This is a really old thot experiment.
Take the concept but choose a better (smaller) driver, the closer you can get them the better, the big bezels on the CHRs are an impediment.
3 or 4 FRs per enclosure, stacked as high as you want. Allows for lots of flexibility. Scan be sealed or vented or OB (anything else probably to awkward).
If you put 3 per box, and they are 4Ω it is practical to series wire them and shunt 2 with a big cap to turn each module into their own loudspeake rif it does not work out.
Aside; i am already working on such a 3 x A6.2p box, 24-30 more drivers i could make one of the taller ones.
I would look at the CHN-50. (Be even nicer if it came in a rectangular basket that would allow closer spacing, group buy 200 drivers?)
dave
Take the concept but choose a better (smaller) driver, the closer you can get them the better, the big bezels on the CHRs are an impediment.
3 or 4 FRs per enclosure, stacked as high as you want. Allows for lots of flexibility. Scan be sealed or vented or OB (anything else probably to awkward).
If you put 3 per box, and they are 4Ω it is practical to series wire them and shunt 2 with a big cap to turn each module into their own loudspeake rif it does not work out.
Aside; i am already working on such a 3 x A6.2p box, 24-30 more drivers i could make one of the taller ones.
I would look at the CHN-50. (Be even nicer if it came in a rectangular basket that would allow closer spacing, group buy 200 drivers?)
dave
One can always make them fit, right? (it's a 5 hole model, that CHN, isn't it 🤔)
No it isn't. if you connect the drivers in series/parallel the load would depend on the specific connection, but can and should be reasonable.
For instance 5 drivers in series, 5 groups like that in parallel would give you an impedance similar to that of a single driver.
But, an that is a big but... you'd need EQ to make it listenable. Otherwise, without any filtering it would have a weird frequency balance.
How that works is explained in great detail in this thread: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/infinite-line-source-analysis.314917/
Lots of math to explain things, but the key point is, without EQ or filtering, the mid frequencies would overpower and the higher in frequency
one goes, the less output there will be. One can correct for that behavior with an equalizer, but without it it would sound way off.
If you look at the predicted black line, that's the line array output using 25 drivers of the model Peerless TC9 FD 18-08. Any driver
similar in size to that one would show a lot of commonalities, see how there's a lot of output at 200-400 Hz? And how it drops fast
above that figure? That's what needs compensating with either filtering or an Equalizer.
It doesn't make it a bad concept, it just means it needs some help/assistance to do what it does best. If you look at the bottom left
picture you'll see that it forms a beam like output, meaning it will have way less reflections coming from floor and ceiling than
practically any other speaker. Even if we include the floor and ceiling information (damped in this specific simulation) it will have
way less of an influence on the final frequency response than running a single driver in a room.
Personally, I'm running a line array like this with EQ and some extra added filters to alter that vertical pattern some more. It kind
of works with the room to create a clear sound, less impacted by the room influence itself. Having it placed pretty close to the
walls allowed me to EQ up the bass as well. Making it way more powerful that those little drivers look.
Hope this helps answer your question. There have been many full range array builds over the years, so there's way more information
out there. What I showed here is a tall array. A much shorter array acts way different, not always easier. I like the tall arrays best,
but they kind of are imposing...
I am currently changing the drivers to Scan Speak 10F 8414G00's, but using any other driver
of similar size is not changing the requirements of arrays like these.
For instance 5 drivers in series, 5 groups like that in parallel would give you an impedance similar to that of a single driver.
But, an that is a big but... you'd need EQ to make it listenable. Otherwise, without any filtering it would have a weird frequency balance.
How that works is explained in great detail in this thread: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/infinite-line-source-analysis.314917/
Lots of math to explain things, but the key point is, without EQ or filtering, the mid frequencies would overpower and the higher in frequency
one goes, the less output there will be. One can correct for that behavior with an equalizer, but without it it would sound way off.
If you look at the predicted black line, that's the line array output using 25 drivers of the model Peerless TC9 FD 18-08. Any driver
similar in size to that one would show a lot of commonalities, see how there's a lot of output at 200-400 Hz? And how it drops fast
above that figure? That's what needs compensating with either filtering or an Equalizer.
It doesn't make it a bad concept, it just means it needs some help/assistance to do what it does best. If you look at the bottom left
picture you'll see that it forms a beam like output, meaning it will have way less reflections coming from floor and ceiling than
practically any other speaker. Even if we include the floor and ceiling information (damped in this specific simulation) it will have
way less of an influence on the final frequency response than running a single driver in a room.
Personally, I'm running a line array like this with EQ and some extra added filters to alter that vertical pattern some more. It kind
of works with the room to create a clear sound, less impacted by the room influence itself. Having it placed pretty close to the
walls allowed me to EQ up the bass as well. Making it way more powerful that those little drivers look.
Hope this helps answer your question. There have been many full range array builds over the years, so there's way more information
out there. What I showed here is a tall array. A much shorter array acts way different, not always easier. I like the tall arrays best,
but they kind of are imposing...
I am currently changing the drivers to Scan Speak 10F 8414G00's, but using any other driver
of similar size is not changing the requirements of arrays like these.
Last edited:
If you're thinking of using shorter arrays, be aware that they change a lot of the things I've shown here.
Not specifically making it that much easier though. These tall arrays still sound good standing up, a less
tall array will have a narrower beam and would cover a sitting listening position but not much more.
Here's a quick sample of using 15 drivers instead of 25:
See how the vertical coverage got smaller? The zero line is the ear height when sitting down. Meaning if you stand up,
you'll be above that red area of pretty equal sound pressure... And judging by the black line you'd still need plenty EQ
to get things in shape. An even shorter array would further reduce the vertical coverage. Meaning you can't move up or
down too much without destroying the tonal balance. Filtering an array can cure that though, then you could check out
CBT arrays, as that works well for a shorter array.
Not specifically making it that much easier though. These tall arrays still sound good standing up, a less
tall array will have a narrower beam and would cover a sitting listening position but not much more.
Here's a quick sample of using 15 drivers instead of 25:
See how the vertical coverage got smaller? The zero line is the ear height when sitting down. Meaning if you stand up,
you'll be above that red area of pretty equal sound pressure... And judging by the black line you'd still need plenty EQ
to get things in shape. An even shorter array would further reduce the vertical coverage. Meaning you can't move up or
down too much without destroying the tonal balance. Filtering an array can cure that though, then you could check out
CBT arrays, as that works well for a shorter array.
How much power you put on your array?
I saw people use 150 -200w tube power on array with Jordan drive units
You may find my near field line array white paper to be of interest for straight line array design. It is at:
http://www.audioroundtable.com/misc/nflawp.pdf
My recent line array efforts have been directed at constant beamwidth transducer (CBT) design which is a curved array devised by Don Keele, Jr. See my efforts for a full range driver at:
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr....313352//RK=2/RS=YnXT39yfvelzNTFT.040NW0M3vA-
Good luck in your efforts.
Jim
http://www.audioroundtable.com/misc/nflawp.pdf
My recent line array efforts have been directed at constant beamwidth transducer (CBT) design which is a curved array devised by Don Keele, Jr. See my efforts for a full range driver at:
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr....313352//RK=2/RS=YnXT39yfvelzNTFT.040NW0M3vA-
Good luck in your efforts.
Jim
Actually, I want to build the Audio Artistry CBT but all driver has gone after contacting Parts Express :-(
I have a 400 watt into 8 ohm amplifier, a copy of a Goldmund Telos 400. See: more information here. (currently in maintenance after a little accident)
The arrays can handle about 240 watt without running out of x-max figures. So there is headroom available in the amplifier.
It can do the necessary EQ, don't expect miracles on the DSP front as the tap count on the MiniDSP devices is limited.
I run the free software DRC-FIR on a PC which has lots more freedom compared to boxed processors. But I know having a Windows PC in the chain isn't for everyone.
It allows me to tweak the sound and tailor it to my room and personal needs/desire. I absorb early reflections and use ambient speakers to fill in what I stole from the room.
As said, the straight 15 driver sample barely covers the seated area as it has a narrow vertical beam and will start to sound "off" when you move up or down outside of that beam.
A CBT variant would make the vertical beam wider. For short arrays I'd move in that direction or at least use filtering to adjust vertical output.
Personally I like the taller floor to ceiling array concept, covering at least 70% of the floor to ceiling space. In my case a 25 driver array get's me there.
It will still sound just about the same when standing up or sitting down. And even when moving about. Vertical coverage is wide enough to cover all basic positions,
yet it still has the advantage to avoid floor and ceiling reflections from playing a role in listening.
wesayso,
You said, "I am currently changing the drivers to Scan Speak 10F 8414G00's..." (Post 11)
However that model number does not exist. So I am guessing a typo.
https://www.scan-speak.dk/product-categories/fullrange/
1. Which model are you actually using?
2. How did you select it, and why? (If you've gone into this elsewhere just provide a link.)
3. Did you consider using less expensive Markaudio drivers?
I would be looking for the cleanest, most transparent, smooth sounding drivers. My Acoustats have spoiled me.
Thank you,
Brandon
You said, "I am currently changing the drivers to Scan Speak 10F 8414G00's..." (Post 11)
However that model number does not exist. So I am guessing a typo.
https://www.scan-speak.dk/product-categories/fullrange/
1. Which model are you actually using?
2. How did you select it, and why? (If you've gone into this elsewhere just provide a link.)
3. Did you consider using less expensive Markaudio drivers?
I would be looking for the cleanest, most transparent, smooth sounding drivers. My Acoustats have spoiled me.
Thank you,
Brandon
Yep, that should have read: 10F/8414G10
I started with the Vifa TC9 FD18-08 based on reading and seeing lots of tests on it and it being a sister driver to the Vifa TG9 FD10-08, the closest driver to the one that Roger Russell used originally in his IDS-25.
The impulse response of the Vifa/Peerless TC9 FD18-08 is very clean in all tests I had found of it. The only drivers of similar size and with the specs I wanted to see in an array driver that appeared to be able to do "better" than the TC9 in measured results were the Scan Speak 10F, the aforementioned TG9 FD10-08 and the Visaton B60.
What I wanted? A clean impulse, a slight rising response being preferable, smooth response on and off-axis out to about 30 degree, enough x-max to be able to apply boost EQ.
I bought the Vifa drivers in 2011. In 2020 we renovated our livingroom and the arrays spend about a year stored in a damp/moist garage. Sadly that ended the life of multiple drivers prematurely. Something more drivers from the same stable suffered from, including some Scan Speak models. So I started to make plans to replace them all, but wanted some reassurance that the newly bought drivers wouldn't share the same fate. I contacted Tymphany to ask this question, sadly I got no answer. I tried trough a couple of import channels, no luck. I did know of the 10F for quite a while and even had two 10F 8424G00 doing ambience duty, so I contacted Scan Speak about this issue (as multiple Scan Speak woofers suffered a similar faith) and did get a response. I've always wondered what it would be like, an array with the 10F's. Purely from seeing the measurement data on them. It's even mentioned on this page in good fun (I got rich enough when I quit smoking 😱). The 8414G10 is the fullrange model, so that's the one I went with. In all honesty? If you're looking for a full range array with bass boost like I used to run, don't go with the Scan Speak 10F, they won't be able to follow/match the TC9 below 200 Hz. It's everything above 200 Hz where they really outshine the Vifa.
But if you have or had Acoustats, why go this route at all? I wouldn't think you'd have the need? As long as you'd have plenty of space to not cramp their style...
I started with the Vifa TC9 FD18-08 based on reading and seeing lots of tests on it and it being a sister driver to the Vifa TG9 FD10-08, the closest driver to the one that Roger Russell used originally in his IDS-25.
The impulse response of the Vifa/Peerless TC9 FD18-08 is very clean in all tests I had found of it. The only drivers of similar size and with the specs I wanted to see in an array driver that appeared to be able to do "better" than the TC9 in measured results were the Scan Speak 10F, the aforementioned TG9 FD10-08 and the Visaton B60.
What I wanted? A clean impulse, a slight rising response being preferable, smooth response on and off-axis out to about 30 degree, enough x-max to be able to apply boost EQ.
I bought the Vifa drivers in 2011. In 2020 we renovated our livingroom and the arrays spend about a year stored in a damp/moist garage. Sadly that ended the life of multiple drivers prematurely. Something more drivers from the same stable suffered from, including some Scan Speak models. So I started to make plans to replace them all, but wanted some reassurance that the newly bought drivers wouldn't share the same fate. I contacted Tymphany to ask this question, sadly I got no answer. I tried trough a couple of import channels, no luck. I did know of the 10F for quite a while and even had two 10F 8424G00 doing ambience duty, so I contacted Scan Speak about this issue (as multiple Scan Speak woofers suffered a similar faith) and did get a response. I've always wondered what it would be like, an array with the 10F's. Purely from seeing the measurement data on them. It's even mentioned on this page in good fun (I got rich enough when I quit smoking 😱). The 8414G10 is the fullrange model, so that's the one I went with. In all honesty? If you're looking for a full range array with bass boost like I used to run, don't go with the Scan Speak 10F, they won't be able to follow/match the TC9 below 200 Hz. It's everything above 200 Hz where they really outshine the Vifa.
But if you have or had Acoustats, why go this route at all? I wouldn't think you'd have the need? As long as you'd have plenty of space to not cramp their style...
Last edited: