Well, how many times have you heard a speaker with the tweeter not actually functioning? It may take us a while to even realize it's missing. We focus so much time and money on tweets, but the sheer amount of energy and music they produce is really relatively small, so I 100% believe you.
I think there is an underlying theme here. By placing the edge very similar to the drivers width, you have approximately no edge diffraction to deal with.
This easily understood. I think that with a large enough baffle you also cause diffraction to not be a major issue.
So what width would be enough and enough for what situation if aiming for wide baffle. When will there not be any driver induced directivity at 2khz? Approximately 6.5" is what I see. A crossband containing 2khz is definitely possible with a 1" tweeter. I believe that less work is needed to treat the edge when the dimension is large enough. The lesser deviation caused by edges at large dimension suggest that lesser technically perfect treatment needs to be implemented in order to achieve desired effect. Since ~423hz doesn't care much about the 90 degrees angle, a round over that satisfied the 2khz area would be plenty as the strongest note exist at whole wavelength not its harmonics. So if a certain roll over satisfies diffraction at a ~6.7" baffle, it would be over kill with the 32" baffle.
Less than a >1" is needed for a proper rollover of a baffle of ~6.7" wide, to deal with ~2khz so a baffle of 32" should be fine with the same. Thats my thought at least, I cannot simulate this to test the theory.
Last edited:
I've been struggling to settle on horn/driver combinations to use atop my pair of sealed Altec 416-8B midwoofers. The most likely candidates are SB Audience 65 CDNT, Yamaha JA6681B, B&C DCM50 and Radian 745neoBe.
Regarding the DCM50, I seen posts such as here https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=169189.0
https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/search/&q=dcm50&search_and_or=or where it seems as if others like me also have struggled with the dilemma of owning or wanting the benefits of high res horn speakers but troubled over how your less than pristine recordings will sound on them.
Indeed, so many of my treasured 60s pop and soundtrack music-many of which otherwise respectably recorded (fairly low noise and distortion)-were then deliberately mastered with lots of compression. No doubt this was done to make them playable on cheap vinyl players, or even the SOTA turntables of the day.
But in Troy Crowe's review of these drivers, please take time to watch this video entirely from 17:15 to the end.
Notice that during his listening test ratings, Troy gives the DMC50 a less than 10/10 rating for dynamic range. My question is would the B&C DMC50 be a much better choice for playing our over compressed recordings than one with more higher sensitivity, and thus more dynamic range, such as the Radian 745neoBE?
Comparing basic specs:
https://www.bcspeakers.com/en/products/hf-driver/archive/dcm50-8
https://www.usspeaker.com/radian 745neoBepb-1.htm
And might the DCM50 also be a better choice for playing compressed recordings because it uses a "composite" or paper diaphragm, rather than a beryllium one, like the 745neoBE?
Regarding the DCM50, I seen posts such as here https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=169189.0
https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/search/&q=dcm50&search_and_or=or where it seems as if others like me also have struggled with the dilemma of owning or wanting the benefits of high res horn speakers but troubled over how your less than pristine recordings will sound on them.
Indeed, so many of my treasured 60s pop and soundtrack music-many of which otherwise respectably recorded (fairly low noise and distortion)-were then deliberately mastered with lots of compression. No doubt this was done to make them playable on cheap vinyl players, or even the SOTA turntables of the day.
But in Troy Crowe's review of these drivers, please take time to watch this video entirely from 17:15 to the end.
Notice that during his listening test ratings, Troy gives the DMC50 a less than 10/10 rating for dynamic range. My question is would the B&C DMC50 be a much better choice for playing our over compressed recordings than one with more higher sensitivity, and thus more dynamic range, such as the Radian 745neoBE?
Comparing basic specs:
https://www.bcspeakers.com/en/products/hf-driver/archive/dcm50-8
https://www.usspeaker.com/radian 745neoBepb-1.htm
And might the DCM50 also be a better choice for playing compressed recordings because it uses a "composite" or paper diaphragm, rather than a beryllium one, like the 745neoBE?
Last edited:
Embedded compression and diaphragm composition have no relationship to eachother. Whichever material sounds ‘less worse’ to your ears…..well….that’s the one to get.
On a side note…..I’m pretty firm on the opinion that the word euphoria and compression drivers don’t belong in the same sentence……maybe even paragraph.
On a side note…..I’m pretty firm on the opinion that the word euphoria and compression drivers don’t belong in the same sentence……maybe even paragraph.
Exactly the intended yardstick; with such troubled recordings how else to go about driver and horn selection? And if I’m not mistaken, the Altec 416-8B midwoofer’s polar response and high sensitivity won’t work well with direct radiator drivers.
I gave my builder Troy Crowe access to these recordings via my Google drive (uncompressed WAV files of CD tracks from my collection), which I’m hoping he’ll have time to review. Meanwhile, I reasoned that at this thread someone might have actually heard the DCM50 with compressed recordings and could therefore possibly recommend it or even a more appropriate driver (for compressed recordings) for building a three, though ideally, a two-way system.
Which of these biradial horns might work best for the DCM50 and the sealed Altec 416-8B?
https://josephcrowe.com/products/3d-cad-files-horn-no-1994-es450-biradial-for-jbl-2446-2-throat
https://josephcrowe.com/products/3d-cad-plans-for-es-290-biradial-horn-horn-no-1670
If not, then something very different like the JMLC AH-340?
https://www.azurahorn.com/azurahorn_horns.html
Last edited:
IF I was looking for a euphoric driver to build a system for my very good to excellent sounding CD recordings I would simply build Pierre's system; see posts 15,266, 15,276.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/beyond-the-ariel.100392/page-764
Only difference would be that I would use a pair of Altec 416-8B midwoofers in sealed 4.2 cu ft, using Lynn Olson's design.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/beyond-the-ariel.100392/page-767
While Pierre reported that most of the ~ 50 WAV files of CD track rips off my Google Drive sounded compressed, he said that about four or so blew him away.
I wouldn't have to theoretical design knowledge to decide on that for the Altec midwoofers. I would have to leave that up to Troy who has my midwoofers and ran this test on them.
They were cloned from another's design for me by Jim Salk. https://www.salksound.com/ But the one thing I fear that may badly impact success is that in order to ensure very low IM distortion, the DIYer set the box size to 3 cu ft, so they only play down to 70Hz.
I do have two pairs of these subs. https://www.rythmikaudio.com/F12.html . Jim Salk assembled them with his own sealed cabinets.
https://www.salksound.com/model.php?model=Rythmik+12+Subwoofer
I'm hoping that, worst case, if I use all four subs at the right crossover points-and by using this multichannel DAC
https://www.merging.com/products/interfaces/hapi -it would help to minimize coloration.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a question or two about this statement. It's of interest to me both out of general curiosity, and more specifically because I'm about to build a big on-wall system in my rehearsal studio. As in, sufficiently big that it might as well be regarded as an in-wall system.
My main question is... why would this hurt imaging? What mechanism is at play? Is an in-wall missing something good (implying we want some extra localization clues from the speaker edges ????), or is something deleterious happening?
A soffit-mounted, or truly smoothly integrated in/on wall speaker could have little or any diffraction at all. Wouldn't a complete lack of time-delayed re-radiation from cabinet edges improve imaging?
I'm wondering if the bad imaging you've heard from soffit-mounted monitors might have been due to one or more of the following:
1) The speaker design. Perhaps large format, multi-way systems with the (large drivers, possibly in multiples) very spread out horizontally, maybe not very point-source-like to begin with?
2) Maybe the soffits aren't / weren't all that flush / seamless, or have other architectural features near them (like big windows into the studio?) that cause some of the same problems that a cabinet edge would?
3) They were mounted too far above ear level for a natural-sounding presentation?
4) There's a giant mixing desk sitting right between you and the speakers?
I've certainly seen all of the above, both in person, and in an awful lot of photos accompanying articles in Mix, etc.
Or... if there really is an inherent problem getting good imaging with in-wall speaker placement, could it be that having front-wall reflections coming from the same plane as the speakers is the culprit?
I could see the potential for that being aurally confusing. If so, perhaps diffusion or absorption on/around the speakers could help.
Speaking of Altecs, please look over my posts on this page.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...gh-end-midrange-you-have-heard.405952/page-14
As I can't see myself scraping those 3 cu ft sealed cabinets and starting over with ideally sized ones, like Lynn Olson's building,
how successful might my multi-sub idea minimize upper bass coloration, or other problems?
