[QUOTE=jjasniew;662566
Measuring outdoors, 90 degrees off axis; 1st spectrum is with no reflector, second with the reflector covering just the rear half of the cone, third with the reflector structure covering most of the cone.
I get the feeling that to completely eliminate the dip at 5kHz, the reflector will have to intercept all of the speaker cone area. Which takes the upfiring effects of this speaker design with it.
In the past I have messed around with reflectors on upward firing speakers. I found what worked best for me was having the reflector over the front 50-90% of the driver, rather than the rear.
Measuring outdoors, 90 degrees off axis; 1st spectrum is with no reflector, second with the reflector covering just the rear half of the cone, third with the reflector structure covering most of the cone.
I get the feeling that to completely eliminate the dip at 5kHz, the reflector will have to intercept all of the speaker cone area. Which takes the upfiring effects of this speaker design with it.
In the past I have messed around with reflectors on upward firing speakers. I found what worked best for me was having the reflector over the front 50-90% of the driver, rather than the rear.
>I get the feeling that to completely eliminate the dip at 5kHz, the reflector will have to intercept all of the speaker cone area. Which takes the upfiring effects of this speaker design with it.
Yeah, unfortunately it's not working out like I hoped.
I have a pair of Pluvia HDs and a set of Alpair 5(A)s - what I'd really like is a cabinet arrangement where the Pluvia's fire up, the Alpairs fire front. Sort of a Castle style TL that can accommodate both drivers w/o having to "box up" the Alpairs internally.
Unsure if a modern, class D amp output's high damping factor would hold the little Alpair's cone stiff enough, for frequencies below a HP cutoff, say if each driver had it's own dedicated amp output. Otherwise it's going to be somewhat unfairly pushed upon by the larger Pluvia.
Sounds like another TL - with a driver at the far end, rather than at 1/3 of the line length. Again I'm left with the question, can the driver and port position be interchanged in a MLTL?
That will probably be my next investigation with these pipes I have the CHM50s in. Right now, I have the ML port firing at the carpet at the opposite end. I'm considering plugging that and making a new equivalent port 1/3 of the way up the line length -
And then as it's just a thick slot, do I orient it at a right angle to the line or along the line length? Right angle will make it more spot on the that magic 1/3 point, while along the line will make it "about" 1/3; 1/3 +/- 50mm vs 1/3 +/- 5mm... Choices, choices; decisions, decisions...
Yeah, unfortunately it's not working out like I hoped.
I have a pair of Pluvia HDs and a set of Alpair 5(A)s - what I'd really like is a cabinet arrangement where the Pluvia's fire up, the Alpairs fire front. Sort of a Castle style TL that can accommodate both drivers w/o having to "box up" the Alpairs internally.
Unsure if a modern, class D amp output's high damping factor would hold the little Alpair's cone stiff enough, for frequencies below a HP cutoff, say if each driver had it's own dedicated amp output. Otherwise it's going to be somewhat unfairly pushed upon by the larger Pluvia.
Sounds like another TL - with a driver at the far end, rather than at 1/3 of the line length. Again I'm left with the question, can the driver and port position be interchanged in a MLTL?
That will probably be my next investigation with these pipes I have the CHM50s in. Right now, I have the ML port firing at the carpet at the opposite end. I'm considering plugging that and making a new equivalent port 1/3 of the way up the line length -
And then as it's just a thick slot, do I orient it at a right angle to the line or along the line length? Right angle will make it more spot on the that magic 1/3 point, while along the line will make it "about" 1/3; 1/3 +/- 50mm vs 1/3 +/- 5mm... Choices, choices; decisions, decisions...
Last edited: