I am wondering has someone built a DIY or a commercial home speaker with two or more lines of the same type drivers side by side? I would love to see some examples. I know it is rare, since it requires at least double the amount of drivers than normal single line.
I am not interested in the typical line array PA speakers, which of course often have two of the same type woofer/mids in the same enclosure. Those have the tweeter in the middle and arrays are assembled from separate enclosure modules. In other words, I am only interested in a single enclosure, multiple line speakers for home use.
I am not interested in the typical line array PA speakers, which of course often have two of the same type woofer/mids in the same enclosure. Those have the tweeter in the middle and arrays are assembled from separate enclosure modules. In other words, I am only interested in a single enclosure, multiple line speakers for home use.
Last edited:
Hopefully you won’t find any examples because it’s a VERY DESTRUCTIVE alignment…..and a really bad idea.
How so, what exactly happens? For example if you have low frequencies and mids played from that and tweeters are completely separate, not from the dual row? And lets also say the two lines of mids would be touching each other = not far away from each other.
Last edited:
You get interference, peaks and dips when moving from side to side. So it is indeed a very bad idea unless the wavelength is so great you get a minimal phase difference (read: bass)
McIntosh XRT1K
"Two columns of twenty-two 2” black titanium midranges flank a column of twenty-eight 3/4” black titanium tweeters forming a tri-column line design."
"CROSSOVER FREQUENCIES 250Hz & 2kHz"
https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/legacy-products/speakers/XRT1K
"Two columns of twenty-two 2” black titanium midranges flank a column of twenty-eight 3/4” black titanium tweeters forming a tri-column line design."
"CROSSOVER FREQUENCIES 250Hz & 2kHz"
https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/legacy-products/speakers/XRT1K
Last edited:
It makes sense to extend array considerations into the horizontal dimension. Why do people say it's destructive in the horizontal without saying the same about the vertical?
Macintosh avoids the most severe interferences by placing the drivers extremely close to each other and crossing the mids over very low (250Hz is a challenge for a 2" mid dome). There is still lobing because they failed to xo the tweeters low enough. They have learned from that, their current models got only 1 tweeter and 1 mid line, which reduces the lobing and they try to avoid it to be too noticeable by the positioning guide. If you don't follow it (ie switching the left and right speaker), it sounds a lot worse. You can still measure the horizontal lobing/interference. That shows that a big name (MacIntosh, JBL, Klipsch etc) does not grant speakers which are that perfect like the ads promise.
That's okay, everything about audio is about compromises - but you should know what are the weak points and if (or how much) they apply to you and what's acceptable and what's not. And remember: A good speaker which performs well until you play a certain track (or music genre) is not a good speaker.
That's okay, everything about audio is about compromises - but you should know what are the weak points and if (or how much) they apply to you and what's acceptable and what's not. And remember: A good speaker which performs well until you play a certain track (or music genre) is not a good speaker.
Even McIntosh realizes not everyone with coin knows good from bad and might be fascinated with more drivers than there are players on a football pitch. Doesn't make it right.
If that were presented to me, I might suggest you stagger the drivers so along that one row, you place the next row in between the set of drivers, so you end up with a zig-zag effect. Something like this, but on a small version of course. Either way, it's only a means to an undesired end, really. With woofers, it's not so bad. The higher frequency you go, the less you will like the effect.
If that were presented to me, I might suggest you stagger the drivers so along that one row, you place the next row in between the set of drivers, so you end up with a zig-zag effect. Something like this, but on a small version of course. Either way, it's only a means to an undesired end, really. With woofers, it's not so bad. The higher frequency you go, the less you will like the effect.
Attachments
Last edited:
McIntosh XR100
https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/speakers/XR100
"Midranges: Eight 2” Inverted Titanium Domes
Midrange Tweeters: Two 2” Inverted Titanium Domes
Super Tweeter: One ¾” Titanium Dome"
"Crossover Frequencies: 300Hz, 2kHz, 8kHz"
Okay, the explaination: Those arrays don't have the tweeters and mid drivers vertically alternating. They create a cylindrical wave and don't have vertically interference as long as they are close enough. Additionally, that extends the near field in which the spl only drops by 3dB instead of 6dB in the far field.
'Conventional' speakers with vertical positioned drivers also got lobing up/down but these are usually much less severe and go into the floor, where they are often absorbed and the ceiling where they have a much longer path to travel (losing energy/loudness) and/or become scattered.
'Conventional' speakers with vertical positioned drivers also got lobing up/down but these are usually much less severe and go into the floor, where they are often absorbed and the ceiling where they have a much longer path to travel (losing energy/loudness) and/or become scattered.
On these, they applied what they've learned too. The lower mid drivers are side by side in a
E: extended the abrv.
Last edited:
They are usually much less in magnitude and ..the 'and' is already explained in the part of my post you've snipped off.
They can, if they have very precise controlled dispersion, like in the horn cluster picture. The MacIntosh do not have any dispersion control horizontally and vertically it's the properties of the array which controls the dispersion.
That's also a reason why 2-way CBTs don't work great, it's the principle of the speaker to use the reflection and the lobing is also reflected.
You suggest that what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. You use words like 'very precise' to imply there's a great difference where there isn't. The role of the floor is not to fix lobing. Vertical spacing has consequences in the horizontal dimension regardless.
Don Keele is a fan of the 3 dimensional array 😉
It seems you are more eager to bash back than to read or understand what's been written? I said 'absorption'. If you cannot follow, I'll expand on that. Usually the floor is not bare, be it carpet, furniture, plants, sofa or chairs etc. That absorbs, scatters and filters (partial reflection, usually the higher the f, the higher the absorption, the lower the reflection). I hope it was clear enough for you to follow it.
Here's a picture from Don Keele's official website. Perhaps you could explain what's going on here with the double row..
That looks like a CBT array with horizontal lobing (which most LAs have too). Just because someone of reputation does it does not make it automatically great. Audio is about compromises, whoever did that had very likely other problems or priorities. Or just ignored it.
Alone the fact it partly disperses directly into the metal air duct and lowered ceiling should show that installation is anything but perfect.
This isn’t what the OP was referring to…..see the original post for “ two arrays side by side with the same driver”
Macs approach here is just fine……I’ve heard this system a few times and it ain’t bad…..BUT……here’s the thing about arrays…..ALL arrays…..they NEED 10x the array length to sum……there’s no getting around this unless you do a line source such as an WMtMW or similar. That and a point source just sounds more like what our ears are designed for.
Enough said….this should have lasted 3-4 replies at best……