Having used some Beyma TPL's for the last year or so, I am looking at improving the integration further and potentially losing a driver from my set up. I came across by chance on the web on the Hawthorne audio website some 700 hz AMT's, thoughs specs would suggest that they could be used down to 600hz or so in an active system. Has anybody auditioned a pair, as I surprised iI haven't heard more about these on the forum.
Smart phone, seemed to remove some text making the message unintelligible. What I was trying to ask is how low realistically can these drivers go, based on other users experience.
Any sonic comparisions to beymas would also be useful.
Any sonic comparisions to beymas would also be useful.
Smart phone, seemed to remove some text making the message unintelligible
Phones to smart for your own good.............hehe....it just a joke!
Phones to smart for your own good.............hehe....it just a joke!
So did anyone hear these AMT's?
I am also curious about them. They look a bit like the Eton ER4, but larger.
I am also curious about them. They look a bit like the Eton ER4, but larger.
I am interested too!
If they truly deliver all what is promised on their behalf they should make for some very interesting builds.
I don't think they are like the eton's except for the AMT principle. Hawthorne claim to have them designed specifically for their criteria by an AMT designer who used to work for Oscar Heil.
My main concern is their HF roll off -which might not matter, but one can only really know in one way that would be quite expensive if they are not to one's taste...
Any first hand experience out there would be very helpful.
cheers,
If they truly deliver all what is promised on their behalf they should make for some very interesting builds.
I don't think they are like the eton's except for the AMT principle. Hawthorne claim to have them designed specifically for their criteria by an AMT designer who used to work for Oscar Heil.
My main concern is their HF roll off -which might not matter, but one can only really know in one way that would be quite expensive if they are not to one's taste...
Any first hand experience out there would be very helpful.
cheers,
They have a DIY version that is temporarily out of stock due to a production supply issue. Have you heard something different?
cheers,
Maybe we are not talking about the same driver. I have not read the entire thread but I was referring to the horn loaded AMT used in there new speaker "The Rainiers"
Mail from as Hawthorne Audio:
Our model 500 AMT is a unique driver capable of being crossed over at 500 Hz when using passive and as ow as 350 Hz when we run it using line level active crossovers. The wave guid is purpose built to be used with it but is not required to achieve this low of a crossover pony. These drivers are used exclusively in our finished products and are not made available to our DIY customers as free standing drivers.
Mail from as Hawthorne Audio:
Our model 500 AMT is a unique driver capable of being crossed over at 500 Hz when using passive and as ow as 350 Hz when we run it using line level active crossovers. The wave guid is purpose built to be used with it but is not required to achieve this low of a crossover pony. These drivers are used exclusively in our finished products and are not made available to our DIY customers as free standing drivers.
Yes the model 500 AMT is not for DIY.
Their model 700 AMT on the other hand is 🙂
-unless they changed their sales policy...
Their model 700 AMT on the other hand is 🙂
-unless they changed their sales policy...
Thanks looks very similar to the Beyma TP150 H. I found this thread because I was searching for info on the Beyma.
I have 4 x AE LO15 coming my way and I still need to choose a mid woofer and a HF driver.
So of you would find a HF unit that can start at about 500-800 hz, you could leave the mid woofer out of there, right?
Or until which frequency would the AE's run best?
Regards, DC
Or until which frequency would the AE's run best?
Regards, DC
Yes that's right. When I ordered the LO15 I also ordered a pair of Radian 475b and a pair of SEOS-15 waveguides but there are deliver problems with the SEOS-15 so, I have to come up with another plane.
The current plane is to use a 6" mid woofer from 250 hz to around 2.5 khz and then the Beyma tp150.
The LO15 runs smooth to around 2khz.
I have been trying to get in contact with Bernd at BelAMT, regarding some of his midrange AMT's. Does anyone know whether he is still in business, and if so contact details, as I am wondering if the email I have is out of date.
Hi Martin,
If It's flat till 2khz, then a lower xo with the Beyma TPL would be a nice option, leaving the mid out. If Hawthorne has its own AMT's then the TPL is the only option, or something like a Mundorf, but they don't go as low as the Beyma TPL's. I believe there is a thread somewhere here, with someone who already used it.
Grtz
If It's flat till 2khz, then a lower xo with the Beyma TPL would be a nice option, leaving the mid out. If Hawthorne has its own AMT's then the TPL is the only option, or something like a Mundorf, but they don't go as low as the Beyma TPL's. I believe there is a thread somewhere here, with someone who already used it.
Grtz
XO for a 15"
Thanks I think that Constant Directivity is an important factory in speaker design, and for a for a 15" driver the XO should start around 600 hz.
But the holy grail in OB design today is to find a driver or horn that can play from around 600 hz to 20khz (-: there are so many designs with a pair of 15"
Thanks I think that Constant Directivity is an important factory in speaker design, and for a for a 15" driver the XO should start around 600 hz.
But the holy grail in OB design today is to find a driver or horn that can play from around 600 hz to 20khz (-: there are so many designs with a pair of 15"
Thanks for the interesting links Martin, I will read it carefully this week!
Wouldn't a great sounding fullranger be a good alternative? Or do you think you would miss the finesse in the upper treble, that a good tweeter could do better...
I built a OB with a 15" A&D driver and the Tangband 4" bamboo driver, that goes till 20khz. And though it sounded nice, I missed something in the high frequencies.... where I believe a good ribbon like the Raal or a good AMT would be much better. Perhaps crossing them at 8khz or so (in that case 3 way)... But with more xo- troubles...
Wouldn't a great sounding fullranger be a good alternative? Or do you think you would miss the finesse in the upper treble, that a good tweeter could do better...
I built a OB with a 15" A&D driver and the Tangband 4" bamboo driver, that goes till 20khz. And though it sounded nice, I missed something in the high frequencies.... where I believe a good ribbon like the Raal or a good AMT would be much better. Perhaps crossing them at 8khz or so (in that case 3 way)... But with more xo- troubles...
Knowing who the guy who helped them develop it into their designs... I'm certain it's a nice upgrade.
Although many full range drivers achieve "good" or maybe rather "extended" on axis HF performance, most suffer from poor off axis HF response -which is difficult to get around due to their digraphs' widths. Some sound really good and brings the huge benefit of avoiding to cross in the sensitive 1-4kHz range, but the expense is the uneven HF power response and lack of perceived "air" in the presentation. That's why some constructions deploy a dedicated super tweeter from 6-8kHz and upwards.
The AMT700 looks really interesting but I fall in the camp of those who are quite sensitive to HF roll off which is my biggest concern since it employs such a large surface digraph. I really hope that it is pure wonderland from 700Hz and up.
BTW, for those who want to cross lower than the 700Hz, they say that it can work below 600Hz with electronic XOs, not with passive though...
Hi Juhleren, sorry for the late reply. Indeed I think for the reasons you mentioned that a good tweeter would indeed make the upper treble nicer. So the low starting AMT would be awesome. But Isn't it that the wide baffles people often have in the fullrange also take airness away? I think so, I tried small baffles but with that you lose fundament and it doesn't sound right anymore... Even with adjusted xo.
Regards,
Don Camio
Regards,
Don Camio
Hi Don Camio, no problem, I haven't had much time off work either 🙂
Some 15 years ago I went the OB route. I used an 18" wide baffle. I put foam mat around the drivers and the treble was indeed very sweet. The mids had such an authority and attack that was so very special. I have often since wondered whether I should go back to that design since there was something very right about its presentation.
In theory the larger width of the baffle should push the baffle step downwards forcing 1pi radiation for a larger portion of the lower midrange -like doubling the radiating and efficiency for free 🙂 The same theory would also suggest that increasing the usual 8" baffle width should not affect treble since the BS is already lower than the operating range of the tweeter.
Diffraction is a different matter since it occurs within the width of the baffle.
Looking at it the other way around, I do hear more pin point accuracy and 3D holography with narrower and smaller baffles. Since the cause of baffle step is that certain wavelengths are greater than the front panel and therefore travel around it, that energy isn't lost -its just dispersed in a fashion that is closer to 2pi radiation -which increases room reflections and 'ambiance'. I wonder wether the increased 'air' from narrower baffles has more to do with midrange dispersion than with the tweeter itself...
And YES, running an AMT from the upper mids to and up without any XO interfering with the critical 1-6khz region should be quite awesome!
cheers
Juhleren
Some 15 years ago I went the OB route. I used an 18" wide baffle. I put foam mat around the drivers and the treble was indeed very sweet. The mids had such an authority and attack that was so very special. I have often since wondered whether I should go back to that design since there was something very right about its presentation.
In theory the larger width of the baffle should push the baffle step downwards forcing 1pi radiation for a larger portion of the lower midrange -like doubling the radiating and efficiency for free 🙂 The same theory would also suggest that increasing the usual 8" baffle width should not affect treble since the BS is already lower than the operating range of the tweeter.
Diffraction is a different matter since it occurs within the width of the baffle.
Looking at it the other way around, I do hear more pin point accuracy and 3D holography with narrower and smaller baffles. Since the cause of baffle step is that certain wavelengths are greater than the front panel and therefore travel around it, that energy isn't lost -its just dispersed in a fashion that is closer to 2pi radiation -which increases room reflections and 'ambiance'. I wonder wether the increased 'air' from narrower baffles has more to do with midrange dispersion than with the tweeter itself...
And YES, running an AMT from the upper mids to and up without any XO interfering with the critical 1-6khz region should be quite awesome!
cheers
Juhleren
- Status
- Not open for further replies.