I was shocked about the quality of commercial subwoofers in the price range of the Ciares. Seems that I don`t get around building a FAST concept. I am thinking about the HW250, looking to the middle (maybe even sealed, Fs should be low enough. An alternative would be two equivalent 4Ohm car woofers per box in series, the second one looking to the side. Ciare also have a passive radiator, but I know virtually nothing about that concept.
By the way, I find it interesting that the dipole pioneers Mirage have completely switched to semi-omnis. In my opinion dipole sound is an effect, omni sound is the real thing. You hear that most clearly with recordings made with omnidirectional microphones (in my opinion the best recordings for conventional speakers). With dipoles these sound diffuse like a set of BOSE cubes.
By the way, I find it interesting that the dipole pioneers Mirage have completely switched to semi-omnis. In my opinion dipole sound is an effect, omni sound is the real thing. You hear that most clearly with recordings made with omnidirectional microphones (in my opinion the best recordings for conventional speakers). With dipoles these sound diffuse like a set of BOSE cubes.
Cmon,el`Ol said:
dipole and omni are just the opposite ends of room-interaction-philosophy. The Mirage switch to omnis is clearly marketing based IMHO: smaller, more suitable for fashionable HT and easier sellable to the common customer.
BTW: Could you name some of those records that sound so bad with dipoles? I would like to have a listen.
Hello Rudolf!
I have an old BIS analog recording done with the Sennheiser MKH20 (this label always prints the recording equipment on the CDs. When you record with omnidirectional microphones you need a disc or sphere between them. These techniques have their origin in the same time as the cardioid microphones, which happened to be so successful on the market that the omnis were almost forgotten.
Greets, Oliver
I have an old BIS analog recording done with the Sennheiser MKH20 (this label always prints the recording equipment on the CDs. When you record with omnidirectional microphones you need a disc or sphere between them. These techniques have their origin in the same time as the cardioid microphones, which happened to be so successful on the market that the omnis were almost forgotten.
Greets, Oliver
Scottmoose said:
Hi Scott. The problem I had is that the birch seems to have been cut at right angles to the grain and was quite rough. Much hand sanding with the grain has given an acceptable finish....fortunatly the plys seem to be quite thick and will stand this amount of sanding. I have not come across any voids in the 3 sheets I have used and it machines very easily.
When I applied the first coat of Danish oil I did get the typical blotchy finish but the secret is to rub it in across the grain quite hard. By the second coat the finish was quite even
Unfortunatly our sitting room is quite dark and only realy gets any sun in the summer but, yes, I am quite pleased with the finish!
NurEinTier said:
These speakers have had decent reveiws i the UK but I have yet to hear any. Certainly an interesting idea that I shall bear in mind.
Another speaker that I drew inspiration from (apart from the obvious Shahinians) is the Samadhi Ichiban.
Paul.
And here would be a nice driver for Paul`s design (marvellous 45°-response).
http://www.eighteensound.it/index.aspx?mainMenu=view_product&pid=243
http://www.eighteensound.it/index.aspx?mainMenu=view_product&pid=243
Omnidirectional balls
Here is a post I put at another forum:
Hi all,
Just thought some of you might be interested in seeing pictures of a pair of omni-directional speakers I made.
Each speaker has nine 4" fullrange drivers mounted on the facets of the ball-shaped enclosure pointing at different angles, with one driver pointing directly at the listener.
I built these speakers a long time ago (~15 years? Time flies.). They were initially fitted with some drivers supposedly of the type used in an older version of the Bose 901 speaker. I never bothered building the Bose EQ circuit for boosting the high and low of those drivers. The speakers, however, did not sound too good without EQ, and I spent very little time playing with them.
Last weekend, I replaced all the Bose-type drivers on the speakers with 4" fullrange drivers that I got from PartsExpress a long time ago for 69 cents each. Those 4" drivers supposedly go up to 20K, although the frequency response posted by someone else for that driver was pretty uneven above 10KHz. This driver substitution seems to have worked out well. There are improvements in both the bass and treble. The sound is actually pretty listenable. The bass is a bit weak but not too bad, and has enough extension to allow matching with a subwoofer. To my ears, there is enough high-frequency information, although someone else may prefer adding a super-tweeter.
Interestingly, the imaging is fairly well focused, instead of being vague or diffused as one might expect from the Bose 901. This is perhaps because there is only one driver in Bose 901 firing forward while these ball speakers each has 5 drivers in the sight of the listener, so the direct sound is not swamped out by the reflected sound. The most interesting thing about the sound of these speakers is the presentation of perceived sound sources in the soundstage. The soundstage is wide and deep like that produced by dipolar or OB speakers. Nevertheless, there is something different about the sound that is kind of hard to describe. My initial impression is that the instrucments and voices seem to be depicted with more depth or "3-D" quality, but I need to listen to them more to have a better understanding.
Kurt
http://groups.msn.com/AudioNutPhilosopher/shoebox.msnw?Page=Last
Here is a post I put at another forum:
Hi all,
Just thought some of you might be interested in seeing pictures of a pair of omni-directional speakers I made.
Each speaker has nine 4" fullrange drivers mounted on the facets of the ball-shaped enclosure pointing at different angles, with one driver pointing directly at the listener.
I built these speakers a long time ago (~15 years? Time flies.). They were initially fitted with some drivers supposedly of the type used in an older version of the Bose 901 speaker. I never bothered building the Bose EQ circuit for boosting the high and low of those drivers. The speakers, however, did not sound too good without EQ, and I spent very little time playing with them.
Last weekend, I replaced all the Bose-type drivers on the speakers with 4" fullrange drivers that I got from PartsExpress a long time ago for 69 cents each. Those 4" drivers supposedly go up to 20K, although the frequency response posted by someone else for that driver was pretty uneven above 10KHz. This driver substitution seems to have worked out well. There are improvements in both the bass and treble. The sound is actually pretty listenable. The bass is a bit weak but not too bad, and has enough extension to allow matching with a subwoofer. To my ears, there is enough high-frequency information, although someone else may prefer adding a super-tweeter.
Interestingly, the imaging is fairly well focused, instead of being vague or diffused as one might expect from the Bose 901. This is perhaps because there is only one driver in Bose 901 firing forward while these ball speakers each has 5 drivers in the sight of the listener, so the direct sound is not swamped out by the reflected sound. The most interesting thing about the sound of these speakers is the presentation of perceived sound sources in the soundstage. The soundstage is wide and deep like that produced by dipolar or OB speakers. Nevertheless, there is something different about the sound that is kind of hard to describe. My initial impression is that the instrucments and voices seem to be depicted with more depth or "3-D" quality, but I need to listen to them more to have a better understanding.
Kurt
http://groups.msn.com/AudioNutPhilosopher/shoebox.msnw?Page=Last
Here is my thread of diy omnidirectional tweeter. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1048860#post1048860
The bass speaker starts to fall in response from +/- 3000 hz when it 30 degrees out of axle, so its not really nescessary to make the bass unit radiating 360 degr. imo. But these are filtered @3200 Hz.
The bass speaker starts to fall in response from +/- 3000 hz when it 30 degrees out of axle, so its not really nescessary to make the bass unit radiating 360 degr. imo. But these are filtered @3200 Hz.
have you considered?
something like a Metronome with the driver on the top firing straight up into a deflector of some kind? Since you said "on the cheap" it would seem that some kind of back loaded horn with the driver firing up might you there. I ran across a patent (new) the other night that was nothing more than this. Could even be a MLTL design or whatever. If you used a driver (full range) with a wizzer cone your deflector could be a solid cone that actually intruded into the centre of the wizzer acting as a kind of phase plug at the same time. If you decide on a wizzerless driver then you could remove the dust cap and extend the point of the deflector right down into the cone and physically fix it to the pole piece and still have a phase plug effect. Just make sure that there is room for cone travel without hitting anything.
You could experiment with a FR driver in an existing box facing up just to see what kind of impact different experimental deflectors have on the dispersion. No need to start from the ground up. If you like the results then you can then work on the loading system you like best for bass reproduction and combine the two at that point. Sounds like a fun project. Regards Moray James.
something like a Metronome with the driver on the top firing straight up into a deflector of some kind? Since you said "on the cheap" it would seem that some kind of back loaded horn with the driver firing up might you there. I ran across a patent (new) the other night that was nothing more than this. Could even be a MLTL design or whatever. If you used a driver (full range) with a wizzer cone your deflector could be a solid cone that actually intruded into the centre of the wizzer acting as a kind of phase plug at the same time. If you decide on a wizzerless driver then you could remove the dust cap and extend the point of the deflector right down into the cone and physically fix it to the pole piece and still have a phase plug effect. Just make sure that there is room for cone travel without hitting anything.
You could experiment with a FR driver in an existing box facing up just to see what kind of impact different experimental deflectors have on the dispersion. No need to start from the ground up. If you like the results then you can then work on the loading system you like best for bass reproduction and combine the two at that point. Sounds like a fun project. Regards Moray James.
Hi Moray
I have build a pair Mass loaded TQWP's with a 10 cm Full range Visaton FR10. Amazing bass from such very small speaker. Dampened cone with dampening fluid LTS50. Added a bullit shape brass cone on pole piece, but didn't like the sound change (emphasises 8000Hz or so) Wanted them for surround-back, but the speakers, see <- avatar, sound better.
I can try your suggested dispersion cone on the FR,s (Cone made from turned layers plywood and laquered?)
I have build a pair Mass loaded TQWP's with a 10 cm Full range Visaton FR10. Amazing bass from such very small speaker. Dampened cone with dampening fluid LTS50. Added a bullit shape brass cone on pole piece, but didn't like the sound change (emphasises 8000Hz or so) Wanted them for surround-back, but the speakers, see <- avatar, sound better.
I can try your suggested dispersion cone on the FR,s (Cone made from turned layers plywood and laquered?)
Sure you can...
You might want to talk with Dave Dlugos (planet10) about phase plugs as he has spent a lot of time working on them and even sells them. Will be interested to hear how the idea works out for you. This is an old idea that has been around for decades and used by all kinds of makers over the years. Regards Moray James.
You might want to talk with Dave Dlugos (planet10) about phase plugs as he has spent a lot of time working on them and even sells them. Will be interested to hear how the idea works out for you. This is an old idea that has been around for decades and used by all kinds of makers over the years. Regards Moray James.
I have been thinking to remake the phase plug into a hollow one (like the plugs from some Focal woofers) to reduce the 8000hz peak. But i didn't go any further with the TQWT's. When i try your idea i have to rebuild cabinet too. Pile it up with the other idea's.... build a turntable, subwoofer (have a 14 inch PA unit lying unused)
http://www.geocities.com/rbrines1/Pages/Articles/Phase_Plugs/Phase_Plugs.html
All his plugs are bullit shaped. The freq. scribe of modified Fostex on his site is more bumpy with bullit phase plug, could declare my FR10's 8kHz is emphasised with plug.
http://www.geocities.com/rbrines1/Pages/Articles/Phase_Plugs/Phase_Plugs.html
All his plugs are bullit shaped. The freq. scribe of modified Fostex on his site is more bumpy with bullit phase plug, could declare my FR10's 8kHz is emphasised with plug.
Most stereo recordings made with omni microphones were made with spaced omnis; which can give excellent results in stereo, but generally give severe phase problems when mixed down to mono (I was taught always to listen to any recording in mono, in case it was used in a television programme, or on AM radio; times have changed) The same problem now exists when doing 5.1 music recordings; there is no system that guarantees that the fold down to two track will be seamless, and most suggest you simultaneously record your surround mix and your conventional, using different microphones.
DPA (ex B&K) have much increased the kudos of omni mirophones (largely due to their impeccable bass performance) but I admit a weakness for figure of eights: point source and good separation. My experiments with Jecklin discs (back in the seventies, before PZMs relaunched the trend) were not conclusive, and, by placing the mic next to a semi-reflective surface you are removing it's omnidirectional characteristics anyway (except at bass frequencies, where your average cardioid is pretty omni, anyway) Artificial head recordings work fine in headphones, but are generally a bit restricted in speakers (just as good Blumlein recordings are always a bit "hole in the middle" in phones)
With omnidirectional speakers in a domestic situation, you're adding the room acoustic to the original signal. As reverberation times are generally shorter than in the original venue, as long as the room has no rattles or serious frequency anomalies, this is normally not critical, but remember, what you are hearing is not what the producer (or the musicians that checked it) intended. As the bulk of the energy is in the early reflections, stereo imaging is less precise, and the "direct/reverberant" mix is pushed towards the reverberant. Don't forget that any control room which uses omni speakers (and I can't offhand think of any, though there must be one or two) the acoustic will have been specifically designed for them; otherwise you'd get the same problem as mixing in headphones (Yes, I have, when it was impossible to get listening conditions adequate even for nearfields. It's horrible)
Omnis remove the "sweet spot" syndrome, and you can get closer to them, but they've been around to my certain knowledge for half a century; and there are reasons why the more conventional technique of aiming the energy where it is required have remained more popular.
DPA (ex B&K) have much increased the kudos of omni mirophones (largely due to their impeccable bass performance) but I admit a weakness for figure of eights: point source and good separation. My experiments with Jecklin discs (back in the seventies, before PZMs relaunched the trend) were not conclusive, and, by placing the mic next to a semi-reflective surface you are removing it's omnidirectional characteristics anyway (except at bass frequencies, where your average cardioid is pretty omni, anyway) Artificial head recordings work fine in headphones, but are generally a bit restricted in speakers (just as good Blumlein recordings are always a bit "hole in the middle" in phones)
With omnidirectional speakers in a domestic situation, you're adding the room acoustic to the original signal. As reverberation times are generally shorter than in the original venue, as long as the room has no rattles or serious frequency anomalies, this is normally not critical, but remember, what you are hearing is not what the producer (or the musicians that checked it) intended. As the bulk of the energy is in the early reflections, stereo imaging is less precise, and the "direct/reverberant" mix is pushed towards the reverberant. Don't forget that any control room which uses omni speakers (and I can't offhand think of any, though there must be one or two) the acoustic will have been specifically designed for them; otherwise you'd get the same problem as mixing in headphones (Yes, I have, when it was impossible to get listening conditions adequate even for nearfields. It's horrible)
Omnis remove the "sweet spot" syndrome, and you can get closer to them, but they've been around to my certain knowledge for half a century; and there are reasons why the more conventional technique of aiming the energy where it is required have remained more popular.
I'm underway with an omnidirectional project. Below is a prototype. It is a modular box design so it is very flexible to adapt to various drivers, volumes, etc. It is an MTM on top with one M firing down and one up, but the tweeter is direct forward firing. I had all kinds of problems with tweeter response when firing up and I'm not sure it added that much to the omni sound.
The 2 M's are Dayton RS180's in sealed 9L boxes. On the bottom there is currently a Dayton RS225 firing down in 38L ported, but the structure was designed to allow as large as a 12" driver, so I will also be trying a 12" powered sub sealed in the bottom.
There is a detailed thread here for anyone interested.
Omni DIY Thread
The 2 M's are Dayton RS180's in sealed 9L boxes. On the bottom there is currently a Dayton RS225 firing down in 38L ported, but the structure was designed to allow as large as a 12" driver, so I will also be trying a 12" powered sub sealed in the bottom.
There is a detailed thread here for anyone interested.
Omni DIY Thread
Attachments
omni....
Hi paul.tke a look at these.shouldn't be expensive.i was told that the sound is great.
Danny
http://www.visaton.de/de/bauvorschlaege/2_wege/fontana/index.html
Hi paul.tke a look at these.shouldn't be expensive.i was told that the sound is great.
Danny
http://www.visaton.de/de/bauvorschlaege/2_wege/fontana/index.html
- Status
- Not open for further replies.