Hi
Here is my design of using the new Fountek ribbon:
But the old ScanSpeak 21W8554 need to be replaces do anyone have a suggestion ?
Here is my design of using the new Fountek ribbon:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
But the old ScanSpeak 21W8554 need to be replaces do anyone have a suggestion ?
as many have asked b4 (but have never really have received a good response).. just how good (or bad) are the Neo 5's?
For the dipole bass drivers:
You might look at the cheap dynavox 12 inch high "Q" woofers:
http://www.dynavox.com/
The honeycomb aluminums look very similar to the woofers in these speakers:
http://www.gilmoreaudio.com/
For the dipole bass drivers:
You might look at the cheap dynavox 12 inch high "Q" woofers:
http://www.dynavox.com/
The honeycomb aluminums look very similar to the woofers in these speakers:
http://www.gilmoreaudio.com/
Taco said:
My eyes aren't sharp enough to tell if they're 10's or 12's, but those are woofers from Peerless's SLS line. Which brings up my question: how loud are they at full excursion. (Not signal, but basket noise, etc.) I know the SLS8 is pretty quiet, but it's also moving less air.
As for midwoofer, I love the B&C 8NDL51, but if you want something else the old Peerless HDS205 was pretty darn good so the new Exclusive ones should be, too.
Those appear to be 4 12" drivers. I have considered folding the cabinet (H) as such to reduce the overall size, but have not done so. How does this affect your resonant peak? Was it harder to measure/supress? I assume with this sort of setup, you are active, possibly DCX?
I would suggest the W22
. There are less expensive options that are easier to work with (XO wise) of course. The B&C looks like a very nice unit, with the bonus of higher efficiency, probably closer to your other units. I can't imagine you're set up is passive though. Some of the newly released Seas and Peerless 22 cm midbasses look very good also.
Cheers,
AJ
I would suggest the W22
. There are less expensive options that are easier to work with (XO wise) of course. The B&C looks like a very nice unit, with the bonus of higher efficiency, probably closer to your other units. I can't imagine you're set up is passive though. Some of the newly released Seas and Peerless 22 cm midbasses look very good also.Cheers,
AJ
AJinFLA said:
I did the same Z- or M-frame construction, albeit with only two 10" drivers per side. The resonant peak was at almost the same frequency as the identical drivers had in my Ripoles (sort of W-frame) of the same depth. But the resonant peak was "squeezed" some way (flatter and wider).
Note: while you get no impulse compensation in a H-frame (and full compensation in a W-frame), half of the impulse is compensated in a Z-frame with 90° angle between driver planes.
I would not mount neighbouring drivers in the reverse-basket-configuration anymore, that Linkwitz recommends for a H-frame. It´s just my gut feeling, but I attribute a certain double peaking I have with that configuration to the highly asymmetrical position of the drivers.
I agree with you Rudolf. Thats probably the biggest reason why I have hesitated to go that route. I use to wonder why SL did not try to say, offset the midbass on the main panel, i.e., add some asymmetry, but the more I experiment, the more I realize that he does just about everything for a very specific reason (suprise, suprise ). The asymmetry will give you what appears to be smoother response (depending where you measure from - and with my limited measurement capability/knowledge), but in reality, you simply have a less clearly formed single peak that can be notched and instead have multiple smaller ones that are harder to see in the measurements because they are spread out and diffused. I guess the question then becomes - do you find this objectionable - soundwise? My short answer would be yes. But this is DIY after all, different budgets, room requirements, SAF's,etc. So to each their own.
Cheers,
AJ
). The asymmetry will give you what appears to be smoother response (depending where you measure from - and with my limited measurement capability/knowledge), but in reality, you simply have a less clearly formed single peak that can be notched and instead have multiple smaller ones that are harder to see in the measurements because they are spread out and diffused. I guess the question then becomes - do you find this objectionable - soundwise? My short answer would be yes. But this is DIY after all, different budgets, room requirements, SAF's,etc. So to each their own.Cheers,
AJ
Anyone can read more here:
http://home10.inet.tele.dk/dion/diyuk05.htm
There are no problems with noise problems from the woofers - I will say that 2 of these drivers is enough for my soundlevels !
The NeoCD 5i is more than just another ribbon ...
But it need some attention from the peak at 1khz + 10 khz where I use my Behringers.
Soon I will show some mesuremens.
Oh Yes the new Peerless HDS exclusive line looks very promising
http://home10.inet.tele.dk/dion/diyuk05.htm
There are no problems with noise problems from the woofers - I will say that 2 of these drivers is enough for my soundlevels !
The NeoCD 5i is more than just another ribbon ...
But it need some attention from the peak at 1khz + 10 khz where I use my Behringers.
Soon I will show some mesuremens.
Oh Yes the new Peerless HDS exclusive line looks very promising
Member
Joined 2003
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.