That's mostly the part f the design I don't understand. I imagine the horn below is giving a little more phase difference to cope better with the mid one... However my basic understanding says me the tweeter below the mid is giving already a 15% lobing towards the ceilling ;theory at least said with the same physical horisontal distance : same zdp for both drivers... and symetrical XOs ... which is not the case here due to the deep of the horn for the zdp, dunno for the XO though.
Did he time aligne the mid and tweet section at merging their impulse response ? Whatever I don't understand yet this 6% flipping à la Focal (focusing the drivers beaming for the ears at a said listening distance... 3 meters for Focal Utopia btw).
Any coment on the certical spacing between the mid and the tweeter ? Not too much big for a symetrical LR12 (if he used that which I don't know) ?
I think the essence of this design is you don't want it to be another me too. Why build another Faital 3WC.
For me this speaker has one thing that the other amps don't do so well. Being driven by a EL34 SET but maintains a slam for the bass. And yet you can treat it like a normal speaker rather than a tri amp active system.
Oon
For me this speaker has one thing that the other amps don't do so well. Being driven by a EL34 SET but maintains a slam for the bass. And yet you can treat it like a normal speaker rather than a tri amp active system.
Oon
I believe he is liking more the compression driver despite the difficulty vs the expensive Be domes. Again, I think he likes the subjective dynamic (slam is the better word) of PA drivers.
It is more about the soundstage choice I opened this thread (to understand I mean).
About the 15" and if I have to choose a plate amp then I will pick up a 15 with an heavy cone not so a 15PR400 for instance if not needing to go above 200 hz !
This Faital is more a choice for a passive XO... and at chosing game, I really believe the 12PR320 could be a better choice for a normal flat (no big venues of big houses)). -F3 due to room gain will be more or less close between the 12" and 15"... but I believe the 12" will be better (for a flat gain).
It is more about the soundstage choice I opened this thread (to understand I mean).
About the 15" and if I have to choose a plate amp then I will pick up a 15 with an heavy cone not so a 15PR400 for instance if not needing to go above 200 hz !
This Faital is more a choice for a passive XO... and at chosing game, I really believe the 12PR320 could be a better choice for a normal flat (no big venues of big houses)). -F3 due to room gain will be more or less close between the 12" and 15"... but I believe the 12" will be better (for a flat gain).
Last edited:
Soundstage typical for this sort of design:
Good width with some non-uniform "dip" off-axis in the 2-3 kHz region.
Medicore depth. (..horizontal dispersion is limited above 2 kHz, and even has substantial pressure loss 1-2 kHz relative to many typical 3-way designs.)
It also isn't likely to have a particularly "3D" image result that better large format drivers can achieve (or larger dome tweeters).
Emphasizing initial on-set as opposed to decay results in higher subjective clarity (..with a high force driver and almost no excursion).
Good width with some non-uniform "dip" off-axis in the 2-3 kHz region.
Medicore depth. (..horizontal dispersion is limited above 2 kHz, and even has substantial pressure loss 1-2 kHz relative to many typical 3-way designs.)
It also isn't likely to have a particularly "3D" image result that better large format drivers can achieve (or larger dome tweeters).
Emphasizing initial on-set as opposed to decay results in higher subjective clarity (..with a high force driver and almost no excursion).
Last edited:
Thanks for the analysis. More a loudspeaker for Rock or big clasic events so - where the soundstage qualities are less mandatory-
@diyiggy: during this thread you made a number of blanket statements, and you "think" and "believe" a lot which is OK because subjective, but I don't understand your "soundstage qualities being less mandatory for big classic events" (I guess you mean large scale classical music?)??
Vertical spacing is a matter than can be addressed in a crossover if the design is otherwise sufficient. In this case there appears to have been no work done on making this right.
Here's to learning 😉
Just to bring up this one point, that DSP and speaker level crossovers are similarly capable in skilled hands, in what they can do as well as what they cannot.
@AllenB
Ahh, this old DSP vs passive debate. 🙂
Please show me that skilled hand that can do time alignment (and can adjust that every time with a few clicks if needed) with microsecond accuracy without touching the speaker or can create a linear phase crossover with steep slopes.
I don't say it's impossible but practically it is.
Ahh, this old DSP vs passive debate. 🙂
Please show me that skilled hand that can do time alignment (and can adjust that every time with a few clicks if needed) with microsecond accuracy without touching the speaker or can create a linear phase crossover with steep slopes.
I don't say it's impossible but practically it is.
YSDR, I'm dispelling or clarifying the myth (Clarkes third law), which came about because DSP made things possible to some people, which they weren't aware were already possible. Which then stretched to the notion that DSP could do things that even it cannot.
Clarke's three laws - Wikipedia
Clarke's three laws - Wikipedia
Well, that Clarke guy must be very advanced in passive crossovers or loudspeaker building. 🙂
Allen, I understand you, but sorry, that's not answer to my specific request.
Allen, I understand you, but sorry, that's not answer to my specific request.
Last edited:
" Which then stretched to the notion that DSP could do things that even it cannot."
I agree. With DSP you can raise a frequency of 20 hertz 12 db in a small cabinet that cannot reproduce it due to its physical limitations. But it will not sound the same as if it really does a large cabinet and with corresponding passive components.
It's physics, there is no escape.
I agree. With DSP you can raise a frequency of 20 hertz 12 db in a small cabinet that cannot reproduce it due to its physical limitations. But it will not sound the same as if it really does a large cabinet and with corresponding passive components.
It's physics, there is no escape.
With a dedicated amp and active filter, a 15" (or 12") is just silly for domestic "HiFi" applications. Any good 8" woofer can be made to go down to 20 Hz in a smallish box simply by setting up the filter accordingly. It just makes no sense to me why Troels used such a large woofer.
Two very different things, the subjective listening impression of passive and active dividing networks vs. extreme EQing. The latter also done with parametric boost-cut assisted alignements since the 70s, not since LT.
I don't understand this thread, or I should say, I don't understand 75% of the posts in this thread.
T.G. has introduced a new kit. It is another option for DIY'ers to add to his dozens and dozens of other options. Like any kit, this new kit will appeal to a few, but most people will want something different. The same is true for every other kit he offers, and every other kit that anyone offers. That is why there are so many kit options from so many designers.
If you don't like his new kit, don't build it. period. full stop. It is good, very good, to have so many options. When I look at his full list of kits, there are just 3 or 4 that appeal to me. And that is actually pretty impressive that there is that many (3 or 4) that appeal to me.
Some of the posts remind me of people who complain about an SUV because it is not a pickup truck... or people who complain about a sedan because it is not an SUV.
Buy what you want, and be happy that we have so many choices.
T.G. has introduced a new kit. It is another option for DIY'ers to add to his dozens and dozens of other options. Like any kit, this new kit will appeal to a few, but most people will want something different. The same is true for every other kit he offers, and every other kit that anyone offers. That is why there are so many kit options from so many designers.
If you don't like his new kit, don't build it. period. full stop. It is good, very good, to have so many options. When I look at his full list of kits, there are just 3 or 4 that appeal to me. And that is actually pretty impressive that there is that many (3 or 4) that appeal to me.
Some of the posts remind me of people who complain about an SUV because it is not a pickup truck... or people who complain about a sedan because it is not an SUV.
Buy what you want, and be happy that we have so many choices.
..kit is a substantive stretch.
It's really a design with crossover parts (amp if-any, as in this design), wire, some stuffing and a a few connective parts (including wire/posts/screws/etc.).
No drivers, and principally: no cabinet (flat-pack or otherwise).
Even most other so-called "kits" at least provide drivers, and I absolutely wouldn't call them kits either - not when the cabinet (a complex one) is often the determining factor in actually reproducing the design (..because it's a monumental "time-sink" for a DIY'er or typically quite expensive to have them done custom by a skilled cabinet maker).
It's really a design with crossover parts (amp if-any, as in this design), wire, some stuffing and a a few connective parts (including wire/posts/screws/etc.).
No drivers, and principally: no cabinet (flat-pack or otherwise).
Even most other so-called "kits" at least provide drivers, and I absolutely wouldn't call them kits either - not when the cabinet (a complex one) is often the determining factor in actually reproducing the design (..because it's a monumental "time-sink" for a DIY'er or typically quite expensive to have them done custom by a skilled cabinet maker).
Last edited:
-as for this thread:
It's just speculation to achieve potential understanding for the choices that were made with the design.
Many of Troel's designs have similar threads (even in this forum).
There are also many other threads speculating about designs from others, commercial or not.
It's just speculation to achieve potential understanding for the choices that were made with the design.
Many of Troel's designs have similar threads (even in this forum).
There are also many other threads speculating about designs from others, commercial or not.
It is known that TG measures on and of axis, and just because it's not mentioned that the horn and midrange dispersion matches it doesn't mean that they don't.
"not small" is larger than a quarter wave length at crossover.
Edit: the whole concept of this speaker is not so good
Last edited:
It's not difficult to understand this thread. The OP asked "What do you think of it?", so we're discussing our thoughts about the design here.
Following up on your car analogy, my thought The Loudspeaker III is this: what's the point of a race car with a 2000 PS motor, if it can't go faster than 60 km/h?