gedlee said:
Thanks Earl, have bookmarked those for purchase in the very near future!
I don't currently have the space or funds to justify a proper Summa-type speaker but am wondering if a coax design I'd previously been looking at could do a decent job of providing even polar response at lower SPL:
http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/USB.html
...though I'd be using the updated H1333 coax and a smaller sealed box. Obviously the baffle is quite a lot smaller than even the Nathan 10 but the dome tweeter is firing down a waveguide (the coax woofer) and the polar plots SEAS provide are quite encouraging with both the woofer and tweeter devating a similar dB as they move from on-axis to 30deg and 60deg.
Alex
I didn't see any polar data and in general coaxs don't impress me. Cones don;t make good waveguides.
If you are going to use multiple subs don't bother with a ported enclosure.
If you are going to use multiple subs don't bother with a ported enclosure.
gedlee said:
0, 30 & 60 deg plot here:
http://www.seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=119&Itemid=141
gedlee said:
Indeed, it'll be a sealed enclosure, similar bass roll-off to your designs.
At ~£200 it seems hard to come up with anything that can compete - certainly two compression drivers and pro-audio woofers would cost more than that without the time and effort of making a waveguide. But I'm open to suggestions!
Alex
Alex, why do you ask a speaker vendor if he recommends speakers from another company?
A certain bass roll-off of the Nathans was not a primary design goal. It just comes naturally with the driver and enclosure selected. Multiple subs complement the Nathan. They fill the missing LF. Of course the LF cut-off needs to be as deep as possible for the subs not to become localizeable. Other than that, the bass roll-off doesn't play a major role.
Best, Markus
A certain bass roll-off of the Nathans was not a primary design goal. It just comes naturally with the driver and enclosure selected. Multiple subs complement the Nathan. They fill the missing LF. Of course the LF cut-off needs to be as deep as possible for the subs not to become localizeable. Other than that, the bass roll-off doesn't play a major role.
Best, Markus
I don't have a problem looking at other competitors stuff. I know how my stacks up - its the best deal out there, but if you can't afford it you can't afford it.
At 100 Eu EACH, this is very close to what you would pay for the drivers in the Nathans when you buy from me. The real cost is in the waveguide and then there is the crossover. But in the Eu shipping and import duty jacks up the price significantly. Even then I am told they are still a good deal.
The problem with the Seas that you show is the sensitivity. Its very low. This means lots more money for power amps and high thermal modulation and low maximum SPL. A system made with this would be cheap, but it wouldn't compare to a Nathan.
At 100 Eu EACH, this is very close to what you would pay for the drivers in the Nathans when you buy from me. The real cost is in the waveguide and then there is the crossover. But in the Eu shipping and import duty jacks up the price significantly. Even then I am told they are still a good deal.
The problem with the Seas that you show is the sensitivity. Its very low. This means lots more money for power amps and high thermal modulation and low maximum SPL. A system made with this would be cheap, but it wouldn't compare to a Nathan.
markus76 said:
I realise that - and likewise I'm looking to use a pair of subs to fill in the bottom with these speakers. The primary aim of the Nathans is to achieve flat power response, not merely flat on-axis response, and also increase the proportion of direct to reflected sound. My thinking with these coax speakers is that although they won't have that degree of dispersion control they should be a damn sight better than my current standmount tweeter+midbass non-DIY (i.e. cheap components) speakers. The small sealed enclosure does help reduce cone excursion lowering woofer distortion and the negative effects of a moving waveguide.
gedlee said:
My other hat is producing very high-end bass guitar speaker cabinets so I'm more than familiar with what nice pro-audio drivers can be like in terms of dynamic capability and max SPL - my larger mid+woofer bass cab puts my current hi-fi to shame in terms of midrange resolution and can play incredibly loud with low distortion. But fortunately I don't need that kind of SPL - and as I'm not in a detached house I can't enjoy high SPL moments without the worry of the annoying neighbours. I know that high sensitivity systems have many benefits at lower level but is the trade-off worth it to me right now?
One key concern if I could afford the Nathans would be that the listening/watching position for home-cinema is quite close to the speakers - less than 5' from one of them and about 7' from the other. Can a large waveguide and woofer form a coherent sound at such close range?
Alex
P.S. Bear in mind that the dual subs will be 50W 8" sealed subs so the max clean SPL for them is relatively low.
Alex, the Seas are good coax drivers. Mount them in an on-wall enclosure to compensate for the lower max. SPL. You could optimize them for listening off-axis to get a smooth overall energy output. And please open a separate thread for this project 🙂
Best, Markus
Best, Markus
alexclaber said:
I see no reason why a "large waveguide" - the Nathan is not really "large" - "and woofer" like in the Nathan should be any more limited in this respect than anything else. It may in fact be better. The Nathan's crossver is designed from data taken at 6 feet so that's basically its ideal distance. Three feet or less might be an issue - with any speaker.
Hi!
When considering a similar set up as Markus has (meaning the listening position very close to the back wall) where would you place the side speakers? Specially if dipoles…
Regards,
Etienne
When considering a similar set up as Markus has (meaning the listening position very close to the back wall) where would you place the side speakers? Specially if dipoles…
Regards,
Etienne
Wow! I hate questions like this, because the answer is - I would never sit against a back wall, so the situation that you asked about has never come up.
I guess in the case you mention, I would not use dipoles. I would use monopoles and face them forward not pointed at the listener. But no surround is mixed for a situation like this so its a real gamble either way.
I guess in the case you mention, I would not use dipoles. I would use monopoles and face them forward not pointed at the listener. But no surround is mixed for a situation like this so its a real gamble either way.
Nonetheless it's probably one of the most common listening positions.
I would even consider placing the surrounds at +/- 60°. But this is just an idea based on data of Hiyama (113th AES Convention Preprint 5674, 2002). Never tried it myself.
Best, Markus
I would even consider placing the surrounds at +/- 60°. But this is just an idea based on data of Hiyama (113th AES Convention Preprint 5674, 2002). Never tried it myself.
Best, Markus
You're talking about those cubes pretty often - makes me wonder what's behind the screen in your own home theater 🙂
But I agree that being able to set up everything as required separates the men from the boys.
But I agree that being able to set up everything as required separates the men from the boys.
You caught me!! Bose cubes! 
I'm impressed with their sales if nothing else. I am always amazed at how well marketing works. Its a constant disappointment to me. I once interviewed at Bose and with Dr. Bose himself. He told me right out that he valued marketing people more than technical ones. It shows! (I didn't get a job offer - I was too technical.)
I'm impressed with their sales if nothing else. I am always amazed at how well marketing works. Its a constant disappointment to me. I once interviewed at Bose and with Dr. Bose himself. He told me right out that he valued marketing people more than technical ones. It shows! (I didn't get a job offer - I was too technical.)
Hmmm... it seems like a dead end! No rear speakers or Bose... 😉
What about upward firing monopoles placed above ear height?
My idea is that the listener would then be in the diffuse field and not get as much front reflections as with the set up proposed by Earl.
What about upward firing monopoles placed above ear height?
My idea is that the listener would then be in the diffuse field and not get as much front reflections as with the set up proposed by Earl.
my ex channel or rear 6/7 channel speakers use a tripole setup that I think has effectively dealt with this issue. The main or primary source of sound remains the front firing 2-way speaker. In many ways these surrounds behave like a monopole. In fact, taking measurements across a +/- 60 degree window, I think most people would think they are monopoles with maybe some unusually wide dispersion below 6000hz. Now I can't explain how this happened (I got lucky), but I don't get a weird polar repsonse in that range, as expect, in fact, even out to 90 degrees, 110 degrees, even 120 I don't see what I expected too, which was holes in the response due to destructive cancellations from the side speakers. I have the side drivers operating in a limited frequency window, and well down in level. The inside full ranger drivers are wired out of phase with each other, to create a diffuse field in the center between the two. They are mounted 3 feet above the listeners head.
Now my rear wall isn't like some, it has a mix of diffusion panels and absorption panels that the surrounds sit on/within. I found that the sound of the front speakers reflecting off the rear wall sometimes sounded as if their was actually a rear speaker on (that wasn't) at this odd point on the wall. I sit roughly 2.5 feet from the rear wall (not ideal, better than against it), and some absorption material really helped, but too much created a weird psycho-acoustic effect of sounding like their was a hole on my left side, but not the right (my room is an open architecture design that opens to the kitchen (not ideal again). I mixed in a lot of diffusion panels, and only use 2 absorption panels, and now find that, with my tripole design, I get a convincing wrap around surround sensation. I also find that these are as pinpoint as I think they need to be. I mean, I can tell when a flyover happens from the left or from the right, and I can even hear pans across the back as distinct pans across the back. The image doesn't hover between the speakers, as it seems to for the fronts, but I find this to be a good thing. Instead the pans happen in a space that is wider and less distinct than that of the speakers, and happens well above my head (I sometimes wonder if a field mouse running along the ground behind me would sound like he was flying because of this, but movies rarely use surrounds like this).
Now my rear wall isn't like some, it has a mix of diffusion panels and absorption panels that the surrounds sit on/within. I found that the sound of the front speakers reflecting off the rear wall sometimes sounded as if their was actually a rear speaker on (that wasn't) at this odd point on the wall. I sit roughly 2.5 feet from the rear wall (not ideal, better than against it), and some absorption material really helped, but too much created a weird psycho-acoustic effect of sounding like their was a hole on my left side, but not the right (my room is an open architecture design that opens to the kitchen (not ideal again). I mixed in a lot of diffusion panels, and only use 2 absorption panels, and now find that, with my tripole design, I get a convincing wrap around surround sensation. I also find that these are as pinpoint as I think they need to be. I mean, I can tell when a flyover happens from the left or from the right, and I can even hear pans across the back as distinct pans across the back. The image doesn't hover between the speakers, as it seems to for the fronts, but I find this to be a good thing. Instead the pans happen in a space that is wider and less distinct than that of the speakers, and happens well above my head (I sometimes wonder if a field mouse running along the ground behind me would sound like he was flying because of this, but movies rarely use surrounds like this).
Etienne88 said:
Its complete and utter jelousy!!
Etienne88 said:
When it comes to surounds you just have to do what works for you. As this thread will attest there is too much diversity of opinion and too little real information to make any concrete suggestions.
If a surround channel is viewed as a source that could deliver discrete sounds then all information applies that is available for the mains. If not, then use dipoles
Markus
This is true, but its not the way that surround channels are used in practice and its not really feasible in a small room for the reasons that we have discussed.
Cancel that!! Your right! Can I put you down for five more Nathans then?
This is true, but its not the way that surround channels are used in practice and its not really feasible in a small room for the reasons that we have discussed.
Cancel that!! Your right! Can I put you down for five more Nathans then?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.