Drivers for Ariel speakers

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Hi,
Mtm are designed to be used with the woofer aligned in the vertical plan.
If you lay them on their side the principle doesn't work anymore ( the narrow dispertion Andy is talking about is in the vertical plan not horizontal one and when used as it should be - vertical alignment).

Some more explanation can be found in this article:

Biro Technology
 
Break the pig and treat yourself ! ;)

Good luck !!!! :)

SBA-16-MTM
 

Attachments

  • sba-mtm-1-small.jpg
    sba-mtm-1-small.jpg
    109.3 KB · Views: 325
Hi,
Mtm are designed to be used with the woofer aligned in the vertical plan.
If you lay them on their side the principle doesn't work anymore ( the narrow dispertion Andy is talking about is in the vertical plan not horizontal one and when used as it should be - vertical alignment).

Some more explanation can be found in this article:

Biro Technology


If I understand this article then when you have 2 mid drivers or tweeters in a vertical speaker that at certain frequencies, the speaker starts to create a narrow beam. This beam is dispersed horizontally and not vertically. Does this also mean that if you stand up or sit down with a vertical MTM you will get dips?
 
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Ok some pictures should help you to understand what happen :

Google Image Result for https://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/rbh-r-5/conclusion/R515polarmaphorizontal.jpg/image

Google Image Result for https://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/rbh-r-5/conclusion/R515polarmapvertical.jpg/image

This representation is called a polar map. In the vertical axis you have the coverage angle, 0 being on axis, in the horizontal axis you have the frequency, the colour define the level of the related freq.

In the first pic you can see that from 500 to 1khz you have a progressive beaming with a covering angle of 40* approx at 1k. This is the main 'lobe'. Some 'wings' appear around 1k till 2,5k: these are secondary 'lobe'.
Between 500 and 1k if you are located between 100 and 40 degree off axis there is a 'hole',with level attenuation up to 30db for these frequency.
Overall this is not very even coverage.

Once correctly oriented ( second picture) coverage is much more even in the horizontal plan. In the vertical plan what happen is what we seen in the first picture: you've got a optimal listening angle of +/-20* around tweeter axis.
Given you will probably not jump around when listening music or watching a movie this is not really an issue and it help to reduce reflection from floor and ceiling.

If you don't want to have this restricted vertical coverage you'll need something else than a mtm.

I hope this is clear and help.
Academia50 link should make a great sounding system imho.
 
Last edited:
Ok some pictures should help you to understand what happen :

Google Image Result for https://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/rbh-r-5/conclusion/R515polarmaphorizontal.jpg/image

Google Image Result for https://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/rbh-r-5/conclusion/R515polarmapvertical.jpg/image

This representation is called a polar map. In the vertical axis you have the coverage angle, 0 being on axis, in the horizontal axis you have the frequency, the colour define the level of the related freq.

In the first pic you can see that from 500 to 1khz you have a progressive beaming with a covering angle of 40* approx at 1k. This is the main 'lobe'. Some 'wings' appear around 1k till 2,5k: these are secondary 'lobe'.
Between 500 and 1k if you are located between 100 and 40 degree off axis there is a 'hole',with level attenuation up to 30db for these frequency.
Overall this is not very even coverage.

Once correctly oriented ( second picture) coverage is much more even in the horizontal plan. In the vertical plan what happen is what we seen in the first picture: you've got a optimal listening angle of +/-20* around tweeter axis.
Given you will probably not jump around when listening music or watching a movie this is not really an issue and it help to reduce reflection from floor and ceiling.

If you don't want to have this restricted vertical coverage you'll need something else than a mtm.

I hope this is clear and help.
Academia50 link should make a great sounding system imho.


I think I get it.:D Like was said before: for center speaker use 1 midrange and tweeter or use coax/full range.
Does this also mean that the distance between tweeter and midrange shouldn't be the same length as the wavelength of crossover frequency? Could be a stupid question...:scratch2:
 
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Great.
Not a stupid question AT ALL.
This is what the Biro article is all about in the special case of d'appolito/mtm.
There is a rule of thumb ( which is nice to keep in mind): if you want 2 driver to have acoustic coupling ( that they behave as one and only source) you have to keep the center to center ( of drivers) distance below 1/4 wavelength.
EG: 1Khz crossover, speed of sound 344m/s: 1 wavelength= 34,4cm, ctc distance: 8,6cm.

In the case of mtm d'apolito 1/3 wavelength is commonly used ( and is almost equal to 1/4 distance in practice).

This is a good practice if you want close to a 'point source' behavior. That said this is only a variable on many in a design. Other way to do it may yield great results too ( line source for example...).
 
Last edited:
Like was said before: for center speaker use 1 midrange and tweeter or use coax/full range.
I didn't have "fullrange" in my list of good quality centre speakers. Just tweeter above the midrange and coaxial. Messing about with wideband drivers to see what can be achieved can be interesting but their resonant behaviour, poor radiation pattern at high frequencies, modest power handling,... means they are not suitable for high quality speakers in a technical sense.
 
I didn't have "fullrange" in my list of good quality centre speakers. Just tweeter above the midrange and coaxial. Messing about with wideband drivers to see what can be achieved can be interesting but their resonant behaviour, poor radiation pattern at high frequencies, modest power handling,... means they are not suitable for high quality speakers in a technical sense.


Noted
 
What do we choose first?

The horse or the carriage ?

Once again - repeated history - the OP does not give the necessary data for good advice, but asks, asks, asks, thanks, thanks, thanks ....


Why does the dog move its tail?

Because the tail can't move the dog ...


Ehm........ ok :rolleyes:
Anyhow. Since my whole plan turn upside down, can anyone give a some good links on how to build a good ported speaker. I've been concentrating on tl's an closed speakers so I need to brush up on the theories for ported speakers. :grumpy:
 
I might as well chime in here. The Ariels, as mentioned earlier, are a very old design, and were narrowly targeted at people who already owned (or planned to build) low-power triode amplifiers (7 to 20 watts per channel). The pair I have sitting in my living room were built in 1993; that was a long time ago, and some of the triode mania of the early Nineties has subsided over the years.

The P13's and the Scan-Speak tweeters were remarkable drivers for their day, but honestly, that day has gone. Drivers do evolve over time, slowly, but they do. I've seen mention of other drivers that could substitute for the P13's, but I've not tested them, and don't know how they sound subjectively.

Speakers are not really one-size-fits-all devices, although speaker manufacturers would like you to think that. "What is the goal?" is still a relevant question, some 25 years later.

1) What kind of amplifier do you plan to use? if power is in the 3 to 20-watt range, then you need an efficient speaker to get satisfying dynamic range. Most likely, in the 92 to 97 dB/meter/watt range. If you're going to use a generic Class AB transistor amp, then you have plenty of power, anything from 70 to 300 watts per channel, and efficiency is then less important. Still, it would be desirable to have speaker efficiency in the 87 to 90 dB/meter/watt range, so the speaker isn't a ridiculous power sponge that requires absurd amounts of power.

2) What levels of coloration are you prepared to accept? In my opinion, the full-range speakers have the highest levels of coloration, and personal preference is very strong for these kinds of speakers ... it's either love or hate with these designs. Some horn speakers have very low coloration, and others have lots of old-school sound, which again is either a love or hate thing. Competently designed 2 or 3-ways, these days, can have very low levels of coloration, since modern measurement techniques allow very flat designs with well-controlled polar patterns.

Annoyingly, the majority of high-end speakers that sell for silly prices at hifi shows not only have low efficiency (which crushes dynamic range), but also lots of coloration, since the big-name magazine reviews like a certain kind of sound. So don't mess around with "clones" of speakers that frankly aren't that good to begin with; you then get the worst of both worlds, all the colorations of famous-name XYZ speaker, and zero resale value. I would not take any cues from the high-end industry; they lost their way in the Eighties, and have not found their back to reality in the decades that followed. Although there are some rather appealing self-powered studio speakers on the market these days ... I wouldn't rule them out.
 
I might as well chime in here. The Ariels, as mentioned earlier, are a very old design, and were narrowly targeted at people who already owned (or planned to build) low-power triode amplifiers (7 to 20 watts per channel). The pair I have sitting in my living room were built in 1993; that was a long time ago, and some of the triode mania of the early Nineties has subsided over the years.

The P13's and the Scan-Speak tweeters were remarkable drivers for their day, but honestly, that day has gone. Drivers do evolve over time, slowly, but they do. I've seen mention of other drivers that could substitute for the P13's, but I've not tested them, and don't know how they sound subjectively.

Speakers are not really one-size-fits-all devices, although speaker manufacturers would like you to think that. "What is the goal?" is still a relevant question, some 25 years later.

1) What kind of amplifier do you plan to use? if power is in the 3 to 20-watt range, then you need an efficient speaker to get satisfying dynamic range. Most likely, in the 92 to 97 dB/meter/watt range. If you're going to use a generic Class AB transistor amp, then you have plenty of power, anything from 70 to 300 watts per channel, and efficiency is then less important. Still, it would be desirable to have speaker efficiency in the 87 to 90 dB/meter/watt range, so the speaker isn't a ridiculous power sponge that requires absurd amounts of power.

2) What levels of coloration are you prepared to accept? In my opinion, the full-range speakers have the highest levels of coloration, and personal preference is very strong for these kinds of speakers ... it's either love or hate with these designs. Some horn speakers have very low coloration, and others have lots of old-school sound, which again is either a love or hate thing. Competently designed 2 or 3-ways, these days, can have very low levels of coloration, since modern measurement techniques allow very flat designs with well-controlled polar patterns.

Annoyingly, the majority of high-end speakers that sell for silly prices at hifi shows not only have low efficiency (which crushes dynamic range), but also lots of coloration, since the big-name magazine reviews like a certain kind of sound. So don't mess around with "clones" of speakers that frankly aren't that good to begin with; you then get the worst of both worlds, all the colorations of famous-name XYZ speaker, and zero resale value. I would not take any cues from the high-end industry; they lost their way in the Eighties, and have not found their back to reality in the decades that followed. Although there are some rather appealing self-powered studio speakers on the market these days ... I wouldn't rule them out.


WOW. Words from the master himself! Wasn't expecting that :eek:
Anyhow to answer your points:


1. As I mentioned before, this is going to be a surround sound system. I wanne use it for both music and movies. Off coarse I want to have seperate surround and music systems in seperate rooms but you have to make do with what you have:D So to keep spending within limits I chose to combine both.

The Receiver is the following:
DENON US
It's not very clear how much these puppies dish out when 8 channels are driven but it should be around 100W per channel? I was going to biamp the front 3 speakers so power shouldn't be a problem. I read somewhere this is an A/B amp.These guys from Denon/Marantz are very stingy on technical information btw.

2.Shouldn't speakers play what you put into them? I've been wondering about this for a while. Isn't it possible to build a speaker with almost no coloration?
I thought horns had lots of coloration because of you know ... the horn? But they are way too difficult to build for a novice so that off the table.

Anyhow, since I really have no experience with types of speakers, it's impossible for me to tell what sound I like. I read several times that TL lines have almost no coloration, hence my previous choice for the Ariel. So this is where I am at now.
 
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Well i'll be the one which is going to stop the party...
X.5 system need more space than other kind to really give their full potential. So if your room is small to average i would not venture into this kind of design.
That said, Zaph's design are probably as good as Troels Gravesen ones so...

About your second point in theory, yes a loudspeaker should play back what you put into them. In practice this is rarely the case for all things/ parameters at play. Lynn gave you some points, others have to be taken into account too.
A loudspeaker is the result of trade off/ compromise.

One point which is often overlooked is the room. It is as important as the loudspeakers themself imho.

Have you the opportunity to listen to different kind of speakers if possible in different rooms before you make a definitive choice? It could be wiser than rely on words of mouth or opinions to make your choice. For example Zaph state 'nobody wants monkey coffin in his living room'. Wrong, i'm the exception and you'll probably find other exception in there... I favor sound to esthetic and my family doesn't have the choice, this is the way i am, my girlfriend knows it, our childrens too... to bad for them! ;)
I'm lucky they like good sound too which help with the 4 pair of speakers ( 2 of them being monkey coffin...) in our living room. And this is not a multichanel set up, all are stereo.

Sorry if it isn't a simple answer but this the reality of the thing ( well an opinion about that at least).
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info on the rest of the system and the overall goals. My experience with home theater is that HT amps sound surprisingly different, and not in a good way. My own 5.1 setup is a fairly old Marantz AV8003 pre/pro and the matching Marantz MM8003 8-channel power amplifier, with DC trigger and selection between balanced and unbalanced inputs. The crossovers on the Ariels have changeover switches which select between Marantz and 300B triode power amplifiers, with isolated grounds between the HT setup and the 2-channel all-tube setup.

Trying to find a decent-sounding HT setup was very disappointing; didn't like the Onkyo (at all), the Denon was on the harsh side, and the fancy $10,000 or more stuff sounded inferior to mid-Seventies Japanese receivers. If I really wanted to spend money on it, a stack of Bryston amps would fill the bill, but that's serious money, more than I think HT is worth. One of the good/bad things about transistor amps is the technology is essentially static, having not really improved much since the late Seventies. So there's really no point in thinking the latest XYZ home theater receiver is going to sound better than a mid-fi 1975 Sansui receiver. I found Marantz to be a tolerable sonic compromise; at least they can more or less play music, specs are OK, and they support all the latest HDMI bells and whistles. But frankly, I think it's somewhere between mid-fi and real hifi, and far below any decent tube amp (this includes classics like the Scott LK-150 or Fisher 500C).

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy it; I do, and I found the Marantz separates to be pretty decent overall. The receivers are OK as well, but I basically despise receivers, since they are so expensive and become obsolete in only a few years thanks to the endless changes in the HDMI spec.

That said ... the Ariels sound pretty so-so on any transistor amp, and can sound really bad on some of them. When I finished them back in 1993, I tried about 20 or more different amplifiers, and there were almost no transistor amps that sounded good. The worst, by the way, was an expensive Krell, which had a remarkably opaque midrange and heavy, boomy bass. The Pass Class A amplifier didn't sound good on the Ariels either, and was weirdly sensitive to cables.

By contrast, it's difficult to find a tube amp that sounds bad on the Ariels, with direct-heated triode amps moving to the first tier. But DHT amps are a whole world unto themselves, and are almost a cult thing unless you want to get immersed into that cult yourself. The DHT folks aren't as far gone as Lowther addicts, but they're not far off, and if you can easily hear the difference between a 45 and a 2A3, you know you're pretty far gone. You've completely fallen off the edge if you can hear the difference between an RC-coupled 6SN7 driver and the same tube with inductor loading ... and it's a big deal to you. (Like model trains but worse.)

The Ariels are aimed at these nutcases. It's just a coincidence they ended up looking like scores of other slimline HT speakers that followed in the years since they were designed. Despite appearances, they are not HT speakers, and don't really have the dynamics that HT folks crave. They were originally designed to mimic the sound of stacked Quad ESL57's, and they do a really good job of that.

I'm not at all sure what HT speakers are a good match for Denon, which are decent receivers (although not to my taste). I'd go for a modern 3-way, and some have been mentioned in this thread. Try and find something with a true efficiency in the 90 dB/meter/watt range ... the efficiency is set by the woofer, so just look up the woofer spec and there you are.

My thing recently has been urging people to audition the latest Klipsch Cornwall, which I heard at the 2019 RMAF, and remarkably this speaker has modern acoustic 4th-order Linkwitz-Riley crossovers. This is unheard-of for an old-school company like Klipsch, and sure enough, they did sound impressively flat for a speaker that was clocking in around 98~100 dB/meter/watt. Stupendous dynamics, of course. Klipsch is famous for that.

I've modified Klipsch Chorus and Cornwall speakers (they are similar), and they respond really well to simple upgrades. The Klipsch forums are friendly, and the advice they give is solid ... improved crossovers, a bit a cabinet filling, nicer VHF horn, etc. Once modified, they compete very comfortably with $10,000/pair high-efficiency speakers you will hear at the RMAF show. Alternatively, Klipsch will gladly sell you a brand-new pair of Cornwalls for $6,000, made right here in the USA.

But Cornwalls aren't what I'd call petite. If you've got the space, they are stunning, but they do ask for a pretty good amplifier, and a HT receiver might be right on the edge of acceptability. I've never tried it, and have no idea how it might sound.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
diyAudio Member
Joined 2007
At the risk od doubleing up posts I would say that HT and music really need separate systems.
If at all possible
I am using an older style Sansui system but tweaked slightly and I now see tham on sale at about 10% of what I paid originally
SANSUI 5:1 SURROUND SOUND SPEAKER SET. | eBay
Movies seem to be mainly spoken voice and sound effects and for that what I have suffices.
Cheap because unfashionably large not because of anything else. I am sure you could do better and cheaper locally by using "unfashionably large" S/H speakers systems
The "Tweaking" in these boxes was simple, some extra fibrefill and replacing the cheap 3.3uF cap with something a little better. Any extra money spent would be painting a lily or gilding pure gold
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.