Erik,
That's one awesome setup!
Also the third time the last days I've seen a ribbon tweeter on an open baffle. What's up with that?
Aren't those Phy-hp's that go up pretty high?
Are those huge 18"-ers (/15"?) also OB?
That's one awesome setup!
Also the third time the last days I've seen a ribbon tweeter on an open baffle. What's up with that?
Aren't those Phy-hp's that go up pretty high?
Are those huge 18"-ers (/15"?) also OB?
Hi,
What are the factors to determine the angle of the baffle with the floor? Just pick any other than 90 degrees?
Chris
What are the factors to determine the angle of the baffle with the floor? Just pick any other than 90 degrees?
Chris
Pete -
They look good either way! Nice design work. Could we see a rear shot of the "cabinet"?
Nielsio -
The plywood baffles were prototypes and now live in my garage (anyone in NYC area want them?). Here's a shot of the rig after the design was finalized and built.
The PHY-HP has response up to ~9kHz, though I am no longer using it that high. PHY has a coax driver that does better.
Ribbons work well with open baffles because the cone drivers can better match the ribbon's transient response when evenly loaded, as they more or less are in an OB.
The woofers are 15" Lambda dipoles running on single coils for a qts around 1.5. Wrapped in the OB K-tube, they have outstanding transients.
They look good either way! Nice design work. Could we see a rear shot of the "cabinet"?
Nielsio -
The plywood baffles were prototypes and now live in my garage (anyone in NYC area want them?). Here's a shot of the rig after the design was finalized and built.
The PHY-HP has response up to ~9kHz, though I am no longer using it that high. PHY has a coax driver that does better.
Ribbons work well with open baffles because the cone drivers can better match the ribbon's transient response when evenly loaded, as they more or less are in an OB.
The woofers are 15" Lambda dipoles running on single coils for a qts around 1.5. Wrapped in the OB K-tube, they have outstanding transients.
Attachments
I'm using Focal Audiom 12 and 15VX for subs, R1 and Triangles. Crossover to woofers is active at 120Hz, first order active on mids and 3rd order between mids and Raven. Mid enclosure is not covered from back and pieces of foam are used for subs enclosures. Pedestal is filled with sand. No equalisation on subs, they mesasure down to 25Hz (in room response). It is a modular construction and can be easily disassembled for moving. System is bi-amped with A75 on bottom and Aleph X on top. And you all thought that I'm using GainClones only😉
That system hasn't been in use since May. It simply doesn't compare what I have downstairs, in a basement.
That system hasn't been in use since May. It simply doesn't compare what I have downstairs, in a basement.
Attachments
Ah! That's what I recognized in them (seen pictures of them like that before, here).
How far down would you say your subs go?
You've shown your secondary basement system in System Pictures & Description, but I don't recall a description of your main system?
I just showed my main system here, in last couple posts.
I have to redo the mid section in the speakers. I'm thinking about Jordan 92s or TM arrangement with Raven 2 and Triangle. I don't like MTM anymore. And new active amplification, GCs of course😉
I have to redo the mid section in the speakers. I'm thinking about Jordan 92s or TM arrangement with Raven 2 and Triangle. I don't like MTM anymore. And new active amplification, GCs of course😉
Member
Joined 2002
peter how come come you don't like MTM?
Im thinking about picking up some tc120 focal tweeters and doing a pair of mtm towers.. using some focal mid-bass drivers 7"
Im thinking about picking up some tc120 focal tweeters and doing a pair of mtm towers.. using some focal mid-bass drivers 7"
Ever since I listened to a good TM.
Maybe just my MTM were not good enough? I like to use mids in most of there frequency range (and Triangles go up to 15K or so) and 1st order on ribbon tweeter. This arrangement doesn't work well with MTM as crossover here should be rather low, for good performance (in 3K, or less, range)
Maybe just my MTM were not good enough? I like to use mids in most of there frequency range (and Triangles go up to 15K or so) and 1st order on ribbon tweeter. This arrangement doesn't work well with MTM as crossover here should be rather low, for good performance (in 3K, or less, range)
Member
Joined 2002
I'm thinking about 2 of these per box and the focal TLR tweeter.
http://www.focal.tm.fr/gb/compo/midrange/7k6411.htm
MTM in a standing tower. Sealed then i will build external sub enclosures.
PORTEd
http://www.focal.tm.fr/gb/compo/midrange/7k6411.htm
MTM in a standing tower. Sealed then i will build external sub enclosures.
PORTEd
Imaging
I thought that the figure-of-eight radiation pattern would produce a HUGE sweet spot like these claim http://www.ohmspeakers.com/fullroomstereo.cfm
What about it? Does that only work if the dipole effect is achieved using two drivers..?
I thought that the figure-of-eight radiation pattern would produce a HUGE sweet spot like these claim http://www.ohmspeakers.com/fullroomstereo.cfm
What about it? Does that only work if the dipole effect is achieved using two drivers..?
Konnichiwa Daniels San,
May I suggest a few small modifications to your "big" system that MIGHT make it come around?
1) Replace Amplifiers by "Patek" Gainclone in any configuration you like and use a TVC as Volume cointrol. The woofers should have ones with larger value PSU Cap's and bridged.
2) Run one Triangle woofer (the upper) full range, cut the tweeter in active using a 1st order X-Over high up and a second oder HP at around 4KHz to protect the tweeter from much LF extension.
3) Run the other triangle as lower midrange fill-in, 1st order LPF, experiment with Level and X-Over point.
You may again prefer the upstairs system.
Sayonara
PS, pain the triangle with C37, honestly, it helps tons.
May I suggest a few small modifications to your "big" system that MIGHT make it come around?
1) Replace Amplifiers by "Patek" Gainclone in any configuration you like and use a TVC as Volume cointrol. The woofers should have ones with larger value PSU Cap's and bridged.
2) Run one Triangle woofer (the upper) full range, cut the tweeter in active using a 1st order X-Over high up and a second oder HP at around 4KHz to protect the tweeter from much LF extension.
3) Run the other triangle as lower midrange fill-in, 1st order LPF, experiment with Level and X-Over point.
You may again prefer the upstairs system.
Sayonara
PS, pain the triangle with C37, honestly, it helps tons.
Hi Kuei San,
Thanks for advice. This system was satisfying for me untill I started experimenting with more esoteric side of Audio😉
R1 is not as durable as R2, so crossover has to be at least at 6K if second order filter is used. I burned few of those ribbon elemnts occasionly. Those Triangles are pretty good drivers and some people use them at full range. I tried it too, but they need some extension on top (more air). I will try your suggestion (which in fact didn't occur to me before; those are 12ohm drivers and I was always under the impression that they should be used in parallel. But MTM parallel wasn't suitable; changing the response of one of them might really improve things here)
I was also considering using a single J 92S to take care of the all middle section, would it be advisable?
What about woofers? At present I run them parallel with 125Hz third order active filtering. Recently it came to me that I migh use the bottom one to fill only the lowest end of spectrum (up to 40Hz or so) and run the top one higher (then again how high is better: 120Hz or 250Hz?)
Thanks for advice. This system was satisfying for me untill I started experimenting with more esoteric side of Audio😉
R1 is not as durable as R2, so crossover has to be at least at 6K if second order filter is used. I burned few of those ribbon elemnts occasionly. Those Triangles are pretty good drivers and some people use them at full range. I tried it too, but they need some extension on top (more air). I will try your suggestion (which in fact didn't occur to me before; those are 12ohm drivers and I was always under the impression that they should be used in parallel. But MTM parallel wasn't suitable; changing the response of one of them might really improve things here)
I was also considering using a single J 92S to take care of the all middle section, would it be advisable?
What about woofers? At present I run them parallel with 125Hz third order active filtering. Recently it came to me that I migh use the bottom one to fill only the lowest end of spectrum (up to 40Hz or so) and run the top one higher (then again how high is better: 120Hz or 250Hz?)
Konnichiwa,
I like loads of cone surface for mids, makes the sound more effortless. The J92 sounds strainded and compressed reproducing a piccolo flute solo marked ppp on the score....
Excellent idea. Use the smaller woofer for the wider bandwidth.
The result would be a 2.5+1.5 Way system, or most precisely a 5 Way system, ideally all active.....
Sayonara
Peter Daniel said:
I like loads of cone surface for mids, makes the sound more effortless. The J92 sounds strainded and compressed reproducing a piccolo flute solo marked ppp on the score....
Peter Daniel said:
Excellent idea. Use the smaller woofer for the wider bandwidth.
The result would be a 2.5+1.5 Way system, or most precisely a 5 Way system, ideally all active.....
Sayonara
"Thanks for advice. This system was satisfying for me untill I started experimenting with more esoteric side of Audio"
Peter, what may that be if I can ask?
/Peter
Peter, what may that be if I can ask?
/Peter
Peter Daniel....dipoles need large area * Xmax
Peter Daniel,
Dipoles require a very large cone area * Xmax for even reasonable SPLs. Below is a simple model for one 15" Focal woofer Sd in a 18" effective width dipole baffle. The simple model shows that one 15" Focal with a 6mm Xmax would bottom out below 60Hz at 100db SPL transients. The Xmax for the 12" is much less. than the 15". Perhaps you are hearing this limitation. A much wider (32"?) cardboard test baffle which can half the dipole Xmax might be an interesting experiment. Hindged, thin Lexan is becoming popular.
For dipoles, I like several woofers with a Qts of 0.5 - 0.7, a modest Qms for good physical cone control, a large Xmax around 12mm, and a high BL for bandwidth and electrical cone control. High > 0.8 Qts woofers sound "loose" to my ears. ts require a large power boost. I rather get good midbass and equalize the deep bass.
Best Regards, and thanks for all your interesting posts.
SPL = 100 dB
Effective baffle D =812.8mm
15 WOOFER
Vp = Sd Xmax......Focal 15 Sd=855
Freq....monopole..dipole........... monoX........dipoleX
Hz.......cm^3..........cm^3...............mm............mm
20......1896.444......6802.513......22.181......79.562
28......948.222.......2405.051......11.090......28.129
40......474.111........850.314.......5.545.......9.945
57......237.055........300.631.......2.773.......3.516
80......118.528........106.289.......1.386.......1.243
.....................................................mm...........mm
Peter Daniel,
Dipoles require a very large cone area * Xmax for even reasonable SPLs. Below is a simple model for one 15" Focal woofer Sd in a 18" effective width dipole baffle. The simple model shows that one 15" Focal with a 6mm Xmax would bottom out below 60Hz at 100db SPL transients. The Xmax for the 12" is much less. than the 15". Perhaps you are hearing this limitation. A much wider (32"?) cardboard test baffle which can half the dipole Xmax might be an interesting experiment. Hindged, thin Lexan is becoming popular.
For dipoles, I like several woofers with a Qts of 0.5 - 0.7, a modest Qms for good physical cone control, a large Xmax around 12mm, and a high BL for bandwidth and electrical cone control. High > 0.8 Qts woofers sound "loose" to my ears. ts require a large power boost. I rather get good midbass and equalize the deep bass.
Best Regards, and thanks for all your interesting posts.
SPL = 100 dB
Effective baffle D =812.8mm
15 WOOFER
Vp = Sd Xmax......Focal 15 Sd=855
Freq....monopole..dipole........... monoX........dipoleX
Hz.......cm^3..........cm^3...............mm............mm
20......1896.444......6802.513......22.181......79.562
28......948.222.......2405.051......11.090......28.129
40......474.111........850.314.......5.545.......9.945
57......237.055........300.631.......2.773.......3.516
80......118.528........106.289.......1.386.......1.243
.....................................................mm...........mm
Pan said:
Rounding the edges of PCBs😉
Seriously though, I started listening to parts, applying resonance control methods, using batteries, using chip amps, simplified signal paths, no crossovers, no fuses, no switches, non electrolytic caps, non magnetic screws, checking the polarity of film caps, getting rid of preamps, using better wires, better chassis materials, even listening to gaskets used under drivers, and so on.
Didn't try the PCB thing yet😉
Re: Peter Daniel....dipoles need large area * Xmax
When I was buying those drivers, I wasn't planning an open baffle system. I just bought the woofer, as I saw them in Wilson Grand Slamm and Elliot (from Zalytron) offered me a nice discount. In a meantime I've read Linkwitz open baffle review in Sterophile and I was impressed. I decided to use those drivers (not careing much fo specs). I also liked that type of enclosure design. In 1996 it was quite a hit. As you see, it's basically influenced by Grand Utopia and Wilson WAMM (pedestal and bottom part). I've heard woofers bottoming initially, when I was pushing them hard, but later I learned not to do it. Also, the foam covers on a back provide a bit of damping. Anyway the ribbon tweeter never allowed me to push the woofers to the limit as it was beginning to melt before that😉 This is one of the first Ravens R1 (with a separate transformer). I recently tested R2 and it seems to be much more durable than the smaller tweeter.
LineSource said:
When I was buying those drivers, I wasn't planning an open baffle system. I just bought the woofer, as I saw them in Wilson Grand Slamm and Elliot (from Zalytron) offered me a nice discount. In a meantime I've read Linkwitz open baffle review in Sterophile and I was impressed. I decided to use those drivers (not careing much fo specs). I also liked that type of enclosure design. In 1996 it was quite a hit. As you see, it's basically influenced by Grand Utopia and Wilson WAMM (pedestal and bottom part). I've heard woofers bottoming initially, when I was pushing them hard, but later I learned not to do it. Also, the foam covers on a back provide a bit of damping. Anyway the ribbon tweeter never allowed me to push the woofers to the limit as it was beginning to melt before that😉 This is one of the first Ravens R1 (with a separate transformer). I recently tested R2 and it seems to be much more durable than the smaller tweeter.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.