bentoronto>
Thank you and they are valid points.
1. Got it, I already planned on getting twice the amount of building materials. 😉
2. I think a dynamic woofer is easier but that's just me.
3. I'm thinking a simple shelving filter will fix anything down to 400Hz at the expense of sensitivity if I don't build an active one.
4. Yupp, I'm counting on som extra expenses. 🙂
CharlieM> Great info there, thanks.
What do you think would make the best match? A Tapped Horn or a Transmission Line?
Thank you and they are valid points.
1. Got it, I already planned on getting twice the amount of building materials. 😉
2. I think a dynamic woofer is easier but that's just me.
3. I'm thinking a simple shelving filter will fix anything down to 400Hz at the expense of sensitivity if I don't build an active one.
4. Yupp, I'm counting on som extra expenses. 🙂
CharlieM> Great info there, thanks.
What do you think would make the best match? A Tapped Horn or a Transmission Line?
Hi,
neither! 😛
The best match to the Panel is a bass with the same distribution character as the Panel´s. Next best remains a CB. But You are of course free to choose for a less good taste than mine 😀😀 (just kiddin´just kiddin´)
jauu
Calvin
neither! 😛
The best match to the Panel is a bass with the same distribution character as the Panel´s. Next best remains a CB. But You are of course free to choose for a less good taste than mine 😀😀 (just kiddin´just kiddin´)
jauu
Calvin
No worries Calvin, I appreciate your opinion.
Besides a bass panel, what would you say matches a panels distribution character?
Isn't CB usually bad at reproducing deep bass, require big boxes and are prone to box resonances?
From my experiences horns are the most transparent and tight bass sources. TL's I haven't encountered so much but they are said to have a very clean bass as well.
A BLH will get kind of big, that's why I didn't mention it in the first place.
Besides a bass panel, what would you say matches a panels distribution character?
Isn't CB usually bad at reproducing deep bass, require big boxes and are prone to box resonances?
From my experiences horns are the most transparent and tight bass sources. TL's I haven't encountered so much but they are said to have a very clean bass as well.
A BLH will get kind of big, that's why I didn't mention it in the first place.
If you are starting with an existing full rnage ESL and adding a subwoofer the choice is fairly easy, you simply want to take the bass off the ESLs and put it into the sub. The sub will have a max frequency that it still sounds sweet and does not display any cone breakup noise.
In the case of my CLSs (G2s) They supposedly had response down into the 50 Hz range, but whatever response they had down there was not all that much. With the arrival of the DD-15 and its microphone and on-TV setup it was pretty clear that the ESL responce rolled off at 105 Hz at 6dB and flattened near 60 Hz {noting that this was the In Room response}. The 6dB/octabve roll off gave me the inclination that the pannels were not really up to the low end task assigned them, and that removing energy from this end of the spectrum cannot do them any harm.
I tried to bring the subwoofer in at 100 Hz but I could not get the amplitude and phases set so that one would cover the other smoothly in the cross over range. So this lead me to raise the cut in point of the sub and I finally got it all smooth when the sub was cutting over in the 140Hz to 150 Hz range.
My room has the property that one can see the pannels moving from the ideal observing location. Before the sub, one could see massive pannel movement (of the mylar sheet) with bass energy. After the subwoofer was dialed in there is still just a trace of this movement, but very little. The lower midrange now sounds better, and I attribute this to the loss of intermodulational distortions by removing the bass from the ESL.
So, with a big pannel like the CLSs one can remove the bass energy and still let the pannels take all of the vocals (even males) using the sub to take the bass. With smaller pannels one would probably want to supply more of the low end with cone devices and cross over another octave higher for the ESLs. Something in the 300Hz-400Hz range seems appropriate to me. This still keeps the cross over out of the womens vocal range--which is sort of why I gravitated towards ESLs in the first place.
Mitch
+1 with Mitch Alsup (as often seems to be my view)
I'd go a step further although nobody shares this opinion. Till recently, I've been running a single mixed bass at 140 Hz. No kidding. No problem. Granted, it has been a Klipchorn for 40 years and maybe that wafts bass around the room with less sense of the origin.
I am lucky that the meter-square Dayton-Wrights will play perfectly nicely - and I mean truly ESL-nicely - easily down to a bit of excess in the vicinity of 70. Lucky, eh.
But for ranges like to 70 on an ESL, you need monumental power or direct high voltage drive which takes no power to speak of.
I'd go a step further although nobody shares this opinion. Till recently, I've been running a single mixed bass at 140 Hz. No kidding. No problem. Granted, it has been a Klipchorn for 40 years and maybe that wafts bass around the room with less sense of the origin.
I am lucky that the meter-square Dayton-Wrights will play perfectly nicely - and I mean truly ESL-nicely - easily down to a bit of excess in the vicinity of 70. Lucky, eh.
But for ranges like to 70 on an ESL, you need monumental power or direct high voltage drive which takes no power to speak of.
I've not heard any of the DIY tapped horns I'm seeing on the internet nor have I studied their theory much so I don't feel competent to advise you on that choice.
I chose a TL for my hybrids because I had heard a TL once before and I liked its tone; which seemed more neutral and uncolored than the sealed and ported systems I've had. I don't regret going with a TL; which, coupled with my beam splitter cabinets, met my goals for minimal floor space and driver cost. My beam-splitter boxes were so difficult to build, however, that I hesitate to recommend them to others. In fact, I would probably not build beam splitters again. In fact, there are so many interesting options to choose from that I might never build the same configuration twice anyway-- heck, this speaker building thing is more psychosis than hobby!
Actually, I've not heard dipole bass systems either but to my thinking, their theory of operation seems inherently superior to anything else. I've now convinced myself that a vertical line source array of dipole woofers operating in free air would not only best match the stat panels' radiation pattern but their figure 8 radiation pattern would excite fewer room resonances, which I think would be a really, really big advantage.
Somehow I don't think I helped you much in choosing a bass setup!
Mitch> Sizewise I'm thinking more like ML Summit X, maybe a little bigger.
bentoronto> Interesting, I've wonderd myself at what frequency one can start using a standalone sub, maybe use the sub (possibly a 2-in-1) as a table for the electronics or something?
CharlieM>Dipole bass is very nice indeed but it ever reaches all that deep in my experiece. Nice to hear you like the TL for the reasons that got me interested in them in the first place.
bentoronto> Interesting, I've wonderd myself at what frequency one can start using a standalone sub, maybe use the sub (possibly a 2-in-1) as a table for the electronics or something?
CharlieM>Dipole bass is very nice indeed but it ever reaches all that deep in my experiece. Nice to hear you like the TL for the reasons that got me interested in them in the first place.
That is why I tried to caveat my position so that my cross over is in relation to my CLSs and my sub (and to a largee extent the room both are in). Other people will have other size ESLs and other sized subwoofers or just plain woofers (other room sizes).
So, in my opinion, you fool around with it until is sounds best--then live with it until you can hear the nuances that are incorrect--fix and repeat.
I believe firmly in the purpose of 400,000 rule - if you have serious power in the treble you must have extended bass or it will sound lousy (I have no explanation and when I queried this list, nobody had an explanation that made sense to me for this phenomenon).
In days of yore, the ESL systems with their fabulous treble, sounded, well, trebly. Like all the other shortcomings of ESLs, I can/could live with that, if I must. But today, nobody must.
So think how you can best achieve extended bass and then how that will coordinate with bands above.
In days of yore, the ESL systems with their fabulous treble, sounded, well, trebly. Like all the other shortcomings of ESLs, I can/could live with that, if I must. But today, nobody must.
So think how you can best achieve extended bass and then how that will coordinate with bands above.
Last edited:
I'm not familiar with the 400,000 rule but I think I get the point from the rest. Bass is important for the overall sound.
The "rule" is that your system sounds right when multiply "the" highest note multiplied by the lowest yields 400,000. As rules go, can't mean much. But the principle is that you make things worse if you add a tweeter or sub without enhancing the other end simultaneously.
I'm not sure this holds as true today when many of us are adding drivers in frequency regions that very rarely have any content outside catastrophe or jet fighter movies or glockenspiel band music (or none of us can hear anyway).
I'm not sure this holds as true today when many of us are adding drivers in frequency regions that very rarely have any content outside catastrophe or jet fighter movies or glockenspiel band music (or none of us can hear anyway).
I think if you think about it, the rule needs to be "less than" and not "equal to" 40000.
For example: a system that reproduces 15Hz-22KHz would fail your position but not mine. ( 15*22K = 33000 ). And I'm not so sure about the system that reproduces 200-2K ( 200*2K = 40000 ) would sound all that good anyway.
So there has to be some other caveat on the rule.
Not that I can hear much over 16K these days anyway (over 55yo).
For example: a system that reproduces 15Hz-22KHz would fail your position but not mine. ( 15*22K = 33000 ). And I'm not so sure about the system that reproduces 200-2K ( 200*2K = 40000 ) would sound all that good anyway.
So there has to be some other caveat on the rule.
Not that I can hear much over 16K these days anyway (over 55yo).
Hi,
the 400,00-rule stems from the old days of the BBC asaik.
What it basically suggests is that within the audio frequency range there is a correllation between upper und lower bandwidth limit which leads to a kind of ´even´ or balanced sound.
Extending the frequency range into just one of the two directions will put a undue distinction towards this frequency range.
A resticted frequency range of say 100Hz-4kHz (telephony) will sound more pleasing and balanced than one with a frequency range of 100Hz -20kHz.
Since it is an quite old rule and just a rule-of-thumb one shouldn´t take it too serious. A system providing 15Hz -22kHz provides for a greater than the audible range bandwidth. As such the rule won´t apply.
@MarkusG
A ESL panel will fit another ESL panel with same distribution character, right. A ESL panel bass will typiocally sound a bit soft with a strong tendency to a one-note bass. TLs also sound a bit soft and exhibit also a slight dip between 100Hz-200Hz. So there are sonical similarities which might have led to popularity of TLs as ESL partners. But it should be noted that the ESL alters its sonic character from the mid-highs to the bass profoundly from extremely open, precise and dynamic to soft and less precise with decreased dynamics. The alternative which keeps up the desired ESL characteristics in the bass is a change to a dynamic bass with preferrably the same distribution character.
This suggests the use of a dipolar dynamic base, regardless wether the panel features a dipolar ´point-source´ (with 2 distinct lobes) like the Quad ESL63 tried to accomplish, or wether it features a dipolar cylindrical distribution character like most strip-shaped panels exhibit.
You can shape the bass´s distribution from dipolar lobed to dipolar cylindrical by stacking several basses on top of each other till you reach a sufficient height. There are points with dipolar basses You have to keep in mind:
1- since the upper bandwidth limit is rather low, the CR-frequency has to be too.
2- since a dipolar bass doesn´t pressurize the room it sounds exceptionally precise and clear but misses on the slam one is used to hear. The more so the larger the room is. So it might be wishful or necessary to add a dedicated subwoofer, restricted to work below 50-60Hz. The dipolar cylindrical pattern which the bass performs at higher frequencies (at least one octave around the CR-frequency) smoothly transits into a dipolar lobed character with falling frequencies. The change from this shape to the monopolar shape of the subwoofer may happen smoothly too. If the transition to the subwoofer happens below the lowest room mode it will just pressurize the room but won´t excite the room modes. The sound will stay precise and clean without the tendency of booming. Within the ´modal range´ of the room only the dipole bass is working which is known to affect the modes less and differently.
This way You can preserve the ESL´s clarity and precision into the lowest octaves and gain a large dynamic range that exceeds that of fullrange ESLs by far and even that of most pure dynamic speakers, reaching the capabilities of a horn system.
3- the amplitude response of the dipolar bass and of the ESL-panel imply the use of active drive (rem: not direct drive). Both need some serious equalizing which is best done with an active CR. To my taste a actively driven ESL sounds better in any case.
jauu
Calvin
the 400,00-rule stems from the old days of the BBC asaik.
What it basically suggests is that within the audio frequency range there is a correllation between upper und lower bandwidth limit which leads to a kind of ´even´ or balanced sound.
Extending the frequency range into just one of the two directions will put a undue distinction towards this frequency range.
A resticted frequency range of say 100Hz-4kHz (telephony) will sound more pleasing and balanced than one with a frequency range of 100Hz -20kHz.
Since it is an quite old rule and just a rule-of-thumb one shouldn´t take it too serious. A system providing 15Hz -22kHz provides for a greater than the audible range bandwidth. As such the rule won´t apply.
@MarkusG
A ESL panel will fit another ESL panel with same distribution character, right. A ESL panel bass will typiocally sound a bit soft with a strong tendency to a one-note bass. TLs also sound a bit soft and exhibit also a slight dip between 100Hz-200Hz. So there are sonical similarities which might have led to popularity of TLs as ESL partners. But it should be noted that the ESL alters its sonic character from the mid-highs to the bass profoundly from extremely open, precise and dynamic to soft and less precise with decreased dynamics. The alternative which keeps up the desired ESL characteristics in the bass is a change to a dynamic bass with preferrably the same distribution character.
This suggests the use of a dipolar dynamic base, regardless wether the panel features a dipolar ´point-source´ (with 2 distinct lobes) like the Quad ESL63 tried to accomplish, or wether it features a dipolar cylindrical distribution character like most strip-shaped panels exhibit.
You can shape the bass´s distribution from dipolar lobed to dipolar cylindrical by stacking several basses on top of each other till you reach a sufficient height. There are points with dipolar basses You have to keep in mind:
1- since the upper bandwidth limit is rather low, the CR-frequency has to be too.
2- since a dipolar bass doesn´t pressurize the room it sounds exceptionally precise and clear but misses on the slam one is used to hear. The more so the larger the room is. So it might be wishful or necessary to add a dedicated subwoofer, restricted to work below 50-60Hz. The dipolar cylindrical pattern which the bass performs at higher frequencies (at least one octave around the CR-frequency) smoothly transits into a dipolar lobed character with falling frequencies. The change from this shape to the monopolar shape of the subwoofer may happen smoothly too. If the transition to the subwoofer happens below the lowest room mode it will just pressurize the room but won´t excite the room modes. The sound will stay precise and clean without the tendency of booming. Within the ´modal range´ of the room only the dipole bass is working which is known to affect the modes less and differently.
This way You can preserve the ESL´s clarity and precision into the lowest octaves and gain a large dynamic range that exceeds that of fullrange ESLs by far and even that of most pure dynamic speakers, reaching the capabilities of a horn system.
3- the amplitude response of the dipolar bass and of the ESL-panel imply the use of active drive (rem: not direct drive). Both need some serious equalizing which is best done with an active CR. To my taste a actively driven ESL sounds better in any case.
jauu
Calvin
Last edited:
I don't think the debate about matching the "character" of the ESL to the character of the bass cone is useful. You want the best bass by all your usual criteria, not by some kind of matching concept.
Having said that, it may be true that you (or ESL fans generally) value certain qualities more than other folks. So you would start by examining what qualities you (or your room or your budget) like in a woofer, not what is the right match to ESL.
You have to be really careful about not confusing verbal or conceptual descriptions with inherent hearing descriptions. So it is unhelpful to say "the ESL has one-noteness" and the woofer has "one-noteness" so they are twins separated at birth. Those are verbal or conceptual tags with a hint of faux-Kantian philosophy.
Having said that, it may be true that you (or ESL fans generally) value certain qualities more than other folks. So you would start by examining what qualities you (or your room or your budget) like in a woofer, not what is the right match to ESL.
You have to be really careful about not confusing verbal or conceptual descriptions with inherent hearing descriptions. So it is unhelpful to say "the ESL has one-noteness" and the woofer has "one-noteness" so they are twins separated at birth. Those are verbal or conceptual tags with a hint of faux-Kantian philosophy.
Hi,
the thread´s theme is about Hybrid-ESLs and not how to mate a (sub-) bass to a fullrange ESL. As such the integration of bass and panel -or in an other word ´matching´- plays a vital role.
The Youwantthebestbassbyallyourusualcriteria-thinking has led to designs where bass and panel play by themselves as two easy to distinguish sources, known and badly regarded as typical hybrid sound. A hybrid aks for different than "usual criteria".
This thinking led to systems that generated the fairytale of the slow heavy bass and fast lightweight film that simply don´t fit together. You can´t get seemless integration of bass and panel if You don´t match their distibution characters. Its as simple as that. No tricky CR-circuit will do that. A strong change in distribution character always remains audible -in every speaker.
jauu
Calvin
the thread´s theme is about Hybrid-ESLs and not how to mate a (sub-) bass to a fullrange ESL. As such the integration of bass and panel -or in an other word ´matching´- plays a vital role.
The Youwantthebestbassbyallyourusualcriteria-thinking has led to designs where bass and panel play by themselves as two easy to distinguish sources, known and badly regarded as typical hybrid sound. A hybrid aks for different than "usual criteria".
This thinking led to systems that generated the fairytale of the slow heavy bass and fast lightweight film that simply don´t fit together. You can´t get seemless integration of bass and panel if You don´t match their distibution characters. Its as simple as that. No tricky CR-circuit will do that. A strong change in distribution character always remains audible -in every speaker.
jauu
Calvin
I'm with Calvin on this one, the ESL/Bass integration is what gave ML a semi bad rep.
Bass can sound very different on different speakers.
Bass can sound very different on different speakers.
In the universe where all speakers are perfect, yes, everything is "as simple as that." Being perfect, there is no need to compromise about getting ideal directivity, extended range, low distortion, etc. (just skip to my last paragraph if you feel perfection is your goal).
Neglecting for a moment the obvious impossibility of a cone woofer's directivity bearing the much similarity to any ESL directivity I ever heard of, there is the matter of whether directivity matters in the least at low frequency crossovers. A visit to the Geddes thread together with reading Toole's very opposite opinions on the subject of directivity, might suggest that there exists a substantial difference of opinion on the topic of directivity.
It still boils down to setting up a bass with a sound you like since there doesn't seem to be any specific Right Match enclosure, as simple as that.
And if there is a Right Match, I propose the Markus goes right out and buys two Klipschorn woofers, 'cuz I find that Just Right. Kidding for serious rhetorical purposes, of course.
Last edited:
Hi,
If either I speak english so badly that even a canadian can´t understand it, or You Ben are misinterpreting my writing purposely, I don´t know.
But I wasn´t talking about teoretical perfect worlds, perfection itself or directivity in special.
It has been proven -and I´m pretty sure that Mr. Gedde as well as Mr. Toole know about this- that a sharply changing distribution character is audible. No change at all or a smooth transition from one character to another is desirable.
A sharp change is the case when a monopolar distributing midbass driver crosses over to a dipolar distributing midhighs-transducer or a rather large diametered midbass crosses over to a small dome tweeter.
The problem raises even more when changing from a monopolar source to a dipolar cylindrical source, because here not only the distribution character changes, but the volume level behaviour over distance changes too.
The problem of course becomes especially obvious in a middle freq-range where our ears are very sensitive, which is just the case with Hybrids. So again, Ben, this is not talking about (sub-) bass, but its about hybrids with typical CR-frequencies of 200-500Hz, right in the mids (remember that the A-tone at 440Hz represents the middle of out hearing range).
It´s not about personal views or tastes. Its just applied acoustics....it´s as simple as that.
jauu
Calvin
If either I speak english so badly that even a canadian can´t understand it, or You Ben are misinterpreting my writing purposely, I don´t know.
But I wasn´t talking about teoretical perfect worlds, perfection itself or directivity in special.
It has been proven -and I´m pretty sure that Mr. Gedde as well as Mr. Toole know about this- that a sharply changing distribution character is audible. No change at all or a smooth transition from one character to another is desirable.
A sharp change is the case when a monopolar distributing midbass driver crosses over to a dipolar distributing midhighs-transducer or a rather large diametered midbass crosses over to a small dome tweeter.
The problem raises even more when changing from a monopolar source to a dipolar cylindrical source, because here not only the distribution character changes, but the volume level behaviour over distance changes too.
The problem of course becomes especially obvious in a middle freq-range where our ears are very sensitive, which is just the case with Hybrids. So again, Ben, this is not talking about (sub-) bass, but its about hybrids with typical CR-frequencies of 200-500Hz, right in the mids (remember that the A-tone at 440Hz represents the middle of out hearing range).
It´s not about personal views or tastes. Its just applied acoustics....it´s as simple as that.
jauu
Calvin
Calvin, your English is fine and much better than my French, German, or Italian. The problem isn't one of language but of meaning.
To avoid getting black marks, I will refrain from commenting on your paragraph attributing certain beliefs of yours to Toole and Geddes.
Now, I don't think there is any way to "match" a cone woofer to a dipole ESL with respect to directivity (taken as a simple dimension) or if you could make some kind of case for it, that it would be beneficial (assuming there is an audible experience called "directivity gap between woofer and midrange"*). I'd say the fastest way to clear up any differences of opinion about matching based on "directivity" would be for you to just tell us which type of enclosure, driver, mounting, and whatever provide the right match. Please.
*Pretty obscure, eh. An example would be deep but narrow holes in the frequency response. These are highly visible on FR chants but don't seem to be significantly hearable with music. Nobody would deny that a speaker''s directivity (taken as a multi-dimensional construct) has major audible consequences. The question is whether the gap is audible.
To avoid getting black marks, I will refrain from commenting on your paragraph attributing certain beliefs of yours to Toole and Geddes.
Now, I don't think there is any way to "match" a cone woofer to a dipole ESL with respect to directivity (taken as a simple dimension) or if you could make some kind of case for it, that it would be beneficial (assuming there is an audible experience called "directivity gap between woofer and midrange"*). I'd say the fastest way to clear up any differences of opinion about matching based on "directivity" would be for you to just tell us which type of enclosure, driver, mounting, and whatever provide the right match. Please.
*Pretty obscure, eh. An example would be deep but narrow holes in the frequency response. These are highly visible on FR chants but don't seem to be significantly hearable with music. Nobody would deny that a speaker''s directivity (taken as a multi-dimensional construct) has major audible consequences. The question is whether the gap is audible.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.