While perhaps "significant" - depending on your definition, I see it as a secondary effect, the primary and dominate one is the radius. Second to that would be depth and then shape.
100% this Earl !
I have been trying to teach that to people for years.
Top-to-bottom approach, first make a priority list, divide the variables as well as the constrains.
On top of that make a priority list of the importance of certain features and be realistic with it.
A crappy design with "perfect" speakers still sounds crappy.
Also, a car with bad tires won't perform any better when changing to a better transmission system.
What only really amazes me, is that there are tons of companies out there not understanding these fundamentals as well.
What drivers do you and Earl think would suit the subject - "Is it possible to cover the whole spectrum, high spl, low distortion with a 2-way"?
My decision is the system requires a CD and horn/waveguide for the HF.
Last edited:
Ideally I would never cover the whole spectrum with 2 drivers to begin with.
Way to much of a compromise.
But that question still misses a lot of context. So I can't answer that question without knowing all the ins and outs.
Is it possible? Yes everything is basically possible, depending on your definition and expectations.
Many interdependent variables contribute to the actual radiation pattern of a woofer. To name a few: cone material, cone-geometry, dust cap size, shape and material, voice-coil (semi-)inductance, frequency dependent velocity changes at each part of the cone area, and so on.
A comparison among several 6.5" cone drivers showed that the frequency at which the woofers start to become directive can vary between roughly 1500 and 2500 Hz, depending on the above variables. A significant difference in my opinion.
Last edited:
The frequency of beaming depends purely on the size of the speaker.
How this is beaming (the DI, directivity index) depends a little on the cone shape.
Although the majority of speakers kind of use the same shape for that.
What you're talking about is cone break-up/roll-off.
Which depends mostly on the inductance (or the lack thereof with demodulation rings) and mass of the cone.
Any other effects, like local resonances or surround-dips, might sometimes disturb the response as well.
How this is beaming (the DI, directivity index) depends a little on the cone shape.
Although the majority of speakers kind of use the same shape for that.
What you're talking about is cone break-up/roll-off.
Which depends mostly on the inductance (or the lack thereof with demodulation rings) and mass of the cone.
Any other effects, like local resonances or surround-dips, might sometimes disturb the response as well.
This is exactly backwards as discussed above. You need to first specify the application intent and what the specifications are for the design to achieve the objectives. Then you can decide on the drivers. If your intent is to use Camplo's application as discussed, then it seems to me that his specs are nearfield listening, and insanely high SPL. He also wants low distortion although I discount the relevance of that.
The nearfield listening means that he is not interested in Constant Directivity (CD) and his design reflects that. For nearfield the directivity is not very important. Your decision for a Compression Driver and waveguide seems more likely to be a requirement for CD as would be desirable for non-nearfield listening. It is, of course, true that only a waveguide can achieve CD as direct radiators are never CD and a CD system cannot be made from non-CD sources.
I have never given much thought to Camplo's requirements as they are not ones that I have ever come across before - in the nearfield, very high SPL is not required (unless one is looking for hearing damage.). But they are his ears. Personally, I don't like nearfield as there is no spaciousness to the sound, even while imaging is very good. For mixing this might be a good choice (at lower SPL,) but for playback listening I don't think that it is. In Camplo's case, with the very high SPL requirement he may have chosen the best drivers, I don't know, but I will say that in his application the approach made by Danley of combining multiple drivers on a single horn would be the best approach. This approach is ideal at maximizing SPL, although I don't think that it can create as smooth a response as a good separated system can do, but that is, perhaps debatable.
So basically, I might disagree with Camplo's design specs, but not necessarily his specific design since it will yield his insane SPL requirement. But I do not see his approach as being very useful for the vast majority of DIYs who aren't doing mixing.
As above ^, I would be interested in seeing the results of this test as they fly in the face of what I know as reality.
I missed the nearfield part for some reason.
I would actually highly advice AGAINST using compression drivers so close by.
Not from a technical point of view but an health safety point of view.
1W is already enough to give you permanent hearing damage, a couple of watt is enough to just make ear drums just blow out.
A coworker got permanent hearing damage by testing an amplifier with a compression driver.
His ear was about 10-20cm away or so? (4-8 inch)
Unfortunately the amp got shorted somehow, and the result was a big pop on the compression driver.
Being that close we are talking about 120dB+ or so full blast on the freq region were your hearing is the most sensitive as well.
I would actually highly advice AGAINST using compression drivers so close by.
Not from a technical point of view but an health safety point of view.
1W is already enough to give you permanent hearing damage, a couple of watt is enough to just make ear drums just blow out.
A coworker got permanent hearing damage by testing an amplifier with a compression driver.
His ear was about 10-20cm away or so? (4-8 inch)
Unfortunately the amp got shorted somehow, and the result was a big pop on the compression driver.
Being that close we are talking about 120dB+ or so full blast on the freq region were your hearing is the most sensitive as well.
I already sent a bandpass of white noise through the axi2050 at level much higher than desired....
I'd say a level of respect is deserved, a discussion like this is probably wise to have before encouraging other up-and-coming designers to explore such powerful devices... I literally was in the living room with my son talking about this yesterday… The idea of setting a dynamic limit on the system to protect people from accidents.
On the lighter side of things...the lack of amplitude distortion, is what this hail mary is for..... I should able to EQ with extreme prejudice. This is an extreme improvement over a silk dome tweeter, communication of spl is very apparent.
Reverb seems to be less "harsh" in my domestic experiences, were as direct energy, is what it is. Is it safe to say that most domestic and studio experiences are going to be dominated by direct energy? Enter a device that inherently creates more direct energy into the direct energy-rich environment and the aspect is pronounced...I guess this is very personal to each persons experience in life.
It'd be nice to have an app on my phone that could display direct vs indirect energy in real time lol
I'd say a level of respect is deserved, a discussion like this is probably wise to have before encouraging other up-and-coming designers to explore such powerful devices... I literally was in the living room with my son talking about this yesterday… The idea of setting a dynamic limit on the system to protect people from accidents.
On the lighter side of things...the lack of amplitude distortion, is what this hail mary is for..... I should able to EQ with extreme prejudice. This is an extreme improvement over a silk dome tweeter, communication of spl is very apparent.
Reverb seems to be less "harsh" in my domestic experiences, were as direct energy, is what it is. Is it safe to say that most domestic and studio experiences are going to be dominated by direct energy? Enter a device that inherently creates more direct energy into the direct energy-rich environment and the aspect is pronounced...I guess this is very personal to each persons experience in life.
It'd be nice to have an app on my phone that could display direct vs indirect energy in real time lol
Last edited:
Haven't you guys ever shot guns or played with fireworks?
Honestly, 120 dB blast is no big whoop at all.....
haha...less than a meter on my stuff easily tops 130 dB.....my big dog is closer to 140.
6" away from the business end of of shotgun is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over 120, 130, 140, 150 dB....
You guys are just talking politically correct whussyville dB specs, imo
I should have been clearer. My decision is the system requires a CD = Compression Driver and horn/waveguide for the HF. Constant directivity was not part of my thought process in this application.
The application of the subject - "Is it possible to cover the whole spectrum, high spl, low distortion with a 2-way", was described in post #1. And, expounded on in further posts on the first page of this thread:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...-distortion-with-a-2-way.334757/#post-5717257
Post #1 - “I've been on a quest to build my own own reference monitor…”. Post #5 - “…1 meter away…”. I forgot that camplo has wanted a nearfield monitor, “1 meter away”, from the beginning. I agree that for his application requirements, the Danley approach could be better. The approach could be debatable - Let’s not.
There are perhaps a couple dozen great quality, and much smaller, pro monitors that could do the job at 1 meter. Overkill is just for fun; Impresses some clients; Won’t make the mix better. Perhaps the ‘bigger is better’ approach impresses the hip-hop crowd. Maybe it goes better with cocaine...
Nearfield is a good choice for mixing. I specified and used JBL LSR32’s (a three way) for near-mid field mixing professionally in the audio suite. Listening volume, bandwidth, dynamics, distortion, was never a problem. Lack of room spaciousness for mixing is a plus. I want that direct sound. Trying to hear through a room is fatiguing, even if I am familiar with the room. Monitors are a tool to do a job. The room is in the way.
I specified the same LSR32’s for mid-far field in the larger video control room, where spaciousness is a plus, and the participants have different values and needs. They don't need to hear into the mix. They need to hear the mix like a finished product, as an integrated part of the whole.
I use Focal CMS 65’s at home, nearfield, for DAW. Both the JBL’s and Focal’s have small waveguides for the dome tweeters; not compression drivers. Both can play louder, nearfield, than any mixing requires; though the Focal's could use a Sub for bass extension. I used many other systems over time.
I didn’t and don’t have near the volume requirements that camplo has and I have some permanent hearing damage due to the volumes I monitored with. Listening loud can be fun, of course. But, we eventually pay for it.