Better look at the radian speakers, they are more favored.
I wonder where the elegance dynamics ends in a piston mode because there is no graphics. In general, such a two-way system can hoot and poke and there is no midrange and even a more budgetary three-way system will sound more transparent than this given the heavy speaker cone of 15H. You need to understand that the base of the sound is mid-range and midbass and the bass speaker is seasoning to the rest of the speakers.
According to a side note in a recent voice-coil issue Vance Dickason built himself a two way monitor with a b&c 15bg100 and a Radian driver on a 18s xr2064. I would take that woofer for a three way without hesitation from looking at the data sheet alone but not for a two way that has to be crossed around 800 hz due to the cone breakup. But it seems to work well according to him. But he is a skilled and experienced speaker designer, which might help quite a lot in pulling something like this off.
Regards
Charles
Regards
Charles
Last edited:
Zingali makes three or two way on large speakers:
http://www.zingaliacoustics.com/hifi/download/CLIENT EVO TECHNICAL SHEET.pdf
http://www.zingaliacoustics.com/hifi/download/HOME MONITOR TECHNICAL SHEETS.pdf
YouTube
And in their two-way systems they used to put B&C 12 tbx and B&C de 200
Zingali Home Monitor 112
But the lack of the midrange is felt in different videos.
http://www.zingaliacoustics.com/hifi/download/CLIENT EVO TECHNICAL SHEET.pdf
http://www.zingaliacoustics.com/hifi/download/HOME MONITOR TECHNICAL SHEETS.pdf
YouTube
And in their two-way systems they used to put B&C 12 tbx and B&C de 200
Zingali Home Monitor 112
But the lack of the midrange is felt in different videos.
Thanks for the responses, it has restored my confidence! I never intended to design a passive crossover, I was talking about the 4950p is the model that includes a passive, and that is what I was bringing to the table.
The comments on the Goldwood GM-450PB 2" High Frequency Horn 4 Bolt 500hz seem pleasurable and 600hz seems like a very crossover point.
I intend to run two balanced Minidsp. One going to subwoofer the, going to the mid/treble horn. I will split the balanced signal from the source. The idea is to keep latency down by using IIR filters, and creating as many eq control points as possible or need per driver. Since the subwoofer usually needs the most eq, hence the dedicated balanced minidsp for it, giving 20 biquads dedicated to that channel. The top will have share 6 biquads, upstream and then have, 14 biquads, dedicated per channel, downstream. The only minidsp option that offers that many control points, in application, cost about 500. I can do the same with two balanced minidsp's at a total of 220bucks.
The comments on the Goldwood GM-450PB 2" High Frequency Horn 4 Bolt 500hz seem pleasurable and 600hz seems like a very crossover point.
I intend to run two balanced Minidsp. One going to subwoofer the, going to the mid/treble horn. I will split the balanced signal from the source. The idea is to keep latency down by using IIR filters, and creating as many eq control points as possible or need per driver. Since the subwoofer usually needs the most eq, hence the dedicated balanced minidsp for it, giving 20 biquads dedicated to that channel. The top will have share 6 biquads, upstream and then have, 14 biquads, dedicated per channel, downstream. The only minidsp option that offers that many control points, in application, cost about 500. I can do the same with two balanced minidsp's at a total of 220bucks.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I plan on doing a passive some day to compare myself. For what it's worth though, I have had some very good passive xo direct radiators in my listening room, and my horn system is much better than all of them in resolution and transparency. That's probably due to the compression driver and the advantages of the horns' controlled directivity, but it is very good. It might be better with passive, but on the whole, the system has been a huge upgrade.
In using dual minidsps: I did this for a while trying out separate subwoofer. It is so handy to use the source selection, volume control, and the presets on the minidsp, and they can't be used if you run 2. Also trying to tweak eq and xo is a big pain when you are having to change between two units. I definitely wouldn't do that.
Your comment about needing more biquads is confusing to me. Neither configuration, even duals, will have enough to do everything in FIR. If you run the 4x10 HD you will be doing your eq and xo with IIR filters, and it will have no problem doing everything you need. You will have some fir biquads to use if you want to do some phase correction with rephase, but that is optional.
Brett mentioned being disappointed with the factory passive xo available for that driver, so the 4x10 HD is the route I'd go.
In using dual minidsps: I did this for a while trying out separate subwoofer. It is so handy to use the source selection, volume control, and the presets on the minidsp, and they can't be used if you run 2. Also trying to tweak eq and xo is a big pain when you are having to change between two units. I definitely wouldn't do that.
Your comment about needing more biquads is confusing to me. Neither configuration, even duals, will have enough to do everything in FIR. If you run the 4x10 HD you will be doing your eq and xo with IIR filters, and it will have no problem doing everything you need. You will have some fir biquads to use if you want to do some phase correction with rephase, but that is optional.
Brett mentioned being disappointed with the factory passive xo available for that driver, so the 4x10 HD is the route I'd go.
This comment is bothering, because I know you are right....
I am looking at the radian speakers some of the stuff I see there has me questioning. Why did I not opt for a planar/ribbon that can play to 200hz...then I remember that supposedly you have to run a passive crossover in between the driver and the amp. Now it seems that some are in the way of thinking that a quality passive crossover is no detriment to the system. I'd still run a active for eqing, I'm just saying, maybe there is a potential to create a 2 way with a planar/ribbon transducer that I can cross @ ~200hz and somehow this might be a good thing? Maybe a 3way with planar/ribbon mids and tweets?
Bohlender Graebener Neo10 Planar Transducer
This guy plays to 150hz, I'd love to cross to a woofer there. My main concern is having to use a passive crossover.
Maybe these types of drivers deserve more investigation for what I am trying to design?
LM8K - Wide Band Planar Ribbon Transducer - Radian Audio
I must say, I was just reading that using a Cap, to rolloff potentially damaging low frequency and DC, is all thats needed, so, that's reassuring.
Last edited:
It seems logical that a dedicated midrange would be superior to a heavy woofer, but that has not held true for me.
Don't throw away your plan! It's the move to horns, with their ability to play loud with ease with controlled directivity that is the huge advantage. Don't throw that idea out!
Lol Cspieker! No worries, I'm not committed to anything until I actually spend money. Talk fast, move slow! The minidsp's, which ever one I use, is a necessary evil, nothing else in the price range to even compare to. I still have yet to investigate the other product suggested for dac and eq. Still I'm aiming for something IIR for the benefit of lower latency.
Anyway.....CSpieker, have you heard planars and ribbon drivers? Are you not impressed with them versus what you can achieve with compression drivers? What is it about high efficiency that lends to hi fidelity, I have my own theories just wondering what you have to say.
Your comment about how Compression drivers make bad records stand out, is way more important of a topic than almost all others considering, mixing/mastering music is what I intend to use my new speakers for.
Also, about tuning with minidsp....theres not much going for me here...I run REW, take a measurement...use REW eq to set a target curve, REW tells me what to do, I enter the data into the minidsp....I'm done. In the past I'd be working with speakers systems that have already been eq'd, leaving room correction for me...in this case, I'd be trying to do voicing and room correction at the same time....so the flatter the initial curve of each driver is, the better off I am. To do things correct, I'd have to do voicing above 200hz and leave it be, or find a way to balance the amount of control I had between voicing and room correction, which is possible. I only do 1/3rd octave correction above 200hz, as its not recommended to room correction above that point unless very gentle curves are used.
This
950PB - 4" Dia, 2" Exit Compression Driver - Radian Audio
Is what I suspect would be comparable to the BMS 4590....on paper they are at least equal, with the BMS being able to play higher with less distortion.
My current system, this ~150-2.5khz that I get out of a 4".....maybe this is a bigger deal than I thought. Maybe I would be downgrading by doing anything to change that? Things I wonder....
Anyway.....CSpieker, have you heard planars and ribbon drivers? Are you not impressed with them versus what you can achieve with compression drivers? What is it about high efficiency that lends to hi fidelity, I have my own theories just wondering what you have to say.
Your comment about how Compression drivers make bad records stand out, is way more important of a topic than almost all others considering, mixing/mastering music is what I intend to use my new speakers for.
Also, about tuning with minidsp....theres not much going for me here...I run REW, take a measurement...use REW eq to set a target curve, REW tells me what to do, I enter the data into the minidsp....I'm done. In the past I'd be working with speakers systems that have already been eq'd, leaving room correction for me...in this case, I'd be trying to do voicing and room correction at the same time....so the flatter the initial curve of each driver is, the better off I am. To do things correct, I'd have to do voicing above 200hz and leave it be, or find a way to balance the amount of control I had between voicing and room correction, which is possible. I only do 1/3rd octave correction above 200hz, as its not recommended to room correction above that point unless very gentle curves are used.
This
950PB - 4" Dia, 2" Exit Compression Driver - Radian Audio
Is what I suspect would be comparable to the BMS 4590....on paper they are at least equal, with the BMS being able to play higher with less distortion.
My current system, this ~150-2.5khz that I get out of a 4".....maybe this is a bigger deal than I thought. Maybe I would be downgrading by doing anything to change that? Things I wonder....
Last edited:
Sound isn't round
The shape of the wavefront from a point source is round
There's some confusion...
For the purposes of most speaker design and this conversation it's all point sources, so no confusion on my part.
WRT Dr. Geddes' post, for sure a non properly terminated round horn would be worst since it has a theoretically infinite number of the same terminus eigenmodes, but he and others have proven that of the myriad shapes horns can have, round ones can have the most natural sounding reproduction within the driver's limitation, so to my way of thinking this is tantamount to saying it has 'potentially the least distortion practical'.
GM
Not sure if you noticed the freeDSP aurora I linked to earlier in this thread. it is 195$ without case and psu in the kickstarter right now. 8 channel dsp, balanced io, usb interface, wifi, you can import REW files etc. advanced stuff
freeDSP-aurora DSP by auverdion — Kickstarter
In the topic below:
Best 15 inch woofer for my system
the guy chose the faital pro 15pr400 and two compression drivers for other frequences but I would take for midrange phl 1130(6.5") or phl 2520(8") and on the high frequency I would take the scanSpeak Illuminator D3004/6620 or faital pro hf108 if you tend to compression drivers. That is, I would have done something like magnat transplus 1500 only on the best components. You can go even further and put two midrange 6.5 speakers to get a better scene like in the vintage acoustics of marantz LS17A.The 15" speaker should not be too heavy for a three-way as the experience of vintage japanese acoustics shows that it should be light and responsive and not heavy and powerful and such a speaker was in the Calpamos system on the second page of this topic.
Bohlender Graebener can give a metallic ringing sound so is not it better to take then BEYMA TPL-75 whose older brother tpl150 earned itself popularity?
Anyway.....CSpieker, have you heard planars and ribbon drivers?
I attend rmaf most years and I've listened extensively to all types of loudspeakers, dipoles, electrostatic, planars, ceramic drivers, horns, magico, focal, Wilson, you name it.
Are you not impressed with them versus what you can achieve with compression drivers?
They all have their own differences and advantages. I also have a pair of neo8 drivers that I have experimented with and I abandoned the effort as inferior to my horns. Many of the systems I have heard are more easy to listen to than mine. More laid back and the sound is laid out there in a natural and easy way. As I described before, horns are more "in your face". None of the other speakers I have heard are as thrilling though. When I have buds over and we crank it up and reproduce the levels and the impact of a live concert of electronic music, it's more fun than anything. The illusion of a singer performing in front of you is also unrivaled, and coupled with SET amplification, voices are better than anything else I've heard, although that doesn't apply to all horns, it seems to be something peculiar to my setup in particular.
What is it about high efficiency that lends to hi fidelity, I have my own theories just wondering what you have to say.
It's the dynamic abilities of horns as well as the resolution you get with the directivity. There's not so much reflected sound mucking things up. It's like other speakers are covered by a thin layer of wool. Sound is softer, easier, less dynamic. Again BMW vs Ferrari.
Your comment about how Compression drivers make bad records stand out, is way more important of a topic than almost all others considering, mixing/mastering music is what I intend to use my new speakers for.
I think it's mainly that great recordings are so incredible to enjoy that after a great track, it's difficult to settle for anything less. Whereas with other speakers nothing sounds that great, so everything is more similar. Often I'll hear a song in the car and I'll note how great it sounds and replay it later on the hifi only to find it doesn't sound as good as I thought. When the system is no longer the limiting factor on fidelity, you can hear differences in recordings that escape lesser systems. I would argue that's exactly what you want for mastering. Do you really want a system incapable of resolving the last 10% of recording quality?
Also, about tuning with minidsp....theres not much going for me here...I run REW, take a measurement...use REW eq to set a target curve, REW tells me what to do, I enter the data into the minidsp....I'm done. In the past I'd be working with speakers systems that have already been eq'd, leaving room correction for me...in this case, I'd be trying to do voicing and room correction at the same time....so the flatter the initial curve of each driver is, the better off I am. To do things correct, I'd have to do voicing above 200hz and leave it be, or find a way to balance the amount of control I had between voicing and room correction, which is possible. I only do 1/3rd octave correction above 200hz, as its not recommended to room correction above that point unless very gentle curves are used.
I see. I've never used that function of REW. I take 6 averaged measurements around where my head is in the listening position. I then use parametric eq in the minidsp to gently correct things. The process takes maybe 45 minutes. I use a standard listening position curve, then sometimes adjust to taste and save some other similar presets to help with poor recordings. (less bright, more bright, less bass, etc). The curve I use is slanting slightly up under 100hz, slanting down over 1k. There are a few very similar curves that are pretty broadly agreed upon. (a speaker measuring flat on axis, is not flat at the listening position)
This 950PB - 4" Dia, 2" Exit Compression Driver - Radian Audio Is what I suspect would be comparable to the BMS 4590....on paper they are at least equal, with the BMS being able to play higher with less distortion. My current system, this ~150-2.5khz that I get out of a 4".....maybe this is a bigger deal than I thought. Maybe I would be downgrading by doing anything to change that? Things I wonder...
I can't comment on the suitability of any of the 2" exit drivers. I use the radian 475 and adore it.
In case you are wondering why I am posting so much, I broke my leg and got compartment syndrome, so I'm laid up and bored. Hopefully some of it is helpful to you.
I attend rmaf most years and I've listened extensively to all types of loudspeakers, dipoles, electrostatic, planars, ceramic drivers, horns, magico, focal, Wilson, you name it.
Are you not impressed with them versus what you can achieve with compression drivers?
They all have their own differences and advantages. I also have a pair of neo8 drivers that I have experimented with and I abandoned the effort as inferior to my horns. Many of the systems I have heard are more easy to listen to than mine. More laid back and the sound is laid out there in a natural and easy way. As I described before, horns are more "in your face". None of the other speakers I have heard are as thrilling though. When I have buds over and we crank it up and reproduce the levels and the impact of a live concert of electronic music, it's more fun than anything. The illusion of a singer performing in front of you is also unrivaled, and coupled with SET amplification, voices are better than anything else I've heard, although that doesn't apply to all horns, it seems to be something peculiar to my setup in particular.
What is it about high efficiency that lends to hi fidelity, I have my own theories just wondering what you have to say.
It's the dynamic abilities of horns as well as the resolution you get with the directivity. There's not so much reflected sound mucking things up. It's like other speakers are covered by a thin layer of wool. Sound is softer, easier, less dynamic. Again BMW vs Ferrari.
Your comment about how Compression drivers make bad records stand out, is way more important of a topic than almost all others considering, mixing/mastering music is what I intend to use my new speakers for.
I think it's mainly that great recordings are so incredible to enjoy that after a great track, it's difficult to settle for anything less. Whereas with other speakers nothing sounds that great, so everything is more similar. Often I'll hear a song in the car and I'll note how great it sounds and replay it later on the hifi only to find it doesn't sound as good as I thought. When the system is no longer the limiting factor on fidelity, you can hear differences in recordings that escape lesser systems. I would argue that's exactly what you want for mastering. Do you really want a system incapable of resolving the last 10% of recording quality?
Also, about tuning with minidsp....theres not much going for me here...I run REW, take a measurement...use REW eq to set a target curve, REW tells me what to do, I enter the data into the minidsp....I'm done. In the past I'd be working with speakers systems that have already been eq'd, leaving room correction for me...in this case, I'd be trying to do voicing and room correction at the same time....so the flatter the initial curve of each driver is, the better off I am. To do things correct, I'd have to do voicing above 200hz and leave it be, or find a way to balance the amount of control I had between voicing and room correction, which is possible. I only do 1/3rd octave correction above 200hz, as its not recommended to room correction above that point unless very gentle curves are used.
I see. I've never used that function of REW. I take 6 averaged measurements around where my head is in the listening position. I then use parametric eq in the minidsp to gently correct things. The process takes maybe 45 minutes. I use a standard listening position curve, then sometimes adjust to taste and save some other similar presets to help with poor recordings. (less bright, more bright, less bass, etc). The curve I use is slanting slightly up under 100hz, slanting down over 1k. There are a few very similar curves that are pretty broadly agreed upon. (a speaker measuring flat on axis, is not flat at the listening position)
This 950PB - 4" Dia, 2" Exit Compression Driver - Radian Audio Is what I suspect would be comparable to the BMS 4590....on paper they are at least equal, with the BMS being able to play higher with less distortion. My current system, this ~150-2.5khz that I get out of a 4".....maybe this is a bigger deal than I thought. Maybe I would be downgrading by doing anything to change that? Things I wonder...
I can't comment on the suitability of any of the 2" exit drivers. I use the radian 475 and adore it.
In case you are wondering why I am posting so much, I broke my leg and got compartment syndrome, so I'm laid up and bored. Hopefully some of it is helpful to you.
I need you to post moorrre. Just kidding but, seriously, I really appreciate your opinion. I obsess over projects, goals, etc, so I'm sitting here, hitting refresh waiting for anyone to respond lol!
I have to pick and choose some of the advice I take from these boards because people loose focus on the idea of a natural colorless speaker, and start talking about what sounds good. I'm not interested in what sounds good, I am interested in accuracy to the original signal. For the most part, a very smooth, not necessarily linear, but close to it if not, frequency response, is all I really need to be able to achieve no matter what driver I choose. I've decided that +/- 2.5 is the standard. I just need to make sure that its something I can achieve at listener position, given the room acoustics will allow it. No perfect speaker will be a make up for terrible room acoustics, as you all ready know.
Thinking about the advantage of removing crossovers and/or xover placement, I am not sure, whether or not, a coaxial makes the crossover between the aligned drivers "disappear". I made up a pic to show why my current setup is, optimal(left), in the terms of xover points, and where I would likely want to crossover on the low end given the recommended high end cross on the BMS 4590.
upload images
To maintain the same bandwidth of unadulterated frequency, and cross at say, 600hz, I'd be crossing at 15khz on the high end, which is unlikely.
The next best step, would be to consider a non coaxial, compression driver capable of being crossed as low as possible, which 500-600hz seems to be generally, the final destination, while considering can the CD cover all way to 20khz or at least, very close to it, without breaking a sweat.
In the first arrangement, I practically have the whole register known as midrange, covered by one driver, crossing where midrange begins and ends, and that is a beautiful thing. This whole idea that I can't have my cake and eat it to =(
Also, the curve I tend to prefer is pretty much linear with a 2db bass boost.
Tmuikku - I definitely seen your post and I need to investigate what you have suggested, as it seems like an interesting product. I'm mostly interested in how many control points on the eq it has to offer. The more the betta.
I have to pick and choose some of the advice I take from these boards because people loose focus on the idea of a natural colorless speaker, and start talking about what sounds good. I'm not interested in what sounds good, I am interested in accuracy to the original signal. For the most part, a very smooth, not necessarily linear, but close to it if not, frequency response, is all I really need to be able to achieve no matter what driver I choose. I've decided that +/- 2.5 is the standard. I just need to make sure that its something I can achieve at listener position, given the room acoustics will allow it. No perfect speaker will be a make up for terrible room acoustics, as you all ready know.
Thinking about the advantage of removing crossovers and/or xover placement, I am not sure, whether or not, a coaxial makes the crossover between the aligned drivers "disappear". I made up a pic to show why my current setup is, optimal(left), in the terms of xover points, and where I would likely want to crossover on the low end given the recommended high end cross on the BMS 4590.
upload images
To maintain the same bandwidth of unadulterated frequency, and cross at say, 600hz, I'd be crossing at 15khz on the high end, which is unlikely.
The next best step, would be to consider a non coaxial, compression driver capable of being crossed as low as possible, which 500-600hz seems to be generally, the final destination, while considering can the CD cover all way to 20khz or at least, very close to it, without breaking a sweat.
In the first arrangement, I practically have the whole register known as midrange, covered by one driver, crossing where midrange begins and ends, and that is a beautiful thing. This whole idea that I can't have my cake and eat it to =(
Also, the curve I tend to prefer is pretty much linear with a 2db bass boost.
Tmuikku - I definitely seen your post and I need to investigate what you have suggested, as it seems like an interesting product. I'm mostly interested in how many control points on the eq it has to offer. The more the betta.
Last edited:
It wasn't a limiting factor for him, and it isn't one for me.
Did you compare the passive curves copied onto the DSP or are your comments based using the right EQ, passive or not?
Oh, well then. That absolutely convinces me. /sarc
It's not like I haven't been using DSP exclusively for my designs since 2001. I currently have a 2x4, 4x10 (three), modified DCX2496 (three), a DEQX and two PC based xovers in the house. I'll use my own experience to decide.
Really? I said I don't think it's large enough to load and hold directivity that low.
I don't see the point in copying the passive into the DSP. If I wanted that response, I'd just use the passive. Comments are based upon passive vs optimised DSP.
Hey Brett! I appreciate your perspective and experience.! thought you'd like to know, your comments sometimes come off a little harsh. Others' perspectives are important to get too, even if they conflict with yours. I hope you take that in the spirit in which it is intended. Thanks again for chiming in with your expertise!