Lo folks, good to be back after a bit of break.
Still cooking up idea's for another project but things have taken a bit of turn. I ended up buying a Yamaha DPX-1100 DLP projector after it came up for a bit of bargain price considering it was selling early last year for £7k. Anyway its pretty much a wet dream as far as home theater is concerned and far better than any of the other projectors I've owned - I think the Yamaha is my 8th one now. I've done the whole music thing with the Perceives and this time around I really want to go for something that will fit in well with HT. Discrete, easy to implement and coherent if you like.
I initially though of in-wall designs but TBH there's no way I can start cutting recesses into the walls. I then thought about wall mount designs that were fairly shallow with all the left, center and right speakers having a matched driver array and non of that horizontal MTM for the center channel. Sounds easy at first but virtually everything cooked up didn't fit right.
After a couple of days messing around I finally hit upon a very simple idea that strangely has never really been done before, yet is almost perfect for the task in hand. Let me elaborate a little; most HT setups are compromised in terms of center channel design and more importantly the placement of this important channel in relation to the left and right's. You'll see most setups with the center channel tweeter axis way down in comparison to the left and right, you'll also see them using horizontal MTM design and mismatched driver arrays. These all serve to rob consistency, realism and generally create a hap-hazard look.
So how do you solve all these problems in one go? You build a single speaker that IS the left, center and right channels. That's really only half the story because the driver choices were equally important and this is thing that I hope will really set this apart from anything else. I've gone for the Manger drivers because quite simply I cannot imagine a more perfect driver for this application, its solves so many problems that its almost criminal to look at anything else for what I'm wanting to achieve.
With the Mangers I'll get a supremely matched array with a driver covering the 200hz-35Khz range for each of the front channels. The acoustic center of each channel will also be in the same horizontal plane and the center isn't compromised through traditional driver layouts. The whole look of the speaker itself is tidy, integrated and most of all unique.
Here's the obligatory drawings:
This one is a top-down shot giving an idea of the profile, you'll not that the left and right driver arrays are naturally toed in towards the listening position.
At the moment I'm not really sure about the driver that will cover the lower range below the Mangers. What I do know is that each will be no larger than 8" and will have around 25ltrs to work in(assuming I use 2 drivers).
I'm planning to wire the bass signals from the center channel over to the two 8" drivers on the left and right arrays.
A bit of concern was the fact that the Manger and bass drivers are in a horizontal arrangement. I'd imagine that crossing at 200hz virtually destroys anything that could be related to such an alignment, I certainly know lobing won't be an issue.
Another concern was that of the effect of mounting a speaker on the wall, clearly bass response will need to be carefully accounted for. I was think that a low Qts bass driver in a sealed enclosure with a fairly early roll-off would be a good idea. The boundary reinforcement from the wall mounting would effectively create a fairly flat response in-room.
TBH the bass drivers will only cover the range ~200hz-60hz. So it maybe debatable as to whether they're actually needed. For example I could just go with a pair of subs that would cover upto the 200hz range. Something like this:
Its a little less elegant than the first solution so I'm not 100%, probably the better route would be Manger with bass driver and then subs covering the lower end.
Still cooking up idea's for another project but things have taken a bit of turn. I ended up buying a Yamaha DPX-1100 DLP projector after it came up for a bit of bargain price considering it was selling early last year for £7k. Anyway its pretty much a wet dream as far as home theater is concerned and far better than any of the other projectors I've owned - I think the Yamaha is my 8th one now. I've done the whole music thing with the Perceives and this time around I really want to go for something that will fit in well with HT. Discrete, easy to implement and coherent if you like.
I initially though of in-wall designs but TBH there's no way I can start cutting recesses into the walls. I then thought about wall mount designs that were fairly shallow with all the left, center and right speakers having a matched driver array and non of that horizontal MTM for the center channel. Sounds easy at first but virtually everything cooked up didn't fit right.
After a couple of days messing around I finally hit upon a very simple idea that strangely has never really been done before, yet is almost perfect for the task in hand. Let me elaborate a little; most HT setups are compromised in terms of center channel design and more importantly the placement of this important channel in relation to the left and right's. You'll see most setups with the center channel tweeter axis way down in comparison to the left and right, you'll also see them using horizontal MTM design and mismatched driver arrays. These all serve to rob consistency, realism and generally create a hap-hazard look.
So how do you solve all these problems in one go? You build a single speaker that IS the left, center and right channels. That's really only half the story because the driver choices were equally important and this is thing that I hope will really set this apart from anything else. I've gone for the Manger drivers because quite simply I cannot imagine a more perfect driver for this application, its solves so many problems that its almost criminal to look at anything else for what I'm wanting to achieve.
With the Mangers I'll get a supremely matched array with a driver covering the 200hz-35Khz range for each of the front channels. The acoustic center of each channel will also be in the same horizontal plane and the center isn't compromised through traditional driver layouts. The whole look of the speaker itself is tidy, integrated and most of all unique.
Here's the obligatory drawings:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This one is a top-down shot giving an idea of the profile, you'll not that the left and right driver arrays are naturally toed in towards the listening position.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
At the moment I'm not really sure about the driver that will cover the lower range below the Mangers. What I do know is that each will be no larger than 8" and will have around 25ltrs to work in(assuming I use 2 drivers).
I'm planning to wire the bass signals from the center channel over to the two 8" drivers on the left and right arrays.
A bit of concern was the fact that the Manger and bass drivers are in a horizontal arrangement. I'd imagine that crossing at 200hz virtually destroys anything that could be related to such an alignment, I certainly know lobing won't be an issue.
Another concern was that of the effect of mounting a speaker on the wall, clearly bass response will need to be carefully accounted for. I was think that a low Qts bass driver in a sealed enclosure with a fairly early roll-off would be a good idea. The boundary reinforcement from the wall mounting would effectively create a fairly flat response in-room.
TBH the bass drivers will only cover the range ~200hz-60hz. So it maybe debatable as to whether they're actually needed. For example I could just go with a pair of subs that would cover upto the 200hz range. Something like this:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Its a little less elegant than the first solution so I'm not 100%, probably the better route would be Manger with bass driver and then subs covering the lower end.
soongsc said:
Should make a nice contrast to what I have now. I'm sure for a modest home theater/music setup it will be OK. I've simplified my goals somewhat since all that Perceive v3 nonsense and I'm really wanting to build the sound system around the stunning picture offered by the Yamaha.
Its a PITA trying to audition those Mangers here in the UK, so I'm resigning myself to buying one and simply trying it out. If its absolutely disgusting then I'll obviously look elsewhere although I'm not expecting the dynamics or presentation that I've become accustom to.
Pics of Manger:
Looking forward to playing around with this over the weekend, hopefully initial impressions will be good.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Looking forward to playing around with this over the weekend, hopefully initial impressions will be good.
You might also be interested in reading this before you dign into that center channel.
http://www.222sound.info/english/2plus2plus2_listen_in_3d.html
http://www.222sound.info/english/2plus2plus2_listen_in_3d.html
Done a bit more listening and experimenting throughout the evening
and
. The Manger is a very good driver.
I've now got an FIR filter on the Manger at 100hz along with a bit of EQ in the 1-3Khz region to flatten it(I think it sounds a little hard without this). I've been comparing it to a single Perceive but the Manger is at something of a disadvantage in bass terms because of the 9" ATC so I've rolled the Perceives off right at the same point as the Manger to match the tonality somewhat.
I've then been flicking back and forth playing each speaker in solo with a mono summed stereo signal of whatever track was playing.
Differences are not subtle at all. I thought I'd really got a spot on sound with the Perceives but what I'm hearing now just doesn't seem quite right in direct AB with the Manger, it seems like there's some kind of noise over the really fine details that the Manger just doesn't have, this is despite uber tweaked crossovers and EQ on the Perceive.
I've got to say I have no idea what folks were talking about when they said the Manger has limited dynamics. I'm comparing it to an ATC mid which is regarded as a superb dynamic performer and it actually sounds every bit as 'live' but with extra's toppings such as a very calm and unforced nature - not boring but just more ordered with greater contrast to the sounds which helps make it possibly sound even more dynamic that the ATC in some situations. Especially good is percussion which I've never heard sound so real, you can get a real 'hairs standing on end' quality with good recordings containing percussion. When played back at realistic SPL's, hi-hats and other very immediate sounds in particular really cut through the room in a way I've never experienced before.
I've only got one driver so I can't assess anything to do with imaging, soundstage etc. But I've heard its the Manger strong point.
On the downside whilst the detail, tonality(after EQ) and general high dynamic contrasts between small and large sounds is good to very good I can't say the same for the clean output when using the Manger within what the manufacturer suggests as an acceptable crossover point. I used a 100hz 24dB/Oct to start off with and found the driver is limited to around 95dB before the sound starts to harden and turns ugly. Afterwards, using a 200hz 24dB/Oct was MUCH better with enough output for my tastes. I did try 300hz too and it wasn't too far off what the Perceives manage. I didn't expect the Mangers to be output monsters but there's absolutely no way they can be used as a full range single driver for my tastes. So its a bit of good and bad there for me, on one hand it will go loud but on the other you need a good steepish crossover at about 200-300hz for three figure SPL's that still retain all the Manger qualities.
Its all very early days yet and this is just a quick initial impression after several hours of fooling around. I've got some serious reservations about handling the rear wave - the driver seems uber sensitive to this and makes or breaks the sound IMO, I'll have to do some experimenting here for sure.
BTW Forgot to mention that I was using the Manger OB on a scrap of MDF roughly 0.4 x 1m with the driver about 15cm from the top and offset slightly. Next up is a sealed box with six 2" layers of acoustic foam effectively creating a 30cm thick barrier within the enclosure, not sure how it will sound but it will pretty tell what happens when you virtually eliminate the rear wave through absorption; my prediction is a loss of life, drive and dynamics to the sound.
and
. The Manger is a very good driver.I've now got an FIR filter on the Manger at 100hz along with a bit of EQ in the 1-3Khz region to flatten it(I think it sounds a little hard without this). I've been comparing it to a single Perceive but the Manger is at something of a disadvantage in bass terms because of the 9" ATC so I've rolled the Perceives off right at the same point as the Manger to match the tonality somewhat.
I've then been flicking back and forth playing each speaker in solo with a mono summed stereo signal of whatever track was playing.
Differences are not subtle at all. I thought I'd really got a spot on sound with the Perceives but what I'm hearing now just doesn't seem quite right in direct AB with the Manger, it seems like there's some kind of noise over the really fine details that the Manger just doesn't have, this is despite uber tweaked crossovers and EQ on the Perceive.
I've got to say I have no idea what folks were talking about when they said the Manger has limited dynamics. I'm comparing it to an ATC mid which is regarded as a superb dynamic performer and it actually sounds every bit as 'live' but with extra's toppings such as a very calm and unforced nature - not boring but just more ordered with greater contrast to the sounds which helps make it possibly sound even more dynamic that the ATC in some situations. Especially good is percussion which I've never heard sound so real, you can get a real 'hairs standing on end' quality with good recordings containing percussion. When played back at realistic SPL's, hi-hats and other very immediate sounds in particular really cut through the room in a way I've never experienced before.
I've only got one driver so I can't assess anything to do with imaging, soundstage etc. But I've heard its the Manger strong point.
On the downside whilst the detail, tonality(after EQ) and general high dynamic contrasts between small and large sounds is good to very good I can't say the same for the clean output when using the Manger within what the manufacturer suggests as an acceptable crossover point. I used a 100hz 24dB/Oct to start off with and found the driver is limited to around 95dB before the sound starts to harden and turns ugly. Afterwards, using a 200hz 24dB/Oct was MUCH better with enough output for my tastes. I did try 300hz too and it wasn't too far off what the Perceives manage. I didn't expect the Mangers to be output monsters but there's absolutely no way they can be used as a full range single driver for my tastes. So its a bit of good and bad there for me, on one hand it will go loud but on the other you need a good steepish crossover at about 200-300hz for three figure SPL's that still retain all the Manger qualities.
Its all very early days yet and this is just a quick initial impression after several hours of fooling around. I've got some serious reservations about handling the rear wave - the driver seems uber sensitive to this and makes or breaks the sound IMO, I'll have to do some experimenting here for sure.
BTW Forgot to mention that I was using the Manger OB on a scrap of MDF roughly 0.4 x 1m with the driver about 15cm from the top and offset slightly. Next up is a sealed box with six 2" layers of acoustic foam effectively creating a 30cm thick barrier within the enclosure, not sure how it will sound but it will pretty tell what happens when you virtually eliminate the rear wave through absorption; my prediction is a loss of life, drive and dynamics to the sound.
soongsc said:It could be the difference in interpretation of sound or I listend to a bad implementation/integration with the woofer. Hmm, maybe I need to get a chance to listen to their "swing" with the driver only.
I've ran out of time for this evening but tommorow I plan on augmenting the Manger with one of the bass cabinets from the Perceives so as to give a more fullrange performance with some quality bass.
The Manger sounds pretty fantastic on a largish OB. There's two big changes here for me; the first is the fact that the Manger sounds so different to convention drivers and then second is that I'm not particularly familiar with OB. So I've had a double whammy of new experiences which are quite profound and largely different compared to my good old Perceives which use boxes with multiple drivers. It really is polar opposites when looking at things from a tech and implementation point of view and so the sound is similarly different.
I really hope that a box doesn't ruin the Manger sound but I'm guessing it won't have the same magic I've been hearing this evening.
OK, started on one of the left/right pods today:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
ackcheng said:
Sorry for the late reply, been busy messing around with the Manger over the last few days.
It sounds cleaner to my ears than the AC G1 and the RAAL. I can't really say that it sounds like anything I've heard before, midrange in particular is just so clean.
Hard to believe but the Perceives sound slighly closed in and muffled in direct comparison
Another awesome project in the making! I always get an urge to do something new or complete something partially finished when I see your work
Are you still off to Germany?
Would you not still be able to maintain the same listening plane by simply having three identical cabinets?
What has happened to the XLS10 sub?
If it's MDF you need at 1 inch, I can put you onto our CNC machinist who made us up some sub cabs from 1 inch thick MDF and plywood, he should be able to give you the suppliers name.
Are you still off to Germany?
Would you not still be able to maintain the same listening plane by simply having three identical cabinets?
What has happened to the XLS10 sub?
If it's MDF you need at 1 inch, I can put you onto our CNC machinist who made us up some sub cabs from 1 inch thick MDF and plywood, he should be able to give you the suppliers name.
I've spent a good while with the Manger now and am now hearing the problems and characteristics of the driver.
I'm still using it on a 40x100cm OB. What I've noticed is that the midrange is occasionally slightly crude sounding on this driver at least compared to what I'm used to. I'm not sure what to make of it because at times it sounds detailed and natural but at others its hard and rough sounding. My initial thoughts were that it was just more faithful to the recording - I have a ton of MP3's and whilst enjoyable, best fidelity they are not. However I've just recently bought a pair of KEF Reference 201 and a quick listen on these revealed that they were an altogether more pleasant listen on tracks that seemed to trip the Manger up, actually the KEF's are the typical british sound - warm, sweet and ultimately boring which means the sound has nothing really wrong with it but at the same time its hardly an engaging listen. I only bought the KEF's because I tend to take my time with projects and wanted a well regarded commercial reference to judge my own designs against.
When the midrange isn't acting up the Manger destroys the KEF's in a way that really puts the whole meaning and value of DIY into context.
I'm not entirely sure where the problems at for the moment. What I do notice is that the rear wave output has a rather upper mid heavy balance so its likely that a dipole would introduce that problem into the overall sound. OB was always just a quick way to test the driver and I do have other intentions.
The other thing that is a bit of problem would be the highly directive nature of the upper range. I'm was use to a rather large sweet spot with the old speakers but these are much more restrictive from around 7Khz and up. All the air is lost when you move several degrees off axis. Its not a design fault as such but is going to take some getting used, before I could walk around the room and enjoy a consistent tonal balance but with the Mangers you really notice things change. It could be the OB or the driver itself.
I'm still going out on a limb and saying that this is one of the most detailed drivers you can buy, it really is rather spectacular the amount of information it digs up. I'm hearing things that I can't easily pick out on my headphones, that's how good they are.
I've taken a real liking to the sound and I expect that I'm hearing only a small amount of the potential on offer. So I've ordered the other two to complete the line up which is a strong endorsement.
I'm still using it on a 40x100cm OB. What I've noticed is that the midrange is occasionally slightly crude sounding on this driver at least compared to what I'm used to. I'm not sure what to make of it because at times it sounds detailed and natural but at others its hard and rough sounding. My initial thoughts were that it was just more faithful to the recording - I have a ton of MP3's and whilst enjoyable, best fidelity they are not. However I've just recently bought a pair of KEF Reference 201 and a quick listen on these revealed that they were an altogether more pleasant listen on tracks that seemed to trip the Manger up, actually the KEF's are the typical british sound - warm, sweet and ultimately boring which means the sound has nothing really wrong with it but at the same time its hardly an engaging listen. I only bought the KEF's because I tend to take my time with projects and wanted a well regarded commercial reference to judge my own designs against.
When the midrange isn't acting up the Manger destroys the KEF's in a way that really puts the whole meaning and value of DIY into context.
I'm not entirely sure where the problems at for the moment. What I do notice is that the rear wave output has a rather upper mid heavy balance so its likely that a dipole would introduce that problem into the overall sound. OB was always just a quick way to test the driver and I do have other intentions.
The other thing that is a bit of problem would be the highly directive nature of the upper range. I'm was use to a rather large sweet spot with the old speakers but these are much more restrictive from around 7Khz and up. All the air is lost when you move several degrees off axis. Its not a design fault as such but is going to take some getting used, before I could walk around the room and enjoy a consistent tonal balance but with the Mangers you really notice things change. It could be the OB or the driver itself.
I'm still going out on a limb and saying that this is one of the most detailed drivers you can buy, it really is rather spectacular the amount of information it digs up. I'm hearing things that I can't easily pick out on my headphones, that's how good they are.
I've taken a real liking to the sound and I expect that I'm hearing only a small amount of the potential on offer. So I've ordered the other two to complete the line up which is a strong endorsement.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.