You're welcome! No clue, I don't follow what's available beyond saving posted driver, horn links, not [mid] bass [horn] bins.
GM
Circa '70, Altec chose to just provide cheap basic driver protection since by then they would be digitally tweaked with at least basic tone controls and of course more elaborate electronics in prosound apps.
Unfortunately, they haven't gotten around to writing/posting Part 2 of the article where they cover crossover, time-alignment, and system voicing.
GM
That's my dim memory, but every year after '75 I was less interested in Altec speakers per se, though continued to go to any unveiling of new or significantly reworked existing designs and went to none in '90-93, so some I only saw distributor docs, their measurements, though did hear them at Cisco's super large booth at a computer trade show in 2k doing audio for a huge multi-plasma? video 'wall' in lieu of mega buck front projector arrays like some used. Made all the popular monitor B0$3, Fostex Pro systems sound like transistor pocket radios. 
GM
GM
So I'm using the boxnotes app to play with enclosure dimensions. If anyone knows a better app for the task let me know...this one shows resonances.
I'm really shooting for a horizontal config..... at 32.5"....thats plenty wide for a home studio, let me tell you. The horns are 23" wide, the stands hold the horns around 11" above the base bottom.
I am just wondering how much am I gaining from NOT running the woofers in a vertical config? The vertical alignment would be easier to design
Also, should I be super consider about not using dimensions that create resonances below 200hz?
I'm really shooting for a horizontal config..... at 32.5"....thats plenty wide for a home studio, let me tell you. The horns are 23" wide, the stands hold the horns around 11" above the base bottom.
I am just wondering how much am I gaining from NOT running the woofers in a vertical config? The vertical alignment would be easier to design
Also, should I be super consider about not using dimensions that create resonances below 200hz?
Last edited:
True! I was fortunate enough to hear them. In the process of collecting stuff to build something very similar.
The sound is coming from the little speakers I built for a buddy of mine. But Audio Elite's speakers are in the back. Shared album - Bas Horneman - Google Photos
Last edited:
Learning so much here <3. Little misc question as I don't want to open a new thread for it (or is there is a specific thread for misc questions ?) : From your experience or calculations, from which frequencies should speakers be put at ear level ? In other words, can midrange frequencies (200hz - 800hz) stay at the ground like the subs ?
yeah so much learn....now, pour into my question please lol!
And the one above too, I like his question.
Ps - within this article, it suggests to me that with redundant drivers, vertical is the way to go.
$199 MMMM Vertically Oriented Measurements | Audioholics
Last edited:
Yes they can. You will have greater challenges in integrating them but it can be done.
Here's a Comprehensive list of Recommended Design Tools.
I guess WinISD is still among the most populair tools for cabinet design.
Tutorial.
I guess WinISD is still among the most populair tools for cabinet design.
Tutorial.
Don’t forget to address mine and Subaru’s questions, they are pertinent to this project!
That article I posted horizontal off axis, which seems to be of more importance than vertical, in that article it shows a basic two way having better off axis perform than all the mtm and mmmm configs with a vertical alignment performing better than horizontal config, which is to be expected but with my design being essentially a tmm, if vertical, the best way to do horizontal would of been mtm aligned like a triangle or upside down V and I think the vertical still would have better horizontal performance and potentially a tmm has better horizontal performance off axis, than a mtm.....so Subaru’s question fits perfectly. Having a redundant woofer playing 800hz or 630hz stay at the ground vs being ear level. Though the first level woofer will much closer to ear level.....I need to decide what is going to be the design goal. I can angle the horns, so I was thinking of putting the line between the middle of the horn and first woofer at ear level....or putting the first woofer at ear level and angling the horn to the sweet spot.....Or the horn at ear level.
I needed someone to speak some foresight into the situation.
630hz is the proposed xover, woofers will be spaced ~ 0.5” for tmm or v shaped mtm...for a traditional mtm the spacing would break the spacing rule for high note produced.
That article I posted horizontal off axis, which seems to be of more importance than vertical, in that article it shows a basic two way having better off axis perform than all the mtm and mmmm configs with a vertical alignment performing better than horizontal config, which is to be expected but with my design being essentially a tmm, if vertical, the best way to do horizontal would of been mtm aligned like a triangle or upside down V and I think the vertical still would have better horizontal performance and potentially a tmm has better horizontal performance off axis, than a mtm.....so Subaru’s question fits perfectly. Having a redundant woofer playing 800hz or 630hz stay at the ground vs being ear level. Though the first level woofer will much closer to ear level.....I need to decide what is going to be the design goal. I can angle the horns, so I was thinking of putting the line between the middle of the horn and first woofer at ear level....or putting the first woofer at ear level and angling the horn to the sweet spot.....Or the horn at ear level.
I needed someone to speak some foresight into the situation.
630hz is the proposed xover, woofers will be spaced ~ 0.5” for tmm or v shaped mtm...for a traditional mtm the spacing would break the spacing rule for high note produced.
Last edited: