I'd've thought its the opposite - if the waveguide is effective down to 1.5kHz (and basically monopole below that), then surely the crossover needs to increase to avoid the horn "letting go".
It does depend, though - that might be a big fat breakup node on the big woofer, in which case a lower XO would help.
Chris
"build your own" plans coming?
for the average user S15 is the only one doable, since the config file is available. And S20Z is a bit diffuce on the woofers.
you could make a little bit of cash selling config files if the documentation is thorough enough on more of your projects, instead of a concept idea.
for the average user S15 is the only one doable, since the config file is available. And S20Z is a bit diffuce on the woofers.
you could make a little bit of cash selling config files if the documentation is thorough enough on more of your projects, instead of a concept idea.
The midwoofer is acting as dipole in the baffle that is roughly 30cm wide. This sets dipole null (where dipole radiation vanishes) at roughly 1,5kHz. I believe that his is the cause of widening horizontal polar response. This is why eg. LX521 and NaO Note RS II have 4" mids in very narrow baffle.
This region 1-3kHz is generally THE ISSUE with "dipole" speakers, A large wg or horn that goes down to 800-1kHz can be a way to go, narrow baffle and 4-way construction is the other way.
The difference of the named two solutions is in 3D power response - radiation past 60¤ laterally and rearwards are totally different in these. Despite 0-60¤ radiation is similar, 3D power response means a lot how a speaker behaves (sounds) in an acoustically small room.
I did sell the config for a while but it's too hard for little money! Too many permutation with DSP variants, etc. So I removed it and just post all the settings on the page 😀.
Plus, I think one should make some thing unique, different. What's the point of DIY if only make the same copy 😉
At 700hz - 1.5khz it's more the beaming of 8" driver which makes the respons dipolar. The widening was actually seen in the earlier prototype (S16) but much less. So this is due to acoustic difference of the cabinet. I don't see it as too much problem though it's only a few db/degrees. We're really splitting hair. The S16 used much more 'plain' baffle.
R16
S16 prototype
I did a sonogram of the Nao Note here. Would be keen to see sonogram of LX521.
www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/163072-nao-note-preview-16.html
OKI take it back - I ran some Edge sims and seems like midwoofer is not making this widening. Perhaps we are just picking nits...
gainphile only has heard these and I believe that the overall package is balanced. I must say that I am tempted to try horn midtweeters too.
gainphile only has heard these and I believe that the overall package is balanced. I must say that I am tempted to try horn midtweeters too.
Warren from Stereo Net Australia who had been in a few GTG in my place thinks that the highs are the highlight. I do like the D220Ti + dayton waveguide combination. They sound very detailed, and look quite cool. Easy to equalise. And for the price, they're awesome. I might make econowaves/cardioids with these one day...
The DSP setup is very simple in 1U enclosure and sonically quiet.
Dayton10 + D220Ti EQ for DrDyna 🙂
EQ1: 2079Hz / -5db / 2 Q
EQ2: 7375Hz / -1db / 3 Q
Undecided:
EQ3: 13454Hz / -1db / 3Q
Please do report what you think.
Dayton10 + D220Ti EQ for DrDyna 🙂
EQ1: 2079Hz / -5db / 2 Q
EQ2: 7375Hz / -1db / 3 Q
Undecided:
EQ3: 13454Hz / -1db / 3Q
Please do report what you think.
Last edited:
The DSP setup is very simple in 1U enclosure and sonically quiet.
Dayton10 + D220Ti EQ for DrDyna 🙂
EQ1: 2079Hz / -5db / 2 Q
EQ2: 7375Hz / -1db / 3 Q
Undecided:
EQ3: 13454Hz / -1db / 3Q
Please do report what you think.
I will, thank you very much sir! They're bringing in new carpet for our basement on Monday, so at the moment I have the room taken apart to make room, but this will be the first thing I do Monday to try it out.
You said that you might want to try an econowave-type setup with this tweeter / waveguide combo as well. I'm pretty much doing exactly that, but with FaitalPRO W10N8-700.
The full-xxx solution can give more smooth power response, also smoother of walls reflection pattern. Yes it has a problem of early reflections when speakers being close to front wall,but this relates to all frequencies not only highs! Placing loudspeakers with optimal angle to front wall helps. full-cardioid can help a lot with front wall reflections,but they are more side wall sensitive than dipole if side walls close.So the room shape is also important for optimal directivity. Also to make "perfect" cardioid requires biger size loudspeakers and pain in engineering process to get everything right compared to dipoles. Every situation with its requirements has a best approach, but there is no best approach for every situation. That is true for all engineering, not only audio.
The very low bass is a little different story because dipoles are not good for that ,and cardioid also not much better.We have to pressurize room anyway in here.
I agree with smoother power response (or actually close to flat for full dipole or full cardioid), however I believe it's importance is over-emphasized. Look at Linkwitz' LXMinis. They're far from smooth power response and everyone like them 😀
We don't hear power response per se. Much more, what we hear depends more on:
- Direct/Reflected (D/R) ratio.
- reflections
Both of these depend on directivity/power response, but their ideal "shaping" has been shown to be frequency-dependent (see Griesinger and others) and thus a smooth/flat power response is no guarantee for anything.
I respectfully disagree. Psychoacoustically, the effect of reflections is frequency-dependent so not all reflections are born equal. For dipoles, I have found high-frequency early reflections to be particularly disturbing to imaging, while reflections lower in frequency help increase spaciousness by lowering D/R ratio. No full-XXX solution achieves that.
PS: here's a little hint I've found why that could be so:
Precedence effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A reflection with attenuated higher frequencies expands the time span that echo suppression is active"
That is exactly why I said I see no reason to pursue a full-XXX solution just for the sake of it.
bzfcocon said:
Hi,
"echo" plays no role in a small room's early reflections. There is no problem in a real dipole (constant DI 4.77 dB) being operated fullrange. The frequency dependencies you are reporting seem due to
- personal taste
- room setup (which reflections active, which spectrum, "degree of diffusion" IACC, etc. ...)
- isdiosyncratic dispersion of the speaker
- ... etc.
At same level of the direct sound, the threshold for perceiving an "echo" may be about 20 ... 30ms. That is a pathlength of > 7meters at least ...
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Echoschwelle.pdf
There is also no indicator, that precedence effect would not work for frequencies say >2Khz. To me it seems more in the contrary, what is aimed for here, in breaking up the dipole pattern at higher frequencies:
"True fullrange dipoles" - few listeners have experience with something coming even close to that - typically cause few side reflections when setup in a usual way due to the nulls in radiation pattern at 90 degree from the speaker's main radiation axis. Thus fullrange(!) dipoles will simply sound "too dry" for many listeners.
Even cardioids and usual waveguides will provide more side reflections in most setups. So i think this is what you are looking for: Increasing spaceousness by increasing the amount of side reflections >2Khz, that are arriving at the listening seat at angles e.g. about 60 degrees from the median plane (front).
Those tend to increase IACC and perceived "spaceousness": And by going from dipole to e.g. cardioid in the highs only, those side reflections will have less bass and mid frequency content than in common speakers.
Thus analysis of early sidewall reflections will even show a highpass filtered spectrum of early side reflections with your proposed kind of loudspeaker, which is contrary to your analysis.
That is all to it IMHO ... no complicated explanations needed in my view.
Last edited:
BTW. regarding just "energy response" and "directivity index" dipole and cardioid pattern are "compatible": Both have DI of 4.77dB.
http://www.knowles.com/eng/content/download/2807/32862/version/6/file/an-4-issue01.pdf
Just the reflections caused in a given room and setup will be different, as pointed out above.
http://www.knowles.com/eng/content/download/2807/32862/version/6/file/an-4-issue01.pdf
Just the reflections caused in a given room and setup will be different, as pointed out above.
I would not highly suggest it. Your dipole MF and HF, as they are right now, sound very coherent and natural. By mating a horn tweeter to dipole mids you would just create another example of "artificial resolution" where the resolution skyrockets at the horn loaded high frequencies compared to the dipole region (if no ambience tweeters are used). The sound field should sound quite evenly resolutive to sound natural.
However I'd say that if one can push the XO point of the horn section to ~200Hz region (for example with a synergy horn or otherwise), the dipole lower section would become much less obvious. But why not go full horns then...
You are right, Legis. A mid-treble horn should be mated with a cardioid or monopole bass rather dipole, a completely different speaker. They interact with room minimally, the listener is in virtual nearfield.
-
The major difference that dipoles have is the rearside radiation. It is a beast, wakes up all reflections and echos - but not a vicious beast! A large (long) room is needed and also listener's preference to well recorded acoustic music.
-
The major difference that dipoles have is the rearside radiation. It is a beast, wakes up all reflections and echos - but not a vicious beast! A large (long) room is needed and also listener's preference to well recorded acoustic music.
As i said before, it is also the monopole in your enumeration, that could be seen as being "completely different". But i guess, no one read my post above carefully or even looked up the directivitiy indices given in that PDF ...
Did you ever experience "echoes" in a living room ?
Then something might have gone damned wrong ...
I was writing about "echoes" in the post above. What you try talking about seems something different, surely not "echoes". And please remember: The monopole has lower DI and will cause frontwall reflections too.
It is just the cardiod, which has reduced interaction with the front wall of the room in terms of "early" reflections.
Are these - very ad hoc and subjective - assumptions based on real experience using e.g. dipoles and cardioids in smaller to mid sized rooms ?
Most who actually have such experience - and also know the true restrictions to be considered - would have come to different conclusions.
To me @gainphiles system is a "valid" approach. There are surely details to be considered like in any other system ...
But keeping some restrictions in mind like
- choosing an appropriate crossover frequency
- matching DI (though here it is not the "pattern" that is "matched" in a conventional sense at XO ...)
- front wall distance
- front wall diffusivity
- toe in (not too much ...)
- side wall distance
- side wall diffusivity
- symmetry in placement
- ...
that speaker as a concept can be made working very well in many living rooms. Of course i would implement a dedicated subwoofer system for it and use it "as a satellite", but this is another story ...
Last edited:
"Are these - very ad hoc and subjective - assumptions based on real experience using e.g. dipoles and cardioids in smaller to mid sized rooms ? Most who actually have such experience - and also know the true restrictions to be considered - would have come to different conclusions."
Well I don't have a special cardioid elements but cardioid radiation at some frequencies yes. Take my words as personal recommendations, not as a statement. I don't consider myself qualified to give statements. But please check what SL says about dipole placement... With echoes I mean room modes, standing waves.
In general I agree with most of your points.
In regard to DI, it is too theoretical, we should know real radiation patterns at various frequencies. Constant directivity loudspeaker designs
Well I don't have a special cardioid elements but cardioid radiation at some frequencies yes. Take my words as personal recommendations, not as a statement. I don't consider myself qualified to give statements. But please check what SL says about dipole placement... With echoes I mean room modes, standing waves.
In general I agree with most of your points.
In regard to DI, it is too theoretical, we should know real radiation patterns at various frequencies. Constant directivity loudspeaker designs
Last edited:
What is personal recommendation? Are you recommending long room for me or yourself?
It's very practical, but maybe you are saying that it is useless alone? That would also be very far from fact. For example if you have two systems with DI=3dB and DI=15dB. Let's assume that linear and non-linear distortions are equally good. There will be a huge difference in clarity if the systems are located in reflecting room (RT60/EDT~500/500ms) and listening distance is 10 ft or more. No need to know shape of the pattern.
There will be not much difference in clarity if you compare dipole and cardioid, both having DI=4.8dB. Exceptions are rooms with flutter echo between two walls only.
Bass...lower midrange is more sensitive to shape of the pattern depending where massive reflecting surfaces are located.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.