Geddes on Waveguides

The thing is, beyond what I said before, ribbons are the wrong shape for good directivity control - they are very hard to do a good waveguide for. And, as I said, the bottom line is that they end up working like a compression driver. I've know lots of people who try them, but nobody who has stayed with them. Theoretically I just don't see an advantage.

For the "usual" planar's I tend to agree.
With one of the new AMT's on a horn combined with advanced EQ'ing its a different story – plenty of clean SPL and great "non fatigue" resolution up to the top end.



Michael
 
For the "usual" planar's I tend to agree.
With one of the new AMT's on a horn combined with advanced EQ'ing its a different story – plenty of clean SPL and great "non fatigue" resolution up to the top end.



Michael
I would dearly like to try a TPL150 but they are very expensive. Not sure what profile the factory horn is. However, it wouldn't be too hard to do an OS horizontally and maybe vertically in wood by hand.

Probably won't happen for years as I'm happy with my DE25, 250 and ND1090s, the first Ti phrammed driver I have ever liked.
 
I would dearly like to try a TPL150 but they are very expensive. .

Heil Oskar and the whole *s..ty* patent system being a downright (negative) example on how things get blocked for centuries !!!

Succession like Mundorf and Beyma just follow in the high price footsteps to my distress.
These device' could easily be sold - with margin - at a fraction of the current price, they are such simple.

Michael
 
In EU the new Mundorf 2310E cost 270EUR, and 2510E is 350EUR, and Beyma 500EUR, with horn almost 600EUR
But I dont think I would cross any of them lower than 2khz

Exactly, Eton and ESS being in the same range and for the cheap(?) Aurum Cantus AMT I haven't found a supplier, ADAM not selling to the DIY AFAIK....
 
Last edited:
Hit or kitsch?
 

Attachments

  • OS-WG1.jpg
    OS-WG1.jpg
    26.8 KB · Views: 422
If you can do it, respect

1. Woofer should not point downwards
2. Why not do a bit nicer back, and sides
2a. Or instead make the front baffle much deeper, nice sides always look good
3. Your changes looks nice, but doubtfully good fore sound, too many abrupt surface changes
4. I would sculpture the foot base as an integrated part of mold, and with enough room fore crossover
 
Last edited:
Hello jzagaja,

I agree with tintus that pointing the woofers downwards might not be the best option. His idea to sculpture the foot base as an integrated part of mold is also very good. I think because most of the weight will be in the upper part of the speaker, the foot base will be a real challange to make the speaker vibration free and stable (you do not want it to tilt over when one of the childeren runs into it) without spoiling the looks with a very large foot.

As your target is the DIY market (most of us prefer sound quality above looks...), I would propose and enclosure more like was posted by John Sheerin in post 2912 (but with your round waveguide).

Greetz,

Wim