Some comments on the build difficulty... from following the Llambda list, even Nick with his expertise, and backed up by Tom, had a lot of trouble getting his production units to work right. From what i gather even a millimetre is a big dicrepency... BTW, from traffic on the Llamba klist, Nick still has a few Unities left.
dave
dave
Hello Sheldon,
you wrote:
"Try:
http://www.jblpro.com/General/photos/vertecpics.htm
They call it a "radiation boundary integrator""
Thank you, but this does not enough details. If you are interested in more details have found a better one: http://www.jblpro.com/vertec1/techdoc.htm
BTW, did you get my p.m.?
M
you wrote:
"Try:
http://www.jblpro.com/General/photos/vertecpics.htm
They call it a "radiation boundary integrator""
Thank you, but this does not enough details. If you are interested in more details have found a better one: http://www.jblpro.com/vertec1/techdoc.htm
BTW, did you get my p.m.?
M
mefistofelez said:
That link is more detailed. Still can't say for sure if it would infringe. The patent claims includes the limitation that the second speaker opening be located 1/4 crossover wavelength distance from the apex. The JBL has two openings for the mid driver. Neither of which may meet this definition. I'm guessing it doesn't infringe.
I didn't get a p.m. My p.m. is enabled. Sure you meant to send it to me?
Sheldon
Hi John,
So have you got your full system built now?
I actually did write a program to model the unity while I was unemployed for 7 months after I graduated. It works, as far I can tell - compared it to two different midrange geometries and had good correlation. It doesn't predict the tweeter response perfectly, but I haven't worked on matching up the input parameters to the actual driver very much. This also takes into account directivity via FEA in the PDE toolbox. So of course once I had that all worked out, I got a job and now have no time to build stuff based on it!
John
http://ldsg.snippets.org/HORNS/
So have you got your full system built now?
I actually did write a program to model the unity while I was unemployed for 7 months after I graduated. It works, as far I can tell - compared it to two different midrange geometries and had good correlation. It doesn't predict the tweeter response perfectly, but I haven't worked on matching up the input parameters to the actual driver very much. This also takes into account directivity via FEA in the PDE toolbox. So of course once I had that all worked out, I got a job and now have no time to build stuff based on it!
John
http://ldsg.snippets.org/HORNS/
Thanks for the info. I suspected as much...
I wonder if it has to do with demand and manufacturing capability? If so, that speaks well of the design.
My test mike is complete and only calibration remains, so perhaps I can start learning about speakers for real. I don't think I'll be starting with a Unity design
.
John
I wonder if it has to do with demand and manufacturing capability? If so, that speaks well of the design.
My test mike is complete and only calibration remains, so perhaps I can start learning about speakers for real. I don't think I'll be starting with a Unity design
.John
hancock said:
Yes, I am really interested in the Unity, and I've taken your advise - at least partly. Turns out, as Dave said, that Nick had a set of the Lambda Unity's, so I'm getting them. Should be interesting to play with. Meanwhile, I'm left pondering what to do about the region below 300hz. I like your dipole approach, as that matches somewhat the directivity advantages of the horns. I thinking something along the lines of a modified type of H frame, but I'd like to use larger drivers (dipole 15's) and would fold the baffle at about 60 degrees in the middle so the lower driver would be firing up and forward at an angle and the mirror image upper driver would fire down and forward (I'll attempt to attach a figure, but I'm not quite sure of the process, so we'll see). Any and all thoughts, criticisms welcome.
[img]
Sheldon
Attachments
Meanwhile, I'm left pondering what to do about the region below 300hz. I
See if Nick will sell you some of his Lambda TD15 woofers,
wideband drivers made for the Unity. They sound excellent,
sealed or ported. He also has TD15M for midrange. /hehe
I chose the low Q version called TD15H, he also has TD15X, and TD15S.
I really enjoy the sonics of these 15" woofers, the best midrange
I've heard out of a 15" woofer, I like the driver so much I have
ten of the 'Apollo' version - the TD15 on steriods. Low pass 300hz
is not a problem for these woofers.... He also has TD12, but he
indicated that the TD15 sounds best.
Final thoughts, if you get the 'long John' phase plugs, chrome or
black, the woofer can be pretty intimidating and woman friendly
See if Nick will sell you some of his Lambda TD15 woofers,
wideband drivers made for the Unity. They sound excellent,
sealed or ported. He also has TD15M for midrange. /hehe
I chose the low Q version called TD15H, he also has TD15X, and TD15S.
I really enjoy the sonics of these 15" woofers, the best midrange
I've heard out of a 15" woofer, I like the driver so much I have
ten of the 'Apollo' version - the TD15 on steriods. Low pass 300hz
is not a problem for these woofers.... He also has TD12, but he
indicated that the TD15 sounds best.
Final thoughts, if you get the 'long John' phase plugs, chrome or
black, the woofer can be pretty intimidating and woman friendly
Thanks,
I was thinking of going with the 15" dipole version to make EQing it a little easier. I'll ask Nick what he thinks, but on his site he indicates that the DP units also do the low midrange very nicely. On the other hand, the TD's would be a more versatile choice if the dipole approach doesn't suit. IIRC, they have at least as much excursion as the DP, so could be EQ'd to produce the necessary output in a dipole arrangement. It would just require a much steeper EQ profile and better EQ hardware.
Wow! what are you doing with ten of those things? I'm going to feel inadequate now, no matter how big the phase plugs.
Sheldon
I was thinking of going with the 15" dipole version to make EQing it a little easier. I'll ask Nick what he thinks, but on his site he indicates that the DP units also do the low midrange very nicely. On the other hand, the TD's would be a more versatile choice if the dipole approach doesn't suit. IIRC, they have at least as much excursion as the DP, so could be EQ'd to produce the necessary output in a dipole arrangement. It would just require a much steeper EQ profile and better EQ hardware.
Wow! what are you doing with ten of those things? I'm going to feel inadequate now, no matter how big the phase plugs.
Sheldon
Been planning to build a 11 driver per cabinet speaker system,
mini-line source of four tweets and four mids, two 15's below the
array and one above - for a high spl system in home to thrash
people
I would like to use two above the array, but
the house is not tall enough
If the house was even bigger, I would be more happy with
a full array with four main cabinets, two of them would be
bass arrays.
As usual, system design is just compromises...
The four extra TD15's will need a home, maybe I could keep
two for spares just in case I blow something up or the dog
eats a woofer... The remaing two perhaps a nice rear 3 way
surround setup ? /lol/
The unity solution is more cost effective and practical than
what I want to do.. Mine is more of a show piece really....
Snail pace progress trying to collect expensive drivers.
mini-line source of four tweets and four mids, two 15's below the
array and one above - for a high spl system in home to thrash
people
I would like to use two above the array, butthe house is not tall enough
If the house was even bigger, I would be more happy with
a full array with four main cabinets, two of them would be
bass arrays.
As usual, system design is just compromises...
The four extra TD15's will need a home, maybe I could keep
two for spares just in case I blow something up or the dog
eats a woofer... The remaing two perhaps a nice rear 3 way
surround setup ? /lol/
The unity solution is more cost effective and practical than
what I want to do.. Mine is more of a show piece really....
Snail pace progress trying to collect expensive drivers.
thylantyr said:Been planning to build a 11 driver per cabinet speaker system,
mini-line source of four tweets and four mids, two 15's below the
array and one above - for a high spl system in home to thrash
people
the house is not tall enough
Your use of the modifier "mini" seems misplaced anywhere in this context.
Sheldon
thylantyr said:
The four extra TD15's will need a home, maybe I could keep
two for spares just in case I blow something up or the dog
eats a woofer... The remaing two perhaps a nice rear 3 way
surround setup ? /lol/
The unity solution is more cost effective and practical than
what I want to do.. Mine is more of a show piece really....
Snail pace progress trying to collect expensive drivers.
Your hint about the TD's may be takin, depending on how I decide to go.
As far as practical? I don't know of any of this can be defended as practical. I missed that particular hurdle way back. Kinda in the same vein as increasing the power output of a perfectly good car by a factor of three and justifying it by saying "it's a safety feature, allows me to get out of trouble faster". BTDT. We used to try that on the parents too, to try and convince them the get the car with the biggest motor. Don't know why they were never convinced by such airtight logic.
Sheldon
Bumping this thread back from the dead to see whether there is anyone out there currently working on Unity style designs. I'm very intrigued by this type of system, and since I've been tinkering with FIR-based DSP xovers a system like John Hancock's is very very attractive.
With the Yorkville U15's running <2k/pair, they're an awfully tempting package as a place to start, but it's more than I'm going to plunk down before a) hearing them and/or b) validating that the Unity concept is what I am looking for.
It seems to me that the biggest initial hurdle for a DIYer looking to experiment is selecting the mid driver and getting the mounting and horn designed so that it enters the horn at the right spot while not preventing mounting of the compression driver. This is double tough as you have to have the right horn area AND have the right location to be 1/4 wave or less at the xover.
Has anyone identifiec any good driver candidates? Any more Unity success stories?
With the Yorkville U15's running <2k/pair, they're an awfully tempting package as a place to start, but it's more than I'm going to plunk down before a) hearing them and/or b) validating that the Unity concept is what I am looking for.
It seems to me that the biggest initial hurdle for a DIYer looking to experiment is selecting the mid driver and getting the mounting and horn designed so that it enters the horn at the right spot while not preventing mounting of the compression driver. This is double tough as you have to have the right horn area AND have the right location to be 1/4 wave or less at the xover.
Has anyone identifiec any good driver candidates? Any more Unity success stories?
Having read the whole patent now, I'm left wondering if some people have misunderstood the design.
With my understanding (possibly incorrect) there is certainly an air of experimentation about the whole thing, even down to driver choice. I don't think it's plausible to pick three different drivers (compression, cone mid, cone bass) and successfully integrate them on a consistent basis.
With my understanding (possibly incorrect) there is certainly an air of experimentation about the whole thing, even down to driver choice. I don't think it's plausible to pick three different drivers (compression, cone mid, cone bass) and successfully integrate them on a consistent basis.
Mudge said:
How so? The driver parameters have a big impact on the overall design, since you're trying to simultaneously optimize throat size as seen by the mid, distance from the compression tweet and the practical matter of mid driver size vs horn size to ensure you can actually fit 4 of them around the horn *and* physically achieve the desired spacing from the tweet.
Finding the right mid would in fact translate fairly universally to all horns of the same basic layout (eg 60x60), although you're right that there will still be some experimentation in terms of hole location front/rear chamber sizes and xover specifics.
You seem to be thinking along the same lines as me, but the problem I'm encountering is that for a fair range of 'good' horn drivers, it seems that one has to compromise the design of the horn to acheive either a good response from the compression driver, or from the midrange driver - the two are not always compatible it would seem.
I have a fairly good design for a clone of the SPL Runt at the moment, just need some parts to see if it actually works
That's two 8" units and a single compression driver if anyone's interested. The compression unit will probably need to be padded down, as the mid-bass seems to only manage 98dB/2.83V
I have a fairly good design for a clone of the SPL Runt at the moment, just need some parts to see if it actually works
That's two 8" units and a single compression driver if anyone's interested. The compression unit will probably need to be padded down, as the mid-bass seems to only manage 98dB/2.83V
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.