Maybe not familiar with the terminology, is there some documentation on this?
Loose terminology but functional; certainly nothing novel. See Roger Russell's two array write-ups in Audioexpress, which formed the origins of his IDS25, and Novak's paper on series-parallel arrays from 1961.
Setting aside the typically inaudible high Q notches with an array based around small wideband drivers, you'll usually see the characteristic down-tilted response with rising frequency as the individual outputs no longer sum consistently -corner frequency depending on spacing, the off-axis response characteristics of the driver &c., right? That's usually either a progressive slope, or as with Russell's, a gentle rolloff to the lower treble region where it levels out to approximately the output of a single unit. With most drivers likely to be employed in a wideband-based array, corner frequency is typically somewhere in the 1.5KHz - 2.5KHz region, so I put it in a crucible & called it c. 2KHz for the sake of having an approximate 'in advance guideline value'.
Setting aside the typically inaudible high Q notches with an array based around small wideband drivers, you'll usually see the characteristic down-tilted response with rising frequency as the individual outputs no longer sum consistently -corner frequency depending on spacing, the off-axis response characteristics of the driver &c., right? That's usually either a progressive slope, or as with Russell's, a gentle rolloff to the lower treble region where it levels out to approximately the output of a single unit. With most drivers likely to be employed in a wideband-based array, corner frequency is typically somewhere in the 1.5KHz - 2.5KHz region, so I put it in a crucible & called it c. 2KHz for the sake of having an approximate 'in advance guideline value'.
I know MArk loves the looks of the EnABLed drivers. He, politicaly and marketwize, has to stay neutral. I have certainy been given much help from Mark Audio.
We did swap a set of A7.3eNc for 2 pair of stock A12pw (in Dan O’s A12pew MTMs).
dave
It is about the transition from near-field to Fairfield. This changes with frequency and falls away above scott’s transition point.
dave
Manufacturers generally do not endorse alterations to their product by third parties. That is not a synonym for 'any and all modifications are useless' but simply a commercial reality, since it can damage their own sales, not all modifications are necessarily effective, and they don't have time to vet what 3rd parties are doing, which would necessarily have to happen to prevent a free-for-all.
In fact, it does. Recent literature even shows that buildings sitting on soft soils are like the dots on speaker cones (presumably, I've never tested the dots) -- and change then frequency response of the ground shaking around them.
Right, in terms of vertical polars. But I was also referring to mutual coupling. As Jim Novak (himself leaning on Pritchard) put it (I can't exactly do better than him for obvious reasons
): 'The net radiation resistance, or acoustic loading for small spacings in an N speaker array, is N^2 times as large as the loading on a single speaker. This increase is consistent with an N-fold increase in cone area. On the other hand, as the relative centre-to-centre spacing (ratio of spacing to wavelength) is increased, the sound pressure no longer remains uniform over the array surface. This causes the array loading to decrease ultimately to N times the loading on a single speaker. Increased loading in this case, occurs only in direct proportion to the total cone area because the over-all array dimensions are now large relative to the wavelength.'
Last edited:
Patent jargon
: In the end, a sufficient plurality of point sources is perceived as one up to the desired off axis polar response.
Of course! Patent application = preponderance of obscure abstract profundity.
Definitely not dismissing it as a viable option, especially since the XR290 is overall the best cone/dome speaker system I've ever auditioned, besting some the then popular horn systems also and thoroughly enjoyed my 'adventures' in 'FR' driver line array experiments, thread[s?] we had on the original FR forum to the point where if I wind up being forced to dramatically downsize my living quarters I image I'll prefer an FR 'infinite' corner array over a FR 'monkey coffin' or FAST/WAW as it comes closer to a horn system's 'presence', for lack of a better term ATM.
Patent application = preponderance of obscure abstract profundity. Definitely not dismissing it as a viable option, especially since the XR290 is overall the best cone/dome speaker system I've ever auditioned, besting some the then popular horn systems also and thoroughly enjoyed my 'adventures' in 'FR' driver line array experiments, thread[s?] we had on the original FR forum to the point where if I wind up being forced to dramatically downsize my living quarters I image I'll prefer an FR 'infinite' corner array over a FR 'monkey coffin' or FAST/WAW as it comes closer to a horn system's 'presence', for lack of a better term ATM.
May I ask you to share this literature? It could give some new ideas to apply to speakers and cabinets. Or improve jackhammers, pistons and cylinders, etc...
Of course!
I like it... I'll have to bookmark that one. Sounds good to me.
I think (it was a while ago) I heard an XR290 at a show once -lousy setup alas, but if it was that beast, it was still seriously good. Hmm, FR based corner array -something like John Murphy's? The Murphy Corner-Line-Array Home Page
Not really, just a different term that is sometimes used for convenience; as noted, nothing novel here. All I was trying to say was with a typical nearfield array using unsupported wideband drivers, in many circumstances EQ will be required for the top end, not to correct for the high Q notches in the response, but to compensate for the overall reduction in output.
Last edited: