premarital strife.
This works great for me, I can do any loudspeaker design I want.
<wife>
< me > I want big woofers!
<wife> 🙄
< me >
<wife>
< me >
<wife>
< me >
< wife>
< me >
< wife >
< me >
< wife >
< me > I want big woofers!
< wife >
This works great for me, I can do any loudspeaker design I want.
<wife>
< me > I want big woofers!
<wife> 🙄
< me >
<wife>
< me >
<wife>
< me >
< wife>
< me >
< wife >
< me >
< wife >
< me > I want big woofers!
< wife >
premarital strife
Who was your attorney? Nevermind.
Unfortunately, I agree with her on the baffle size required for 15" woofers. I think a pair of 12's would look cooler.
Who was your attorney? Nevermind.
Unfortunately, I agree with her on the baffle size required for 15" woofers. I think a pair of 12's would look cooler.
Re: premarital strife
Ultra,
You sure you can't squeeze an 18" wide baffle in there?? I mocked up my PR170s in an 18" wide baffle and its not really that wide.. I'll try to post pics this weekend if I can get a hold of a digital camera...
I plan on building an h-frame from MDF and veneering with dark-cherry and the upper panel with the JP2.0/PR170 will be from solid marble 😀
--Chris
PS: Feel free to call me chris instead of DIY (i just needed a login that wasn't taken) 😉
ultrachrome said:
Ultra,
You sure you can't squeeze an 18" wide baffle in there?? I mocked up my PR170s in an 18" wide baffle and its not really that wide.. I'll try to post pics this weekend if I can get a hold of a digital camera...
I plan on building an h-frame from MDF and veneering with dark-cherry and the upper panel with the JP2.0/PR170 will be from solid marble 😀
--Chris
PS: Feel free to call me chris instead of DIY (i just needed a login that wasn't taken) 😉
Chris, good know. The underscore key is a painful reach for my pinky finger.
Yep, too wide. I did a 17" wide mockup and the consensu (her's and mine) was that it was a little too dominating. I want to keep it 15" or narrower.
Brian.
Yep, too wide. I did a 17" wide mockup and the consensu (her's and mine) was that it was a little too dominating. I want to keep it 15" or narrower.
Brian.
Some small ideas for you.
http://home.pacbell.net/lordpk/misc/clark_woofer.jpg
http://home.pacbell.net/lordpk/lambda/63.jpg
http://home.pacbell.net/lordpk/misc/clark_woofer.jpg
http://home.pacbell.net/lordpk/lambda/63.jpg
From the NW
I've been working with the PR330 to mate to the PR170. The current setup is open baffle for the midrange and the PR330 actively low passed at 25 Hz first order ( like on the Passdiy web site). This works out for a x-over point of about 300 Hz on the woofer but makes it a hard reach for the PR170 without the baffle getting to large. I will try closed box next. The sound of the PR330 up to this range is sounding quite good. The amps are A75 on the bottom and Alephs for the midrange and ribbon tweeter. I have been building the MOX active crossover so it's been a slow process.
I had considered the lambda drivers but availability wasn't good at the time. All the talk makes me want to try them. The PR330's were on close out and at a good price.
If you are down in the Portland \Vancouver area e-mail me.
BDP
I've been working with the PR330 to mate to the PR170. The current setup is open baffle for the midrange and the PR330 actively low passed at 25 Hz first order ( like on the Passdiy web site). This works out for a x-over point of about 300 Hz on the woofer but makes it a hard reach for the PR170 without the baffle getting to large. I will try closed box next. The sound of the PR330 up to this range is sounding quite good. The amps are A75 on the bottom and Alephs for the midrange and ribbon tweeter. I have been building the MOX active crossover so it's been a slow process.
I had considered the lambda drivers but availability wasn't good at the time. All the talk makes me want to try them. The PR330's were on close out and at a good price.
If you are down in the Portland \Vancouver area e-mail me.
BDP
ultrachrome said:
Any reason you wouldn't want to build an "H" or "U" baffle (ie, rear-facing wings on the baffle)? With that setup, you should be able to mimic the low end behaviour of an 18" wide baffle easily, with the exception of a little cardioid behaviour (wider dispersion to the front, than to the back... that's sometimes helpful, in some room setups, though...
With a U-baffle, you could probably easily use 12" woofers and PR170MOs... and get decent low-end response...
I'm considering a large U-baffle dipole, using a solid front baffle, and plexiglass/acrlylic clear wings (not with PR170s, but still, it seemed an interesting relevant concept for this thread). Could be interesting looking... it should minimize the apparent depth effect, of having the rear-facing wings...
Regards,
Gordon.
Gordan, that's exactly what I was envisioning. I can go deep, just not wide.
Well, the midranges are up and playing. I've never used a three way speaker nor played with midranges so I'll just say it doesn't sound bad. So that's good. Now I'll start getting to know my open baffle speaker. Maybe I'll make some wings.
Well, the midranges are up and playing. I've never used a three way speaker nor played with midranges so I'll just say it doesn't sound bad. So that's good. Now I'll start getting to know my open baffle speaker. Maybe I'll make some wings.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
GordonW said:
Gordon,
I'm planning to build an H-Baffe for my bass section. All the benefits of a u-baffle, and also balanced front/rear radiation patterns. I'm trying to get UltraChrome/Brian on board for dipole woofers too 😉 By my estimation he could mount the 12" in a baffle ~14" wide ... not too bad.
I don't mind the space since I'm building way over-the-top speakers anway.... I found a granite counter-top shop that agreed to cut my mid/tweet baffles out of solid granite 8) ... I'm still thinking about 2x 15" dipoles of some type.. Jjust got to find a highish Qts 15" woofer that can play upto 250hz...
--Chris
Final Sanity Check
The Dipole12's are about $440 per side. I'm hoping you folks could perform a sanity check.
I'm planning on mounting all the drivers in a test baffle in a TMWW config. I'm going to make the baffle somewhat modular so I reposition drivers fairly easily.
I'm going to use 14.5" wide baffle and play with cardboard wings. I'm assuming I can wire this all together with some simple first order crossovers as a starting point. 300 and 2500Hz seem like good starting points?
Here's XL-Baffle fudged up with a pair of Dipole12's and the PR170M0.
I understand that after initial assembly, my next steps are:
-listening/meausuring
-adjusting baffle size/shape and driver position
-refining crossover points/slopes
-EQ'ing dipole rolloff
-miscellaneous filtering as necessary
What fatal errors am I making? What am I failing to consider?
Lastly, can anyone help on deciding on a ribbon? The Founteks are no longer pure Al. Should I care? For the money the NeoPro5i has greater bandwidth, efficiency, and I assume power handling, than the comparably priced AC G3.
Thanks all.
The Dipole12's are about $440 per side. I'm hoping you folks could perform a sanity check.
I'm planning on mounting all the drivers in a test baffle in a TMWW config. I'm going to make the baffle somewhat modular so I reposition drivers fairly easily.
I'm going to use 14.5" wide baffle and play with cardboard wings. I'm assuming I can wire this all together with some simple first order crossovers as a starting point. 300 and 2500Hz seem like good starting points?
Here's XL-Baffle fudged up with a pair of Dipole12's and the PR170M0.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I understand that after initial assembly, my next steps are:
-listening/meausuring
-adjusting baffle size/shape and driver position
-refining crossover points/slopes
-EQ'ing dipole rolloff
-miscellaneous filtering as necessary
What fatal errors am I making? What am I failing to consider?
Lastly, can anyone help on deciding on a ribbon? The Founteks are no longer pure Al. Should I care? For the money the NeoPro5i has greater bandwidth, efficiency, and I assume power handling, than the comparably priced AC G3.
Thanks all.
Re: NeoPro5i
Rick is using one right now, fire off an email to get some feedback.
He worked with all those types of tweeters.
Reference thread;
http://www.madisound.com/cgi-bin/discuss.cgi?read=341214
To clarify. I would choose a ribbon solely because it's able
to crossover lower. I don't like my tweeters to operate
very low (under 2khz) so even if the tweeter is capable,
I choose to let the midrange do this job. I think it's a sonic
preference, I don't care for 'high midrange sounds' to dominate ouf of a tweeter, I'd rather get a good midange driver to do
this job.
/generalizing
I like a bigger tweeter for higher sensitivity, perhaps more power
handling, and perhaps more clean 'max spl' ....
Rick is using one right now, fire off an email to get some feedback.
He worked with all those types of tweeters.
Reference thread;
http://www.madisound.com/cgi-bin/discuss.cgi?read=341214
To clarify. I would choose a ribbon solely because it's able
to crossover lower. I don't like my tweeters to operate
very low (under 2khz) so even if the tweeter is capable,
I choose to let the midrange do this job. I think it's a sonic
preference, I don't care for 'high midrange sounds' to dominate ouf of a tweeter, I'd rather get a good midange driver to do
this job.
/generalizing
I like a bigger tweeter for higher sensitivity, perhaps more power
handling, and perhaps more clean 'max spl' ....
Thanks for the link, thylantyr. I was doing some reading and it seems that with at least one model, the only change with the Neo series is the ribbon material. So I guess I could convert them back to aluminum if I was so inclined.
If it can go so low, I wonder why I don't just build a two way NeoPro5i/Dipole12 speaker. Oh well, can always try it if the Audax combination doesn't float my boat.
At this point, I'm Just waiting on Kuei to wander by and provide the final blessing of my plan.
If it can go so low, I wonder why I don't just build a two way NeoPro5i/Dipole12 speaker. Oh well, can always try it if the Audax combination doesn't float my boat.
At this point, I'm Just waiting on Kuei to wander by and provide the final blessing of my plan.
If it can go so low, I wonder why I don't just build a two way NeoPro5i/Dipole12 speaker.
The 3 way would give you better sound.
The ultimate sound would be to go fully active and sweep the crossover frequency do dial it in by ear.
The 3 way would give you better sound.
The ultimate sound would be to go fully active and sweep the crossover frequency do dial it in by ear.
I'm considering buying a Behringer to do just that. I would think it would make crossover prototyping much easier and nearly pay for itself when compared to parts cost for multiple crossover iterations + shipping costs + transit time.
If it doesn't pay for itself on the first speakers, it may by the time I'm done with whatever speakers I build next.
I have plenty of amplifiers to go fully active but in the end I'd like to power the tweeter and mid with a single amp and the woofers with a second amp.
My goal is to balance sound quality and simplicity. The fewer elements the better.
JohnJ recommended, twice in fact, to contact Larry Selmer, apparently a friend of Linkwitz. I've only gotten a brief reply that indicates my general plan is sound (yay), that he has used or uses the Lambda dipole drivers and that he would provide "MORE LATER."
So hopefully by the end of the week I'll have enough supporting information to justify ordering the remaining drivers.
If it doesn't pay for itself on the first speakers, it may by the time I'm done with whatever speakers I build next.
I have plenty of amplifiers to go fully active but in the end I'd like to power the tweeter and mid with a single amp and the woofers with a second amp.
My goal is to balance sound quality and simplicity. The fewer elements the better.
JohnJ recommended, twice in fact, to contact Larry Selmer, apparently a friend of Linkwitz. I've only gotten a brief reply that indicates my general plan is sound (yay), that he has used or uses the Lambda dipole drivers and that he would provide "MORE LATER."
So hopefully by the end of the week I'll have enough supporting information to justify ordering the remaining drivers.
Something I dealt with when matching PR170M0 to Aurum Cantus G2/G2si. The FR is supposed to be good to 1.7kHz. It doesn't measure all that flat that low, but it does seem somewhat reasonable. However, if you take a look at the impulse response you will see that the resonance will ring for a loooong time if you excite it. It looks a heck of a lot better crossed at 4kHz.
I don't know if this is true of the Fountek, but I would suspect it is. Obviously, the bigger the ribbon the more freedom to cross lower. Damping might actually be worse though for a longer ribbon, so you still don't want to excite resonances.
I think you are on the right path. I originally prototyped my design on MOX, but I'm also going to give DCX2496 a shot because I want to try some really wacky things with all-pass filters and high slope xovers to be sure I've got the best possible crossover design. I don't have the patience for all the trial and error that would take to do in the analog domain, not to mention delays. At the end of the day I plan to build it with MOXlite boards though unless I am totally blown away by something.
I don't know if this is true of the Fountek, but I would suspect it is. Obviously, the bigger the ribbon the more freedom to cross lower. Damping might actually be worse though for a longer ribbon, so you still don't want to excite resonances.
I think you are on the right path. I originally prototyped my design on MOX, but I'm also going to give DCX2496 a shot because I want to try some really wacky things with all-pass filters and high slope xovers to be sure I've got the best possible crossover design. I don't have the patience for all the trial and error that would take to do in the analog domain, not to mention delays. At the end of the day I plan to build it with MOXlite boards though unless I am totally blown away by something.
I also thought about the MOX last week but I was too late. They were gone. But I did I order a pair of MOXlite boards.
ultrachrome said:
Brian,
I am using the DCX2496 as the crossover in my project as well. Its a great box, however its also the reason why I have to replace one of my ribbons 🙁
NEVER EVER EVER TURN OFF THE CROSSOVER FIRST!
As long as you follow that rule you won't end up in the same boat as me. In fact I'm thinking about ordering a power sequencer that will guarantee it never happens again.
The real power of the DCX is that you can change slopes and frequencies of the crossovers real-time while playing music and do true a-b comparisons. From my testing I prefer the LR-48 db cross overs and depending on the music I like the x-over point to be between 2.5K (light airy delicate sound - I prefer this on most female vocal tracks) and 3.5-4K (Fuller warm sound - I prefer this on most male vocals). That being said I had a friend listen while I changed the crossover without telling him what I was doing. He always prefered the lower cross-over point (2.5K) on all the recordings...
--Chris
Chris, can you describe your setup with the Behringer? Are you feeding it with a preamp? Any issues with unbalanced signals?
I remember reading that some folks had some level issues or something like that related to unbalanced signals with the Behringer.
I remember reading that some folks had some level issues or something like that related to unbalanced signals with the Behringer.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.