsignations up completely. You got the idea anyway....
Too bad.
No, but they come with several health warnings, you need attenuators between the outputs and the Amplifiers AND you need a lot of Input level if you use analogue inputs, as the converters have an appx. 110db dynamic range with respect to around 8V input level, with the usual 0.5V levels common in consumer gear you loose > 20db dynamic range and end up with sub cd-resolution.
Do a Forum Search on Behringer DCX 2496 - there are some comments and experiences you might find useful.
Ahhh, in that context (Lo-Fi to lower Mid-Fi), if the levels are worked out fine, the Behringer DCX2496 in stock condition should work fine, but you may want a more forgiving tweeter than a ribbon (horn loaded soft dome like the Audax and Peerless models maybe?)
I used 15mm Acrylic, cut and finished (including speaker holes) by the Plastics Supplier (they supply vaious clear plastics for windows and the like) for < $ 100 per baffle, the L-Piece is "natural" stainless steel, < $ 50 for the Metalworks company per piece but agonising long wait.
I'd suggest you use a suitably large "Midrange" (consider the Supravox 215 Signature without whizzer) and a 100Hz X-over point, where you can then put the woofers into a compact folded baffle and where the baffle can be a little smaller. You choose how and where to place the ribbon.
And yes, my wife likes my new speakers VERY MUCH, she polishes them up (she never went near my big Tannoys.... ;-) ) and she and I like the sound as least as much as the looks.
Sayonara
batdorf9 said:
Yes, a bit mass loading lowers Fs and a modest series R raises the Qt.... ;-)
batdorf9 said:
We looked originally at the D15LF but decideded for my friend we wanted the better volume dispacement from the 18....
I'd think a pair of these each in a modified W-Frame dipole around 20" Cube should work out great.
batdorf9 said:
Me neither, but it would look like this:
Fs 100..150Hz, Qt around 0.5...0.7 and SPL in the 95db/2.83V+ range.
batdorf9 said:
Yes, my bad. These where various re-badged version of the AC ribbons and I mixed the dsignations up completely. You got the idea anyway....
batdorf9 said:
Too bad.
batdorf9 said:
No, but they come with several health warnings, you need attenuators between the outputs and the Amplifiers AND you need a lot of Input level if you use analogue inputs, as the converters have an appx. 110db dynamic range with respect to around 8V input level, with the usual 0.5V levels common in consumer gear you loose > 20db dynamic range and end up with sub cd-resolution.
Do a Forum Search on Behringer DCX 2496 - there are some comments and experiences you might find useful.
batdorf9 said:
Ahhh, in that context (Lo-Fi to lower Mid-Fi), if the levels are worked out fine, the Behringer DCX2496 in stock condition should work fine, but you may want a more forgiving tweeter than a ribbon (horn loaded soft dome like the Audax and Peerless models maybe?)
batdorf9 said:
I used 15mm Acrylic, cut and finished (including speaker holes) by the Plastics Supplier (they supply vaious clear plastics for windows and the like) for < $ 100 per baffle, the L-Piece is "natural" stainless steel, < $ 50 for the Metalworks company per piece but agonising long wait.
I'd suggest you use a suitably large "Midrange" (consider the Supravox 215 Signature without whizzer) and a 100Hz X-over point, where you can then put the woofers into a compact folded baffle and where the baffle can be a little smaller. You choose how and where to place the ribbon.
And yes, my wife likes my new speakers VERY MUCH, she polishes them up (she never went near my big Tannoys.... ;-) ) and she and I like the sound as least as much as the looks.
Sayonara
Open baffles have their advantages as well as disadvantages. You'll have to decide whether they work for you. Luckily, they are fairly easy to prototype. Just trot down to RadioShack and buy a pair of whatever 8" fullrange drivers they have on sale. Slap them into some plywood, and voila. Kinda like listening to a walkman before deciding if you want to invest in expensive 'stats.
With regards to your concerns:
1. Dipoles are great for "other room" listening. Think about it . When you are listening in another room, you're listening not to your speakers, but the room response filtered through the doorway. Dipoles generally have better balanced in-room response, so this is what you hear. Of particular benefit is the reduction in bass thumping you hear through the walls.
2. Off axis listening. Hmm. The experience I have with my baffles is that the soundstage collapses when you leave the sweetspot, but the overall response is not bad. If I'm moving about, I'm not really listening to the nuances anyways, so this has never bothered me. For HT, I think it matters less.
Kuei Yang Wang recommends using a wide band midrange driver, a recommendation I generally concur with. For your application however, you'll find that the wideband drivers beam like crazy. Off axis, you loose the treble more than you loose the bass. I wouldn't try to run a wide-band driver for your application.
If you're considering the Aurum ribbon, consider the G2 rather than the G2s. Crossing the ribbon lower eliminates the beaming issue. I'm using a pair in my baffles and the results are very nice. One often overlooked advantage of OBs are the excellent transient response characteristics they give to dynamic drivers. Ribbon tweeters integrate well.
I'd recommend against integrating a large woofer on the same baffle as the tweeter and midrange. Due to the exteme extention of dipole woofers, you need some meaty bracing of the baffle. You'll get a cleaner midrange response if you physically separate the woofers.
Lastly, spend a few extra minutes dressing your prototypes with danish oil and spray paint and you'll be suprised what you can get away with.
With regards to your concerns:
1. Dipoles are great for "other room" listening. Think about it . When you are listening in another room, you're listening not to your speakers, but the room response filtered through the doorway. Dipoles generally have better balanced in-room response, so this is what you hear. Of particular benefit is the reduction in bass thumping you hear through the walls.
2. Off axis listening. Hmm. The experience I have with my baffles is that the soundstage collapses when you leave the sweetspot, but the overall response is not bad. If I'm moving about, I'm not really listening to the nuances anyways, so this has never bothered me. For HT, I think it matters less.
Kuei Yang Wang recommends using a wide band midrange driver, a recommendation I generally concur with. For your application however, you'll find that the wideband drivers beam like crazy. Off axis, you loose the treble more than you loose the bass. I wouldn't try to run a wide-band driver for your application.
If you're considering the Aurum ribbon, consider the G2 rather than the G2s. Crossing the ribbon lower eliminates the beaming issue. I'm using a pair in my baffles and the results are very nice. One often overlooked advantage of OBs are the excellent transient response characteristics they give to dynamic drivers. Ribbon tweeters integrate well.
I'd recommend against integrating a large woofer on the same baffle as the tweeter and midrange. Due to the exteme extention of dipole woofers, you need some meaty bracing of the baffle. You'll get a cleaner midrange response if you physically separate the woofers.
Lastly, spend a few extra minutes dressing your prototypes with danish oil and spray paint and you'll be suprised what you can get away with.
Attachments
- Status
- Not open for further replies.