to everyone responding and to Dr. Griffin and Andy, I will look at the peerless midbass drivers, I went to Miniscus and they have three types, Aluminum, Magnesium and Fiberglass cones with prices from $60 to $116 for the mag. I looked at all types of 5" cones that they sell and came away with the Max Fidelty knock off of the Dynaudio 5" poly pro cone as one to investigate and test as the mid bass. The reasoning was Mark's (meniscus designer) felt that the cone material was easier to integrate with the Fountex ribbons (among many other things). Unfortunately he didn't have a spec sheet and I can't find a web site for them.
So if anyone has seen a spec sheet for them let me know.
My 2nd choice was the Eton hexacone but I didn't like the price.
I checked out the Silver Flute Chinese drivers and they look ok but I will have to test because again no spec's.
Dr. Griffin, I notice that you are using digital eq for your new pair, how costly is this? Can you share your mid bass driver crossover
specs? I am not familiar with the CSS line, can you give me their name so I can look up the mid bass driver on the internet? thanks, dave
So if anyone has seen a spec sheet for them let me know.
My 2nd choice was the Eton hexacone but I didn't like the price.
I checked out the Silver Flute Chinese drivers and they look ok but I will have to test because again no spec's.
Dr. Griffin, I notice that you are using digital eq for your new pair, how costly is this? Can you share your mid bass driver crossover
specs? I am not familiar with the CSS line, can you give me their name so I can look up the mid bass driver on the internet? thanks, dave
Here's the link for CSS. http://www.creativesound.ca/
The FR125 and the WR125 are nearly identical with only some small changes the smooth and extend the top end to make the FR full range. Both have been discussed extensively in over in the full range forum and appear to be ideal for arrays (not quite sensitive enough for my taste in a normal speaker), especially since they have a 16ohm model with a truncated frame. Also with the XBL2 technology giving you unheard of excursion in a small driver an array probably won't even need a sub.
The FR125 and the WR125 are nearly identical with only some small changes the smooth and extend the top end to make the FR full range. Both have been discussed extensively in over in the full range forum and appear to be ideal for arrays (not quite sensitive enough for my taste in a normal speaker), especially since they have a 16ohm model with a truncated frame. Also with the XBL2 technology giving you unheard of excursion in a small driver an array probably won't even need a sub.
New Line Array Details
I procured my drivers--the CSS WR125S woofers and the Aurum Cantus G3i-130 ribbons--from www.creativesound.ca. Bob Reimer of CSS is the contact. The ribbons were a special order through Bob.
I'm working with CSS and Al Wooley of RAW on a possible offer of this design as a kit or as a completely built unit. The future may hold an option for a passive crossover for those folks who don't want to go the active digital crossover route. All of this would be several weeks away and more work before realization.
Jim
I procured my drivers--the CSS WR125S woofers and the Aurum Cantus G3i-130 ribbons--from www.creativesound.ca. Bob Reimer of CSS is the contact. The ribbons were a special order through Bob.
I'm working with CSS and Al Wooley of RAW on a possible offer of this design as a kit or as a completely built unit. The future may hold an option for a passive crossover for those folks who don't want to go the active digital crossover route. All of this would be several weeks away and more work before realization.
Jim
daly2k said:
Spec sheet URLs in this earlier post:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=736233#post736233
dave
line array speaker project
Dr. Griffin, I am interested in hearing about your digital equalization, did you buy a stock unit? I have seen a thread inquiring about a group purchase, what model would you recommend? I am exploring your suggestions and I have talked to Danny over at GR research who is developing a mid-bass driver which has not been delivered. I am awaiting his feedback.
thanks, dave
Dr. Griffin, I am interested in hearing about your digital equalization, did you buy a stock unit? I have seen a thread inquiring about a group purchase, what model would you recommend? I am exploring your suggestions and I have talked to Danny over at GR research who is developing a mid-bass driver which has not been delivered. I am awaiting his feedback.
thanks, dave
Daly2k,
I'm using a DEQX processor (see www.deqx.com). It is a measurement based system that can do up to a 3-way crossover, equalization, room correction, preamp function (both digital and analog inputs), D/A, speaker measurements, remote volume control, etc. The crossover calibration simultaneously accounts for time, phase , and frequency. The down side is its $3000-$3750 cost. Now the Behringer 2496 DCX and DEQ combo has some of this functionality at about $550 total.
A passive crossover can be implemeneted with my design which would reduce the cost versus an active system. Keep in mind though with the 18 A-C G3i-130 ribbon drivers and 24 CSS WR125S drivers you are likely in the more than $3000 range for the line array drivers alone.
Jim
I'm using a DEQX processor (see www.deqx.com). It is a measurement based system that can do up to a 3-way crossover, equalization, room correction, preamp function (both digital and analog inputs), D/A, speaker measurements, remote volume control, etc. The crossover calibration simultaneously accounts for time, phase , and frequency. The down side is its $3000-$3750 cost. Now the Behringer 2496 DCX and DEQ combo has some of this functionality at about $550 total.
A passive crossover can be implemeneted with my design which would reduce the cost versus an active system. Keep in mind though with the 18 A-C G3i-130 ribbon drivers and 24 CSS WR125S drivers you are likely in the more than $3000 range for the line array drivers alone.
Jim
Jim Griffin said:
The cost of DCX and DEQ is only a fraction of the driver cost. Have you considered the possibility of offering the kit with DCX settings sort of like Newform does?
Ultrachrome,
The use of a Behringer DCX (or DCX and DEQ) would be a lower cost alternative. Likely, if you could get by with the DCX only (you still need extra amps for bi-amping), then the active crossover would be about equal or lower cost vs. a passive crossover with good quality components. But keep in mind that a lot of folks just want a plug and play speaker without fussing with extra amps and cables.
Jim
The use of a Behringer DCX (or DCX and DEQ) would be a lower cost alternative. Likely, if you could get by with the DCX only (you still need extra amps for bi-amping), then the active crossover would be about equal or lower cost vs. a passive crossover with good quality components. But keep in mind that a lot of folks just want a plug and play speaker without fussing with extra amps and cables.
Jim
Jim Griffin said:
Agreed. I'm one of those folks. I long to remove the DCX from between my midwoofer and tweeter but I have to learn SoundEasy first.
I thought it might be valuable as a "early adopter" option.
line array speaker project
Dr. Griffin and Ultrachrome--For project budget reasons I will do a passive crossover. I have read all the threads in www.audiocircle.com for the Selah and GR Research circles, I have also read Dr. Griffins paper on line arrays and many of the papers found in the AES library and Audioxpress. I am still trying to decide on drivers. Do either of you have an opinion on planar tweeters (like the Neo 8) or the Fountex Ribbon designs? There seems to be plusses and minus to both. The Planars can be crossed over lower (allowing for bigger mid woofs--6" or so) and are less expensive but the ribbons have more top end air but require smaller and faster mid-woofers (due to a higher crossover pt and dispersion) and are more expensive. I can live with either but I have more experience with the ribbon sound based on my Maggie 3.6r's.
Danny from GR research has made me feel more comfortable with using the plannars but I am concerned with having the best top end possible. I can live with 50hz on the bottom since I have subs. The decision on the mid bass driver is my current dilema since there are so many to choose from and I have to get it right.
If I can decide on the tweeter issue this would help the next decision. I would be interested in any opinions please advise. thanks, dave
Dr. Griffin and Ultrachrome--For project budget reasons I will do a passive crossover. I have read all the threads in www.audiocircle.com for the Selah and GR Research circles, I have also read Dr. Griffins paper on line arrays and many of the papers found in the AES library and Audioxpress. I am still trying to decide on drivers. Do either of you have an opinion on planar tweeters (like the Neo 8) or the Fountex Ribbon designs? There seems to be plusses and minus to both. The Planars can be crossed over lower (allowing for bigger mid woofs--6" or so) and are less expensive but the ribbons have more top end air but require smaller and faster mid-woofers (due to a higher crossover pt and dispersion) and are more expensive. I can live with either but I have more experience with the ribbon sound based on my Maggie 3.6r's.
Danny from GR research has made me feel more comfortable with using the plannars but I am concerned with having the best top end possible. I can live with 50hz on the bottom since I have subs. The decision on the mid bass driver is my current dilema since there are so many to choose from and I have to get it right.
If I can decide on the tweeter issue this would help the next decision. I would be interested in any opinions please advise. thanks, dave
Dave,
Especially, since you want to go passive, a mid that offers a high degree of flexibility is even more important and greatly improve the chances of obtaining a sound that is right for you.
Dr Griffin is even using the WR125 , so that's good enough for me.
As far as crossovers go, you may even prefer running the mids full range and a simple 1st order on your planars or ribbons. I find the comb filtering effects of running your mids too high based on the CTC spacing to be grossly overstated in this forum and that the results is more just a general suppression of the high end (which is where the tweets come into play). This is consistent with what I hear at concerts where line arrays are used, just a general suppression of the high end.
There's a lot to be said for allowing a driver to handle the bulk of the frequency range, and line arrays make it even easier for a driver to do so because each does very little work.
Especially, since you want to go passive, a mid that offers a high degree of flexibility is even more important and greatly improve the chances of obtaining a sound that is right for you.
Dr Griffin is even using the WR125 , so that's good enough for me.
As far as crossovers go, you may even prefer running the mids full range and a simple 1st order on your planars or ribbons. I find the comb filtering effects of running your mids too high based on the CTC spacing to be grossly overstated in this forum and that the results is more just a general suppression of the high end (which is where the tweets come into play). This is consistent with what I hear at concerts where line arrays are used, just a general suppression of the high end.
There's a lot to be said for allowing a driver to handle the bulk of the frequency range, and line arrays make it even easier for a driver to do so because each does very little work.
Re: line array speaker project
Those have probably spoiled you for anything but a real ribbon. For an ultimate line array you might well rip apart a couple Maggies for their ribbons and load the midbasses in an OB.
I concur with John on seriously considering the WR125. To my mind its only downside is its efficiency, but that pretty much goes away in a LA. with extension to 12k, good horizontal dispersion to 4-5k, and bass that you think is coming from a 6" driver (the last the reason for the efficiency -- no getting around Hoffman's Iron Law), they make a very versatile driver. They are also very easy to load. Put them in a 7-15 litre/driver sealed box (today i'm listening to them in 15 litre sealed) or 5-10 litre aperiodic. With that many you could also probably be really happy with an OB.
dave
daly2k said:
Those have probably spoiled you for anything but a real ribbon. For an ultimate line array you might well rip apart a couple Maggies for their ribbons and load the midbasses in an OB.
I concur with John on seriously considering the WR125. To my mind its only downside is its efficiency, but that pretty much goes away in a LA. with extension to 12k, good horizontal dispersion to 4-5k, and bass that you think is coming from a 6" driver (the last the reason for the efficiency -- no getting around Hoffman's Iron Law), they make a very versatile driver. They are also very easy to load. Put them in a 7-15 litre/driver sealed box (today i'm listening to them in 15 litre sealed) or 5-10 litre aperiodic. With that many you could also probably be really happy with an OB.
dave
line array speaker project
Planet 10--I am trying to reach creative sound to find out the cost for the WR125's and the new FR125's. They have not responded yet to my e-mail or phone calls???
I am also awaiting Danny or GR Research to finish testing his new design for a mid bass line array driver. It will cost less than the WR125's, and I think it goes lower in the bass but Danny likes the Planar tweeters which he can cross over down to 1k. I don't know what the ideal crossover pt will be for his new driver design.
I am also studying 5" mid bass drivers from Audax (hm130) and the F5 from Hi-Vi research.
What is your experience with the bass response and dispersion of the WR 125's? thanks, dave
Planet 10--I am trying to reach creative sound to find out the cost for the WR125's and the new FR125's. They have not responded yet to my e-mail or phone calls???
I am also awaiting Danny or GR Research to finish testing his new design for a mid bass line array driver. It will cost less than the WR125's, and I think it goes lower in the bass but Danny likes the Planar tweeters which he can cross over down to 1k. I don't know what the ideal crossover pt will be for his new driver design.
I am also studying 5" mid bass drivers from Audax (hm130) and the F5 from Hi-Vi research.
What is your experience with the bass response and dispersion of the WR 125's? thanks, dave
Re: line array speaker project
Bob is a one man show -- just as i am.
You have mail (didn't think it appropropriate to put the rest of my response on the forum) -- just heading out the door, so won't be able to respond till this evening.
dave
daly2k said:
Bob is a one man show -- just as i am.
You have mail (didn't think it appropropriate to put the rest of my response on the forum) -- just heading out the door, so won't be able to respond till this evening.
dave
Re: line array speaker project
I'm listening to WR125s (with an ApexJr T -- XO is a 1.8 uF Solen) in a 14-15 litre sealed box. I am quite pleased with this combo. One of the biggest tasks with the WRs & FRs is taming the bass -- far too often i have heard them & the bass was just too much (quite the thing to say about a 4 1/2" driver).
Off axis is quite good -- alot of my casual listenng is off to the side -- i can just see the speaker grills. Serious listening is in the far field and the sweet spot is fairly wide.
The technical sheets have a graph of the measured on & off axis response.... attached below.
dave
daly2k said:
I'm listening to WR125s (with an ApexJr T -- XO is a 1.8 uF Solen) in a 14-15 litre sealed box. I am quite pleased with this combo. One of the biggest tasks with the WRs & FRs is taming the bass -- far too often i have heard them & the bass was just too much (quite the thing to say about a 4 1/2" driver).
Off axis is quite good -- alot of my casual listenng is off to the side -- i can just see the speaker grills. Serious listening is in the far field and the sweet spot is fairly wide.
The technical sheets have a graph of the measured on & off axis response.... attached below.
dave
Attachments
line array project
Planet 10, I would like to be able to build a sealed box or an accoustic suspension type design for the mid bass since I will be using ribbons. Therefore I would like to crossover the woofers to my subs at 50hz for blending. I wouldn't want to run the subs much higher due to the mismatch in speed. Will 12
FR's or WR's be able to go this low? Dave
Planet 10, I would like to be able to build a sealed box or an accoustic suspension type design for the mid bass since I will be using ribbons. Therefore I would like to crossover the woofers to my subs at 50hz for blending. I wouldn't want to run the subs much higher due to the mismatch in speed. Will 12
FR's or WR's be able to go this low? Dave
Caution on Arrayed Drivers
Do not assume that you can use full range drivers or drivers with extended responses in an array and achieve the same extended performance as for an individual driver. The best way to confirm is via measurements of the array but you'll find that the woofer line in an array will lose directivity and start falling apart (sensitivity rolls off) beyond one wavelength center to center spacing. Other researchers caution against going beyond a half wavelength c-t-c. See the white paper for discussion.
Finally, I would not recommend using single order crossovers with ribbon drivers in an array. You are asking for distortion/damage if you do this! I'm using a 96 dB/octave crossover with my new array but with the DEQX everything comes out ideally for time, phase, and frequency. DSP is wonderful.
Jim
Do not assume that you can use full range drivers or drivers with extended responses in an array and achieve the same extended performance as for an individual driver. The best way to confirm is via measurements of the array but you'll find that the woofer line in an array will lose directivity and start falling apart (sensitivity rolls off) beyond one wavelength center to center spacing. Other researchers caution against going beyond a half wavelength c-t-c. See the white paper for discussion.
Finally, I would not recommend using single order crossovers with ribbon drivers in an array. You are asking for distortion/damage if you do this! I'm using a 96 dB/octave crossover with my new array but with the DEQX everything comes out ideally for time, phase, and frequency. DSP is wonderful.
Jim
Re: line array project
FR is down 8 dB at 50 Hz in a large sealed (by the sims)... WR should be a bit less.
dave
daly2k said:
FR is down 8 dB at 50 Hz in a large sealed (by the sims)... WR should be a bit less.
dave
Re: Caution on Arrayed Drivers
Jim,
Is this true even if you are crossing high, say in the 8-10khz range where response falls off naturally?
Secondly, isn't all the ctc spacing theory based on the premise that sound originates from the center of a point source driver ? Since this is a false premise, is that why my real world results are at least of full octave of more extension (2 octaves for 1/2 wl spacing) as long as the drivers goes that high ? I would speculate that the hard research has been focused on much larger drivers used for pro sound arrays and with these little 4-4.5" drivers the higher frequencies are eminating from a much higher percentage of the cone diameter.
Jim Griffin said:
Jim,
Is this true even if you are crossing high, say in the 8-10khz range where response falls off naturally?
Secondly, isn't all the ctc spacing theory based on the premise that sound originates from the center of a point source driver ? Since this is a false premise, is that why my real world results are at least of full octave of more extension (2 octaves for 1/2 wl spacing) as long as the drivers goes that high ? I would speculate that the hard research has been focused on much larger drivers used for pro sound arrays and with these little 4-4.5" drivers the higher frequencies are eminating from a much higher percentage of the cone diameter.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.