Kensai [/i] I mean those B&G Neo3PDRs I recommended have been the priciest drivers in my house for a long time now ;-p [/quote] Neo3 is good in its pricerange. Just like Peerless HDS is good in its pricerange. Personally I don't know how much drivers brutal performance dominates overall quality. I know many designs that kick *** many high tech driver solutions 6-0 just because they are very well designed and squeezes more out of their standard drivers. So when standard quality drivers like Peerless HDS really start limiting overall quality? Good question and I wouldn't worry about using proven affordable solutions. That's just vice. I've drawn my lines as well. I considered single Accuton C2-90 for the midrange but since I don't have reliable high resolution objective information from them I just didn't take a chance. W18E was the line in this case. And while I can use two of them on each side I don't see that much advantage from C2-90 which would have been a pig in a bag. [quote] Anyway said:
I don't know yet. Zaph did his 2,5-ways with waveguided soft dome and didn't seem to have any problems. Even distorsion is very low. Just like it should be. In my case I need to get these suckers fitted in waveguides and test them. Hopefully they work. At least they are getting full punishment for it. 90dB, 95dB and 100dB THD runs. Then I can tell where they start to fail. Hopefully they dont...
Jussi
Jussi,
Thanks for sharing so much of the thought process behind your design. It makes me realize how much more I have to learn. I'm still in that compact 2-way arena of dipole design, using a full-ranger and a big woofer. Does the increasing directivity with frequency of a fullrange driver help me or hinder me with regard to your discussion of directivity, floor bounce, etc.? Can you direct me to where I can learn more about these aspects, so I can work toward less compromised designs such as yours.
Thanks for sharing so much of the thought process behind your design. It makes me realize how much more I have to learn. I'm still in that compact 2-way arena of dipole design, using a full-ranger and a big woofer. Does the increasing directivity with frequency of a fullrange driver help me or hinder me with regard to your discussion of directivity, floor bounce, etc.? Can you direct me to where I can learn more about these aspects, so I can work toward less compromised designs such as yours.
johninCR said:
There always is much more to learn. Overall all human knowledge is babysteps compared to absolute knowledge. Hunger for knowledge can be harnessed to serve something but it can also consume you while it's well known that things can always be better which leads to conclusion that you can't do anything. They are all BS.
In audio business they pretty much are. Compromissed compromisses. But with certain material, in certain environment and to certain pair of ears certain type system can still sound very good and make people enjoy the music.
Thats one point I already mensioned. I think it's important to make compromisses so the final product still allows you to enjoy music, not suffer from it. I know some technically good solutions lead to too revealing sound which makes over 90% of recordings almost unbearable to listen. I don't think this isnt the point. Not even over 90% of recordings might actually be more or less compromissed and ruined. That's just one thing we can't make a difference. Naturally I understand people that build such systems. With audiophile material only they are excellent.
Commercial forces and big masses draw the line and studios make the recordings to them. You can't listen uncompressed pianosolo from your kitchen small radio and cook dinner at the same time. High quality recording requires adequate system to show its best and then it also draws listeners attension. And personally I don't believe that many people have time or intrest to really listen music. It's just part of their life sure but mostly people do something else at the same time. Cook, read a book or something. Take a nap. And how can you sleep if you have a HQ (almost) lifelike dynamic system hammering Mahlers 6th symphony with 30dB dynamic range in the same room? 😉
I don't know the whole setup so I can't tell for sure. Some measurements would be nice as well. But as for fullrange driver I don't think it helps you with directivity issue. Depending on your woofer, driver positioning and crossover setup there might be some directivity in vertical level around the xover frequency. But then a single midrange-treble takes over, it's dipole directivity isn't adequate in vertical plane and it has increasing directivity from certain frequency up (depending on bafflesize and cone diameter).
Althought I know many people that have single pretty large fullrange driver in a way too large (directivity vice, it isn't a dipole, just dipolar) baffle and are very happy to their system. But the technical aspect of smooth directivity isn't even the goal there.
Less compromissed is a very fine line. Like I said I personally enjoyed Orions very much. They have their compromisses like shaking, inadequate vertical directivity and uneven radiation pattern because of unwaveguided tweeter. But it still sounds very good. And I think thats the only thing that mathers.
In my project I try to fix some of the things that I think should be fixed. But I know I'm walking on a thin line. Going too far, too directive, cause some problems with poorer recordings. Poorer as in technical terms. Microphone positions are revealed, individual instruments are shattered and all flaws in recording process are brutally audible. But they also have good sides. Well made recordings really shine. All this depends on your personal taste, what do you listen, how do you listen, where do you listen, what do you want from the system.
I have tried to analyse different systems that I've heard. And from the points I like about them. Tried to figure out why this thing in this system sounds this good. Unfortunately I don't have 100% proven and clinically tested analysis, maybe more like guesses. And from that base I've come up with somekind of packadge where I could have most of those good things from different systems. I can't have them all, that's impossible. For example Diana Kralls nice My Love Is sounds very good from a small 8" closed subwoofer and small 2-way monitors (Penaudio Charisma + Charm if you want to study them). Intimate like it propably should be. Something thats nice to listen with a glass of whisky. Technically I know that systems bass response propably had a bumb around midbass, distorsion figures weren't that good and so on. But such small scale acoustic performance sounded very good to me. Listening the same song with Genelecs big 1036A monitors didn't cause this same sensation. Very dry acoustic environment, very dry reproduction without bumbs and humps. Dull. Dead. No spirit. But then again Dream Theaters Images & Words at headbanging levels were heavenly which is impossible for the Penaudio setup. They just drop to their knees if volume is lifted. So it's all about compromisses. Add more realism and juice to HQ recordings and you draw the carpet off from another end.
Oh well. This is turning way too philosophical. At this point I can't advice more than to encourage you to listen different systems with your own recordings, find out what you like, what do you need, what you don't need and then start defining how you get the incredients cooked together.
Jussi
Actually a bit different woofersetup could fix that uneven behavior that WWMTM causes. Uneven since WWMTMWW would the symmetric option.
My primary idea for actual woofercolums is Beethoven style compact W-baffle structure. Four 12" Peerless SLS on each side. Has plenty of SPL capacity above 30Hz. According to my analysis there isn't that much material below 30Hz and therefore I won't overkill the bass to play <30Hz. Dipole bass efficiency runs out fast and reference level performance below 30Hz would require huge configurations. Mainly music materials bass is between 40Hz and 120Hz. And most music intensity (85-90% or so) is 40-3500Hz range. Some 30Hz action appears but levels are already lower than at and above 40Hz.
Sure they are some killer albums with very low frequency humming and in some cases with tremendous dynamics (1812 Overture for example) but I wont be optimising my system to those rare recordings. Perhaps I would if budget, room size and other aspects weren't limiting things. Compromisses compromisses...
But to that point. Adding just two 12" woofers more up to six 12" on each side and stack them into a about 2m tall column using just single 12" driver on each vertical level. Beethoven/Phoenix column uses two so six level stack would require twelve woofers. I don't need that much. Six give a bit more kick and just one driver on each level leaves the whole thing nice and narrow compared to Beethoven style four 12" shorter model. Tall sure. But I can place them along the sidewalls anyway. Just bolt them in. Maybe even use same wallpapers to hide them... 😉
So the advantage. Such tall column behaves pretty close like a linesource while overall room height is 2,6m. Vertical directivity increases, most harmful room reflections cancel even more and according to LspCAD simulation vertical window in +-45 degree angle is pretty close to symmetrical. I used 2nd order 80Hz cross there. Low mids relieve it to uppermids at 300Hz. Simulation doesn't include tweeter section which smoother some of that 1000-2000Hz bump in vertical dispersion.
I have heard some ideas that speakers radiating surface should increase when frequency goes down. So bass instruments need a bigger reproductive device than higher frequences. And according to some theorys this causes problems if it doesn't work like that. For example using WWMTMWW highly directive and physically large setup for midrange and treble and drop it to some small (compared to the mains) subwoofer for the bass. I think problem isn't that significant if the cross is low enough. So in subwoofer-main speaker situation it shouldn't do that much harm.
All theory thought. I have heard one system that suffered some problems with bass impact and authority while bass was physically much smaller than directive and larger mid-treble section. Did this theory cause the problem, difficult to say.
Any comments or other aspects on this issue?
And from this woofertower simulation I know linesources have very good dynamics and they can deliver more precise cylinder shape wall of sound towards the listener that normal point source just can't do. So in this aspect such column would be an improvement over the small one. Still they need to be crossed low. W-baffle configuration so 1/4 wavelenght resonance is kicking in and its still a separated system from the mains. But I'll have to negotiate with my family how such colums would suit for the rest of the decoration.
Jussi
My primary idea for actual woofercolums is Beethoven style compact W-baffle structure. Four 12" Peerless SLS on each side. Has plenty of SPL capacity above 30Hz. According to my analysis there isn't that much material below 30Hz and therefore I won't overkill the bass to play <30Hz. Dipole bass efficiency runs out fast and reference level performance below 30Hz would require huge configurations. Mainly music materials bass is between 40Hz and 120Hz. And most music intensity (85-90% or so) is 40-3500Hz range. Some 30Hz action appears but levels are already lower than at and above 40Hz.
Sure they are some killer albums with very low frequency humming and in some cases with tremendous dynamics (1812 Overture for example) but I wont be optimising my system to those rare recordings. Perhaps I would if budget, room size and other aspects weren't limiting things. Compromisses compromisses...
But to that point. Adding just two 12" woofers more up to six 12" on each side and stack them into a about 2m tall column using just single 12" driver on each vertical level. Beethoven/Phoenix column uses two so six level stack would require twelve woofers. I don't need that much. Six give a bit more kick and just one driver on each level leaves the whole thing nice and narrow compared to Beethoven style four 12" shorter model. Tall sure. But I can place them along the sidewalls anyway. Just bolt them in. Maybe even use same wallpapers to hide them... 😉
So the advantage. Such tall column behaves pretty close like a linesource while overall room height is 2,6m. Vertical directivity increases, most harmful room reflections cancel even more and according to LspCAD simulation vertical window in +-45 degree angle is pretty close to symmetrical. I used 2nd order 80Hz cross there. Low mids relieve it to uppermids at 300Hz. Simulation doesn't include tweeter section which smoother some of that 1000-2000Hz bump in vertical dispersion.
I have heard some ideas that speakers radiating surface should increase when frequency goes down. So bass instruments need a bigger reproductive device than higher frequences. And according to some theorys this causes problems if it doesn't work like that. For example using WWMTMWW highly directive and physically large setup for midrange and treble and drop it to some small (compared to the mains) subwoofer for the bass. I think problem isn't that significant if the cross is low enough. So in subwoofer-main speaker situation it shouldn't do that much harm.
All theory thought. I have heard one system that suffered some problems with bass impact and authority while bass was physically much smaller than directive and larger mid-treble section. Did this theory cause the problem, difficult to say.
Any comments or other aspects on this issue?
And from this woofertower simulation I know linesources have very good dynamics and they can deliver more precise cylinder shape wall of sound towards the listener that normal point source just can't do. So in this aspect such column would be an improvement over the small one. Still they need to be crossed low. W-baffle configuration so 1/4 wavelenght resonance is kicking in and its still a separated system from the mains. But I'll have to negotiate with my family how such colums would suit for the rest of the decoration.
Jussi
Attachments
Jussi,
I'm with you on the resolution issue. My listening room is also my office and HT, so I need something good with all but the worst unlistenable recordings. I have mostly concrete walls, so for bass only OB works, and I need it to be rich and full.
I need to do measurements, but have to learn how first. I think I have the proper equipment (measuring mic and stand, preamp for the mic connected to my computer).
Here's my latest attempt, an 8" Visaton B200 + a 15" Hawthorne Augie. My active XO & EQ is handled in my computer giving me total flexibility (even phase correction of the XO). I'm finishing up the driver support structures, which will isolate the drivers from each other and the small baffle. The corner wings on the baffle aren't just for looks, and are my attempt to cure edge diffraction effects by creating a more gradual pressure release at the baffle edge ala Olsen. If measurements show more is needed, I will attempt to resolve that issue on the backside of the baffle.
I've been saving the 2 pieces of wood for the baffles for a couple of years and the right project, so I've started with the form I want and plan to optimize the function from there.
Any advice is greatly appreciated:
I'm with you on the resolution issue. My listening room is also my office and HT, so I need something good with all but the worst unlistenable recordings. I have mostly concrete walls, so for bass only OB works, and I need it to be rich and full.
I need to do measurements, but have to learn how first. I think I have the proper equipment (measuring mic and stand, preamp for the mic connected to my computer).
Here's my latest attempt, an 8" Visaton B200 + a 15" Hawthorne Augie. My active XO & EQ is handled in my computer giving me total flexibility (even phase correction of the XO). I'm finishing up the driver support structures, which will isolate the drivers from each other and the small baffle. The corner wings on the baffle aren't just for looks, and are my attempt to cure edge diffraction effects by creating a more gradual pressure release at the baffle edge ala Olsen. If measurements show more is needed, I will attempt to resolve that issue on the backside of the baffle.
I've been saving the 2 pieces of wood for the baffles for a couple of years and the right project, so I've started with the form I want and plan to optimize the function from there.
Any advice is greatly appreciated:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
WWMTMWW + sealed SW
Terve Jussi !
Very, very nice project!
I'm on the very similar path (theoretically so far), instead main panel has to cover normal music altogether (40-50Hz and up) with 4 x 12''SLS. In the case of HT low end is covered by closed box with n x 12''XXL. n=?
Mids are W18 or W15, depending upper xo freq. I think W18 must not be used over 2kHz.
What do you think?
Thank you for your idea against panel shaking - steel frame!
Good luck!
Terve Jussi !
Very, very nice project!
I'm on the very similar path (theoretically so far), instead main panel has to cover normal music altogether (40-50Hz and up) with 4 x 12''SLS. In the case of HT low end is covered by closed box with n x 12''XXL. n=?
Mids are W18 or W15, depending upper xo freq. I think W18 must not be used over 2kHz.
What do you think?
Thank you for your idea against panel shaking - steel frame!
Good luck!
Re: WWMTMWW + sealed SW
Looks like two different baffle arragements? Upper has both drivers in same baffle. Lower has just other. Or did I missed something?
How tall is that system? Crossover frequency and order? How do they sound?
Sorry. Looks like more questions than answers for now. 🙂
Terve. 🙂
Ok. What kind of baffle arragement, driver configuration and crossovers have you considered?
At least they have been used. Ellis 1801 uses 2nd order 2500Hz if I remember correctly, Seas Odin and Thor 4th order 2500Hz and so on. Happily I have some space to manouver here so I don't need 100% fixed xover frequency yet. Crossing 7" to a 19mm dome would make things much more difficult. I guess my Esotars can handle 1600-1800Hz 4th order if it seems most suitable. But without knowing detailed information on W18 behavior above 2Khz I can't give that direct answer to your question. I'll let you know how those perform in my panel when I get them measured. Depending on how their frequency response and distorsion behave I'll make my decisions. And naturally Esotars behavior is another thing. Best suited compromisse..
Not so sure yet how good idea it exactly is. At least most of the shaking turns into ringing but I hope I get it damped. 😉
I've been hoping that luck wouldn't have anything to do with this project but thanks. 🙂
Jussi
johninCR said:
Looks like two different baffle arragements? Upper has both drivers in same baffle. Lower has just other. Or did I missed something?
How tall is that system? Crossover frequency and order? How do they sound?
Sorry. Looks like more questions than answers for now. 🙂
estman said:
Terve. 🙂
Ok. What kind of baffle arragement, driver configuration and crossovers have you considered?
At least they have been used. Ellis 1801 uses 2nd order 2500Hz if I remember correctly, Seas Odin and Thor 4th order 2500Hz and so on. Happily I have some space to manouver here so I don't need 100% fixed xover frequency yet. Crossing 7" to a 19mm dome would make things much more difficult. I guess my Esotars can handle 1600-1800Hz 4th order if it seems most suitable. But without knowing detailed information on W18 behavior above 2Khz I can't give that direct answer to your question. I'll let you know how those perform in my panel when I get them measured. Depending on how their frequency response and distorsion behave I'll make my decisions. And naturally Esotars behavior is another thing. Best suited compromisse..
Not so sure yet how good idea it exactly is. At least most of the shaking turns into ringing but I hope I get it damped. 😉
I've been hoping that luck wouldn't have anything to do with this project but thanks. 🙂
Jussi
Jussi said:
WWMTMWW, TW with waveguide, panel width 40...50cm.
XO-s @ 200...250Hz; 2KHz or less if TW allows, probably BW3. SW/mainpanel xo is LR4 40-50Hz.
Re: Re: WWMTMWW + sealed SW
The top pic is with the main driver mounted on the baffle. The bottom pic is the magnet mount I'm switching to and shows only the support legs for the woofer mount.
The baffle is 33" tall by 17.5" wide with the main driver centered at 24".
I've only done some XO tuning by ear with a wide notch centered at 2400hz to tame the hot range of the B200, 1st order LP at 125hz on the woofer and +6db of shelving boost at the bottom. I also have a 1st order HP at 100hz on the B200, so it's not strained by low frequencies.
When I felt how much the B200 was vibrating the relatively light baffle, I didn't even try to dial things in more or work on placement.
How's it sound? Like a full range driver on OB with nice full bass. Tonality is nice and smooth. The soundstage is unrealistically deep with the drums and bass too far back, but I don't know if that's because I had them too far from the rear wall (2m) or if it's an XO issue, since things did move around some when I played around a bit with the XO settings. I tried some steeper slopes and different XO points, but I quickly realized I didn't have a clue without measurements.
Jussi said:
The top pic is with the main driver mounted on the baffle. The bottom pic is the magnet mount I'm switching to and shows only the support legs for the woofer mount.
The baffle is 33" tall by 17.5" wide with the main driver centered at 24".
I've only done some XO tuning by ear with a wide notch centered at 2400hz to tame the hot range of the B200, 1st order LP at 125hz on the woofer and +6db of shelving boost at the bottom. I also have a 1st order HP at 100hz on the B200, so it's not strained by low frequencies.
When I felt how much the B200 was vibrating the relatively light baffle, I didn't even try to dial things in more or work on placement.
How's it sound? Like a full range driver on OB with nice full bass. Tonality is nice and smooth. The soundstage is unrealistically deep with the drums and bass too far back, but I don't know if that's because I had them too far from the rear wall (2m) or if it's an XO issue, since things did move around some when I played around a bit with the XO settings. I tried some steeper slopes and different XO points, but I quickly realized I didn't have a clue without measurements.
Hi,
I am just wondering if you have considered the 26W/8661T00 with a linear excursion +/-9mm vs the 25W/8565-01 with +/-6.5mm. Of course the Qts will be dropped from 0.34 to 0.31. Dipole woofers need a lot of excursions.
Regards,
Bill
I am just wondering if you have considered the 26W/8661T00 with a linear excursion +/-9mm vs the 25W/8565-01 with +/-6.5mm. Of course the Qts will be dropped from 0.34 to 0.31. Dipole woofers need a lot of excursions.
Regards,
Bill
Re: Re: Re: WWMTMWW + sealed SW
Ok. Pretty large configuration. All in one baffle?
Sounds a bit short. Fullrange driver 24" from the floor. I'd use it somewhere around 35-39" up depending on what kind of listening spot do you have. 24" would be pretty good if you sit on the floor.
While driver is lower to the ground first reflection from the floor comes in lower angle and with higher amplitude. As you know double distance drop 6dB from signal level. How far from the speakers are you listening?
2m speakers to front wall isn't too much. I don't think it can be too much. Many long term open baffle and panel people suggest 2m+ for a minimum, prefering even 4m distances if there is enough room. So your overdeep soundstage is a problem from somewhere else...
Yes it does but did you read the whole text? 25Ws are serving as lower midrange drivers. Gentle slope to uppermids around 250-300Hz and highpassed to actual woofers 80-100Hz. So excursion shouldn't be much of a problem for them. 26W is propably higher fidelity but more expensive and these are decent price used units.
Unfortunately I have to settle for their bass for I while before actual woofercolums are ready. This means sensible extension and not so high SPL levels.
Jussi
estman said:
Ok. Pretty large configuration. All in one baffle?
johninCR said:
Sounds a bit short. Fullrange driver 24" from the floor. I'd use it somewhere around 35-39" up depending on what kind of listening spot do you have. 24" would be pretty good if you sit on the floor.
While driver is lower to the ground first reflection from the floor comes in lower angle and with higher amplitude. As you know double distance drop 6dB from signal level. How far from the speakers are you listening?
2m speakers to front wall isn't too much. I don't think it can be too much. Many long term open baffle and panel people suggest 2m+ for a minimum, prefering even 4m distances if there is enough room. So your overdeep soundstage is a problem from somewhere else...
HiFiNutNut said:
Yes it does but did you read the whole text? 25Ws are serving as lower midrange drivers. Gentle slope to uppermids around 250-300Hz and highpassed to actual woofers 80-100Hz. So excursion shouldn't be much of a problem for them. 26W is propably higher fidelity but more expensive and these are decent price used units.
Unfortunately I have to settle for their bass for I while before actual woofercolums are ready. This means sensible extension and not so high SPL levels.
Jussi
WWMTMWW + sealed SW
No, 12''XXLS subW is separately, WWMTMWW is on OB panel.
Eli siis, kuten alussa sanoin, hyvin läheinen sinun suunitelmien kanssa.
Terv!
Jussi said:
No, 12''XXLS subW is separately, WWMTMWW is on OB panel.
Eli siis, kuten alussa sanoin, hyvin läheinen sinun suunitelmien kanssa.
Terv!
Re: WWMTMWW + sealed SW
Yep. That's what I meant. I'd like to use WWMTMWW as well. Just for the symmetry, but I can't.
Don't know how good 40-50Hz 4th order crossing is sonically. Sometime ago I did a simple test how audible different delays are. I runned few different type tracks through editing programs EQ section. Made <80Hz and >80Hz individual tracks. And then mixed them back together. 0ms version for reference so potential difference caused by the EQ wouldn't effect on the result. Then 5ms, 10ms and 20ms versions. EQ setup emulated 80Hz 4th order cross as well as I could set it. Then some listening with HQ headset.
I didn't notice any difference in 5ms and 10ms versions but 20ms version sounded a bit fuzzy. This is just one test. For 40-50Hz cross test should be different and propably with different amounts of delay.
In my case separated dipolecolums, pretty much regardless of how heavy and large they are, create a compromisse with the lowest octave. 15-30Hz isn't that brutal as a good monopole. Maybe. Don't know for sure. Finnish long term hobbyist compared Gradients Revolution actives with four extra bass units on each side (2x12" on Revolution itself plus 4x2x12" on extra woofers) and mensioned that slam was pretty equal to Velodyne DD15 he also tested. 6x12" SLS on each side push single large monopole in pretty tight corner, even in brutal SPL levels above 30Hz. Maybe the lowest frequences and LFE movie rumble turn the tide towards big monopole but in all music materials I consider big dipolecolumns with gentle 80-100Hz 2nd order cross in stereo defend their place.
Jussi
estman said:
Yep. That's what I meant. I'd like to use WWMTMWW as well. Just for the symmetry, but I can't.
Don't know how good 40-50Hz 4th order crossing is sonically. Sometime ago I did a simple test how audible different delays are. I runned few different type tracks through editing programs EQ section. Made <80Hz and >80Hz individual tracks. And then mixed them back together. 0ms version for reference so potential difference caused by the EQ wouldn't effect on the result. Then 5ms, 10ms and 20ms versions. EQ setup emulated 80Hz 4th order cross as well as I could set it. Then some listening with HQ headset.
I didn't notice any difference in 5ms and 10ms versions but 20ms version sounded a bit fuzzy. This is just one test. For 40-50Hz cross test should be different and propably with different amounts of delay.
In my case separated dipolecolums, pretty much regardless of how heavy and large they are, create a compromisse with the lowest octave. 15-30Hz isn't that brutal as a good monopole. Maybe. Don't know for sure. Finnish long term hobbyist compared Gradients Revolution actives with four extra bass units on each side (2x12" on Revolution itself plus 4x2x12" on extra woofers) and mensioned that slam was pretty equal to Velodyne DD15 he also tested. 6x12" SLS on each side push single large monopole in pretty tight corner, even in brutal SPL levels above 30Hz. Maybe the lowest frequences and LFE movie rumble turn the tide towards big monopole but in all music materials I consider big dipolecolumns with gentle 80-100Hz 2nd order cross in stereo defend their place.
Jussi
Jussi, are you sure about ms-s?
If sound travels 340m/s, 5ms means 1,7m.
80Hz has wavelength of 4,3m so 5ms makes 1425 deg phase shift.
Or I'm missing something?
If sound travels 340m/s, 5ms means 1,7m.
80Hz has wavelength of 4,3m so 5ms makes 1425 deg phase shift.
Or I'm missing something?
estman said:
Sure about what?
I think you read correctly. 5ms, 10ms and 20ms delays at 80Hz. This was also very easy to verify. Track got 5ms, 10ms and 20ms longer after the mix.
Doesn't sound reasonable? Think about prefered subwoofer positioning. Place it along the front wall, as close as possible, prefering 1/3rd wall lenght from other corner. And at the same time mains can be easily 1,5m away from the wall. 5ms delay is easy even from there. Then some more from actual crossover. But the point was at least that 5ms at 80Hz wasn't that audible. Actual group delays are easy things to simulate while designing a subwoofer. But such 40-50Hz crosses cause pretty significant amounts of delay. Especially if the cabinet is vented or with passive radiator. But then again 40-50Hz has even longer wavelenght which should allow more delay without audible problems.
And further more I did the listening with headphones. No room interference there. In actual room problems from positioning / crossover based delays should be even smaller while room based problems and delays grow a lot bigger.
Jussi
estman said:
Sorry, typo. Correct is 142 degs. The phase is almost reversed. It must be clearly audible.
estman said:
My test was about delay. I don't know how it mixes with phases when I did the tracks using software. At least problem wasn't easy to pick up.
In actual sub integration task that would propably mean subs phase has to be inverted. But still the subfrequences are played with delay. Of cource phases must match but the delay itself doesn't seem to be a big problem.
Althought I think using 2nd order crossover between main panels and separated woofers has other virtues than audible delay or phase problems. While structures are physically separated larger overlap range might give smoother in room response and even up some gaps and bumps in response. But all this is tested when the time comes. Perhaps the final crossover should have a switch where main-woofer crossover can be altered between 2nd and 4th order loops.
Jussi
So, it looks like you've got the Orion firmly in your sights. I don't think you'll have any problems exceeding that, especially given the cost of buing/building Linkwitz designed versions. He seems to give an inordinate amount of attention/$$$ to crossovers and custom, hard wired EQ and amps, so with more/better drivers, and separate, standard hardware for EQ and amplification, you'll just be competing on the performance of your crossover, I suppose.
As for competing with Maggies, you're going to have a definite advantage in efficiency and dynamics (which means you'll be able to use lower wattage/better sounding amps), and with just the panels themselves, it seems like you would be directly competing with MG 1.6QRs (one you've got your bass stacks together you'll be able to compete toe to toe with the MG 20.1Rs). I suppose it will all come down to resolution (more is not always better as is being discussed here), imaging and soundstage.
It all comes down to how involving and fun your speakers sound, which is highly subjective.
Todd
As for competing with Maggies, you're going to have a definite advantage in efficiency and dynamics (which means you'll be able to use lower wattage/better sounding amps), and with just the panels themselves, it seems like you would be directly competing with MG 1.6QRs (one you've got your bass stacks together you'll be able to compete toe to toe with the MG 20.1Rs). I suppose it will all come down to resolution (more is not always better as is being discussed here), imaging and soundstage.
It all comes down to how involving and fun your speakers sound, which is highly subjective.
Todd
Your renderings remind me of the Audiostatics:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.