I call them TIE Brute, they look like heavy starfighter from Starwars 
TIE Brute: open-baffle + driver in CD horn
TIE Brute: open-baffle + driver in CD horn
Thx! Even my wife thinks they look great, this is the best combo, when you have sound, design and wife acceptance
Isn't the real question whether those speakers accept your wife?
We can't understand, when women fake an orgasm or pleasure from speakers, if she says that she likes them, I prefer to believe!
Perhaps she also want to be accepted by speakers... who cares about this policy, Lol)))
I call them TIE Brute, they look like heavy starfighter from Starwars
They do look like starships, although I remember TIE fighters looking more like |-|
What are the xo frquencies RCF-to-Faitals and Faitals to subs?
Last edited:
They do look like starships, although I remember TIE fighters looking more like |-|
What are the xo frquencies RCF-to-Faitals and Faitals to subs?
My TIE fighters a special, and they attack, so \|/
~ 800 and 35 now.
Contrary to what most audiophiles believe, or want to believe, women are better listeners, their hearing is better, they can hear more nuance, more detail, and will gloss less over what they hear.
And it all comes naturally, without any training, just give them some pointers. The women who are musically trained are even better and it can be scary for men who think they know their stuff.
And it all comes naturally, without any training, just give them some pointers. The women who are musically trained are even better and it can be scary for men who think they know their stuff.
I use my wife to see if I'm doing everything right in common. She was impressed by several systems at Munich and Warsaw exhibitions, and wants to hear the same at home. I'm getting close!
As she says My TIE fighters a special, and they attack, so \|/
~ 800 and 35 now.
I saw your thread and noted you have been experimenting quite a bit.
I also have OB 18" Faitals, although one 18hp1010 per side and baffleless, and xo at 65Hz to sealed 12" subs.
Have you tested with mids between your 18"s and the RCF? I was crossing mine at 400Hz and lowering the xo to 275Hz improved the sound as the mids have better definition down there. It has hinted by several knowledgeable folks here and they were right, in my system of course.
BTW, I'm also looking for low wattage tube amps for mids/treble.
Cheers!
In short, a few thoughts.
No, I haven't tried a mid between 18"s and the RCF. I've compared these 18'' with 12'' Beyma in my system. I sold 12'' (we have slightly different drivers, maybe there is a difference in the sound, I don't know). Before that, 8" Beyma were sold, 12 won
I've also listen various acoustic systems at exhibitions (before COVID)) and don't feel lack of definition in my setup. Rather the opposite. But not only the acoustics play, but also the room, and...IMHO, it is worth to follow some engineering idea or concept, and try not to get out of the way. I don't believe in Frankensteins, when you take the best parts and stitch together for the better results. I believe in engineering compromises and we need to choose which ones are important (I'm not an engineer, so you can consider it a religion)))
My idea was to get directivity control and a good power response for the best speaker-room interaction. Above 800 RCF controls directivity well. Below (it is difficult for me to check at home, but maybe this year I will make street measurements) - a dipole and size of 18''. And this is near the point source.. If I add mid there, it will be something completely different...
Then crossovers. +mid will require serious complication, and everything becomes difficult to control at home via measurements. OK, I tried digital filters and multi amping, it's cool stuff! But it is cool if you take a receiver (8channels) or mini dsp and get a lot of interesting things for a little money. And that sounds very good. For that money.
But I can't buy a few DACs of the same quality, as now I have in a stereo. A few of the same amplifiers (it less inexpensive, but still), everything is complicated again. Brr, I don't want that. I want to be able to listen to any DAC or even CD player or even vinyl (ok, I don't want to, but now I can))
And last thought. It seems to me that it is not the resolution in a particular band is important, but the balance of resolution over the entire range. For example, I tried a ribbon tweeter in the upper octave, it definitely has a higher resolution than a CD! But... It begins to give out the work of the tweeter, and you already listen not musicians, but tweeters... I appreciate my current setup for a very smooth resolution in the entire range.
PS. Sometimes the lack of definition is not the driver's problem, but the amplifier's.
PPS. Feel free to discuss in my topic, I think my thoughts will be more appropriate there than here
Last edited:
In short, a few thoughts.
No, I haven't tried a mid between 18"s and the RCF. I've compared these 18'' with 12'' Beyma in my system. I sold 12'' (we have slightly different drivers, maybe there is a difference in the sound, I don't know). Before that, 8" Beyma were sold, 12 won
IMHO, it is worth to follow some engineering idea or concept, and try not to get out of the way. I don't believe in Frankensteins, when you take the best parts and stitch together for the better results. I believe in engineering compromises and we need to choose which ones are important (I'm not an engineer, so you can consider it a religion)))
My idea was to get directivity control and a good power response for the best speaker-room interaction. Above 800 RCF controls directivity well. Below (it is difficult for me to check at home, but maybe this year I will make street measurements) - a dipole and size of 18''. And this is near the point source.. If I add mid there, it will be something completely different...
Then crossovers. +mid will require serious complication, and everything becomes difficult to control at home via measurements. OK, I tried digital filters and multi amping, it's cool stuff! But it is cool if you take a receiver (8channels) or mini dsp and get a lot of interesting things for a little money. And that sounds very good. For that money.
But I can't buy a few DACs of the same quality, as now I have in a stereo. A few of the same amplifiers (it less inexpensive, but still), everything is complicated again. Brr, I don't want that. I want to be able to listen to any DAC or even CD player or even vinyl (ok, I don't want to, but now I can))
And last thought. It seems to me that it is not the resolution in a particular band is important, but the balance of resolution over the entire range. For example, I tried a ribbon tweeter in the upper octave, it definitely has a higher resolution than a CD! But... It begins to give out the work of the tweeter, and you already listen not musicians, but tweeters... I appreciate my current setup for a very smooth resolution in the entire range.
PS. Sometimes the lack of definition is not the driver's problem, but the amplifier's.
PPS. Feel free to discuss in my topic, I think my thoughts will be more appropriate there than here
I've been enjoying my open baffles for some time now, paired with monopole horns.
I wanted to try something very small in comparison, and have gone with each sealed floorstanders using sidefiring MarkAudio 12P and 12PW in dipole use. Better bass from a sealed cabinet, using room reflections to fill it, along with a tweeter aimed at the listener from the null, using a very high knee and a shallow slope to provide location cues.
It's daft, but it works. Decent bass and no noticeable cabinet resonances, even before internal damping.
It becomes very impressive when crossed to a single sealed sub.
I like your ideas here too. It's fun to go outside the norm. This is the first time I took advantage of room reflections instead of trying to treat them or mostly work around them. My only concession is using a tall planar tweeter to limit vertical directivity, which in this case I like better than dome domed and a ring radiator tried in this experiment.
It's not open baffle, but is conceived from wondering how to make my dipole pair better.
Pictures?
xo points, slopes, etc?
Thanks. Still trying out tweeters so none installed as yet on on this roughed out try . No crossover on the fullrangers which are wired with the 3db more efficient 12P pair facing each other. Nearly all sound is from room reflections, with treble assisted I guess from some diffraction from not flush mounting the thick driver flanges . The treble and localization is assisted by the 20000 hertz Butterworth 1st order slope on the tweeters, basically all there at 20000, where the maximum help is needed, and fading to no treble at the bottom of its range.
No measurements, but it is at the least equal to my open baffles in sound quality, subjectively.
I added a sealed sub yesterday, using an active EQ crossing 4th order at 120 hertz, and rolled the plate amplifier for the sub off at about 80 hertz, also 4th order.
Edit: it's a thus far undamped 1.73ft3 sealed cabinet, lightly braced.
Attachments
Last edited: