tf1216 said:
Sounds like you'd love the Mangers too from all the subjectives I've collected from folks over the past week. I've heard the 57's twice now and the 63's once. I prefered the 57's but they were setup perfectly and in a large room.
Virtually zero low bass from both designs but the rest of the range was really clean and lifelike. Like you say they image well, but I'd say that the Perceive 2's are better still once with the thoroughly tweak XO and DRC.
What they lack is dynamic range and they're far too polite, the treble actual seems slightly rolled off to the point that it irritates me. You want them to snap into life and move but it never happens.
This thread is making me want to try line arrays. In my free time I've been looking at drivers that I could afford. Last night I was up late trying to think of how I could make the front baffle concave to have all drivers pointing at listening posistion.
Shin will your line array be concave? If so, how will you make it concave? Hard to see in this picture, but concave like this array (by the way, I'm sure there are some lobing problems there)
Thanks,
Josh
Shin will your line array be concave? If so, how will you make it concave? Hard to see in this picture, but concave like this array (by the way, I'm sure there are some lobing problems there)
Thanks,
Josh
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
You don't need to make it concave to get high performance, if anything it might hinder performance from the general sense.
Line arrays are easy, probably an easier design than an
ordinary loudspeaker, don't make it complicated.
Let analyze.
For a line array the cons are;
1. Size
2. Lack of quality tweeter choices
3. Usually cost more
Pros;
1. Soundstage can be variable, big or small depending on power
tapering.
2. Sensitivity can be customized, if you are clever you can
have switches to select impedance to allow different sensitivity
settings and to make it amplifier friendly.
3. Midwoofer choice can be anything. You don't need a
'stand out' midwoofer to get quality sound. Sum of all drivers
makes total performance great.
4. Bass - You can get alot of bass from an array of small drivers,
usually the two way line array can be mated directly to a subwoofer without having any lack of midbass punch.
If you think about it, a line array is more flexibile and
easier to design over a normal design such as TMW etal...
I'll pick the tweeter, then you can throw a dart at a list of
midwoofers and I can make it work
Just give me my digital crossover and proamps and I'm good to go. 😀
Line arrays are easy, probably an easier design than an
ordinary loudspeaker, don't make it complicated.
Let analyze.
For a line array the cons are;
1. Size
2. Lack of quality tweeter choices
3. Usually cost more
Pros;
1. Soundstage can be variable, big or small depending on power
tapering.
2. Sensitivity can be customized, if you are clever you can
have switches to select impedance to allow different sensitivity
settings and to make it amplifier friendly.
3. Midwoofer choice can be anything. You don't need a
'stand out' midwoofer to get quality sound. Sum of all drivers
makes total performance great.
4. Bass - You can get alot of bass from an array of small drivers,
usually the two way line array can be mated directly to a subwoofer without having any lack of midbass punch.
If you think about it, a line array is more flexibile and
easier to design over a normal design such as TMW etal...
I'll pick the tweeter, then you can throw a dart at a list of
midwoofers and I can make it work
Just give me my digital crossover and proamps and I'm good to go. 😀
Before you venture into a more costly journey, have you ever really enjoy a really nice line array system before?
Yes, all that massive SPL and all, would it be something you would enjoy?
Holographic sound, I've only heard from good horn systems and smaller MT set-ups. The line arrays just don't have it.
Yes, all that massive SPL and all, would it be something you would enjoy?
Holographic sound, I've only heard from good horn systems and smaller MT set-ups. The line arrays just don't have it.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Nope.. it does similar magic with even mediocre recordings. I don't think you would even be dissapointed with high energy music.. BUT still there just are not enough bass drivers to do the "deed" correctly for extreme low freq.s. 105 db at 20 Hz.. No problem. 105 db at 10 Hz.. Problem. Also 105db at 20 Hz with very low distortion.. Problem. The only thing that will effectlivly better this is using more drivers, and this likely means a secondary sub line array.
OK I've done a Line Array b4 - there are some positive attributes and some negative ones.
Positive:
1. with a relativly small baffle and small drivers for the TM line you can achieve good horizontal off-axis dispersion and as a result good imaging.
2. you can drop more power into them and hear no compression, and little if any distortion.
3. along with #1 they can present a staggering soundstage.
4. they do full-size imaging (i.e the vertical aspect isn't screwed-up)
Negative:
1. they require you to listen closer to the line - to avoid loss of sp level (depending on line length), and to avoid image "bloat". (..again this is highly dependent on the length of the line and driver size/acoustic center respectivly.)
2. It can be difficult to get them to sound dynamic at even loud sp-levels. Drivers with more force can compensate for this to an extent. (..the drivers are moving so little that they don't give the same tactile sensation.) Of course real dynamics (i.e. going from soft to loud passages in music are excellent).
3. to do the Array properly you'll need two arrays - your mid/tweet and sub.
OK then.. my suggestion(s) for a line array..
First off - we still want the higher force lower mass character, second we a fairly small acoustic center to avoid image bloat and a diffusive character, so this means smaller drivers. Unfortunetly these goals are at cross purposes, and even worse - most are expensive. With that in mind then..
...............................................................................................
Pipe-Dream style suggestion:
midbass drivers = fostex FE126E x 16 per channel. They have a resonance around 1.7 kHz that is not nice (it IS very narrow however).. but we should be looking for a mid driver that extends below this, so they will be operating in a linear fashion and they don't cost a lot. The number of drivers is required for the "infinite line" character Dr. Griffin talks about in his paper.
mid drivers = BG Neo 8 (not the PDR) x 8 per channel. This will give us enough line length at 1.5 kHz to enable you to listen 3-4 meters away and still preserve linesource character. Off-axis performance is good to 4 kHz. Fs and is low and both types of distortion are low from 1.5 kHz up.
tweeter = RT1E-P Isodynamic Tweeter X 8 per channel. These will give us enough line length at 4 kHz to enable you to listen 3-4 meters away and still preserve linesource character. Additionally, these planars are so narrow that they have excellent off-axis performance at even very high freq.s - giving a more omni directional effect. Note that the extension faceplate will need to be reduced both Horizontally and Vertically (..particularly cut top and bottom until reaching the "bump-out").
NONE of it should be utilized as a dipole and *very* great care should be taken with avoiding all acoustic resistance in the cabinet (..so think non-stuffed snail-type closed labyrinth for both the midbass drivers and the mid drivers). The driver baffle portion should be a narrow as possible (probably 9.5 inches after modifying driver frames), and have a semi-cylider like baffle for reduced edge diffraction (..say 13 inches in total width and about 16 inches in depth). Steep slopes on each.
Provided you get the enclosure correct with its lack of "stuffing" then most of the "magic" should be retained with this design.
(note: you can dye the Fostex drivers black easily if you want to without harming them.)
Subs = figure 6 of those BMS drivers (per array) I spec'ed earlier in a bass reflex tower similar in height to the mid/tweet tower.
................................................................................................
Nola Reference style suggestion:
(this one is mostly a dipole and because of line length requires listening a bit closer - within 2.5 meters)
mid.s = BG Neo 8 same as before BUT extending to 400 Hz cut-off and now dipole with an open baffle and only 6 drivers.
tweeters = same as above but with only 6 drivers.
midbass = Supravox 285 GMF X 2 (above and below line) a'la Nola Reference OR both below the line (..which ever sounds better). Crossover 400 Hz.
Baffle about 14 inches in diameter (..playing with the Edge to see where the mid and tweets should be placed relative to the baffle's edges).
Sub = same as before.
Again steep crossovers. This speaker will be a little more transparent but less holographical and depending on the room could have a larger soundstage (due to the rear radiation of the mids and the "front" wall reflections). Additionally, it will have more distortion than the Pipe-Dream design.
..................................................................................................
Some additional notes..
You'll notice I didn't spec. a true ribbon - thats for several reasons.
1. true ribbons that can go to 1.5 kHz comfortably cost at least 400 US each AND are not that long. (i.e. it just costs *way* more to do it this way.) Note that while the Fountek Pro version IS a true ribbon, the performance will not be like a true ribbon due to the structure of the ribbon which will have higer internal loss because its a reinforced structure with plastic. (..also it still has the problem with #2 below.)
2. Any true ribbon that goes that low will not have good off-axis performance at higher freq.s.
...............................................................................................
Finally.. after a good long search I came up with diddly for a 12 inch driver that was high force low mass high eff. and moderate fs.. There is the AER Studiobass and the GOTO midbass drivers - and they cost too much. Speaking of costing too much..
The DDD drivers back in the 90's were I believe over 2K US each. Who knows what they are now.. There are other ways to achieve a good radial design though, but none including the DDD's will have anywhere near the low distortion of the line array.
sqlkev said:
How can Shin enjoy a nice line array when the commercial market
barely has anything worthy to be called a line array? ROFL
What about DIY line arrays? I've only seen a handful of line
arrays that qualify as line arrays, of which, they all made
a crucial sacrifice to performance.
SPL is a variable, it's called a volume knob
You are preaching to the hot rod builder why he wants
a muscle car with a 500 horse engine. LOL ...
If you want holographic sound, get some $20 headphones
and call it a day. There is no reason not to have different
types of audio systems. I have headphones, I have computer
speakers, I have the budget array, I have test boxes for the uber array, I have tons of audio experiments {not finished projects}
that gave me tons of satisfaction, I had car audio systems, etc.
Why do people think that we are limited to just one design?
Shin has experienced a quality 3 way design, let him experience
a different class of loudspeaker design. Especially when there is
potential to make a great one for a reasonable cost. 😎
I pretty sure if I made a TMW like Pv2.0, making something in the
same league would be a boring venture. There is no reason
that he can't build a horn system later in his life either. His choice.
A couple of line array idea's:
And cabinets don't come much more extreme than this take on the v2's:
😀
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
And cabinets don't come much more extreme than this take on the v2's:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
😀
Guys thanks for all the suggestion, so, so much to think about.
I've been thinking about the line array idea and it was Kev who brought some of my doubts to the surface.
I've only heard one example(an apparently good one) in a crowded room and under show condition(ie. noisey, probably sub optimal setup). I've got to be extremely careful not to make a huge mistake by dropping over £5k on drivers alone, only to realise its not really my cup of tea.
Best thing to do is test the waters with a budget array but even this will be £500-1000 and that's money out of my budget. Stuck between a rock and a hard place on that one.
I've been thinking about the line array idea and it was Kev who brought some of my doubts to the surface.
I've only heard one example(an apparently good one) in a crowded room and under show condition(ie. noisey, probably sub optimal setup). I've got to be extremely careful not to make a huge mistake by dropping over £5k on drivers alone, only to realise its not really my cup of tea.
Best thing to do is test the waters with a budget array but even this will be £500-1000 and that's money out of my budget. Stuck between a rock and a hard place on that one.
I will admit that line arrays are boring in appearance, ie tall square
box. I was going to round off the top of my design to at least
give it some pinache' .. lol ....
I was 100% convinced two years ago to use a hybrid design because I
loved the cabinet style I made. Today, I realize that function is more
important that appearance. Your WMTMW looks great, but that
twelve stacker array you posted would kill the WMTMW. Hard pill to
swallow, but cabinet styling does nothing for you soundwise.
You can make a wall of plywood in your room to section off
the room into two parts and just cut holes in the wall and install
a line of drivers, this silly design would rule actually and there is
no real speaker enclosure, just a room with a wall.
A budget array would be cool, but I would only attempt it if
you can find a buyer for your project to at least break even in costs.
I wouldn't do anything less than PT2, 8 drivers per side mated
to some cheap $5 midwoofers. This can get your feet wet into
the line array venture and it can be affordable if you want to sell it.
An alternative is to take that money for the budget array and
travel to audition a commercial array if you can, something decent,
I understand that the market doesn't have much to offer so this may
be difficult.
I don't see the line array as a big risk. For example, if you have
tweeter and midrange synergy then stacking the drivers will only
get better. When I made the budget array, it was for my friend,
so the priority was to keep costs down, but not too much that
it will compromise the design. Hence, I chose $25 tweeters and
50 cent 4" midwoofers. To test the design out, I bought a few
tweeters and mids and made a small scale design with a few
tweeters and four midwoofers and messed with this in the garage
to see if there is potential. The mini array prototype showed me
that I can make something good for my friend.
What I didn't realize was. When the big array was built, wiring
optimized for best performance, digital crossover/EQ, power amps,
the array far exceeded my wildest imagination. I never ever would
have considered using cheap drivers for any project for myself, it
took a side project like this to realize what an array can offer.
You won't realize what an array can do if you cut corners, ie
making a small array, not optimizing impedance for high sensitivity,
not using an all active setup, not driving the array with higher
powered amp, and not making a quality cabinet.
Common sense wins.
box. I was going to round off the top of my design to at least
give it some pinache' .. lol ....
I was 100% convinced two years ago to use a hybrid design because I
loved the cabinet style I made. Today, I realize that function is more
important that appearance. Your WMTMW looks great, but that
twelve stacker array you posted would kill the WMTMW. Hard pill to
swallow, but cabinet styling does nothing for you soundwise.
You can make a wall of plywood in your room to section off
the room into two parts and just cut holes in the wall and install
a line of drivers, this silly design would rule actually and there is
no real speaker enclosure, just a room with a wall.
A budget array would be cool, but I would only attempt it if
you can find a buyer for your project to at least break even in costs.
I wouldn't do anything less than PT2, 8 drivers per side mated
to some cheap $5 midwoofers. This can get your feet wet into
the line array venture and it can be affordable if you want to sell it.
An alternative is to take that money for the budget array and
travel to audition a commercial array if you can, something decent,
I understand that the market doesn't have much to offer so this may
be difficult.
I don't see the line array as a big risk. For example, if you have
tweeter and midrange synergy then stacking the drivers will only
get better. When I made the budget array, it was for my friend,
so the priority was to keep costs down, but not too much that
it will compromise the design. Hence, I chose $25 tweeters and
50 cent 4" midwoofers. To test the design out, I bought a few
tweeters and mids and made a small scale design with a few
tweeters and four midwoofers and messed with this in the garage
to see if there is potential. The mini array prototype showed me
that I can make something good for my friend.
What I didn't realize was. When the big array was built, wiring
optimized for best performance, digital crossover/EQ, power amps,
the array far exceeded my wildest imagination. I never ever would
have considered using cheap drivers for any project for myself, it
took a side project like this to realize what an array can offer.
You won't realize what an array can do if you cut corners, ie
making a small array, not optimizing impedance for high sensitivity,
not using an all active setup, not driving the array with higher
powered amp, and not making a quality cabinet.
Common sense wins.
Member
Joined 2002
I really like the above design as well. In anything other than an engineered room, it will be tough to get each frequency range working to the best of their abilities.
I've heard a few comercial lines in my day and all of them have had their problems and strengths.
My favorite so far that I've heard is the Genesis 201. Great midrange and highs with knock your socks off bass.
(I've heard the Genesis 1.1, and while it was incredible I had a problem with the integration between the Planar midrange and the 12" subwoofers- the 201 with it's 8" subs had much better integration)
I've also heard one of Ephipany Audios line arrays.
They sounded pretty good, but the midwoofers were asked to go too low. I really liked the tweeters (BG NEO 3's) and I recommended them, but I though the tang bang mid woofs were 🙄 The design overall looked great, but I thought that it was poorly executed.
Shin, I really liked the modular line array a la Dali Megaline (the one on the right) in your most recent rendering. I would stick with something like that. Also, less drivers (for instance a 2-way line) would be much simpler and provide a much different experience than the Perceives' offer.
Nate
I've heard a few comercial lines in my day and all of them have had their problems and strengths.
My favorite so far that I've heard is the Genesis 201. Great midrange and highs with knock your socks off bass.
(I've heard the Genesis 1.1, and while it was incredible I had a problem with the integration between the Planar midrange and the 12" subwoofers- the 201 with it's 8" subs had much better integration)
I've also heard one of Ephipany Audios line arrays.
They sounded pretty good, but the midwoofers were asked to go too low. I really liked the tweeters (BG NEO 3's) and I recommended them, but I though the tang bang mid woofs were 🙄 The design overall looked great, but I thought that it was poorly executed.
Shin, I really liked the modular line array a la Dali Megaline (the one on the right) in your most recent rendering. I would stick with something like that. Also, less drivers (for instance a 2-way line) would be much simpler and provide a much different experience than the Perceives' offer.
Nate
jleaman said:
I like the looks of this one too, but the low end would be limited due to driver size and box volume. Really don't know whether Shin want 140db SPL at the low end in a room though.
thylantyr said:
And I think that you're right. The line arrays obviously have their own merits in their appropriate places.
IMO, even the room and music are criterias you have to consider when designing a system. I sure wouldn't want to listen to hiphop on a horn system.
Shin,
I really like the latter design. Very exquisite looking and show quality just like v2. Keep the v2 in a smaller room and v3 in a larger room?
I've expanded on the design:
I really like how this one turned out.
For me half the fun is the building something challanging and different.
I really like how this one turned out.
For me half the fun is the building something challanging and different.
Probably needs something on the sides so it doesn't kill anyone accidentally.
Put a fuselage in the middle and you have some sort of space fighter.😀
Put a fuselage in the middle and you have some sort of space fighter.😀
ShinOBIWAN said:
I always like this design.
http://www.exoticaudio.org/Exotic_Audio2.html
Eliptica Speakers
The ability to rotate the loudspeaker = cool.
Your WMTMW design would be sweet with this idea implemented.
ShinOBIWAN said:
You are drawn in too much by 'eye candy'. The sound of
the Percieve or this new WMTMW will be no different really
as if they were in an ordinary square box. For the purpose
of satisfaction or sale, the exotic cabinet is desired.
Since there is no real challenge in building a TMW or WMTMW
or even a line array, the real challenge is the woodworking,
not really the audio.
Why not just build some cool cabinets and buy some pretend
drivers. We can't hear your creations anyways, all people
do is awe in cabinet work...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.