As a matter of fact I might do so. In any case I bought four Aiyima resonators that I will try anyway, and listen to them. Just out of curiosity.
In this particular applications there's no space, there was no plan to use active eq. In fact I never use any active eq ever. My amps or preamps never have anything but volume pot, not even balance pot. The speaker should be flat or I don't use it.
Crossover passive parts only to separate the in and out frequencies on each driver, always low order.
Sorry, but that is the way I see it.
Carlmart.
No need to say sorry, I also don't feel the need to use eq .
Hopefully when you listen to the dml panels you will hear what makes them sound so special.
Pixel1.
Visaton is a good brand , but I can't say that I like the look of their exciter range.
My 10watters would do a much better job.
Steve.
No need to say sorry, I also don't feel the need to use eq .
Hopefully when you listen to the dml panels you will hear what makes them sound so special.
Pixel1.
Visaton is a good brand , but I can't say that I like the look of their exciter range.
My 10watters would do a much better job.
Steve.
Calmart
Like you, I went down the minimalist route before finding out about DMLs. I had a pair of Allison 6 omnis with upgraded bass driver. The bass driver ran with no crossover at all, and the tweeter had a 1st order roll-off with a single cap and one resistor. Whilst it avoided the 'point and squirt' effect of traditional box speakers, and loaded the room in a different way, they still didn't quite deliver what I was looking for. I've even played with single full range driver speakers (I have a DIY pair as my rear surrounds in my TV system).
With respect to EQ, as I use active crossovers via the miniDSP, there is little to be lost by using active EQ in my case. I listen to a wide variety of music. In particular, I listen to quite a bit of classical music. I find that this tends to be more demanding of tonal accuracy than some other genres.
As Steve mentioned, the response from my cheap £12 a pair exciters on canvas panels was pretty good, and you could probably get away without any EQ. I'll be trying out a slightly different version of the 40x30cm canvas panels later today. These have 10x15cm ultra high density EPS in the middle instead of the 3mm ply. My expectation is that the top end may be a little better and needing less EQ, but that's only a guess.
What I can say, however, that listening briefly yesterday, the OB bass unit plus canvas panels were sounding very good indeed. The room response needs tweaking a bit perhaps, possibly in the upper bass / lower midrange area where there's a bit of a response dip that results in a slight lack of 'body' at times. When listening to it, it's also a bit 'hot' in the upper mids / lower treble and this seems to be accurately reflected in the attached frequency plot (psychoacoustic smoothing).
Attachments
Steve and Carlmart,
I don't see where you are coming from, not wanting to use eq. If you had a lamp that illuminated 3/4 of your Rembrandt, leaving the corners in shadow, wouldn't you want to see the whole masterpiece in all its radiant glory instead of having parts of it in shadow? Why then would you want to leave low spots or blaring spots that are not the natural sound from the speakers or DMLs? I thought the whole point was accuracy of sound, The eq helps to achieve accuracy, does it not, or am I missing something here?
I don't see where you are coming from, not wanting to use eq. If you had a lamp that illuminated 3/4 of your Rembrandt, leaving the corners in shadow, wouldn't you want to see the whole masterpiece in all its radiant glory instead of having parts of it in shadow? Why then would you want to leave low spots or blaring spots that are not the natural sound from the speakers or DMLs? I thought the whole point was accuracy of sound, The eq helps to achieve accuracy, does it not, or am I missing something here?
Jaxboy
This is very much where I'm coming from. For example, despite advancing years, I'm very sensitive to treble frequencies and 'hot' sounding speakers are a real problem for me. Similarly, as I listen to a lot of orchestral music, string tone is very important. Peaks or troughs, even relative small ones, in critical areas can have a significant impact on the quality of the string tones.
My main concession to minimal interference in the signal path, however, has been to build a simple passive 'preamp' stage. By limiting the components to a couple of volume pots and nothing else, I've noticed a definite improvement in transparency. I'm only using cheap pots at the moment (I bought them to test proof of concept with the miniDSP), but expect further improvements with better pots (I have them, so it just needs me to get the soldering iron out. Again.) I also need to build an input switching box. Again I have the bits, I just need to actually do it!.
This is very much where I'm coming from. For example, despite advancing years, I'm very sensitive to treble frequencies and 'hot' sounding speakers are a real problem for me. Similarly, as I listen to a lot of orchestral music, string tone is very important. Peaks or troughs, even relative small ones, in critical areas can have a significant impact on the quality of the string tones.
My main concession to minimal interference in the signal path, however, has been to build a simple passive 'preamp' stage. By limiting the components to a couple of volume pots and nothing else, I've noticed a definite improvement in transparency. I'm only using cheap pots at the moment (I bought them to test proof of concept with the miniDSP), but expect further improvements with better pots (I have them, so it just needs me to get the soldering iron out. Again.) I also need to build an input switching box. Again I have the bits, I just need to actually do it!.
It's not my intention to initiate any discussion with my comments.
I come from film & TV audio field, and in my life I had to go from location recording, of voice and music, to its studio reproduction. But also had the chance to listen to what I called a "natural" sound, real life one. And not many have any idea how hard is to keep that intact along the audio chain that follows, until it's played in different circumstances. That was my main struggle.
You develop a "memory" for sounds of all kinds, that prevents you from being "cheated" by the traps that want to transform that sound into something different, supposedly "better". From the start that's what a user equalization, of any kind, will always do. That user thinks this should sound this way, with more treble or more bass, and move things away from what the original mixing engineer, the sound designer, wanted that music to sound.
I have seen how studios are treated, actively and passively, to sound a certain way. And they were using speakers and electronics that were too expensive for the general public to buy them. So I think I know what trying to equalize onto a flat line involves. You can't do it just with electronics.
OTOS, and thanks to a friend of mine that makes some of the best speakers in the world, I could learn a lot of things of the questions involving speaker design.
The main one was that there were two approaches to loudspeaker design: using carefully designed drivers and using simple xovers, or using cheaper drivers, and higher order xovers to correct them. I listened to both types, and the first kind always sounded more natural and less artificial.
I did use graphic eq (1/3 octave type) and then parametric eq (much better) to correct the location recording problems, but always having in my "audio mind" how the original sound was like. I think that's the only use I accept for equalization, and I think it's too powerful a tool, even for me.
When I started getting curious with DMLs, the main idea was that I could have an almost full range speaker that avoided the "eq traps" of crossovers. And at first I thought they did. But then I learned many of the shown curves were equalized. And I got a bit disappointed.
Though apparently Steve is not using eq, so I will start assembling his boards when the resonators arrive.
In any case, even non-equalized, I will listen to them and see what I find.
I come from film & TV audio field, and in my life I had to go from location recording, of voice and music, to its studio reproduction. But also had the chance to listen to what I called a "natural" sound, real life one. And not many have any idea how hard is to keep that intact along the audio chain that follows, until it's played in different circumstances. That was my main struggle.
You develop a "memory" for sounds of all kinds, that prevents you from being "cheated" by the traps that want to transform that sound into something different, supposedly "better". From the start that's what a user equalization, of any kind, will always do. That user thinks this should sound this way, with more treble or more bass, and move things away from what the original mixing engineer, the sound designer, wanted that music to sound.
I have seen how studios are treated, actively and passively, to sound a certain way. And they were using speakers and electronics that were too expensive for the general public to buy them. So I think I know what trying to equalize onto a flat line involves. You can't do it just with electronics.
OTOS, and thanks to a friend of mine that makes some of the best speakers in the world, I could learn a lot of things of the questions involving speaker design.
The main one was that there were two approaches to loudspeaker design: using carefully designed drivers and using simple xovers, or using cheaper drivers, and higher order xovers to correct them. I listened to both types, and the first kind always sounded more natural and less artificial.
I did use graphic eq (1/3 octave type) and then parametric eq (much better) to correct the location recording problems, but always having in my "audio mind" how the original sound was like. I think that's the only use I accept for equalization, and I think it's too powerful a tool, even for me.
When I started getting curious with DMLs, the main idea was that I could have an almost full range speaker that avoided the "eq traps" of crossovers. And at first I thought they did. But then I learned many of the shown curves were equalized. And I got a bit disappointed.
Though apparently Steve is not using eq, so I will start assembling his boards when the resonators arrive.
In any case, even non-equalized, I will listen to them and see what I find.
Obviously a can of worms has been opened 
My goal has always been to build a panel that does not need eq , to be honest I never even thought about eq.
With the right exciter and materials and a bit of fiddling about I can usually get a pretty good sound and sometimes a pretty decent response .
If it's within a 5db band (+-2.5db) I'm pretty amazed.
When I'm measuring the responses in my seating position I usually wave the microphone from my left to my right and up and down, covering a 4foot area.
You can see the real time response as it changes from these different positions.
The problem is which of these positions do I eq ?
If I try to eq a Sharpe dip in the central position I could be increasing a spike in the same frequency in another position ?
It is not as easy as it sounds.
Do you eq one channel at a time of both together, one channel will be slightly different to the other because of positioning and reflections.
I did play around with all these problems many years ago when I first got my deq .
But I never really got satisfying results with my transmission line speakers , I preferred them as they were designed to sound.
I found that a flat line does not make a great sounding speaker.
But if eq works for yourselves then use it.
As a side point, earlier I was going down memory lane ,on the NXT RUBBISH forum and I came across this, a plot of xps and a 32mm Dayton exciter.
Notice how we are saying something is wrong with the plot, I'd forgotten all about this
NXT.......rubbish??....THINK AGAIN!
I'm going to go and hide in my bunker and wait for the incoming.
Steve.
My goal has always been to build a panel that does not need eq , to be honest I never even thought about eq.
With the right exciter and materials and a bit of fiddling about I can usually get a pretty good sound and sometimes a pretty decent response .
If it's within a 5db band (+-2.5db) I'm pretty amazed.
When I'm measuring the responses in my seating position I usually wave the microphone from my left to my right and up and down, covering a 4foot area.
You can see the real time response as it changes from these different positions.
The problem is which of these positions do I eq ?
If I try to eq a Sharpe dip in the central position I could be increasing a spike in the same frequency in another position ?
It is not as easy as it sounds.
Do you eq one channel at a time of both together, one channel will be slightly different to the other because of positioning and reflections.
I did play around with all these problems many years ago when I first got my deq .
But I never really got satisfying results with my transmission line speakers , I preferred them as they were designed to sound.
I found that a flat line does not make a great sounding speaker.
But if eq works for yourselves then use it.
As a side point, earlier I was going down memory lane ,on the NXT RUBBISH forum and I came across this, a plot of xps and a 32mm Dayton exciter.
Notice how we are saying something is wrong with the plot, I'd forgotten all about this
NXT.......rubbish??....THINK AGAIN!
I'm going to go and hide in my bunker and wait for the incoming.
Steve.
Steve,
When I said what I did, I was saying it with the assumption that you could hear a dip or a peak, not that the graph showed it. If it sounds good, then leave it alone. If it doesn't sound good, and even if the graph shows that it should, you won't want to listen to it that way, so you should eq it so that it does sound good. It's your ears that count, after all, not the graph. That's all. You are playing the music for your enjoyment, bottom line. If the music has puny bass and you like robust bass, then boost the bass! It's your ears, not those of the sound technician that's listening to it. I don't care what it's supposed to sound like. If I don't like how the sound technician mixed it, I won't listen to it that way; I'll change it so that it sounds to my liking. I've often dropped artist's voices a key because I like to hear a more throaty voice. My taste, so my choice of how I listen to it. Why put up with something when you can change it?
When I said what I did, I was saying it with the assumption that you could hear a dip or a peak, not that the graph showed it. If it sounds good, then leave it alone. If it doesn't sound good, and even if the graph shows that it should, you won't want to listen to it that way, so you should eq it so that it does sound good. It's your ears that count, after all, not the graph. That's all. You are playing the music for your enjoyment, bottom line. If the music has puny bass and you like robust bass, then boost the bass! It's your ears, not those of the sound technician that's listening to it. I don't care what it's supposed to sound like. If I don't like how the sound technician mixed it, I won't listen to it that way; I'll change it so that it sounds to my liking. I've often dropped artist's voices a key because I like to hear a more throaty voice. My taste, so my choice of how I listen to it. Why put up with something when you can change it?
I agree with the principle that if the graph shows "fine" and it is not sounding "good" for your ears, and the opposite is what you prefer, it's your ears that count more than the graph.
In the recent past, this discussion had been about distortion and valve amps, compared to transistor amps. Higher distortion valve amp sounded "better" than lower distortion transistor amps. Until it was discovered that certain of distortions were more forgiving than others.
So let's convene the curve may not be a deciding factor for some, though for others would. For me it is, because the curves I always based my recordings on were the microphones curves, to be as flat as possible for as much octaves as possible. For me that also applies to the other analog end of the chain: the loudspeaker.
What I say is that this response should be flat with no corrections, no matter if I split in two parts, like with DMLs and subs. And it stops there.
Give me that and I will be happy.
In the recent past, this discussion had been about distortion and valve amps, compared to transistor amps. Higher distortion valve amp sounded "better" than lower distortion transistor amps. Until it was discovered that certain of distortions were more forgiving than others.
So let's convene the curve may not be a deciding factor for some, though for others would. For me it is, because the curves I always based my recordings on were the microphones curves, to be as flat as possible for as much octaves as possible. For me that also applies to the other analog end of the chain: the loudspeaker.
What I say is that this response should be flat with no corrections, no matter if I split in two parts, like with DMLs and subs. And it stops there.
Give me that and I will be happy.
As a side point, earlier I was going down memory lane ,on the NXT RUBBISH forum and I came across this, a plot of xps and a 32mm Dayton exciter.
Notice how we are saying something is wrong with the plot, I'd forgotten all about this
NXT.......rubbish??....THINK AGAIN!
I'm going to go and hide in my bunker and wait for the incoming.
Steve.
I feel vindicated re. my Dayton Audio exciter comments from many posts ago! This plot isn't a million miles away from DA's info sheet. My el cheapo £12 a pair ones seem to be more accurate at the top end.
With respect to observations about what loudspeaker designers do, I've seen a few videos by GR Research where a speaker has been dramatically improved by upgrading the crossover. Mass market (and even not quite so mass market) speakers are build down to a price and if £10 worth of crossover components will do, that's what happens even if spending £25 would give a significantly better sound. Example here: FINALLY! A SPEAKER DANNY LIKES?! B&W, Epos and ATC! - YouTube
Hello pixel1
I‘m using the Visaton EX60R 8 Ohm for my experiments. At my local shop, Visaton are the only ones, which were available. They are a little expensive in comparison. I found no issues when using them.
When I go through listening to my various panels I can't help but notice that they all have a similar clean clear detailed sound.
Is this dml ? Or am I engineering my own sound ?
I stay away from panel materials that I don't like the sound of ,I coat them and manipulate them to produce a sound I think is correct.
When I listen to music all I want to hear is the recording ,that feeling that I am there with the musicians.
Realism is something most speaker just can't do.
My panels do that realism for me, in varying degrees depending on which panels I am listening to.
My recordings I make gives a sense of how they sound hopefully, but you have to be in the room to experience the realism ,that feeling that a trumpet for instance, is actually playing in front of me.
This is what first caught my attention many years ago , and that is why it is so hard to go back to ordinary speakers ,as shown in lordtarquins last post.
The wooden boxes look so clumsy now,and The sound is the same box sound which I just can't live with now.
Steve.
Is this dml ? Or am I engineering my own sound ?
I stay away from panel materials that I don't like the sound of ,I coat them and manipulate them to produce a sound I think is correct.
When I listen to music all I want to hear is the recording ,that feeling that I am there with the musicians.
Realism is something most speaker just can't do.
My panels do that realism for me, in varying degrees depending on which panels I am listening to.
My recordings I make gives a sense of how they sound hopefully, but you have to be in the room to experience the realism ,that feeling that a trumpet for instance, is actually playing in front of me.
This is what first caught my attention many years ago , and that is why it is so hard to go back to ordinary speakers ,as shown in lordtarquins last post.
The wooden boxes look so clumsy now,and The sound is the same box sound which I just can't live with now.
Steve.
Canvas panels: Plywood vs EPS Inserts
I have now been able to compare 3mm poplar plywood and 10mm ultra high density EPS when used as a 10x15cm mini panel glued to the centre of a 30x40cm art canvas panel.
I've attached the plot. The highlights are that the EPS mini panel is about 5db more efficient, that falloff at 20khz is the same, and that the EPS is a bit choppier but with more output particularly from 3.5khz to 12khz. The EPS looks a bit easier to EQ should one wish to do so.
The orange line is the ply, the purple is the EPS.
The frequency sweep below 300hz sounds pretty ropey, with quite a lot of unpleasant flapping and buzzing. I need to investigate the cause.
I have now been able to compare 3mm poplar plywood and 10mm ultra high density EPS when used as a 10x15cm mini panel glued to the centre of a 30x40cm art canvas panel.
I've attached the plot. The highlights are that the EPS mini panel is about 5db more efficient, that falloff at 20khz is the same, and that the EPS is a bit choppier but with more output particularly from 3.5khz to 12khz. The EPS looks a bit easier to EQ should one wish to do so.
The orange line is the ply, the purple is the EPS.
The frequency sweep below 300hz sounds pretty ropey, with quite a lot of unpleasant flapping and buzzing. I need to investigate the cause.
Attachments
JP4447676B2 -
Panel type speaker device
- Google Patents
Here is a panel with borders around the perimeter.
Panel type speaker device
- Google Patents
Here is a panel with borders around the perimeter.
Last edited:
CV
These are the canvas panels with ply inserts. I'm wondering if the canvas is a bit on the loose side. I have some butyl rubber that I may try rolling into thin worms and then ramming them between frame and canvas right at the point where they meet.
I'll try to find the source of the problem. Too busy listening to different bits of music now!