Yes to TC9 drivers. My setup will be similar to yours. Ceilings will be ~8' and the front wall will only be about 11' wide though. Depth is about 20'. Also, I play on having two 18" drivers for an infinite baffle subwoofer. Still haven't figured out the surround part of it, but I'll probably go ahead and install a few in wall and in ceiling speakers for ATMOS if I ever get there. At minimum I'll wire them in.
We had actually shared a few emails back and forth about FIR vs IR and I'm still trying to figure out what to do there. But I have some time since the house probably won't be done for another 10-12 months!
We had actually shared a few emails back and forth about FIR vs IR and I'm still trying to figure out what to do there. But I have some time since the house probably won't be done for another 10-12 months!
No, no updates recently. I've been wanting to post some pics and new measurements, but haven't had the time. Mostly, I've been just sitting back and enjoying the music. I'll try to get some measurements up this weekend.
I'm still on 2-ch. Though, the other thread on fixing the phantom center seems interesting and a way to get an improved tone in the phantom center. Check it out.
Good luck with the renovation. Post some pictures as you go along.
I'm still on 2-ch. Though, the other thread on fixing the phantom center seems interesting and a way to get an improved tone in the phantom center. Check it out.
Good luck with the renovation. Post some pictures as you go along.
I can calculate and tell you the volume per driver. But my goal was to get the thing as close to the corner as possible. So, I went with a triangular cab with the depth as small as possible to allow the drivers to still fit inside but be as close to the corner as possible. My goal was not to get as much bottom end as I could. That being said, my -3 db point is still around 80 Hz (IIRC), which is perfect for me because I cross over to a sub from there. Check Wesayso's two towers thread. He uses his TC9 arrays to get to 20 Hz. I think it is quite doable with the right sizing. Cone excursion would be still be quite low. I could throw power at it and EQ it flat to 20 Hz, but there is no need for that.
Ra7, I saw you eyeing the Phantom Center thread, you've got to try that 
.
If shooting for output down low I'd suggest a bit over 2 liter per driver. I have about 2.2 liter before removing the driver volume. Fill it with a mixture of wool felt on walls and fiberglass insulation while checking the impedance plots. You should be able to get a clean impedance plot resembling the plot of a single driver if all goes well.
.If shooting for output down low I'd suggest a bit over 2 liter per driver. I have about 2.2 liter before removing the driver volume. Fill it with a mixture of wool felt on walls and fiberglass insulation while checking the impedance plots. You should be able to get a clean impedance plot resembling the plot of a single driver if all goes well.
Thanks both. According to the PE website, the optimum cabinet size (determined using BassBox 6 Pro High Fidelity suggestion) is 0.1 ft^3 which is about 2.8L for F3 at 122Hz. I'm not sure if they rounded up to 0.1 as I would expect at least one or two more significant digits. But in any case, that gives me a decent ballpark to shoot for. The exact volume I end up with may be partially determined by how my walls end up getting constructed.
Did either of you consider going vented? The PE site says double the volume with a vented F3 at 72Hz which could be doable while also maximizing the position of the driver deep into the corners given I'm building them into the walls.
Did either of you consider going vented? The PE site says double the volume with a vented F3 at 72Hz which could be doable while also maximizing the position of the driver deep into the corners given I'm building them into the walls.
I would avoid this if at all possible. You definitely won't get to an F3 of 72 Hz, and a vented arrangement totally unloads the cone below resonance, making LF EQ impossible.
As wesayso mentioned, 2-2.5 liters is about spot-on, and that leaves you with the option to EQ or not EQ as you see fit. Separate chambers for each driver if possible.
I'm guessing you haven't tried it yet then
The whole point of running the arrays full range with EQ is precisely because there is no conceivable way to integrate subwoofers as cleanly as the array itself produces bass.
For home theater I would definitely agree that subwoofers are required, but for music, the best part of the array is the seamless blending of LF.
I had a pair of RD75 planars I recently sold, and although they were better than the Vifa arrays everywhere between 200Hz and 20kHz, I found it impossible to get them to play well with any subwoofer, and I tried literally everything. I kept longing for the seamless nature of Vifa arrays, and in the end, they are the ones I still listen to every day.
Long story short... try them full range for music listening. There's no going back!
Regards,
Owen
Thanks for the input. I am planning a couple 18" infinite baffle subs for home theater. But for the arrays themselves, I'll shoot for the 2.0-2.5L. Does the separate chambers really make a difference? Wouldn't they effectively "see" the same volume regardless? Or is that more of an "ideal" that in reality can't really be achieved based on variation in drivers in which case, separate chambers makes a significant difference? It makes construction a fair amount more complicated so just trying to decide if it's worth the effort.
I'm guessing you haven't tried it yet then
The whole point of running the arrays full range with EQ is precisely because there is no conceivable way to integrate subwoofers as cleanly as the array itself produces bass.
For home theater I would definitely agree that subwoofers are required, but for music, the best part of the array is the seamless blending of LF.
I had a pair of RD75 planars I recently sold, and although they were better than the Vifa arrays everywhere between 200Hz and 20kHz, I found it impossible to get them to play well with any subwoofer, and I tried literally everything. I kept longing for the seamless nature of Vifa arrays, and in the end, they are the ones I still listen to every day.
Long story short... try them full range for music listening. There's no going back!
Regards,
Owen
Hi Owen,
Yes, certainly getting 20 Hz out of the arrays is a good idea. But my goals are a bit different. I was trying to use the corners to avoid the front wall reflection and also to get some directivity in the low frequencies. With this configuration, I have no near-side wall reflections, no front wall reflections, and no ceiling/floor reflections because of the array. Plus the corner loading provides a boost in the mid/low frequencies. In order to get these benefits, I had to push the drivers as far into the corners as possible and so, I had to sacrifice bottom end extension. But I think this a positive trade-off.
I can still EQ it and get more extension, but I am perfectly happy with my FIR-corrected sub. It produces a very even response at the listening position. It sounds very much "in groove." You want to get up and dance. I have built a couple more cabinets for a distributed sub system, but haven't gotten around to completing those builds yet. With a distributed sub system, the low frequencies would be even more uniform across the sofa.
So, it is definitely possible to align subs with arrays. Below 200 Hz or so, the in-room response is modal in nature. It does not matter whether the arrays are producing those frequencies or some other drivers. Another thing to consider is excursion. But I think 25 TC9s are ok in that department.
Last edited:
I don't know if separate chambers really make a big difference. The air inside acting like a suspension near the resonant frequency of the driver. And all drivers are moving in unison. So, why would it matter if all drivers were sharing the volume as long as it was properly sized for all drivers combined? You probably want enough absorption in there to absorb the standing waves. Use real batt insulation or denim insulation. None of that pillow stuffing crap.
I decided to close up the immediate space between drivers after reading something Lynn Olsen said on his big "Beyond the Ariel" thread though my chambers are all connected, at alternating points to prevent standing waves.
I used mass loaded vinyl between every other chamber and used that as the place to connect the wires, alternating the orientation of the drivers. That way I could still get the drivers close together, distance being 85.5 mm.
Here is one post by Lynn, explaining to avoid early (less than 3ms) reflections among which drivers sharing a common space is mentioned. I didn't want to risqué it after that much work! It kind of made sense to me. Not the post I searched for but it's a huge thread and hard to find one specific post.
This stood out for me:
Somewhere on that thread he goes into more detail about his Ariel speakers and why he separated the space between them for at least some distance.
It isn't hard science but at the time it made sense enough for me to change my original plans.
I used mass loaded vinyl between every other chamber and used that as the place to connect the wires, alternating the orientation of the drivers. That way I could still get the drivers close together, distance being 85.5 mm.
Here is one post by Lynn, explaining to avoid early (less than 3ms) reflections among which drivers sharing a common space is mentioned. I didn't want to risqué it after that much work!
It kind of made sense to me. Not the post I searched for but it's a huge thread and hard to find one specific post.This stood out for me:
Somewhere on that thread he goes into more detail about his Ariel speakers and why he separated the space between them for at least some distance.
It isn't hard science but at the time it made sense enough for me to change my original plans.
Hmm... if I can get my drivers close to the corners and also get the volume exactly where I want it, 20Hz sounds like it would be pretty darn close to being "good enough" for HT too. I know IB subs would be optimal for the .1 channel, but at the same time, the simplicity of not having them would be nice. I guess I can build the arrays first and decide later. The only negative is that I am building the room itself over the next year so I would like to know whether to plan for them or not before we frame up the room. Decisions, decisions...
If you want authority in bass down to 20 Hz some subs for HT make sense. Room size will matter here. I run no subs and haven't needed them yet. With an average listening level of 85-88 dB for music I haven't seen tracks I cannot play. But it would be good to have some headroom. Some help in the first octave would be all that is needed i.m.h.o.
The room will be about 11' across and 20' deep. Not that big. And with mine being corner loaded with appropriate volume for the drivers (individually or not), I probably couldn't ask for a better scenario. Also, I think I'll be able to get 27 drivers per side.
Ok, this should probably move to it's own dedicated thread so I can avoid hi-jacking RA7's.
Meet me over there!
Ok, this should probably move to it's own dedicated thread so I can avoid hi-jacking RA7's.
Meet me over there!
Two flavors of Paradise
I recently met a guy from work who is also interested in horns and he is going to take my VOTT cabs and the drivers in them. He is not that familiar with crossovers and such, and so, in order to help him out I setup the VOTTs with the Altec 421 woofers in them and on top JBL2445Js in 2380 replica horns.
It sounds fantastic! Using the old but trusty miniDSP 2x4 board, I setup a simple LR48 crossover at 750 Hz and a delay for the top horn. It works pretty well, i.e., phase tracking is good and both sections seem to like that crossover point.
Just this crossover and some light EQ in miniDSP to get the tonal balance right already sounds quite good. After adding FIR correction in JRiver, it sounds very similar to the line arrays. It is just a different flavor of paradise.
Some differences between the arrays and the all horn system:
1. Mid-bass: Even after DRC correction, the mid-bass is not as well defined and clear as the arrays. This is where a lot of musical information is located and the arrays just sound better.
2. Instrument sizes: The instrument sizes are smaller compared to the arrays. Some might prefer it, I don't mind it; it's just different.
3. Depth perception: I have to admit, begrudgingly, some recordings have better depth perception on the horns than the arrays. The illusion of depth is easier to believe on the horns.
4. Overall musicality: Here the arrays win hands down. The tone colors, as Lynn Olson would say, are so much more vivid on the arrays. The horns are sort of an overexposed photograph -- some of the subtle details are blanched out. I feel this is a combination of the uber low distortion and the superior mid-bass of the arrays. The meaning of the music, the groove, and the connection is deeper on the arrays.
So, there's my unsolicited review. I could easily live with the horns. The arrays occupy much less space though.
I am sad to see the VOTTs go. It's the end of an era. But I am happy that someone else will get to enjoy them rather than them sitting in my basement unused.
I recently met a guy from work who is also interested in horns and he is going to take my VOTT cabs and the drivers in them. He is not that familiar with crossovers and such, and so, in order to help him out I setup the VOTTs with the Altec 421 woofers in them and on top JBL2445Js in 2380 replica horns.
It sounds fantastic! Using the old but trusty miniDSP 2x4 board, I setup a simple LR48 crossover at 750 Hz and a delay for the top horn. It works pretty well, i.e., phase tracking is good and both sections seem to like that crossover point.
Just this crossover and some light EQ in miniDSP to get the tonal balance right already sounds quite good. After adding FIR correction in JRiver, it sounds very similar to the line arrays. It is just a different flavor of paradise.
Some differences between the arrays and the all horn system:
1. Mid-bass: Even after DRC correction, the mid-bass is not as well defined and clear as the arrays. This is where a lot of musical information is located and the arrays just sound better.
2. Instrument sizes: The instrument sizes are smaller compared to the arrays. Some might prefer it, I don't mind it; it's just different.
3. Depth perception: I have to admit, begrudgingly, some recordings have better depth perception on the horns than the arrays. The illusion of depth is easier to believe on the horns.
4. Overall musicality: Here the arrays win hands down. The tone colors, as Lynn Olson would say, are so much more vivid on the arrays. The horns are sort of an overexposed photograph -- some of the subtle details are blanched out. I feel this is a combination of the uber low distortion and the superior mid-bass of the arrays. The meaning of the music, the groove, and the connection is deeper on the arrays.
So, there's my unsolicited review. I could easily live with the horns. The arrays occupy much less space though.
I am sad to see the VOTTs go. It's the end of an era. But I am happy that someone else will get to enjoy them rather than them sitting in my basement unused.
Attachments
Yes!Very interesting comparison
Ra7, had you listen disgusting effects
of 2380's diffraction slot?..I have been pondering the question about depth myself. What is different between the arrays and the horns? Vertical dispersion of the arrays is better controlled in the mid-bass. And the horizontal dispersion of the 2380 replica does not narrow with increasing frequency unlike the Vifa TC9, which will start beaming at some frequency. How does that result in better depth perception? I don't know. What I do know is depth perception is very much linked to dispersion and reflections and their relative timing and strength. My gut tells me delayed strong reflections produce impression of depth.