Dear all,
I'm planning to use BG planars Neo3 and Neo10 remained from previous classical projects, for an SW-MTM-WS 4 way active design. Dayton RS225-8 and Peerless P830668 should be the woofers and subs (side firing) of this new project, respectively. Since it will be my first MTM speaker with such kind of drivers I'm worried to commit some errors due to my inexperience.
In your opinion are these drivers suitable for a monopole MTM designs? The Neo10 length (250 mm) may represent an obstacle? The TM CTC distance should be approximatively 175 mm with MM CTC of 352 mm.
Finally, according to your experience, what XO frequency and slope should I use?
Any other comment or advise will be greatly appreciated.
Cheers
I'm planning to use BG planars Neo3 and Neo10 remained from previous classical projects, for an SW-MTM-WS 4 way active design. Dayton RS225-8 and Peerless P830668 should be the woofers and subs (side firing) of this new project, respectively. Since it will be my first MTM speaker with such kind of drivers I'm worried to commit some errors due to my inexperience.
In your opinion are these drivers suitable for a monopole MTM designs? The Neo10 length (250 mm) may represent an obstacle? The TM CTC distance should be approximatively 175 mm with MM CTC of 352 mm.
Finally, according to your experience, what XO frequency and slope should I use?
Any other comment or advise will be greatly appreciated.
Cheers
These drivers are great but a bit fiddly to get the best out of them, the issues being low-end distortion and upper-end vertical directivity. Neo10 is good from around 300hz-1800hz, 4th order LR filters. I would consider rolling one of the Neo10s off in a ".5 way" fashion 2nd order at maybe 600hz (and add an allpass to the other Neo 10 and neo3 to keep the phase in line) This would make it a 4.5 way crossover, perhaps try using an inductor on the ".5 way" neo10 to make a low-pass to keep it 4-channel active.
IMO, the BG neos really shine as dipoles, while you said you wanted a monopole I would rather put them on a narrow open baffle along with the peerless 10 and the results could be magnificent.
Here's another idea, place the neo10's horizontally above and below the tweeter to make a pseudo-coax. This would be better suited for a monopole configuration I think.
IMO, the BG neos really shine as dipoles, while you said you wanted a monopole I would rather put them on a narrow open baffle along with the peerless 10 and the results could be magnificent.
Here's another idea, place the neo10's horizontally above and below the tweeter to make a pseudo-coax. This would be better suited for a monopole configuration I think.
Many thanks Tommus for your kind and valuable reply.
I've considered many times each of your accurate suggestions. Unfortunately they result in turn in other set of problems (form and dimension of the baffle, room positioning of the loudspeaker, hybrid design - OB for mid and high voices, closed for woofer and sub - need for large sub drivers, etc.).
The idea to use a semi-parallel filter with an inductor on one Neo10 is certainly a possibility deserving to be explored although it could result in a shift toward the high of the main radiation axis.
Is your opinion to use all the drivers I indicated in an OB design?
Cheers
I've considered many times each of your accurate suggestions. Unfortunately they result in turn in other set of problems (form and dimension of the baffle, room positioning of the loudspeaker, hybrid design - OB for mid and high voices, closed for woofer and sub - need for large sub drivers, etc.).
The idea to use a semi-parallel filter with an inductor on one Neo10 is certainly a possibility deserving to be explored although it could result in a shift toward the high of the main radiation axis.
Is your opinion to use all the drivers I indicated in an OB design?
Cheers