For me it is not a higher directivity i'm looking for, rather directivity to happen lower in frequency.
For an higher directivity there is options as some coax drivers are 60* rather than 90*. That said for the one i looked at the narrow directivity happen higher in freq (for a given diameter) which is logical.
I don't get that rumble thing wrt large box. I know (and experienced) some issues related to big box but no rumble. That said for my own box i used 99% sealed and a lot of damping material in it.
Are you sure it is not room related? Simple test is to bring your loudspeakers outside.
About size: bigger means (often) more headroom to me. It brings something to the sound which some people like ( Pano once told people like 'live' sound ( P.A) because of the big drivers. Iow i'm in agreement with Fabricadetobaco. But ymmv, it's a preference thing, it depend of so many variable: level at which you are used to listen, the kind of music you listen to, your mood,...
I don't know of a driver which will sound as a Sennheiser hd600 (which i dislike. A preference thing). The kind of loudspeaker which is often compared to ( large) headphones are Synergys ( MEH) and i think it'll be even more to your taste if you target 60* rather than 90*.
Maybe you should look at what Xrk and Bushmeister did some years ago ( Synergy with a fullrange as tweeter in an 18sound XT waveguide).
You are absolutely right. A difference of 0,1db will make you prefer the louder source. Always.
You have good ears and have a lot of step back about how you interpret your feelings.
This is not given to everybody to be able to do this.
NC535,
The design you purpose is interesting. In practice will it be more or less inspired by Fullgott loudspeakers?
Edit: oh i studied more your sim and got my answer... two array around a coax. I have to play with your idea, thank you.
Last edited:
Follgott rings a very faint bell. I'll have to google. This idea comes out of the work I was doing earlier this year with rim drivers around a waveguide in the full range forum. I reasoned that a coax with separate waveguide was the same thing. So started experimenting with cardioid coax sims. But I think better overall results will come out of a waveguide with rim drivers than a coax because the waveguide can be more highly optimized in ATH than the response you get using a woofer cone.
NC535,
Thank you clarifying this. It is a clever approach. You may be right about a wg having more potential.
I played with this kind of idea after reading about your experience with synergy (but way simpler: without cardioid approach and horizontal array located over and below the meh to counteract the floorbounce issue you faced) but i've got a mind 'blocking' wrt membrane area.
I still got intellectual issues with multiple smaller diameter drivers to emulate a larger one for low mid/low ( despite i know it can be successful: Wesayso and other line array (or source) user are good example).
I guess i'll have to experiment it by myself to unlock my brain and convince myself if my reluctancy is irrational or not.
Anyway thank you sharing your discovery.
I was thinking about Pelanj observation about a constant and symetrical directivity behavior and it ring a bell in me. I think i share it.
Thank you clarifying this. It is a clever approach. You may be right about a wg having more potential.
I played with this kind of idea after reading about your experience with synergy (but way simpler: without cardioid approach and horizontal array located over and below the meh to counteract the floorbounce issue you faced) but i've got a mind 'blocking' wrt membrane area.
I still got intellectual issues with multiple smaller diameter drivers to emulate a larger one for low mid/low ( despite i know it can be successful: Wesayso and other line array (or source) user are good example).
I guess i'll have to experiment it by myself to unlock my brain and convince myself if my reluctancy is irrational or not.
Anyway thank you sharing your discovery.
I was thinking about Pelanj observation about a constant and symetrical directivity behavior and it ring a bell in me. I think i share it.
I can't answer your question but maybe you could find in this thread:
Pseudo-coaxial with narrow directivity (and Horbach-Keele filters)
Bbutterfield developped a similar approach too. But i can't remember if he shared it within the forum.
That said it should be doable to simu in Vituixcad. I don't know if it will answer the wavefront question but could however give interesting info.
Pseudo-coaxial with narrow directivity (and Horbach-Keele filters)
Bbutterfield developped a similar approach too. But i can't remember if he shared it within the forum.
That said it should be doable to simu in Vituixcad. I don't know if it will answer the wavefront question but could however give interesting info.
Last edited:
You can do quite a lot with DSP! I remember seeing that thread a while ago, and it was quite mind-blowing 
I think in an environment where someone doesn't have to interact with the sound (i.e. listening to music rather than monitoring and recording simultaneously), there's a lot of options with DSP...bringing together a complex multi-driver design into something that sounds, well, amazing!
I think in an environment where someone doesn't have to interact with the sound (i.e. listening to music rather than monitoring and recording simultaneously), there's a lot of options with DSP...bringing together a complex multi-driver design into something that sounds, well, amazing!
Yes dsp are now 'mature'... and can do amazing things i agree.
In the case of monitoring, sure delay can be a b.tch but i solved the issue by having two presets: one with FIR, another one with IIR.
When tracking i switch to IIR. When critical listening or mixing/mastering i use FIR.
There is difference between the two but tbh, in my case it is not night and day ( i tri amped an existing design as my main monitors and i'm limited by the design choice made /iow i already optimized them to the max for me) and i could live with IIR only ( i don't use FIR for 'room correction' only for complementary filters/iow xovers).
I've done a bit of experiment with my coax too but tbh, being 8" and Tannoy already had an analog active answer for xover which i liked for this driver i didn't pushed this far with FIR.
With my next loudspeakers which will be based on a bigger coax then yes i will experiment further and implement FIR including room correction.
In the case of monitoring, sure delay can be a b.tch but i solved the issue by having two presets: one with FIR, another one with IIR.
When tracking i switch to IIR. When critical listening or mixing/mastering i use FIR.
There is difference between the two but tbh, in my case it is not night and day ( i tri amped an existing design as my main monitors and i'm limited by the design choice made /iow i already optimized them to the max for me) and i could live with IIR only ( i don't use FIR for 'room correction' only for complementary filters/iow xovers).
I've done a bit of experiment with my coax too but tbh, being 8" and Tannoy already had an analog active answer for xover which i liked for this driver i didn't pushed this far with FIR.
With my next loudspeakers which will be based on a bigger coax then yes i will experiment further and implement FIR including room correction.
yes, b&c 12clx64 looks great in this respect, but a little ragged on-axis response
rumble is most severe with big boxes with little damping material inside, damping materials alters the function of the vented box, so one want to keep damping to a minimum. a closed box does not have this drawback and one can use a lot of damping which kills the rumble
no it is not a room issue, it is a box cavity issue
i agree that bigger drivers do give a different experience then smaller drivers, but i am not convinced that bigger drivers is always better. i almost convinced that listening distance decides what works best and not driver size
multi entry horns are to complex for me to build, but they sure looks interesting
i do not understand what this means
perlisten seems to be the speaker of the day, with a wave guided tweeter with supported tweeters for directivity pattern control
Perlisten S7t loudspeaker | Stereophile.com
Perlisten S7t loudspeaker | Stereophile.com
This is what I did - I took the drivers and the port placement from xrk's Trynergy design, but then built a horn based on bwaslo's SynergyCalc spreadsheet. Lots of miter cuts, but you can build them out of foam core as well
They're definitely the closest thing to headphones I've heard, but it was a fiddly project to build. Duct tape makes a great 'strange angle clamp'
It is not given to everyone to have the ability to identify this kind of things.
It is a psychology issue: we usually jump to the easiest answer for us, which is often not related to thing like level matching but an hardware issue or any change obvious ( we are used to) about difference.
It require to have the ability to have a step back about the situation and take a look at all parameters before jumping to conclusion like you did.
Perlisten. Well i'm not sure it is the 'hype of the day' or if they sound good. Tbh i've low interest in hifi brands except if they made a bridge with pro field... or the principle used behind their development can bring something interesting or new.
At first look this one doesn't look fairly different from Dave Smith's ( Speaker Dave member in here) Snell XA Reference to me ( and same principle behind Damley Synergy used for the waveguide).
You can read about the 'expanding array' he used in this interview:
[Interview] David Smith [English]
If you are interested in this kind of design then the implementation of the Horbach-Keele filter can bring very good things imho. But it can't be passive (dedicated FIR profile filter mandatory- they are availlable through Rephase) and you'll need a way to design and produce a waveguide for the tweeter ( this is the trickiest part imho).
UnaHm,
Very cool and great project! I haven't seen it before.
Last edited:
How are the cabinets going, Glenn? I saw that the Vortex-12 kits are now sold out too, so these things are starting to become a rarity
Its still coax but 3 ways. But I wouldn't put a ring of drivers around a coax. I would go directly to the cardioid configurations, simplest being that delayed, inverted rear firing woofer. Or arrays of small drivers on the sides, also delayed and inverted. I would do this on 12" of 15" coaxes. It didn't work so well when simulated with smaller coaxes; perhaps they would need the ring of drivers around the front to bring directivity control down to where cardioid can take over.
How are the cabinets going, Glenn? I saw that the Vortex-12 kits are now sold out too, so these things are starting to become a rarity
Left headphone channel ready for lift off, captain! Heehee!
