Great thread. I am thinking about using the Neo 8 planar with the Dayton 10" reference woofer in an OB configuration. I know I will need a sub but I haven't decided on that quite yet. I was thinking about doing a dipole sub, and I understand that if I do I won't be getting much under 40 hz or so if I do this, but if i can get good response down to around 40 or around there, that would be fine with me (its just for music playback)....do you think I could get away with using a few 8" subs?
Bill F. said:
I think Freddy has a pair but don't think he likes them as much as a good 15 in a karlson.
I had these (single) with front and rear dipole Kouplers and the bass was actually better but the low mid suffered - if you are crossing over below 150 cycles it's the way to go with one driver/side but they become HUGE - like over four feet deep - in this dual woofer format OB without the coupler with one near the ceiling and one low by the floor they are better than a single karlson dipole and can be used pretty high - plus it brings up the sensitivity and ultimate SPL - 120 db in the bass is no problem.
humanhuman said:
In my experiance with direct radiators the more driver surface area you have in the bass the less the compromise. Keep the drivers excursion down and air movement up and you will be further ahead.
A pair of the 21" Madisons set up as a dipole sub will not be much of a compromise in bass (will go into the 30's no problem) when used with the best 'hi-fi' midwoofers. Don't let the size fool you - when integrated right and bi-amped these are 'FAST'
I think using a single 21 with the 10" mid and the planar treble per side in an open baffle would soung great - but i'd at least bi-amp them between the bass and mid
Hear! Hear!
When it comes to OBs, don't skimp on Sd or Vd. Realize that your OB is going to need at least 4 times* the displacement of a sealed alignment to hit 40Hz with any kind of dynamic headroom.
As Mag said, a 10" should be considered a midbass in an OB. An 8" is borderline for midbass, but sufficient for midrange.
Bill
*Also depends a lot on baffle size. Depending on desired listening SPL, some may be OK with less, but they should be aware of the compromize they're making in terms of dynamics.
When it comes to OBs, don't skimp on Sd or Vd. Realize that your OB is going to need at least 4 times* the displacement of a sealed alignment to hit 40Hz with any kind of dynamic headroom.
As Mag said, a 10" should be considered a midbass in an OB. An 8" is borderline for midbass, but sufficient for midrange.
Bill
*Also depends a lot on baffle size. Depending on desired listening SPL, some may be OK with less, but they should be aware of the compromize they're making in terms of dynamics.
Hi auplater thanks for reaction.
I had a lot of work (+/-1 year) to get series sound good (the units have to be rather good for it) but it payed off when i succeeded: better soundstage & depth with series filtered units. The small resonances of speakers i take for granted then. Btw no dipole yet, only a 2 way ML-TQWT. Imo very important is impedance equalisation & resonance equalisation of units to get it right.
I think humblehomemadehifi has a site about series filter desIgn. Oh yes here it is: http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/Crossover.html
Is it 2nd order in parallel or series?
I had a lot of work (+/-1 year) to get series sound good (the units have to be rather good for it) but it payed off when i succeeded: better soundstage & depth with series filtered units. The small resonances of speakers i take for granted then. Btw no dipole yet, only a 2 way ML-TQWT. Imo very important is impedance equalisation & resonance equalisation of units to get it right.
I think humblehomemadehifi has a site about series filter desIgn. Oh yes here it is: http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/Crossover.html
xover
Hi tubee
parallel, as the supertweeter is rather fragile, and I wanted better protection at high spl.
since the BG's are largely resistive, and the mid woofers are zobel-corrected, the parallel was easier to implement, and, having played around with my other speakers (heavily modded old infinity RSII's) I couldn't really notice a big difference between series and parallel... in the end, room effects overwhelmed most of my efforts at xover manipulation anyway.. :-(
I'm thinking of procuring a Behringer DEQ (if they become available) at some point to try for further in-room improvemnets...
http://sound.westhost.com/parallel-series.htm
auplater
tubee said:
Hi tubee
parallel, as the supertweeter is rather fragile, and I wanted better protection at high spl.
since the BG's are largely resistive, and the mid woofers are zobel-corrected, the parallel was easier to implement, and, having played around with my other speakers (heavily modded old infinity RSII's) I couldn't really notice a big difference between series and parallel... in the end, room effects overwhelmed most of my efforts at xover manipulation anyway.. :-(
I'm thinking of procuring a Behringer DEQ (if they become available) at some point to try for further in-room improvemnets...
http://sound.westhost.com/parallel-series.htm
auplater
Attachments
Integration between BG75 and tweeters
A question for John L
I am looking at integrating an RD-50 with 1-4 Neo3PDRs. As you have combined the long line source of the RD75 with multiple point source tweeters, I was wondering how well the sources integrated, particularly with respect to height and distance changes.
The Genesis 300/350 used the same approach originally as what I am considering, but later replaced it with a full length array of tweeters in the 350SE.
thanks for any thoughts
Nigel
A question for John L
I am looking at integrating an RD-50 with 1-4 Neo3PDRs. As you have combined the long line source of the RD75 with multiple point source tweeters, I was wondering how well the sources integrated, particularly with respect to height and distance changes.
The Genesis 300/350 used the same approach originally as what I am considering, but later replaced it with a full length array of tweeters in the 350SE.
thanks for any thoughts
Nigel
Re: Integration between BG75 and tweeters
Hi Nigel...
As you can see, I left plenty of baffle space next to the RD 75's, as I was considering a tweeter line rather than the psuedo-point source setup. After setting up with the peerless domes, which were initially both firing froward, I noticed alot of combing especially within 3-4 feet of the systems. By reversing the top tweeter and running inverted phase, much of the vertical combing dissapeared.
The peerless tweeters have a higher sensitivity than the BG's so I was able to pad them down from overwhelmingly bright to pretty much integrated into the overall sound, especially at the 15' listening location. There is some side/horizontal lobing/combing between them and the BG's, but it blends quickly as you move away from the source.
Overall, they simply fill the ~18,000 sq. ft. space with prodigious high quality sound. I haven't ruled out a line array tweeter setup, but they sound so good now, I kinda hate treating them like mules and chopping / hacking the cherry baffles for diminishing returns, but then, it's the endless pursuit of perfection that's my downfall..
auplater
nigeljking said:
Hi Nigel...
As you can see, I left plenty of baffle space next to the RD 75's, as I was considering a tweeter line rather than the psuedo-point source setup. After setting up with the peerless domes, which were initially both firing froward, I noticed alot of combing especially within 3-4 feet of the systems. By reversing the top tweeter and running inverted phase, much of the vertical combing dissapeared.
The peerless tweeters have a higher sensitivity than the BG's so I was able to pad them down from overwhelmingly bright to pretty much integrated into the overall sound, especially at the 15' listening location. There is some side/horizontal lobing/combing between them and the BG's, but it blends quickly as you move away from the source.
Overall, they simply fill the ~18,000 sq. ft. space with prodigious high quality sound. I haven't ruled out a line array tweeter setup, but they sound so good now, I kinda hate treating them like mules and chopping / hacking the cherry baffles for diminishing returns, but then, it's the endless pursuit of perfection that's my downfall..
auplater
dipoles obviously need lots of space...
18 thousand square feet? Is that right?
Here in the UK we have housing estates (housing blocks? I don't know what you call them in the US - areas with lots of homes squeezed together - 'youve got a garden'-'but its smaller than my bathroom'-'yes, but its a garden..') smaller than that.... 
auplater said:
Overall, they simply fill the ~18,000 sq. ft. space with prodigious high quality sound. I haven't ruled out a line array tweeter setup, but they sound so good now, I kinda hate treating them like mules and chopping / hacking the cherry baffles for diminishing returns, but then, it's the endless pursuit of perfection that's my downfall..
auplater
18 thousand square feet? Is that right?
Here in the UK we have housing estates (housing blocks? I don't know what you call them in the US - areas with lots of homes squeezed together - 'youve got a garden'-'but its smaller than my bathroom'-'yes, but its a garden..') smaller than that.... 
Re: dipoles obviously need lots of space...
OOps! my bad! yup, AJ got it right.. 18K cu. Ft. (main room is ~25' x 30', 2 story cathedral ceiling attached to open kitchen/dining great room effect... Sorry about that..
auplater
badgerboy said:
18 thousand square feet? Is that right?
OOps! my bad! yup, AJ got it right.. 18K cu. Ft. (main room is ~25' x 30', 2 story cathedral ceiling attached to open kitchen/dining great room effect... Sorry about that..
auplater
Re: Re: Integration between BG75 and tweeters
Thanks very much for the response John. Your results seem quite encouraging towards marrying the line source with a point source (or an elongated point source potentially).
At what distance would you recommend listening to to obtain an integrated sound? You mentioned that you noticed combing effects when less than 3'. I am likely to be listening around the 6-8' range.
One final question if I may. Did you find the speed of mid woofers keep up with the RD75? I am thinking of twin Seas 8" magnesium drivers which I though should be a good match speed wise.
FYI I will be running the system in active mode, but have not yet decided if the tweeters will be actively or passively crossed over (dependent upon the crossover point - anywhere between 5-10k will mean active). Similarly to you my room has cathedral ceilings, but is composed of two sections separated by a half storey difference in floor level.
thanks again
Nigel
auplater said:
Hi Nigel...
As you can see, I left plenty of baffle space next to the RD 75's, as I was considering a tweeter line rather than the psuedo-point source setup. After setting up with the peerless domes, which were initially both firing froward, I noticed alot of combing especially within 3-4 feet of the systems. By reversing the top tweeter and running inverted phase, much of the vertical combing dissapeared.
The peerless tweeters have a higher sensitivity than the BG's so I was able to pad them down from overwhelmingly bright to pretty much integrated into the overall sound, especially at the 15' listening location. There is some side/horizontal lobing/combing between them and the BG's, but it blends quickly as you move away from the source.
Overall, they simply fill the ~18,000 sq. ft. space with prodigious high quality sound. I haven't ruled out a line array tweeter setup, but they sound so good now, I kinda hate treating them like mules and chopping / hacking the cherry baffles for diminishing returns, but then, it's the endless pursuit of perfection that's my downfall..
auplater
Thanks very much for the response John. Your results seem quite encouraging towards marrying the line source with a point source (or an elongated point source potentially).
At what distance would you recommend listening to to obtain an integrated sound? You mentioned that you noticed combing effects when less than 3'. I am likely to be listening around the 6-8' range.
One final question if I may. Did you find the speed of mid woofers keep up with the RD75? I am thinking of twin Seas 8" magnesium drivers which I though should be a good match speed wise.
FYI I will be running the system in active mode, but have not yet decided if the tweeters will be actively or passively crossed over (dependent upon the crossover point - anywhere between 5-10k will mean active). Similarly to you my room has cathedral ceilings, but is composed of two sections separated by a half storey difference in floor level.
thanks again
Nigel
Re: Re: Re: Integration between BG75 and tweeters
Hi Nigel...
The combing problem only occurred with the two dome tweeters firing forward... If I were running more than one fwd. firing, I'd space them much closer together and maybe cross them higher as well. The technics planar doesn't seem to lobe much with the single fwd. tweeter, perhaps because of its limited vertical dispersion.
I would think 6-8 feet would be an adequate listening distance...with mine, you can stand right next to one speaker and here the other quite clearly, unlike my experience with standard boxes.
here's the mid-woofer I used (4 of them)... had about the smoothest listed response over the range I wanted I could find for the price...
http://www.bmm-electronics.com/Product.asp?Product_ID=3347
They actually sound fine with the BG's... the speakers pretty much dissapears with high quality recordings... has alot of what I call jump factor, as in someone is singing/playing in the room near you... not a stereo... can be startling with female singers like Diane Krall or
Dianne Shuur, etc...
I may add two more mid woofers per side to increase the power handling, as the BG's line source behavior does take hold in a room this large... the lower bass sometimes could use alittle more oomph! volume wise, but not speed wise... these mid woofs seem quite tight...
I'm trying to further improve the low bass reesponse in this room as it has a large mode @ ~30 hz that's been hard to tame (not a dipole problem, but part of the overall install.)
Sub-woofer placement has helped... I may add another one to further tame the major room modes...
hope this helps...
John L
auplater
nigeljking said:
Hi Nigel...
The combing problem only occurred with the two dome tweeters firing forward... If I were running more than one fwd. firing, I'd space them much closer together and maybe cross them higher as well. The technics planar doesn't seem to lobe much with the single fwd. tweeter, perhaps because of its limited vertical dispersion.
I would think 6-8 feet would be an adequate listening distance...with mine, you can stand right next to one speaker and here the other quite clearly, unlike my experience with standard boxes.
here's the mid-woofer I used (4 of them)... had about the smoothest listed response over the range I wanted I could find for the price...
http://www.bmm-electronics.com/Product.asp?Product_ID=3347
They actually sound fine with the BG's... the speakers pretty much dissapears with high quality recordings... has alot of what I call jump factor, as in someone is singing/playing in the room near you... not a stereo... can be startling with female singers like Diane Krall or
Dianne Shuur, etc...
I may add two more mid woofers per side to increase the power handling, as the BG's line source behavior does take hold in a room this large... the lower bass sometimes could use alittle more oomph! volume wise, but not speed wise... these mid woofs seem quite tight...
I'm trying to further improve the low bass reesponse in this room as it has a large mode @ ~30 hz that's been hard to tame (not a dipole problem, but part of the overall install.)
Sub-woofer placement has helped... I may add another one to further tame the major room modes...
hope this helps...
John L
auplater
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.