I'm preparing to DIY build a Line Array pair of speakers, being convinced with:
- their cylindrical dispersion
- more efficient with distance vs point source
- multiple drivers equal less cone excursions needed - huge argument IMO
- better heat dissipation with multiple voice coils vs one larger driver
Now, I want to use about eight, full range drivers with no crossovers and ideally no sub. Inspiration came from Grandinote Mach designs. Of course, there are many other LA models, but most use crossovers - I prefer to avoid them.
Perhaps only the top one driver or top two drivers could be mounted in an open baffle? - something to consider later.
I need help in choosing the right drivers.
Goals are:
(1) bass going to 40 Hz, but if it will be 50 Hz , hmm maybe i can live with that
(2) best as possible transients, microdynamics, the lowest distortion
(3) more pistonic
As its usually the case in audio, goals 1 and 2 are hard to have together so as 2 and 3.
For 40hz bass i will most likely need eight larger drivers? 8 inch, 6.5 inch?
What if the Line Array will be positioned in room corners forming a type of horn? Very wide baffle gives +6 db, while a quarter volume of space should improve low freq. by approx 9dB, right?
Can it be done with 5 or 4 inch drivers?
Transients.
Here is a good presentation by founder of german Gauder Akustik
YouTube
Since accelaration = Force / mass.... i'd love to have very low moving mass.
Some smaller drivers have like 2-6 grams moving mass which would be excellent.
However, they are made of paper bamboo or aluminum.
The guy from Gauder is saying that ceramic drivers are superior in terms of impulse response to all other cone materials. However, ceramics/alum have a resonance peak at 7kHz and i dont want to use crossovers to avoid that peak.
My main questions is: are ceramic cones in general better in terms of speed, transients even when they weight 20-30 grams vs smaller 2-5 grams paper cones?
Or maybe carbon fiber drivers will strike a good balance of all these qualities?
For example:
Dayton Audio CF120-4 4-1/2" ? it has freq resp. 50-15khz and mass 6.8gram
How about Tang Band W3-2141 3-1/2" Paper Cone? Cone mass only 2 grams
resp 75-20khz.
Price is similar about 30 bucks.
Your input greatly appreciated!
- their cylindrical dispersion
- more efficient with distance vs point source
- multiple drivers equal less cone excursions needed - huge argument IMO
- better heat dissipation with multiple voice coils vs one larger driver
Now, I want to use about eight, full range drivers with no crossovers and ideally no sub. Inspiration came from Grandinote Mach designs. Of course, there are many other LA models, but most use crossovers - I prefer to avoid them.
Perhaps only the top one driver or top two drivers could be mounted in an open baffle? - something to consider later.
I need help in choosing the right drivers.
Goals are:
(1) bass going to 40 Hz, but if it will be 50 Hz , hmm maybe i can live with that
(2) best as possible transients, microdynamics, the lowest distortion
(3) more pistonic
As its usually the case in audio, goals 1 and 2 are hard to have together so as 2 and 3.
For 40hz bass i will most likely need eight larger drivers? 8 inch, 6.5 inch?
What if the Line Array will be positioned in room corners forming a type of horn? Very wide baffle gives +6 db, while a quarter volume of space should improve low freq. by approx 9dB, right?
Can it be done with 5 or 4 inch drivers?
Transients.
Here is a good presentation by founder of german Gauder Akustik
YouTube
Since accelaration = Force / mass.... i'd love to have very low moving mass.
Some smaller drivers have like 2-6 grams moving mass which would be excellent.
However, they are made of paper bamboo or aluminum.
The guy from Gauder is saying that ceramic drivers are superior in terms of impulse response to all other cone materials. However, ceramics/alum have a resonance peak at 7kHz and i dont want to use crossovers to avoid that peak.
My main questions is: are ceramic cones in general better in terms of speed, transients even when they weight 20-30 grams vs smaller 2-5 grams paper cones?
Or maybe carbon fiber drivers will strike a good balance of all these qualities?
For example:
Dayton Audio CF120-4 4-1/2" ? it has freq resp. 50-15khz and mass 6.8gram
How about Tang Band W3-2141 3-1/2" Paper Cone? Cone mass only 2 grams
resp 75-20khz.
Price is similar about 30 bucks.
Your input greatly appreciated!
Is that 8 drivers total? so 4 on each side?
That wouldn't be an array.
I think the driver that might do what you want is the Eikona, in their latest TL box:
blog - E J Jordan Designs
Do consider that your head needs to be within the vertical pane of the drivers. The second you move above, the music will not sound good at all.
That wouldn't be an array.
I think the driver that might do what you want is the Eikona, in their latest TL box:
blog - E J Jordan Designs
Do consider that your head needs to be within the vertical pane of the drivers. The second you move above, the music will not sound good at all.
Budget?
No doubt an array with Eikonas would sound quite spectacular, but many folks implanting a “full” array elect for smaller size drivers at the other end of the price spectrum
No doubt an array with Eikonas would sound quite spectacular, but many folks implanting a “full” array elect for smaller size drivers at the other end of the price spectrum
Indeed! 50x TC9s are still much cheaper than 8 Eikonas!
20 to 25 drivers per side is called an array.
BTW, Pawelgreece, arrays will benefit from using EQ to compensate some of their intricacies. I hope that is also planned in your setup.
PS... I love that the white papers on arrays are still available. 🙂
20 to 25 drivers per side is called an array.
BTW, Pawelgreece, arrays will benefit from using EQ to compensate some of their intricacies. I hope that is also planned in your setup.
PS... I love that the white papers on arrays are still available. 🙂
Well, 8 drivers in a row would still be considered an array of drivers 🙂, be it a finite array.
For a very cool outlay of the (possible) benefits of an approximation of an Infinite Line source look at this thread: Infinite Line Source: analysis
On the general topic of Line Arrays: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/165596-constant-beam-width-transducers-line-arrays-6.html#post2257395
For a very cool outlay of the (possible) benefits of an approximation of an Infinite Line source look at this thread: Infinite Line Source: analysis
On the general topic of Line Arrays: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/165596-constant-beam-width-transducers-line-arrays-6.html#post2257395
I have been working the DIY line array issue for nearly 20 years. My research and thoughts lead me to write the Near Field Line Array White paper in 2003 which Greg referenced above in Post #.
My early work is summarized in this thread starting at Post #43:
Proven DIY Line Array Design?
Back in 2006 I completed a large two-way array array which used 9 Aurum Cantus G3 ribbons and 12 Creative Sound Solutions 4.5" WR125S woofers per side. You can see a photo of that array at:
While the Aurum Cantus ribbons are still available but the woofers are NLA.
Another line array from 2003-4 time period was a petite model that I call the Needles which had 16 TangBand W3-871S drivers and a single G3 ribbon per side. Think of it as a MTM with extended Ms above and below the ribbon driver.
More recently I used Don Keele's CBT work to develop an array which I call the Modified CBT24 which is documented in this thread:
My New Line Array--It's a Modified CBT24
My recent recommendation for a full range driver array is to use a small driver (I use the SB Acoustics SB65WBAC25-4 in the Modified CBT24 project). Others have built straight arrays with that same or similar driver. A subwoofer can be added to fill the lower octave or two if you need more bass. Photos of the Modified CBT24 are shown at:
Modified CBT24 - Google Photos
My early work is summarized in this thread starting at Post #43:
Proven DIY Line Array Design?
Back in 2006 I completed a large two-way array array which used 9 Aurum Cantus G3 ribbons and 12 Creative Sound Solutions 4.5" WR125S woofers per side. You can see a photo of that array at:
While the Aurum Cantus ribbons are still available but the woofers are NLA.
Another line array from 2003-4 time period was a petite model that I call the Needles which had 16 TangBand W3-871S drivers and a single G3 ribbon per side. Think of it as a MTM with extended Ms above and below the ribbon driver.
More recently I used Don Keele's CBT work to develop an array which I call the Modified CBT24 which is documented in this thread:
My New Line Array--It's a Modified CBT24
My recent recommendation for a full range driver array is to use a small driver (I use the SB Acoustics SB65WBAC25-4 in the Modified CBT24 project). Others have built straight arrays with that same or similar driver. A subwoofer can be added to fill the lower octave or two if you need more bass. Photos of the Modified CBT24 are shown at:
Modified CBT24 - Google Photos
Last edited:
Thanks.
regarding TC9s
is it this one? https://www.parts-express.com/peerl...-3-1-2-full-range-paper-cone-woofer--264-1062
My plan is for 8 drivers per column, 16 total. Spaced about 5 inch apart, so the height will be 40 inches. Not very tall. However since listening position is 45 inches then I would need to place the towers on some 22 inch stands.
My concern is:
is it better to go with higher number of drivers like 12, 16 or more per tower or rather use better, more expensive drivers?
More drivers will result in higher sensitivity. I'm sure i need great macro (and micro) dynamics since my fav music is: classic rock, jazz, anything from 60s: surfaris, tom jones, sinatra, elvis but also latin tunes like perez prado, some flamenco and last but not least male and female vocals. Because i want the smoothest vocals, i dont want to use crossovers.
On the other hand can I integrate a single sub like Anthony Gallo TR3 D with such Line Array having only low pass filter on the sub at for example 60hz? And run full range array speakers free down to whatever their low range would be, probably in the region of 50-60hz -6db...?
regarding TC9s
is it this one? https://www.parts-express.com/peerl...-3-1-2-full-range-paper-cone-woofer--264-1062
My plan is for 8 drivers per column, 16 total. Spaced about 5 inch apart, so the height will be 40 inches. Not very tall. However since listening position is 45 inches then I would need to place the towers on some 22 inch stands.
My concern is:
is it better to go with higher number of drivers like 12, 16 or more per tower or rather use better, more expensive drivers?
More drivers will result in higher sensitivity. I'm sure i need great macro (and micro) dynamics since my fav music is: classic rock, jazz, anything from 60s: surfaris, tom jones, sinatra, elvis but also latin tunes like perez prado, some flamenco and last but not least male and female vocals. Because i want the smoothest vocals, i dont want to use crossovers.
On the other hand can I integrate a single sub like Anthony Gallo TR3 D with such Line Array having only low pass filter on the sub at for example 60hz? And run full range array speakers free down to whatever their low range would be, probably in the region of 50-60hz -6db...?
Jim , your second array looks amazing! Where do you cross tangband with the ribbon, what freq? Do you have enough bass with those 16 three inchers?
My thinking is that if a small monitor with one 5 inch woofer and bass reflex is able to play down to 60Hz, then when I will quadruple the cone area having for example eight 4 inchers , in theory i should have an octave lower so 22-44 Hz range instead of 44-88hz octave.
My thinking is that if a small monitor with one 5 inch woofer and bass reflex is able to play down to 60Hz, then when I will quadruple the cone area having for example eight 4 inchers , in theory i should have an octave lower so 22-44 Hz range instead of 44-88hz octave.
Whatever you do, don't space them that far ( 5 inch) apart. If you're building a finite array (covering less than ~70% of your floor to ceiling height), do look at that CBT concept Jim mentioned. If you're building an infinite array that TC9 can do a very good job! Lots of examples here on the forum including my own. It's going to need EQ though.
Read the first post of my thread: The making of: The Two Towers (a 25 driver Full Range line array) as it will include links to reviews written by some fellow board members.
More examples of TC9 arrays:
Full Range TC9 Line Array CNC Cabinet
Halair Column - my line array build (20 FR drivers)
Corner Floor-to-Ceiling Line Array Using Vifa TC9
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/193015-stupid-cheap-line-array-4.html#post2648779
I'm sure there are more, but I'm running out of time, got to run...
Do investigate that CBT build by Jim too! Especially if you need/want to build a shorter array.
Read the first post of my thread: The making of: The Two Towers (a 25 driver Full Range line array) as it will include links to reviews written by some fellow board members.
More examples of TC9 arrays:
Full Range TC9 Line Array CNC Cabinet
Halair Column - my line array build (20 FR drivers)
Corner Floor-to-Ceiling Line Array Using Vifa TC9
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/193015-stupid-cheap-line-array-4.html#post2648779
I'm sure there are more, but I'm running out of time, got to run...
Do investigate that CBT build by Jim too! Especially if you need/want to build a shorter array.
Pawelgreece,
My Needles array crosses between the TangBand drivers and the ribbon just above 2000 Hz. You will need a subwoofer to cover below 100 Hz or so as the small drivers would need an overly aggressive EQ to raise their output level. My subwoofer has a plate amplifier with filtering so that low frequencies are amplified while high frequencies pass to the amplifier for the array.
As wesayso has mentioned you will need a longer array to achieve optimum results if you use a straight array. The driver spacing needs to be as close as feasible. A straight line array would likely be the most straight forward construction project. But once you get over its curved enclosure, a CBT is a very nice solution for my listening. If you have access to CNC capability, then your cabinet building can be made much easier.
Jim
My Needles array crosses between the TangBand drivers and the ribbon just above 2000 Hz. You will need a subwoofer to cover below 100 Hz or so as the small drivers would need an overly aggressive EQ to raise their output level. My subwoofer has a plate amplifier with filtering so that low frequencies are amplified while high frequencies pass to the amplifier for the array.
As wesayso has mentioned you will need a longer array to achieve optimum results if you use a straight array. The driver spacing needs to be as close as feasible. A straight line array would likely be the most straight forward construction project. But once you get over its curved enclosure, a CBT is a very nice solution for my listening. If you have access to CNC capability, then your cabinet building can be made much easier.
Jim
Dr. Griffin,
Nice array projects! 🙂
With your modified CBT you still need to use EQ for the the full-range drivers, right?
Nice array projects! 🙂
With your modified CBT you still need to use EQ for the the full-range drivers, right?
zman01,
When I first completed my Modified CBT24 arrays I listened without EQ for a few weeks and I could live with how they sound that way. Later I have used Audyssey MultEQ room correction (inside my Marantz home theater receiver) to 'favor' the arrays within my listening room. I'm listening with MultEQ on at this point.
My journey is explained in my thread at:
My New Line Array--It's a Modified CBT24
Jim
When I first completed my Modified CBT24 arrays I listened without EQ for a few weeks and I could live with how they sound that way. Later I have used Audyssey MultEQ room correction (inside my Marantz home theater receiver) to 'favor' the arrays within my listening room. I'm listening with MultEQ on at this point.
My journey is explained in my thread at:
My New Line Array--It's a Modified CBT24
Jim
Are you sure I won't get even 50hz with 8 or 12 four inch drivers in one column?
Is that a characteristic of a tall line array? I know that ONE small full range driver will likely have 80 or even 180hz only. But I want to place the arrays in the corners, which should help to "load" the bass, no?
Assuming Xmax will be rather standard, i dont see why 2 times larger cone are as single 8 inch driver can't produce anything below 100Hz. Please, explain where i'm wrong.
On top of that if the LA is rather high sensitivity, upwards of 98dB , can be even 105dB.... it means i need less watts for given SPL. So, the amp will have more headroom for temporary slam down to low frequencies - is this thinking correct?
The choice of a driver for a 'full' range array is a tradeoff between good/acceptable low frequency (bass) vs. good/acceptable high frequency coverage. As much as we would like, there is no such thing as a full range driver that will adequately reproduce the full spectrum and be small enough that it can be located next to other drivers in the line. Read my Near Field Line Array White Paper to understand the physics of arraying drivers and how important driver diameter and spacing matters.
My choice is to go with a small driver (2.5 inch diameter or a bit less) to achieve acceptable high frequency coverage. Then tradeoff the low frequency end of the band with a subwoofer (say 8 to 12 inch diameter) that uses a large driver that can more adequately reproduce the low frequencies.
My choice is to go with a small driver (2.5 inch diameter or a bit less) to achieve acceptable high frequency coverage. Then tradeoff the low frequency end of the band with a subwoofer (say 8 to 12 inch diameter) that uses a large driver that can more adequately reproduce the low frequencies.
Many small drivers start to have distortion around 300Hz and lower. The SB65 is in that category.
Having multiples of that driver does not mean you will reach lower, but you will play closer to their Fs at much less distortion.
Add in EQ in the low end, and you start having distortion again, so you'll need to find the balance between the number of drivers, and the low end you'll need.
Jim uses a sub to help his little drivers, and wesayso uses 25 drivers per column to apply a generous EQ to go down quite low.
And again, do read Jim's "Near Field Line Array White Paper" as it will answer a lot of your questions.
Having multiples of that driver does not mean you will reach lower, but you will play closer to their Fs at much less distortion.
Add in EQ in the low end, and you start having distortion again, so you'll need to find the balance between the number of drivers, and the low end you'll need.
Jim uses a sub to help his little drivers, and wesayso uses 25 drivers per column to apply a generous EQ to go down quite low.
And again, do read Jim's "Near Field Line Array White Paper" as it will answer a lot of your questions.
Thanks again for all replies. I've read Jims White Paper - great useful and comprehensive information!
There's one thing I've realised about Line Arrays with full range drivers...
Its not that a small (3 -4 inch) driver is unable to produce lowest freq. It can.
Just wear closed back headphones - some do 10 or even 5hz with very small cones !
its the fact that its hard to make those low frequencies audible in a room, esp. IN RELATION to mid and high freq. waves. Since low fr. are omnidirectional, they are everywhere in the room and that requires a lot of power and drivers work/excursion to move more air.
Thats why we can go around this effect by EQ the mids and highs and boost lows so the response will be more flat.
There's one thing I've realised about Line Arrays with full range drivers...
Its not that a small (3 -4 inch) driver is unable to produce lowest freq. It can.
Just wear closed back headphones - some do 10 or even 5hz with very small cones !
its the fact that its hard to make those low frequencies audible in a room, esp. IN RELATION to mid and high freq. waves. Since low fr. are omnidirectional, they are everywhere in the room and that requires a lot of power and drivers work/excursion to move more air.
Thats why we can go around this effect by EQ the mids and highs and boost lows so the response will be more flat.
Most Line Arrays are not designed with bass reflex. Hmm, why?
Interesting thing about those Grandinote Mach 9s is that they go down to 27Hz with 9 five inch woofers and plenty of tweeters. But the unique thing here is that according to their website they use a combination of transmission line and bass reflex, which is a fancy word for just a whole at the bottom of the cabinet 😉
How about Voxativ Ampeggio Due? Only one eight inch driver, but its backloaded and very wide baffle - plays to 25Hz. Air is pressurized in a cabinet and then left in room.
The good thing about the LA is that I can always add a sub later.
Its all about that base! (no treble)
YouTube
Interesting thing about those Grandinote Mach 9s is that they go down to 27Hz with 9 five inch woofers and plenty of tweeters. But the unique thing here is that according to their website they use a combination of transmission line and bass reflex, which is a fancy word for just a whole at the bottom of the cabinet 😉
How about Voxativ Ampeggio Due? Only one eight inch driver, but its backloaded and very wide baffle - plays to 25Hz. Air is pressurized in a cabinet and then left in room.
The good thing about the LA is that I can always add a sub later.
Its all about that base! (no treble)
YouTube
A quick look at most full range drivers indicates their T-S numbers aren't terribly friendly towards vented alignments, although I suppose one could engineer a decent quarter wave pipe.
Similarly, to get some bass extension (tuning well below resonance), you're going to need significant cabinet volume. Again, *in general* the compromise for building a line array with this in mind is less favorable to handing off the bass duties to drivers better suited to the job. That's not to say that a line array shouldn't be able to take a decent amount of boost down low (total radiating surface tells you many a line array can exceed the SD of a 15" driver), but augmenting it with subwoofer(s) a-la Earl Geddes's approach makes a lot of sense. You'll be well below the Schroeder distance of most domestic rooms.
Similarly, to get some bass extension (tuning well below resonance), you're going to need significant cabinet volume. Again, *in general* the compromise for building a line array with this in mind is less favorable to handing off the bass duties to drivers better suited to the job. That's not to say that a line array shouldn't be able to take a decent amount of boost down low (total radiating surface tells you many a line array can exceed the SD of a 15" driver), but augmenting it with subwoofer(s) a-la Earl Geddes's approach makes a lot of sense. You'll be well below the Schroeder distance of most domestic rooms.