Thx all,
glad to be able to share.
Yeah, you guys know dang well i'm having fun and doing all i can to A/B the dcx/me464 combo against a Synergy
It's kinda a slow process for me though, as on anything new, i start with measurements, and then tunings off those measurements, before even attempting to compare by listening.
That said, the DCX464/ME464 did measure and tune quite easily last week.
So it's been fun to make some listening comparisons, and i can definitely say the B&C combo sounds both very nice and very powerful.
I'm hesitant to make any direct comparisons to my Synergies yet, because one, they use a different CD, and two, I run a complicated test rig to make comparisons.
And also keep learning the difficulty of making true apples to apples comparisons, one side vs another.
This is especially true when different xover points are involved, such as with the dcx464 and bms4594.
To give you guys a laugh, and show you why not to trust my judgement too quick....here is the "test sled" i'm using to A/B these two, either as an entire system or as individual driver sections.
It allows individual gain and EQ control of each driver, along with Left side dual mono, Right side dual mono, stereo, and both sides dual mono.
The mixer feeds the processor schematic though the Q-Lan Receiver
Mic/Line in Core is the soundcard interface for measurement.
So, as you can see .....Plenty of room to screw up
glad to be able to share.
Yeah, you guys know dang well i'm having fun and doing all i can to A/B the dcx/me464 combo against a Synergy
It's kinda a slow process for me though, as on anything new, i start with measurements, and then tunings off those measurements, before even attempting to compare by listening.
That said, the DCX464/ME464 did measure and tune quite easily last week.
So it's been fun to make some listening comparisons, and i can definitely say the B&C combo sounds both very nice and very powerful.
I'm hesitant to make any direct comparisons to my Synergies yet, because one, they use a different CD, and two, I run a complicated test rig to make comparisons.
And also keep learning the difficulty of making true apples to apples comparisons, one side vs another.
This is especially true when different xover points are involved, such as with the dcx464 and bms4594.
To give you guys a laugh, and show you why not to trust my judgement too quick....here is the "test sled" i'm using to A/B these two, either as an entire system or as individual driver sections.
It allows individual gain and EQ control of each driver, along with Left side dual mono, Right side dual mono, stereo, and both sides dual mono.
The mixer feeds the processor schematic though the Q-Lan Receiver
Mic/Line in Core is the soundcard interface for measurement.
So, as you can see .....Plenty of room to screw up
Hi Peter, thank you, and welcome!
Hope the previous post addressed early comparisons...i know probably not , but let me at least say the B&C combo is a keeper for me
With regards to 4 drivers around the ME464, I must say i have reservations with the horizontal drivers.
First reason is my bad results with trying a ring radiator project, that being a ring, had to naturally have drivers in horizontal opposition around the center. It was a disaster, and the only dog of a project I've ever built.
But please don't get me wrong, these type arrays, ring or fractal may be the way of the future.....but I'd spend a fortune guessing how to get one right.
The sim work that guys like nc535, fluid, wesayso, and others are doing seems necessary to go down this route.
Just my 2c though, and really based off very limited experience with an expanded number of drivers horizontally.
Second reason, is something i am measuring and hearing on what i'm doing with the B&C combo right now.
I have the combo sitting on two sealed 18" subs like in post #5.
I first tried xover at 300Hz, with both subs low-passed at 300Hz. Muddy, plain muddy.
Then I kept top sub running to 300Hz, and low passed the bottom sub at 130Hz. Cleaned right up.
My take is the vertical c-to-c of 3 elements all producing 300Hz is too much distance from horn to bottom sub.
I think maybe the same thing will occur with using outside horizontal drivers, unless perhaps they are quite smaller than 15".
Vertically, I know we've learned how to use d'appolito ok, I'm just not convinced horizontal can work too.
Again, just my 2c. Hope it helps.
Hey, one neat thing i figured out new this morning is how to make a xover for the subs I want to use in what I guess you'd call a 1.5 fashion.
Bottom sub gets a regular low pass at 130Hz.
Top sub gets this xover lowpassed at 300Hz.
Both subs contribute equally below 130Hz.
First time i ever tried anything like this, and surprise it worked first try!
Hi Peter , I had similar ideas although i don't have the space to go horizontal with the 15pr400 only do a WTW . as a variation i was considering running the Faital 15 in OB or exchange the DCX for HF1440 on the me464 crossed at 500hz if that is feasible.
What crossover do you use ?
regards
Hi Mark100,
Thanks a lot for your detailed reply! Your precautions regarding the 4 woofers per side may very well be justified, and it would be a rather expensive 'experiment' to conduct (at least for me...).
I look very much forward to hear about your listenings impressions when you have got it all in sync. (i.e. comparing the Syngery with a well-tuned set up using the B&C Combo / Woffer).
Best regards
Peter
Thanks a lot for your detailed reply! Your precautions regarding the 4 woofers per side may very well be justified, and it would be a rather expensive 'experiment' to conduct (at least for me...).
I look very much forward to hear about your listenings impressions when you have got it all in sync. (i.e. comparing the Syngery with a well-tuned set up using the B&C Combo / Woffer
Best regards
Peter
Hi Peter, thank you, and welcome!
Hope the previous post addressed early comparisons...i know probably not , but let me at least say the B&C combo is a keeper for me
With regards to 4 drivers around the ME464, I must say i have reservations with the horizontal drivers.
First reason is my bad results with trying a ring radiator project, that being a ring, had to naturally have drivers in horizontal opposition around the center. It was a disaster, and the only dog of a project I've ever built.
But please don't get me wrong, these type arrays, ring or fractal may be the way of the future.....but I'd spend a fortune guessing how to get one right.
The sim work that guys like nc535, fluid, wesayso, and others are doing seems necessary to go down this route.
Just my 2c though, and really based off very limited experience with an expanded number of drivers horizontally.
Second reason, is something i am measuring and hearing on what i'm doing with the B&C combo right now.
I have the combo sitting on two sealed 18" subs like in post #5.
I first tried xover at 300Hz, with both subs low-passed at 300Hz. Muddy, plain muddy.
Then I kept top sub running to 300Hz, and low passed the bottom sub at 130Hz. Cleaned right up.
My take is the vertical c-to-c of 3 elements all producing 300Hz is too much distance from horn to bottom sub.
I think maybe the same thing will occur with using outside horizontal drivers, unless perhaps they are quite smaller than 15".
Vertically, I know we've learned how to use d'appolito ok, I'm just not convinced horizontal can work too.
Again, just my 2c. Hope it helps.
Hey, one neat thing i figured out new this morning is how to make a xover for the subs I want to use in what I guess you'd call a 1.5 fashion.
Bottom sub gets a regular low pass at 130Hz.
Top sub gets this xover lowpassed at 300Hz.
View attachment 927532
Both subs contribute equally below 130Hz.
First time i ever tried anything like this, and surprise it worked first try!
Hi hum4good,
That sounds interesting as well. I haven't got the B&C drivers - just thinking out loud. Regarding crossoveer: If you mean between bass and the CD, I have a dedicated analogue custom made electronic crossover 24dB/octave with high grade components.
Best regards
Peter
That sounds interesting as well. I haven't got the B&C drivers - just thinking out loud. Regarding crossoveer: If you mean between bass and the CD, I have a dedicated analogue custom made electronic crossover 24dB/octave with high grade components.
Best regards
Peter
A coaxial ring behind the ME464 could work
2 way waveguide speaker build ABEC modelling
As for the 4 x 15" drivers the horizontal is pretty good but there is not much directivity there. The vertical has a null far off axis at 200Hz. Somewhat in the style of Legis's Shadow of the Colossus.
The simulations were of a flat disc the radiating diameter of most Faital 15" drivers in an infinite baffle. This gives a good idea of the intrinsic directivity but a finite baffle and cabinet depth would modify the directivity from what is shown here.
Attachments
Mark, I believe this may also have something to do with your using “subwoofers” instead of “midwoofers”
IME I have sometimes found heavier cones with a lower FS start to sound muddy above 150 Hz.
There are many dual 12”, 15”, or 18”bottom woofer loudspeaker designs out there that do not sound muddy (they still need subwoofers).
Attached is an example using two 15” bottom midwoofers crossed over at 900 Hz!
M2!5 Loudspeaker – PBN Audio
A coaxial ring behind the ME464 could work
2 way waveguide speaker build ABEC modelling
As for the 4 x 15" drivers the horizontal is pretty good but there is not much directivity there. The vertical has a null far off axis at 200Hz. Somewhat in the style of Legis's Shadow of the Colossus.
The simulations were of a flat disc the radiating diameter of most Faital 15" drivers in an infinite baffle. This gives a good idea of the intrinsic directivity but a finite baffle and cabinet depth would modify the directivity from what is shown here.
Looks good fluid,
My previous comments re horizontal 15"s not working was picturing them straight out on the sides, on the horn's horizontal centerline.
I can see above and below like you modeled having a much better fighting chance
Yes, Fluid's configuration was exactly what I had in mind, thanks!
Best regards
Peter
Best regards
Peter
Looks good fluid,
My previous comments re horizontal 15"s not working was picturing them straight out on the sides, on the horn's horizontal centerline.
I can see above and below like you modeled having a much better fighting chance
Hi John, yeah it might, and I have some 12"s rcf mb12n405's to fit between the me464 and subs if it comes to that.
But if the dcx/me combo really makes it to 300Hz, i think my 18n862 sealed will easily work. I think it might even work to 500Hz...my measurements and data-bass's both seem to indicate so.
And i agree, there's alot of multiple driver subs/low mids out there that have c-2-c's that work within their range.
Can't say i agree with the heavy cone equals muddy part though. Im of the belief it's more about motor strength to mass.
Anyway, here's some observations with current setup.
Running the dcx with a single sub with xover @ 300Hz,
sounds better to me than with two subs same xover. (with sub levels corrected of course)
Running the dcx with a single sub with xover at 500Hz,
sounds better to me than same setup crossed at 300Hz.
(This makes me think the sub is certainly fine to at least 300Hz)
Running the dcx with top sub with xover at 500Hz, and bottom sub low passed at 130Hz, sounded fine other than the little notch in the top sub xover that i wanted to ignore sounded way too audible.
I found the notch got very deep when summed with the bottom sub.
Since ain't no stinkin single 18", especially sealed, ever gonna cut it LOL.......
I've been working on the 1.5 sub config, that uses bottom sub 20-130Hz, and top sub 20Hz-dcx464 Hz.
Spent all day so far building a set of xovers for the top sub at 300, 400, and 500Hz. Bottom sub is standard piece of cake.
It's been a whole lot more work to get a notch out of the summed sub response than i thought when i made post #25.
But victory....FIR to the rescue !
Here's the set of top-sub xovers' electrical measurements, just made to go try out.
No smoothing. Check out that phase would ya?
Last edited:
Isn’t it Le that says when a woofer gets sloppy...at a certain point resistance increases to the point where the circuit cannot keep up with frequency.
Ps- middle finger to B&C for not simultaneously releasing a 2” exit version =(
Last edited:
This is very interesting to me...I’m considering adding another woofer to create a mtm mid/hf section. At first glance I think, less excursion, higher sens....win right? I also think...if excursion is already really low, adding a redundant source could lower SQ simply by the degradation we experience from splitting and re-assembly of the original signal...can you elaborate on your experience? Why do you think 1 woofer sounded better? You tried TMM and MTM?