I might if I understood what the system looks like, but I don't. Do you have a drawing or a sketch?
Just to be clear, I am entertaining 18s on the sides of the enclosure, for active cardioid potential. The motors would be facing out, so I was wondering is where the limitation would be on the high side of the passband due to the unique geometry blocking the rear diaphragm.
Lets say that magnet is 7.5"...I guess that would limit me to about 450 hertz?
Last edited by a moderator:
This is what I am imagining
I think should be able to run the ride woofers up to the point where the Horn looses directivity. Then again if the front woofers aren't running that high does that even make sense, since, the side woofers aren't on the same axis horizontally, as the horn. So at the very least, I can cause some directivity down low, or just use the side woofers to correct the FR where It can and then use them as a monopole where no improvement needed, in an attempt to have the best bass response with only 2 sources.
I was wondering should I care about halving Q to about 0.64
I think should be able to run the ride woofers up to the point where the Horn looses directivity. Then again if the front woofers aren't running that high does that even make sense, since, the side woofers aren't on the same axis horizontally, as the horn. So at the very least, I can cause some directivity down low, or just use the side woofers to correct the FR where It can and then use them as a monopole where no improvement needed, in an attempt to have the best bass response with only 2 sources.
I was wondering should I care about halving Q to about 0.64
Last edited:
Cause I'm just realizing that the 18h+ is shallow enough that I don't have to do this.....🤦♂️
I am sort of confused on what limitations are going to be with this config.... Q goes up I guess that doesn't matter....outside woofers are separated by 32" so coupling only happens below 105hz..... The intentions where to create cardioid for LF directivity. The horn looses directivity ~423hz...
???
I am sort of confused on what limitations are going to be with this config.... Q goes up I guess that doesn't matter....outside woofers are separated by 32" so coupling only happens below 105hz..... The intentions where to create cardioid for LF directivity. The horn looses directivity ~423hz...
???
Last edited:
Very interesting and thank you for sharing.
I must be very tired... the correct response would have been....Because there is Not enough room to fit the magnet inside the box...the magnet of the other woofer is in the way. I'd have to widen the box some.
I've done multiple subs for more than 10 years and don't find it "weird". I find it the best bass that I have ever had.
And I also see why. It was the most smooth and clean bass I've ever heard. The wierd part was that it felt like being in an alternating pressure chamber. Difficult to orientate. The room was quite small like 14' deep, 11' wide and 8' high. I ended up rotating 90 degrees, thus having lsp along the long side and an WW-MTM-WW setup where all W were about 1/4 from every boundaries. Became relatively smooth but with a more coherent experience.
I'm curious to try again thought, still remember that rock solid low frequencies. In a few years, kids have to grow some more.
I bet; Direct and indirect sound coming from every which way depending on Frequency
Almost afraid to ask... I would of thought that youd guys preffer to keep the baffle widths more simular in width. Is it because of it being bass production and the relationship to the room?
I think acoustic elegance is known for how quiet their motor is. If any woofer motor was quiet itd be the 18H+
I personally have never seen a 56" Wide cabinet before. I guess if I consider that even at 56" wide the width remain Omni directional below 200hz XO. I can imagine how Dr. Geddes would continue on =) its just that at the Proximity I sit, a higher XO point is not desirable, yet the close proximity must remain as it is apart of the recipe for increasing accuracy and allure of nearfield monitoring. I was told that I was crazy to sit so close yet I've done so for several weeks and am very happy about it. That distance being anywhere from 56" to 24".... at such proximities there is simply too much sound energy in the mid range to cross at say 800hz and not be able to differentiate which source is playing what parts of the spectrum. Looking at my small two ways the CTC is so small that the 2.5khz doesn't have the same issue of obvious localization of divided source.
One question was; why am I adding woofers to the side. My answering being that I am trying to create the best FR I can, while using just the L and R channels, as well as adding some versatility. Active Cardioid seems to be the ticket.
This a pic of some of the polars I see with an indentically inverted response with a delay on the side woofers
There are various combinations of configurations to choose from. The main thing to think about is how in thee hell does one set up the filters, in situ???? Especially mixed phase as in cardioid and monopole in the same filter. I would like to think that I could just try to affect the areas of the FR that appeared to need improving, but after some thought, it would appear that Full Cardioid makes the most sense even for the areas where FR was smooth or EQ'ble to a more neutral response, because it would still further increase accuracy by lowering decay.... It would also be more simple to set up....I think... I just don't know. @gedlee I would imagine that you would have some ideas given your high level of understanding of whats happening in the room.
I'm pretty sure that Active cardioid is the ticket. But how to use it properly is the Key. There is no real time phase Eq that I know of. That tool would make it much easier to create a desired response, I'd think.
For set up insitu the only thing I can think to do is take a measurement of the Front Woofer, with mic somewhere on the side of the cabinet, likely directly in front of the Cardioid woofer..... Create that same response to be emitted from the corresponding cardioid woofer, and then invert the phase and add delay and adjust spl from the woofer until desired result.
Hopefully someone can explain my options. The Best piece of advice I have at this point is This positioning and I have no idea what happens if you remove the rear 2 sources... and in my basement the room will be a long rectangle so the rear subs would be behind the listener yet no wheres near the back wall.
Thank you for your continued guidance and sharing of wisdom
It looks like the cardioid effect is much stronger, the closer the sources are. I did figure that I can get the magnet inside of the box by going modular and making boxes that can attach to the sides of the current box. I was hoping to get more of your opinion. At potentially 56" wide I wonder should I just Build the Desk around the subs as well lol. Is there any particular thing about the reverse mount that detours you?
Figured I share this in the deadness of the thread.
at 200hz XO the optimal CTC would be about 17"....So I am off by about 1-2"... Coincidently this is about equal to how far away from optimal ctc spacing as these bad boys below, crossed at 3k...Thats a very good thing for the 36-56" listening distance that I find myself preferring with my speakers. Which is unheard of for a horned loudspeaker, as far as I am aware!
I always assumed I would be sacrificing some summation performance based on my experience with the last nearfield setup, crossing a mid to woofer at 130hz. Some how, this new system, seems to sum, better, even though I am some 70hz higher. something That was to high for the previous set up though CTC was closer and crossover lower. I could hear the woofer if I moved the XO higher. Because everything seems to be working so well together I reversed the woofer, turning it "upside down" in order to place the woofer at the floor, in order to improve the FR. Summation is still acceptable for me, even if slightly, not as not as good, still acceptable. Turning the box over moves the driver about 6" further down, but the FR improvement is welcome.
at 200hz XO the optimal CTC would be about 17"....So I am off by about 1-2"... Coincidently this is about equal to how far away from optimal ctc spacing as these bad boys below, crossed at 3k...Thats a very good thing for the 36-56" listening distance that I find myself preferring with my speakers. Which is unheard of for a horned loudspeaker, as far as I am aware!
I always assumed I would be sacrificing some summation performance based on my experience with the last nearfield setup, crossing a mid to woofer at 130hz. Some how, this new system, seems to sum, better, even though I am some 70hz higher. something That was to high for the previous set up though CTC was closer and crossover lower. I could hear the woofer if I moved the XO higher. Because everything seems to be working so well together I reversed the woofer, turning it "upside down" in order to place the woofer at the floor, in order to improve the FR. Summation is still acceptable for me, even if slightly, not as not as good, still acceptable. Turning the box over moves the driver about 6" further down, but the FR improvement is welcome.
Last edited: