Toxicbass Posted November 22, 2003 Author Share Posted November 22, 2003 Do you mean delays/ time smearing? thats a distortion. what about IB installations? or Dipole.People say they are extremely goodsounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lech1553552674 Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 Originally posted by Toxicbass ...what about IB installations? or Dipole.People say they are extremely goodsounding. Infinite baffle? It's what I've been after all along.... If only I knew where I could get hold of the Tardis, and then make some mods to it! I'm not sure if I'd be at all keen on dipoles. Even with the therefore-obviously-needed subwoofer they would still have to have big and wide panels to achieve say, a 100Hz cutoff. I've heard similar stuff before, and it's always a big can of worms.... Where would I put them? When listening, as soon as I move, the tone changes drastically in funny ways that most people pretend they don't notice. I put it down to lobing/comb-filtering etc - to me it's the equivalent to those 3d-effect settings on mini-systems: which I can live with for a while before getting sick of. Lech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxicbass Posted November 22, 2003 Author Share Posted November 22, 2003 have u seen linkwitzs site on them? extensive filtering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lech1553552674 Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 Originally posted by Toxicbass have u seen linkwitzs site on them? extensive filtering. I sure have. Lots of good stuff there, but I think his Orions have too much big and tall, if not wide as well. I've played around a bit with open-baffles with half-finished loudspeakers and to me it just sounds unnatural. I'm not moaning about any lack of bass, but rather, a bit like what I said before: instruments and vocals have much strange when the rest of the box is missing. I'm one of those people who likes to be able to listen to their music from any angle without having to worry about having to sit in some optimal position for full benefit etc. I wouldn't want to put up with a small "sweet spot" as with dipoles if I can get it to sound good all round instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxicbass Posted November 22, 2003 Author Share Posted November 22, 2003 perhaps it sounds strange due to no box resonance... it sounds 'bad' you say? i must try some ,someday. widening your acoustic outlook can only be good just like widening your views on more deeper matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lech1553552674 Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by Ayn Marx ....Any of you boys & played around with the heavier than air inert gases used in noise suppression/fill medium in double glazing?? Maybe between a carbon fibre/resin/? composite.... Ayn, I'm planning on making my next pair out of thick polymer (people cringe when I say "plastic"). I think I'll stick to just two layers with an air-gap in between. If I make them three-ways, it'll be three separate enclosures: 1)For the tweeter just a softish exterior to let it stand up by itself. Maybe rounded out if I can be bothered. 2)For the smallish midrange: the polymer box that I just mentioned. Dual-layered to minimize exterior vibrations. Here is my question mark with regards to the interior. 3)For the bass, a box that's made of something tough that won't flex or ring throughout the woofer's range. On the other hand, if I decide on a two-way system, I won't want to compromize the midrange for better bass and I'll add a subwoofer. So in reality I can't win: with a three-way system the woofers won't handle what a subwoofer can handle, and there's no way I'm getting 7 speaker drivers. With a 2-way system, sure the loudspeakers are smaller, but then that subwoofer has to be put somewhere.:confused: Lech Attached files Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lech1553552674 Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 On Accuton's website ( http://www.accuton.com ) Midrange driver with 90 mm light weight concave ceramic dome and ferrofluid damping. Recommended as midrange for high quality 3- or 4-way systems. Very high resolution and very good dispersion up to 5 kHz. Low resonance frequency allows first order filtering from 200 to 4000 Hz. The ultra hard ceramic dome material moves like a piston well above the audible frequency band and the high internal sound velocity features very low distortion and virtually no coloration. Yum, yum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxicbass Posted November 23, 2003 Author Share Posted November 23, 2003 3)For the bass, a box that's made of something tough that won't flex or ring throughout the woofer's range Concrete in other words im not really a fan of 1st order systems however it may be good in some cases .Atleast the phase is good. link on midrange distortion Extensive measurements of woofers Are useful. virtually no coloration. how many % THD is virtually? The ultra hard ceramic dome material moves like a piston thats the idea..but how much better is it than 'normal' speakers features very low distortion and how much THD / IMD % is that? whatever the marketing department says is low? scuse me but im sick of crap,i like numbers if manufacturers are going to rave about their own products.I like 3rd party measurements and opinion Ofcourse hearing is beleiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayn Marx Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by Lech d: Lech There are many interesting solutions to the problem of man-made enclosure materials.(er should that read person-made in the age of political correctness?) Commercial secrets abound and advertizing, although bragging about new materials used (such as 'pseudo-granite') deliberalty obscure the truth. I'm no materials scientist but I suspect a Google seach along the lines of 'solid synthetic resins/vibration/rigidity' or some-such may un-earth something interesting. One DIY bod in Melbourne, Oz uses a carbon fibre/acrylic resin & granite dust formulae but is very secretive about the proportions and methods involved. I've bruised my knucles tapping his 'plastic' enclosures. What I would like to see though is a rigid material that didn't way a ton. I'm very puzzled about your tweeter mounting methodology. Surely even a tweeter needs a rigid, non-vibrating mount, otherwise it's going to be wobbling in tune to the music? The law of inertia still applies at high-frequencies I believe. slightly off track but I like telling this one. A friend called me over to listen to his new Magnaplanars. He knew something was wrong but couldn't put his finger on just what. After listening for a while and feeling almost sea-sick at what I thought might be master tape induced wow or some-such, I noticed that when the breeze blew in the window behind the speakers the treble ribbon flapped happily away like your grannies knickers on the clothes-line. Why not use two woofer/mids above & below a tweeter and add sub-woofers underneath later? I say woofers PLURAL because I've never heard a convincing use of a single woofer for music. (Doesn't seem to matter so much with HT though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lech1553552674 Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 ...The ultra hard ceramic dome material moves like a piston thats the idea..but how much better is it than 'normal' speakers features very low distortion and how much THD / IMD % is that? whatever the marketing department says is low? scuse me but im sick of crap,i like numbers if manufacturers are going to rave about their own products.I like 3rd party measurements and opinion Ofcourse hearing is beleiving.... I agree. (Donno if that link works properly on all browsers?....The website looks as if it hasn't been updated in about two years... )They have measurements made by both themselves and: MLSSA measurements made by Dipl.Ing. Bernd Timmermanns, former chief editor of "Klang & Ton", now chief editor of "Hobby Hifi", the German speaker builder magazine. Measurements include amplitude (SPL), impedance, step response and spectral decay plot (waterfall diagram). For the speaker I showed earlier the odd/even HDs all appear to stay below 0.3% mostly (more than half the width of the graph), a few bits reach 0.5%, and below 200Hz it starts going up towards about 1.5% @100Hz. They say that these are at 6Vrms. I'm guessing that higher power the distortion will go up, but as with many amp measurements it might not be the case at some frequencies. According to the waterfall plots, the first "breakup" occurs at round about 10kHz, which I'm guessing really means that the edge of the cone is 180deg out of phase from the coil. Unless I'm wrong, that would mean that below 5Khz it would be less than 90deg out of phase and could be considered "like" a piston. In my existing speakers I have their 32mm tweeter and one of their larger non-ferrofluid 7" woofers. How does it sound? Like a quality paper-cone woofer and silk-dome tweeter minus a thick layer of mud. The treble took a bit of getting used to because it actually radiates quite a bit of energy despite the relatively low 89dB sensitivity (I'm guessing it's because of its wide spread). But after hearing some crystal-clear glockenspiels at the crossover frequency without any shimmering - I ain't goin' back. i just want my new speakers to be even better. Maybe some magnesium Seas speakers though....Ok enough of my limelight-hogging rambling .... ....What I would like to see though is a rigid material that didn't way a ton.... Me too. People often don't realise that at low frequencies it's often ok for the whole "speaker + box" system to vibrate like a piston (when the cone moves one way, the box always moves the other way). The problems start when a) the material can't carry the vibrations fast enough and starts ringing (longitudinal). b) the material is too flexible and starts ringing as well (transverse). c) the box has restricted movement and starts shaking the floor etc instead. ...I'm very puzzled about your tweeter mounting methodology. Surely even a tweeter needs a rigid, non-vibrating mount, otherwise it's going to be wobbling in tune to the music?... Most tweeters (wire and magnet type) are sold with miniature enclosures already built into them. I've never seen one with an open back, excluding other designs like planar etc. On the ones I have, there's a heavy metal plate attached to the front, and a soft plastic enclosure behind. I just meant something to cover it up for warmth. At those frequencies a "hard" enclosure would ring like crazy like a hammer against an anvil. That's why all the very expensive loudspeakers either have the tweeter separately or those "floating" designs where it's not actually touching the box. Lech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lech1553552674 Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Why not use two woofer/mids above & below a tweeter and add sub-woofers underneath later? I say woofers PLURAL because I've never heard a convincing use of a single woofer for music. (Doesn't seem to matter so much with HT though) Cost, not that it would be any different from the 3-way option - just more than a 2-way, and bigger. Plus I'm looking for good focus. A musician mate of mine said the ones I've got have extremely good focus, but he thought the highs were too loud. I'm not sure if I would get that same sort of thing if the woofers were doubled up. It would be the loudspeaker equivalent of two people saying the same thing at the same time. With a true 3-way system each speaker could be better dedicated to its own frequency-band than a 2-way (2 up for the 3-way option), but then there would be two different crossover frequencies, tri-amping etc (2 up for the 2-way option). I could just forget about some of it and just make the midrange enclosure a lot bigger. That would reduce the problem of internal reflections returning to the speaker cone - regardless of the method, they'd be easier to diffuse. Toxicbass, about the horn speakers, how are the rear enclosures made? Unless it's piezo-electric, surely it would still need to solve all the same problems before it's fed through the horn? Lech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by Toxicbass thats a distortion. what about IB installations? or Dipole.People say they are extremely goodsounding. I had thought about building dipole subs if I ever get a workshop and some more time. Supposedly they're a gread match for planar speakers. The one that has caught my eye is: http://home.comcast.net/~dreite/Temp/Adire_DPL12_dipole_woofer_project.htm and is also discussed at http://audioworld.com/sw/Forum1/HTML/002976.html Its a reather long thread but has some more interesting info towards the end... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayn Marx Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 If Acutron claim 'The ultra hard ceramic dome material moves like a piston well above the audible frequency band and the high internal sound velocity features very low distortion and virtually no coloration.' do they say anything about performance implications (both electrically & mechanicaly) of a material whose mass/density ratio is higher than most other materials in use today? I'm left wondering about the weight of the 'piston' (Acutron) compared to say a typical polymer/carbon fibre composite ? However, I've heard Acutron drivers of this type perform miracles in some expensive US 3 ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lech1553552674 Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by Ayn Marx ....do they say anything about performance implications (both electrically & mechanicaly) of a material whose mass/density ratio is higher than most other materials in use today? I'm left wondering about the weight of the 'piston' (Acutron) compared to say a typical polymer/carbon fibre composite ?.... Well it's not like I'm trying to sell someone else's product, just that I took a big risk by buying a pair before ever hearing them, and it really paid off. I think the important part of why it works is because they make the cones so damn thin. I was amazed when I held one of the woofers up to the light once and the cone was slightly translucent; as for the tweeter: the outline of its coil is easily visible from in front! Before that I spent ages looking at various brands on the net, and I asked myself: how is it supposed to even work? Everyone was claiming a nice flat frequency response, but it didn't make sense. How can a soft polymer or pulp mixture carry sound across from the centre of the cone to the edge fast enough so that it vibrates in one piece 3000 times a second? Not only did I figure out that it can't, but that they don't try to do it that way. The sound wave is supposed to smoothly travel across the surface of the cone like a ripple, and all that damping, coating, honeycomb meshing, etc. are supposed to prevent ringing and reflections. Otherwise, if the cone was supposed to move as one piece, why would it need all those things? I discovered a speaker called the "Manger" that takes it a step further: instead of the classic cone shape, it's completely flat. As ripples travel out towards the edge they get progressively absorbed, so at low frequencies the whole thing moves and at high frequencies only the middle part close to the coil vibrates. I'm guessing that this is how huge 15" midrange drivers are possible from manufacturers like Tannoy where people swear by the good quality. Ok, so I'm rambling off the topic, but these can be considered two extremes in design methodology, and I chose the "move like a piston" option. Now if only a great box design was that easy!... Lech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayn Marx Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by Lech Snip<...... the important part of why it works is because they make the cones so damn thin. I was amazed when I held one of the woofers up to the light once and the cone was slightly translucent; as for the tweeter: the outline of its coil is easily visible from in front! WOW ! ! ! I'm sold ! ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig f Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by Lech I'm one of those people who likes to be able to listen to their music from any angle without having to worry about having to sit in some optimal position for full benefit etc. I wouldn't want to put up with a small "sweet spot" as with dipoles if I can get it to sound good all round instead. While not getting in on any of the speaker design stuff you're talking about here (so far above my head it's not funny!!) I've heard speakers with wide sweet spots that image ok, but by far the best imaging in my experience has always been from those speakers with the smallest sweet spot. Imaging is about time relationships of the sound from the two speakers (I'm ignoring room influence at this point) and as soon as that relationship is disturbed by you being further from one speaker than the other then you are unlikely to get the "full benefit". Cheers, Craig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxicbass Posted November 24, 2003 Author Share Posted November 24, 2003 Toxicbass, about the horn speakers, how are the rear enclosures made? Unless it's piezo-electric, surely it would still need to solve all the same problems before it's fed through the horn? Same problems like ur talking off? reflected waves? why yes.Usually some dampening material in there. theres a whole new set of problems to be surmounted with horns Low distortion no problem Colourations from un knowledgable horn designers,yes. Yep its all about directiveness,and room reflection,which do u want an anechoic chamber with no reflections to get the 'true' signal? or a nice reflective lounge with hard walls and windows? I cant tell u which i like,because im onyl 20 and have only got Philips 1979 vintage main cone speakers and a jbl 15" sub(horn soon) Cheers:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lech1553552674 Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by Lech ....these can be considered two extremes in design methodology, and I chose the "move like a piston" option.... Don't get me wrong though. What I *chose* isn't necessarily better than other options. I'd be quite interested to hear what a Manger speaker sounds like. They say it's a "wide range" speaker that only needs a woofer for the lows... Lech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxicbass Posted November 24, 2003 Author Share Posted November 24, 2003 You cant beat physics. 3way systems seem to be the minimum for quality sound you just cant move enough air down low,and still move fast enough for the highs effectively. + associated cone resonances all the way up... 2way you say? perhaps a $$$$$ woofer can sound okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lech1553552674 Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by Toxicbass You cant beat physics. 3way systems seem to be the minimum for quality sound you just cant move enough air down low,and still move fast enough for the highs effectively. + associated cone resonances all the way up... 2way you say? perhaps a $$$$$ woofer can sound okay. I totally agree. When I say "2-way", like the one I built earlier, I actually mean something like a 100Hz to 20kHz range, and a sub below that. The ones I have are actually like those sub+satellite systems, minus the crap sound. It's a 14-ish L sealed box that's good down to 125Hz (-3dB). The crossover is a story in itself (ended up with passive 2.7kHz XO 3rd order; active 6th order low-pass for a 12" woofer + a subtle few dB of EQ for the sealed box; passive pre-amp, and no high-pass so the midwoofers go all the way down to the bottom...), and it does a good job. I'm really proud of my efforts in integrating the subwoofer: people usually don't know it's there until a low E is played and they realise "there's no way those piddly little boxes could have done that". If I want to go one better, then like you said: a proper 3-way is the trick. I'm not particularly fond of "pure" 2-way systems that try to do everything. The use of completely hollow vented boxes, which then have that "boxy" sound, or unwanted sounds coming from the port etc etc....and after a few years they go out of tune and start sounding boomy...Just a whole bunch of headaches... I think I've figured out one one of the hassles with my speakers, and it's a classic!.... At the crossover frequency at about 2700Hz (medium-high whistling frequency), the 7" woofer and the 32mm tweeter are playing at the same volume. Or are they? Due to the "piston-like" nature of them Accutons blah blah blah, the sound coming from the woofer is directional like a spotlight (simplifying here), whereas the tweeter has a very wide spread like a floodlight. I designed my crossover mainly around the published "on-axis" measurements, to try to get a nice and flat response. The only different thing I did was aim for a Butterworth response (-3dB at X.O.) which gives a slight boost on-axis, but flat sensitivity when averaging from all directions. That's all very well, except it isn't true. Because leading up to 2.7kHz the woofer is a lot more directional than the tweeter and is radiating a lot less energy. Heading down towards 2.7kHz the tweeter has a very wide spread so it effectively plays a lot louder than the woofer, even with the same "on-axis" sensitivity. It's a bit different with dipoles because they are much more directional, so it pays to focus on a flatter on-axis frequency response and not worry so much about other angles. Ignoring boxes for the moment, I think that's one thing some people (including myself, I quietly admit) were noticing: more energy in the treble even if it might be completely flat in an anechoic environment (1 for Ayn for her efforts ). With 3-way systems, there isn't a large jump between cone sizes (135mm down to 32mm) but much smaller steps which makes this issue easier to solve. Lech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxicbass Posted November 24, 2003 Author Share Posted November 24, 2003 I agree Lech ,ur well into the details like i try Vifa p13wj-00-08 D27TG-35-6 silk value for money system i want to build either for car, or home Active filtering at 3khz (to avoid woofer beamyness) notice the response at 30° and 60° the low pass will be summed to mono and use a larger amp perhaps my bridged eti480 if it doesnt instantanously explode with 300VA toroid..:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lech1553552674 Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Craig, I completely agree, and I think you're right with the imaging being better from speakers with small sweetspots. That way the room's reflections etc are less noticeable and it lets you focus on the ambience in the recording etc, etc. For this I bet Ayn can help out lots with damping the room for an even better effect, but I've sort of gone the other way and fully appreciate the fact that the room is still there in what I'm hearing. It's gives a completely different effect from good imaging: more like the musicians being there with you giving a live performance in your living room, as opposed to you being there at a live performance. I guess it comes down to what you want and the sorts of music/listening you prefer. ...so far above my head it's not funny!... Craig, I used to be a total noobie with the design of loudspeakers, and all I did was take an interest, read lots of articles on the net, not believe everything, and a bit of practical experience. The technical parts are the crossovers (active and passive); I learnt a bit at tech, but most people can get away with examples etc off the net. Lech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lech1553552674 Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by Toxicbass ... Vifa p13wj-00-08 D27TG-35-6 silk value for money system i want to build either for car, or home Active filtering at 3khz (to avoid woofer beamyness) notice the response at 30° and 60° ... That looks like one of the exact same systems I considered a while back!... before I decided to go all-out and blow my budget on those Accutons. (I couldn't find the exact same p13wj-00-08's on www.d-s-t.com, are they 5-1/2" paper, cast basket?) Tell us if it ends up sounding great! Have you looked at some Audax's? I think they're a bit more expensive though. Lech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxicbass Posted November 24, 2003 Author Share Posted November 24, 2003 That looks like one of the exact same systems I considered a while back!... :eek: http://www.madisound.com/VIFA%20PDFS/VIFA%20CLASSIC%20PDFS/p13wh-00-08e.pdf http://www.madisound.com/VIFA%20PDFS/VIFA%20CLASSIC%20PDFS/d27tg-35-06e.pdf i just used madisound. fast navigation with basic text site :cool: :rolleyes: :cool: i would go audax/scanspeak/seas if i had lots of $ to burn,but i dont. This will be nextyears audio. The basshorns still have to be made this year.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayn Marx Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by Craig F Snip<.... by far the best imaging in my experience has always been from those speakers with the smallest sweet spot. Imaging is about time relationships of the sound from the two speakers (I'm ignoring room influence at this point) and as soon as that relationship is disturbed by you being further from one speaker than the other then you are unlikely to get the "full benefit". Depends on what you mean by 'full benefit' Craig. At a concert, sitting off centre, I can still close my eyes and tell precisely where the musicians are located. In my listening room I can do the same. Moving from one side to the other or towards the speakers just sounds to me as though I'm moving around the concert venue. I can still tell where the musicians are located, even standing between the speakers. I suspect that this is a function of correctly recorded phase relationships reproduced without overmuch smearing in the time domain PLUS a room that is so heavily damped that moving closer to any of the walls does not increase excessivly the % of sound reflected off those walls to the detrement of imaging etc. Having said that I have indeed heard Quad 57's imaging fall apart, in a well damped room, just by removing the obligatory head brace.:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts