I would disagree. I have done a few & many drawings. Mirror image is essential. If one can get C-C within a quarter wavelength lobeing goes away
dave
Last edited:
The woofer's vent has enough space (look more closely), again though - I didn't provide the link with respect to the *acoustical design of the loudspeaker.
Instead I provided the link with respect to the construction of the hardwood baffle in relation to the box and drivers. Not only does it provide for expansion and contraction of the hardwood, it does so while also allowing back-mounting of the drivers with the ability to get back to the drivers again if needed/desired.
Notably if someone is going to the trouble of having hardwood for a baffle that they will likely NOT desire the aesthetics of showing the driver's frame and bolts - in other words: they will likely want the drivers back-mount on the baffle if at all possible.
*I didn't particularly like the T-Line either, but again: not the point of my post.
So you don't like the acoustic design and felt the need to dismiss what was actually offered based on that, yes?
Felt (past tense)
^I'm not "putting words in your mouth".
Also, how much "research" is really required?
-it starts almost 3 minutes into a 9 minute video ..maybe a few extra minutes to stop and look at critical areas? Probably not much more time than it takes to make a few replies on this thread.
^I'm not "putting words in your mouth".
Also, how much "research" is really required?
-it starts almost 3 minutes into a 9 minute video ..maybe a few extra minutes to stop and look at critical areas? Probably not much more time than it takes to make a few replies on this thread.
I don’t care to do it, if I want solid I have Bernie, I hope the OP found stuff as quickly as you
dave
dave
With respect to MTM's.. (though it's been a long time), there was an MTM (dome mid.) from I think AR that looked rather like a Quad/Dahlquist that was reviewed in Stereophile (probably late '90's), but after searching for it I can't seem to find it. 
(..it had a very narrow "baffle" for the MTM portion with about a 12" woofer below it and a front fabric grill that was shaped like a Quad electrostat.)
This one pre-dates the design I'm thinking of by a few years (and while not having dome mid.s you can get the basic idea):
(..it had a very narrow "baffle" for the MTM portion with about a 12" woofer below it and a front fabric grill that was shaped like a Quad electrostat.)
This one pre-dates the design I'm thinking of by a few years (and while not having dome mid.s you can get the basic idea):
Last edited:
Auditioned those years ago at a shop in downtown NYC…..excellent from what I recallWith respect to MTM's.. (though it's been a long time), there was an MTM (dome mid.) from I think AR that looked rather like a Quad/Dahlquist that was reviewed in Stereophile (probably late '90's), but after searching for it I can't seem to find it.
(..it had a very narrow "baffle" for the MTM portion with about a 12" woofer below it and a front fabric grill that was shaped like a Quad electrostat.)
This one pre-dates the design I'm thinking of by a few years (and while not having dome mid.s you can get the basic idea):
View attachment 1106928
👍 😎
It was a good-looking design (though I'm a bit biased to panel-esq loudspeakers); never heard them myself. If I remember correctly the crossover was steep - like maybe LR4th and likely as low as practical for the tweeter (..guessing near 1.8 kHz) though I could be wrong on both counts.
I've thought about this a bit and really no other mid-dome MTM's commercial loudspeakers come to (my) mind other than those already mentioned, in fact I can't even remember any DIY loudspeakers that were MTM's with domes (..though several that had one mid dome per loudspeaker).
It was a good-looking design (though I'm a bit biased to panel-esq loudspeakers); never heard them myself. If I remember correctly the crossover was steep - like maybe LR4th and likely as low as practical for the tweeter (..guessing near 1.8 kHz) though I could be wrong on both counts.
I've thought about this a bit and really no other mid-dome MTM's commercial loudspeakers come to (my) mind other than those already mentioned, in fact I can't even remember any DIY loudspeakers that were MTM's with domes (..though several that had one mid dome per loudspeaker).
Last edited:
https://web.archive.org/web/20010124051200/http://www.dunlavyaudio.com/tech/cones_panel.html
John Dunlavy only used dome mids on the early versions of the SC-V, and they had problems holding up. He switched to conventional 3" Vifa cones in later versions, somewhere between pairs 150 & 175 from what I've been able to track down. I think his whitepaper does a good job explaining why he would have ditched domes and went with cones.
John Dunlavy only used dome mids on the early versions of the SC-V, and they had problems holding up. He switched to conventional 3" Vifa cones in later versions, somewhere between pairs 150 & 175 from what I've been able to track down. I think his whitepaper does a good job explaining why he would have ditched domes and went with cones.
Some (early) Prototypes and some speakers:
2", 2,5" and 3" midrange domes.
But nowerdays I only use one midrange dome, I prefer the sound over 2.
2", 2,5" and 3" midrange domes.
But nowerdays I only use one midrange dome, I prefer the sound over 2.
