flaevor said:
Shin needs to gets a home with two audio rooms.
One for easy listening.
One for the party room with dancing girls, to show
of the big monster[tm].... LOL
I'm not proposing a design here but these are certainly over the top arrays.
http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/images/products/XRT2Kfrontnogrille.jpg
http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/images/products/XRT2Kfrontnogrille.jpg
Cheers Thy & Scott, clearly got plenty to think about.
Budget is a firm £3.5k(~$6.5kUS) for drivers alone, if it comes to less than that then great! But definitely no more.
Line array would cost me £3k alone for 8 more ATC's on top of the 2 already I already have. This is 5 per side or a line of 1m lenght ideally that really want to be 1.5m or about 7/8 ATC's per side. That's verrry expensive at £5-6k just for the 14-16x midranges alone. You'd be looking at around 103dB efficiency from a single watt though. Add 18x AC G3si's for 9 per side totalling about £1.9k. Then 4 x 12's per side of good driver, this will likely come in at £2k assuming £250 apiece.
Split that lot between a two cabinet solution for weight and handling reasons.
That's around £9k($16k) in drivers alone, you can say that it would £10k to get them built and fully finished. Maybe another £3lk-5k in amplification. The crossovers could be worked through the PCXO and this would be an excellent solution for adjusting the power tapering on the fly using 'per driver' filtering and amplification.
All this would definitely mean a long term project that would be at least a three year commitement of steadily building up the collection of drivers and amplifiers.
Certainly a monster though. 🙂 Its mind boggling to even consider building that.
I gotta be sensible here, I love audio but if it was anything less than sheer reality I'd be gutted for that amount of money and more importantly, time.
I gotta laugh because Thy is actually building something that isn't a far off that which I mention above.
Scott your alienating me somewhat because I have no idea what your talking about 😀
Budget is a firm £3.5k(~$6.5kUS) for drivers alone, if it comes to less than that then great! But definitely no more.
Line array would cost me £3k alone for 8 more ATC's on top of the 2 already I already have. This is 5 per side or a line of 1m lenght ideally that really want to be 1.5m or about 7/8 ATC's per side. That's verrry expensive at £5-6k just for the 14-16x midranges alone. You'd be looking at around 103dB efficiency from a single watt though. Add 18x AC G3si's for 9 per side totalling about £1.9k. Then 4 x 12's per side of good driver, this will likely come in at £2k assuming £250 apiece.
Split that lot between a two cabinet solution for weight and handling reasons.
That's around £9k($16k) in drivers alone, you can say that it would £10k to get them built and fully finished. Maybe another £3lk-5k in amplification. The crossovers could be worked through the PCXO and this would be an excellent solution for adjusting the power tapering on the fly using 'per driver' filtering and amplification.
All this would definitely mean a long term project that would be at least a three year commitement of steadily building up the collection of drivers and amplifiers.
Certainly a monster though. 🙂 Its mind boggling to even consider building that.
I gotta be sensible here, I love audio but if it was anything less than sheer reality I'd be gutted for that amount of money and more importantly, time.
I gotta laugh because Thy is actually building something that isn't a far off that which I mention above.
Scott your alienating me somewhat because I have no idea what your talking about 😀
ShinOBIWAN said:
We already shreaded that design on another forum - hehe
But give McIntosh credit, it's an improvement over their
previous high end. lol
Give me the same drivers, four towers, let me rewire
the drivers properly, performance rises thanks to the
magic Genie :rub: :rub: :rub:
You don't really need to use the uber drivers to enjoy a killer line
array design. Get affordable drivers and expliot them properly.
Tweeters are the limiting factor, less choices, so just build
a line array using the $100 ribbons. 8 - 12 per tower. I have
an idea for midwoofer, great SQ for maybe $150 each. There
are many good midwoofer choices, I can make a big list actually.
If you want to be brave, port the design. Ported mids are
considered voodoo and nobody really does this. But did you know
that Wilson Audio ports their midwoofers on the Alexandria?
A loudspeaker with big SQ claims.... // lol //
A test box will easily determine if a ported design is desirable.
While a ported box will be bigger, it also can be converted to a
sealed box by plugging the rear ports. My budget array had
a design where each rear port had a hinged door to control
the tuning {think variable port tuning}, as you open the door
the response alters. Close the door -> sealed boxed operation.
I didn't bother with this in the end because I can mimick this
with the digital EQ, it was an electrical tweak vs. mechanical,
but hey - do both - lol
Don't rule out the black sheep ideas. Make a test box with
cheap wood after you choose the drivers. All you need to do
is test one tweeter and midrange to determine if you think there is potential. It's hard to judge the line array performance by
analyzing a single driver, but the line array will have much lower
distortion at the same spl of the single driver, that is your ally.
array design. Get affordable drivers and expliot them properly.
Tweeters are the limiting factor, less choices, so just build
a line array using the $100 ribbons. 8 - 12 per tower. I have
an idea for midwoofer, great SQ for maybe $150 each. There
are many good midwoofer choices, I can make a big list actually.
If you want to be brave, port the design. Ported mids are
considered voodoo and nobody really does this. But did you know
that Wilson Audio ports their midwoofers on the Alexandria?
A loudspeaker with big SQ claims.... // lol //
A test box will easily determine if a ported design is desirable.
While a ported box will be bigger, it also can be converted to a
sealed box by plugging the rear ports. My budget array had
a design where each rear port had a hinged door to control
the tuning {think variable port tuning}, as you open the door
the response alters. Close the door -> sealed boxed operation.
I didn't bother with this in the end because I can mimick this
with the digital EQ, it was an electrical tweak vs. mechanical,
but hey - do both - lol
Don't rule out the black sheep ideas. Make a test box with
cheap wood after you choose the drivers. All you need to do
is test one tweeter and midrange to determine if you think there is potential. It's hard to judge the line array performance by
analyzing a single driver, but the line array will have much lower
distortion at the same spl of the single driver, that is your ally.
Another concept this time SWMTMWS with Aurum Cantus G1, ATC supers, ATC SB75-234SC and a 12" subs. 3-way + subs taking up the slack below 40hz.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
thylantyr said:
Thanks for the insights Thy. Will give some consideration to this for now I'm hoping to stick with the ATC mids. A line array is a bit too full on for me, I'll leave those to real audio nuts 😀 I will however be looking at some of that monster power you were talking about 🙂 I'll email you tommorow and get some idea's.
Scott can you go into a little more depth on his G1, lowther idea? Intirgued if a little confused.
I know I've got a good thing with the v2's so my idea of the SWMTMWS makes perfect sense to me because it lowers the risk and I know roughly what I'll be getting. This design will give a fair amount of headroom/lower distortion, replace the R2904(which I always thought was the weakest link), control vertical dispertion for improved imaging and also effectively integrate a capable subwoofer for extension to 10hz.
Where abouts would be a good point to cross the ATC to the G1? This is an MTM so its a very important consideration. The center to center spacing between the two ATC mids is 37cm BTW.
The rest of the design could be as is ie. 500hz and then the subs move in at 40-50hz leaving the natural roll off of the ATC bass drivers alone.
I think the ATC bass drivers may need a rethink also: they're only 85dB/1w/1m.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Which part? 😀
I'm guessing its the low mass, low dampening, low damping impeadance interaction - that isn't getting through.
It *is* in the realm of "magic" - and once you have heard it you'll likely not go back. 😉 My guess is you haven't heard it (and most haven't), so it sounds like so much cr@p, and thats understandable.
Hmm.. How can I better describe it?
Imaging becomes more "present" and 3D, more life-size, less "pin-point". Its also has less of an "edge" and less of a mechanical character to the sound, somehow easier to listen to but paradoxically with more apparent detail - in this respect its like EVERYTHING is more detailed rather than some particular aspect being "spot-lighted".
Perhaps a pro reviewer can put this into better context. Athough Michael Fremer has dished out a fair number of "superlatives" over the past 5 years when reviewing different components - THIS review of an absurd amplifier marks something *different*, and is NOT found in his other subjective reviews (..with the possible exception of some absurd turntables he has reviewed)..
(..try reading it a few times to get the "flavor" for what I'm trying to describe.)
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/704wavac/index1.html
This is just one component in the "chain" that marks what I (and a few others) refer to as "Ultra-Fi". A low mass, low dampening, Hi-Eff. loudspeaker would be another component toward enhancing this quality.
..of course if you were asking about something else - let me know! 😀
Scott,
I understood that part 🙂
The bit I was talking about was your suggestion on the G1 coupled with a pair of 165 GMF and a pair of 15's.
Any specifics about the implementation such as the loading and also any thoughts how it would compare to the SWMTMWS I mentioned above.
Cheers.
I understood that part 🙂
The bit I was talking about was your suggestion on the G1 coupled with a pair of 165 GMF and a pair of 15's.
Any specifics about the implementation such as the loading and also any thoughts how it would compare to the SWMTMWS I mentioned above.
Cheers.
ShinOBIWAN said:
My suggestion was with the Supravox 165 GMF for the mids. Try looking at the raw impulse response - its extraordinary, particularly for a design that has little mechanical dampening. HOWEVER the Lower DX55 is also excellent in this respect, and it actually "settles-out" better than the Supravox with more time. The Lowther however does not have as extended a bandwidth or as much x-max or as much eff. (in the passband below 1.4 kHz) as the Supravox. Finally, the Lowther is more expensive (..at least once you move to Germany and have a more even "footing" on prices).
OK the basic design again.
1. WMTMW
2. VERY low mass drivers for a given sd with little or low loss dampening, AND very efficient drivers.
3. Carefully controlling the dispersion pattern (aka horizontal polar response) without large discontinuities in off-axis response from one driver to the next (i.e. the tweeter to the midrange and the midrange to the woofer). In particular relativly flat +/- 30 degrees for the entire operating passband. Out to +/- 60 degrees off-axis then down in level about 4-6 db for most of the passband. At +/- 90 degrees the passband from about 700 Hz up will be down another 5+ db. However the passband below 700 Hz (at the +/- 90 db) will be even lower in sp-level due to the cardoid shaping that makes the sound more directional.
4. Crossover points and slopes:
A. Tweeter to midrange - HIGH order slopes at least LR 4th order for both.
B. Midrange to woofer - probably nothing on the midrange's lower response (i.e. no high-pass filter for it), and probably a first order filter on the woofer's low-pass filter. This will more effectivly blend the radiation of the two driver types to give a more consistent off-axis performance. In this case the midrange drivers are loaded so that the directional cardoid shape starts around 600 Hz (..i.e. has increasingly more sp-level reduction off-axis) and increases that directionality as it goes lower. The woofer in the U-Frame cardoid is more directional from about 50 Hz down and increasingly less directional above this until its own higher freq. directionality starts "kicking in" around 200+ Hz. In this case then we are blending the less directional response of the woofer over a greater passband via the more shallow low-pass slope to the more directional midrange. Exactly where the low pass is, would be difficult to say and would depends on a number of factors.
5. Enclosure shape: About the WMTMW that you showed before though with some minor alteration recognizing that the mid's are only 7 inch drivers (as opposed to the 10" midbasses you had depicted), and the woofers would be 15" instead of the 12" you had depicted.
Here is the Aperiodic Vent that will give the midranges the increasing directional nature (the triangle on the side of the loudspeaker near the midrange driver):
http://www.amphion.fi/products/xenon/xenonframe5.htm
The U-Frame for the woofers is nothing more than an rear openend back box (typically with some stuffing to reduce cavity resonances):
http://www.musicanddesign.com/u_frame.html
A lot to "digest" there - ask for some clarification where needed. 😉
..............................................................................................
The ATC version you have proposed is also quite nice, BUT it does have some disadantages vs. what I proposed above:
1. It could cost more.
2. The radiation character of the ATC mid and the G1 *Horizontally* isn't as controlled. In this instance the ATC mid only starts becomming directional above what? About 2.5 kHz? The G1 however (while being relativly flat for +/- 30 degrees) has an appreciable loss in sp-level off-axis at all freq.s. In effect they don't match as well. You can "correct" for this to some extent by crossoving over higher with shallower slopes on both drivers - say 3.5 kHz and LR 2nd order - still its suboptimal, and worse its in the exact area where we are particularly sensetive to spl changes on and off-axis (..and is largerly the region where the majority of imaging cues are found). Of course IF you do that then you won't have quite the transparency that a ribbon would afford if crossed over lower in freq.. (..plus as you have alluded to, you'll likely suffer some comb filtering from the mids - but that you can eq. out with an active configuration) So, its give and take here, BUT that isn't to say that it won't sound very good - but rather that it could sound considerably better than very good.
3. The high internal loss due to the dampening on the ATC mid won't provide as detailed a sound (..and I've mentioned this already - so I won't belabor the point).
4. The higher mass of the midbass and sub won't provide as detailed a sound as the much lower mass driver's.
5. A sealed or ported enclosure for the mid and subs also will not be as detailed as the cardoid. To some extent this is a function of compression and lack of current control near resonance. Additionally its also about horizontal omni dispersion at lower freq.s and how they "comb" and interact with our hearing. In this instance then reducing the combing even a little tends to increase apparent seperation and allows for better imaging at lower freq.s. - but an omni won't have this ability.
Still, would it be better than the Perceives? Yes - easily, but also a little different and in some minor respects in away that might not be better to you.
Either design would certainly need to be listened to a bit further away than the Perceives for proper integration. This would be particularly true the higher in freq. the crossover for the tweeter and mids.
Attachments
The speakers are nice... but, that girl in the background could stand to get a little sun!
😉
Unless of course she is an albino... my bad.
😉
Unless of course she is an albino... my bad.
This is obviously about challeneges and trying different stuff rather then getting down and listeneing (you'll never be happy Shin!), and now that you've mastered woodwork and spray finishes, how about trying your hand at something more complex but inherently more beautiful: http://www.perfect8.com/
And you should really have given dipole bass a try before selling those 4 x XLS10's.
V
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.
And you should really have given dipole bass a try before selling those 4 x XLS10's.
V
Member
Joined 2002
David Gatti said:
Do they make keyboards these days with drool guards ?
DAM that looks nice..
Ive always wondered about open baffle boxes. Is there such thing as bass with these things ? Is that why they have to use 15" drivers ?
Vikash said:
I don't like that look but lets not take anything away from what is excellent craftmanship. Certainly different. The prices are astronomical too, definitely millionaires only need apply to buy 'The Force' design. Gits nicked a superb name there too 😀
jleaman said:
Dipoles need EQ and huge displacement to reach into the 20's at respectable level's. This means big drivers and usually multiples of them.
You can slightly assist the drivers using various forms of frame design and baffle size.
No doubt the best bass but you need plenty of room.
Just look to the Orions. I've haven't got them fully going yet, but the bass ability articulates on a different level. Forget heavy, thick bafled boxes and the thug-like approach to taming vibrations, and remove all that colouration by simply - removing the box. It's an epiphany almost.jleaman said:
It's quality over quantity with dipole bass and you may even need a monopole sub to keep the overall sizes moderate and to reach the lowest frequencies. For my music taste and set of compromises the H frames of the Orions (for an example) are small yet with stunning potential over any boxed bass I've heard thus far.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.