New midrange from Beyma

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
They look interesting but I think there are more useful products in their line up. BMS, B&C, Oberton, RCF, and many others have good options as well. Implementation will easily be the most important aspect when using quality prosound components.

Or any other components :)

I've eked great sound out of some pretty modest drivers, and heard some very easy to work with drivers of high quality sound ****-poor.
 
... A little like the RCF with its phase plug single horn !

It's really needs EQ for home integration ! Looking at these carbon Beyma curves in relation to the diameter and directivity : very short Fhz range = very hard for integration : it distors in the usefull Sd/diameter Fhz range !
 
my beyma speakers

I built two enclosures containing a Beyma 18P80NdE woofer, 10MCF400Nd midrange and TPL-150-H. The box is ported (6"x20") for the woofer. I have it tri-amplified (dampens the resonance well) with a solid state crossover (500hz and 2500hz sounded best to me) and equalizer. It sounds quite impressive to me and my friends. The box (20"x30"x20") is made from 3/4" Baltic birch and with the drivers, each weighs about 100 pounds. I'm not getting any of that boxy sound many other speakers seem to have. An orchestra really sounds like I am hearing it in an auditorium. It doesn't take much amplification to fill the room! I am still going to experiment with adding an L port inside to see what difference it makes, although the bass already sounds outstanding, so I may leave it out in the end. I also have some ideas for dispersing the higher frequencies better. I made a smaller box on my first try without the midrange drivers and this is definitely a great improvement.
 
I built two enclosures containing a Beyma 18P80NdE woofer, 10MCF400Nd midrange and TPL-150-H. The box is ported (6"x20") for the woofer. I have it tri-amplified (dampens the resonance well) with a solid state crossover (500hz and 2500hz sounded best to me) and equalizer. It sounds quite impressive to me and my friends. The box (20"x30"x20") is made from 3/4" Baltic birch and with the drivers, each weighs about 100 pounds. I'm not getting any of that boxy sound many other speakers seem to have. An orchestra really sounds like I am hearing it in an auditorium. It doesn't take much amplification to fill the room! I am still going to experiment with adding an L port inside to see what difference it makes, although the bass already sounds outstanding, so I may leave it out in the end. I also have some ideas for dispersing the higher frequencies better. I made a smaller box on my first try without the midrange drivers and this is definitely a great improvement.


I'am also very interested in the 10MCF400Nd. So what you can now say about it? You still use it?
 
Last edited:
New midrange from Beyma with Acoustic Lens

I'am also very interested in the 10MCF400Nd. So what you can now say about it? You still use it?

After many experiments, no port (for the Beyma 18P80NdE woofer) works best. I still use the Beyma 10MCF400Nd closed back midrange but now from around 300hz to 3000hz. Because the driver is larger than some of the wavelengths it handles, there is a beaming effect. I made 3D printed acoustic lenses for the midrange and tweeter (Beyma TPL-150-H) which do a nice job of dispersing the sound evenly. See the paper I wrote: AES E-Library >> 3D Printed Acoustic Lens for Dispersing Sound and Acoustic Lens by thingsterv - Thingiverse
 
After many experiments, no port (for the Beyma 18P80NdE woofer) works best. I still use the Beyma 10MCF400Nd closed back midrange but now from around 300hz to 3000hz. Because the driver is larger than some of the wavelengths it handles, there is a beaming effect. I made 3D printed acoustic lenses for the midrange and tweeter (Beyma TPL-150-H) which do a nice job of dispersing the sound evenly. See the paper I wrote: AES E-Library >> 3D Printed Acoustic Lens for Dispersing Sound and Acoustic Lens by thingsterv - Thingiverse


Very impressive. Wow!

For my understanding: You transform the planar wave front of the driver to a more natural spherical wave front to eliminate beaming effects. From what i saw in the pdf (page 5), there is a influence in the wavelengths (f), that are f>driversize. Maybe the image of the pdf is not exact enough? I dont know? Is that right?
I think it was not the goal, to have here any changes?


I see the effect at f<driversize. It works. Perfect.
 
Last edited:
Very impressive. Wow!

For my understanding: You transform the planar wave front of the driver to a more natural spherical wave front to eliminate beaming effects. From what i saw in the pdf (page 5), there is a influence in the wavelengths (f), that are f>driversize. Maybe the image of the pdf is not exact enough? I dont know? Is that right?
I think it was not the goal, to have here any changes?


I see the effect at f<driversize. It works. Perfect.

The goal is to have the response be more equal at all angles coming out of the driver. Wave lengths larger than the driver size naturally disperse with spherical wave fronts due to diffraction. And even for diffracted waves, the lens may help in evening out the intensity at different angles. I am leaving it to the community (and industry) to experiment and develop this technique more having put the idea in the public domain.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.