I know this comes to a matter of taste, but with wings it sounded more boxy and less open. Without wings, bass got weaker, but the whole musical experience was much better. Then the question was how to get the bass back, without sacrificing "openness". Slot loading the woofer(s) and a T-bass circuit did the trick 
I bought several of the 10 inch Velodynes over the past few years,
as Fry's occasionally puts a low price on them. They work pretty good
if all you need is below 100 Hz or so.
I don't have enough experience with Sub integration to know what frequency I'll crossover at; I'll play it by ear. My main speakers are spec'd at 55-20kHz, and I don't know if that is +/-1 or +/-3dB or what; I haven't measured, but they go down pretty far. For info, they're Manley ML-10's (Tannoy SGM-10 dual-concentric drivers with Mastering Lab crossover).
The motive in this implementation: it gives stereo subs (they say directionality is lost in low-frequencies, but I seem to be sensitive to subwoofer directionality), flying them conserves floorspace (and adds isolation from the floor and the rest of the building) and building them they conform to the rack space and are reasonable in cost.
While I'm here, I'll summarize my current design philosophy of speaker integration, from what I've read and compared with my listening experience. People can say anything; I do sometimes, but somethings tend to make sense. Here are some baselines I have begun working with as a point of departure. There are very many variables for full-range sound transduction, so I'll stick to basic low-mid driver for now.
Someone said that at least an 8" driver is required to reproduce vocals; another said that a cone larger than 10 inches will have what is called "cone breakup". I assume this relates mostly to paper cones on low/mid drivers; I tend to prefer paper cones here; for subwoofers, I imagine that any material can be used. And I think all of the current viable products I've seen have single or multiple 10" drivers and no 12" or larger (I don't know if this is primarily aesthetic or what ;-).
Ok, I'll go into my full-range philosophy. This is my opinion, since everyone has individual ears and minds. I have some experience, but only in the past few years have been building a studio and in as many years I have upgraded the speakers that many times, each time costing twice as much as the last.
At this point I think I reached the build/buy option. My listening here is near-/mid-field. In a larger room, maybe linear arrays of low/mid/high drivers work. I mentioned dipole surround speakers to a speaker manufacturer and the term "point-source" was brought up to me. So I began thinking about this and recalled that in electronics, "it all adds up".
In other words, for full-range speakers I am using 10" dual-concentrics; yes i have a pair of Fostex RP-60's for rear-surround. I had planned to use the 10" Thai dual-concentrics (for reference, this has been called Blue Monster) but I'm using one for the Center channel and another for a guitar amp. More on that later.
Last edited:
Nelson Pass ... why did you ditch the first rendition of the AMT-3 prototype? You don't indicate on your drawing whether the drivers' support panel extended all the way back to the "slot" sections inside corner. Did it? (... must have, right?) Also, the sketch of the side support should show just driver cut-outs ... not slots?
Hinged where the front "blank" baffle meets the slot might allow for additional response tweaking? Folding the drivers' panel in relation to the blank front panel.
Hinged where the front "blank" baffle meets the slot might allow for additional response tweaking? Folding the drivers' panel in relation to the blank front panel.
What I meant was why this current design is favored over your original configuration. Both seem to have their merits.I didn't ditch it - ESS did. Read the article and you will get the amusing
story of how that occurred.
I'm beginning to get it; so the hinged main baffle adjusts the ratio of front to back sound waves... kinda. It would require some engineering to allow the wings to adjust the swing both forward and backward. It's something to think about; have the hinge toward the edge of the driver.
This one allowed me to easily attached wings on the side to make
different baffle widths and also is more solid with regard to cancelling
the opposing forces of the woofers.
i don't know, if someone posted this already in this topic, but Thomas Dunker realised something similar back in 1996 :
SpeakerBuilding.com - Horn/dipole speakers and amplifiers, Page 1
SpeakerBuilding.com - Horn/dipole speakers and amplifiers, Page 1
Well after contemplating on whether or not I should, and reading most of this thread (there's a lot to read), I went ahead and purchased twelve of these...
Peerless India W8-12T 12P 8" Paper Cone Woofer 12 Ohm 299-068
The only thing that really concerns me about these drivers is the 2mm x-max. Yikes. However, with twelve of them running in unison and their high efficiency, I'm hoping the limited x-max won't be a problem. Not to mention I live on the second floor of an apartment, so I can't exactly blast my system anymore.
Then again, what I'm looking for out of this project is to 1) actually have a speaker project again (been away from it for too long), and 2) have a really decent, detailed, full open baffle design from top to bottom.
I am going to go a slightly different route with the baffle and keep them somewhat narrow, meaning I'll be making them into an oversized ripole style. Well actually, I'll be making the front of the baffles about 15" wide, then fold them back for a few more inches. For the top end, I'll probably be going with either a 10" or 12" coaxial driver.
The name of the game here is compactness yet a full bodied, full range sound with a full open baffle system.
Peerless India W8-12T 12P 8" Paper Cone Woofer 12 Ohm 299-068
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The only thing that really concerns me about these drivers is the 2mm x-max. Yikes. However, with twelve of them running in unison and their high efficiency, I'm hoping the limited x-max won't be a problem. Not to mention I live on the second floor of an apartment, so I can't exactly blast my system anymore.
Then again, what I'm looking for out of this project is to 1) actually have a speaker project again (been away from it for too long), and 2) have a really decent, detailed, full open baffle design from top to bottom.
I am going to go a slightly different route with the baffle and keep them somewhat narrow, meaning I'll be making them into an oversized ripole style. Well actually, I'll be making the front of the baffles about 15" wide, then fold them back for a few more inches. For the top end, I'll probably be going with either a 10" or 12" coaxial driver.
The name of the game here is compactness yet a full bodied, full range sound with a full open baffle system.
This may be a good option to complement the open baffle speakers I've been contemplating, in order to provide some bottom end. I was also thinking of using a couple of 8" drivers (the Vifa Mackie drivers sold as surplus a few years ago) in a pentagonal ported enclosure. I'd use the pentagonal cases as a base for my OB mid/HF assemblies.
Hi,
I've been wondering. So far this project has been focused on using an array 8" woofers to provide the "air movements". The issue with this is... you have to cut a lot of holes.... since the x-max for most 8" woofers are around 2~3mm. I was just thinking, what are the consequences of using a pair of 12" subwoofers with plenty of X-max to do the same job instead? for example this?
T3 Audio T200-12S4 12" 200 Watt Subwoofer 4 Ohm 269-086
How do you think the consequences would be?
Oon
I've been wondering. So far this project has been focused on using an array 8" woofers to provide the "air movements". The issue with this is... you have to cut a lot of holes.... since the x-max for most 8" woofers are around 2~3mm. I was just thinking, what are the consequences of using a pair of 12" subwoofers with plenty of X-max to do the same job instead? for example this?
T3 Audio T200-12S4 12" 200 Watt Subwoofer 4 Ohm 269-086
How do you think the consequences would be?
Oon
Hi,
I think most speakers in the original implementation of the slot, 6 X 8" would require bi-amping. there are no 8" bass woofers I know off with an efficiency of 98dB + ...
So in that sense it is a quite similar. Only the eminence beta solution will be able to provide a passive crossover... but it is not a true "slot" as it was in the original implementation.
Oon
I think most speakers in the original implementation of the slot, 6 X 8" would require bi-amping. there are no 8" bass woofers I know off with an efficiency of 98dB + ...
So in that sense it is a quite similar. Only the eminence beta solution will be able to provide a passive crossover... but it is not a true "slot" as it was in the original implementation.
Oon
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.