So I'm designing (and that's just designing unfortunately) these ultimate speakers. For drivers, I'll use the Scan-Speak Revelator 32W/4878T00 in triangular sealed cabinets with lose modules per driver and stack as many modules on top of each other as the room is heigh and put the stacks in both corners of the front wall. They'll work from theoretically 0 to ~100 Hz. For mid bass there'll be six Accuton C220-6-222's. They'll work from ~100 to ~400 Hz. For midrange there'll be two Accuton C168-6-090's working from ~400 Hz to 2 kHz. From there will be handled by a Mundorf hifiAMT 25CS2.1-R.
Because getting as much surface area as possible is something I'm quite keen on as you might notice with this driver selection, I wanted to use two midranges to get a big, realistic and potentially very top-end extended, more neutral, very fast and transparent on the more bright side of things like Bowers & Wilkins and such yet full sound. Full especially in the midrange.
Also with the two midranges I wanted to mimic the more horizontally biassed radiating paternities of the tweeter.
Though what is more desirable? MTM or MMT? The tweeter is described as being very suited for a MTM configuration and most best speaker brands in the world, especially the ones that also use AMTs and ribbons also like to use a MTM configuration. I'm aware it narrows the off-axis response. I'm mainly looking to slightly narrow down the vertical dispersion to have a continuous radiating pattern through the treble and midrange. Though I obviously do want to keep the horizontal dispersion as good as possible. How much is the horizontal dispersion being effected?
Here's a little secret for ya: I know Kroma Audio, one of the top brands in the world, right up there with Magico and Wilson Audio though with their very own sound, uses the top two Revelator mid woofers for midrange, the bottom two are cut of in the mid bass, making it a MMT configuration. I can see why they did that because their tweeter is positioned fairly low, so they can move up the acoustic centre a bit. And when dealing with dual midranges, the closer you get them together, the better the dispersion is being preserved, especially vertically, which better matches the radiating paternities of their Hiquphon dome tweeter.
So I guess the MTM is the better choice in my case right? The entire system will be actively driven by active crossovers and DSP.
Because getting as much surface area as possible is something I'm quite keen on as you might notice with this driver selection, I wanted to use two midranges to get a big, realistic and potentially very top-end extended, more neutral, very fast and transparent on the more bright side of things like Bowers & Wilkins and such yet full sound. Full especially in the midrange.
Also with the two midranges I wanted to mimic the more horizontally biassed radiating paternities of the tweeter.
Though what is more desirable? MTM or MMT? The tweeter is described as being very suited for a MTM configuration and most best speaker brands in the world, especially the ones that also use AMTs and ribbons also like to use a MTM configuration. I'm aware it narrows the off-axis response. I'm mainly looking to slightly narrow down the vertical dispersion to have a continuous radiating pattern through the treble and midrange. Though I obviously do want to keep the horizontal dispersion as good as possible. How much is the horizontal dispersion being effected?
Here's a little secret for ya: I know Kroma Audio, one of the top brands in the world, right up there with Magico and Wilson Audio though with their very own sound, uses the top two Revelator mid woofers for midrange, the bottom two are cut of in the mid bass, making it a MMT configuration. I can see why they did that because their tweeter is positioned fairly low, so they can move up the acoustic centre a bit. And when dealing with dual midranges, the closer you get them together, the better the dispersion is being preserved, especially vertically, which better matches the radiating paternities of their Hiquphon dome tweeter.
So I guess the MTM is the better choice in my case right? The entire system will be actively driven by active crossovers and DSP.
Attachments
Last edited:
Neither option works properly if constant vertical directivity is your goal. If you want a high constant vertical directivity, look at Horback-Keele filters. If you want wide, use a MMT with a 2.5 way crossover between midranges / tweeter.
Great example of Horbach-Keele filtering: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...vity-horbach-keele-filters-3.html#post5501424
The way drivers are placed vertically does not affect horizontal dispersion. Crossover frequencies do however, which could differ between MTM and MMT.
Great example of Horbach-Keele filtering: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...vity-horbach-keele-filters-3.html#post5501424
The way drivers are placed vertically does not affect horizontal dispersion. Crossover frequencies do however, which could differ between MTM and MMT.
Last edited:
You're going to spend all that money on drivers, and you don't even understand the basics? This is really going to work out well.
Thanks for the great advice. Really like the way you're willing to help out a 16 y/o with no experience with multiple midranges and is just trying to have some fun dreaming about the ultimate.
Love you
Just noticed. You joined this forum at the time my dad sent his white helmet troops into my mother.
For a young guy using high-end drivers the way you do, you must have a very good paying part-time job after school...
Sometimes the ultimate isn't about how many drivers are used.
Sometimes the ultimate isn't about how many drivers are used.
Read the first sentence of my first post again. I'm just designing a concept, I'm not building it. Not any time soon at least.
I do believe surface area is a big deal. Bigger surface area in the highs and mid will give an advantage in soundstage, potential body in the midrange and simply just the scale of the sound as a whole.
For mid bass and bass I also think getting many big drivers across the height of the room because the mid bass it will offer a potentially fuller sound and especially with my design of the subs it's about the way the waves are spread across the room and the way they travel through the room.
The subs are designed the way they are and positioned in the corners to minimize reflections/waves bouncing around the room. This way, positioned in the corners with the cabinet essentially becoming part of the wall. Instead of coming from any point in the room, going in all directions and bouncing against different walls at different distances and places in the room, the waves will come out of the wall and travel along it instead of bouncing against it. Also, with this room-high line array of subs, vertical bouncing is also minimized and mainly. Instead of a bubble-shaped radiating pattern. The waves will form one big flat wave, arriving at once. This will offer exceptionally fast, tight, punchy and controlled bass.
I do believe surface area is a big deal. Bigger surface area in the highs and mid will give an advantage in soundstage, potential body in the midrange and simply just the scale of the sound as a whole.
For mid bass and bass I also think getting many big drivers across the height of the room because the mid bass it will offer a potentially fuller sound and especially with my design of the subs it's about the way the waves are spread across the room and the way they travel through the room.
The subs are designed the way they are and positioned in the corners to minimize reflections/waves bouncing around the room. This way, positioned in the corners with the cabinet essentially becoming part of the wall. Instead of coming from any point in the room, going in all directions and bouncing against different walls at different distances and places in the room, the waves will come out of the wall and travel along it instead of bouncing against it. Also, with this room-high line array of subs, vertical bouncing is also minimized and mainly. Instead of a bubble-shaped radiating pattern. The waves will form one big flat wave, arriving at once. This will offer exceptionally fast, tight, punchy and controlled bass.
Working at a fancy restaurant in the weekends I do earn quite well 🙂 . I have already built a active system with SB-Acoustics Satori 9,5" woofers, 6,5" midrange and beryllium tweeter. Driven by a Hypex FA123. It sounds pretty good. Very good imaging and an absolutely exceptional soundstage even in my tiny room thanks to the way I design my midrange chambers, something I pay A LOT of attention to. Bass is very quick and tight and goes very deep. Thanks to the DSP in the FA123s I got them flat to 18 Hz. Though it doesn't really come over that well because of the size of my room.
It performs amazingly and the system is far from optimal because of the room and because I didn't have the ability to round the baffle during the building process.
I just don't have that good of an understanding about the way multiple drivers interact at frequencies higher than bass. But don't underestimate me, I think the performance of my system is something many of you haven't achieved yet. This can be confirmed by the staff of Chattelin Audio here in The Hague. They're probably the most dedicated high-end dealer of The Netherlands and they really enjoyed my system. They're the place I know the Kroma's from. They have their entire €400K line on display.
Here's some more; actually build something, even with cheap drivers, measure it and learn from the experience. You'll get far, far more from actual experience than hypothesising.
Look at the post above and my profile picture.
I'm 6'5".
I'm 6'5".
Attachments
Good one young fella.
I can not give answers to your questions, but like your courage.
Keep up the good work.
Well done.
I can not give answers to your questions, but like your courage.
Keep up the good work.
Well done.
Very old proverb - goes something like this: A little humility goes a long, long way.
Nice work.
Then don't mock me saying I don't know *a synonym for poop* about this stuff in the first place. This mainly goes for Brett.
Thanks!
Thanks!
I haven't. As far as Brett goes, he's still riding his unicorn searching for his pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
It isn't. Surface area only is related to loudspeaker performance at aspects like efficiency or max SPL for a given amount of distortion.
Sound stage is related to dispersion, body mostly to frequency response.
When I looked at your picture I couldn't figure out specs for your speakers. Instead of high talk about low. 18 hz is okay but probably working to get there. I suspect if you haven't got a sub you would like one (or more). It might get you kicked out of where you are living though 🙂.
The high end drivers won't be as much fun as what you have now even if the sound is better. Make it pretty (gloss black would work) and keep enjoying !!!
Grant.
No you haven't. Really enjoy the way I pretty much muted Brett 😀 .
Nothing personal Brett. But maybe actually help me out instead of mock me. 😉
It's a completely active system. SB-Acoustics Satori TW29BN-B, MR16P-4 and two WO24P-8s in parallel. It's actively DSP driven by a Hypex FA123 on the back of the speakers.
For the cabinet, it's all constructed out of 1" thick MDF of the highest density available. With a double stacked baffle making is 2" thick. Each cabinet weighs about 60 kg. Furthermore, it's all sealed. The woofers are in a 58 L sealed chamber and the midrange is in a about 15 L semi-sealed chamber. It's sealed all around, but it has three tiny holes drilled in the back of the cabinet to let out just the slightest bit of compression. This gave especially the lower midrange a little more weight and "body". Effectively, the midrange can breathe so freely it's like a open baffle though the rear reflections are captured, broken up and eventually absorbed. See where that soundstage is coming from?
It's not just a large semi-sealed midrange chamber. It's more advanced than that. It's round/bubble/sphere/oval-shaped to minimize standing waves and waves bouncing around. Though the walls aren't smooth. If it where, the waves would travel along the walls and get directed right back to the driver by the smooth round shape. Instead, the walls are dimpled. I made the midrange chamber this round shape by stacking MDF plates with different diameter holes in them, though the edges aren't rounded off. These ridges break up the waves and prevent them from traveling along the walls back to the driver.
Also, making the midrange chamber by stacking MDF results in solid blocks of MDF at places around the midrange chamber, this makes it again heavier for vibration damping and extremely stiff. The tweeter is actually housed entirely just in a hole in one of these solid pieces.
For the cabinet, it's all constructed out of 1" thick MDF of the highest density available. With a double stacked baffle making is 2" thick. Each cabinet weighs about 60 kg. Furthermore, it's all sealed. The woofers are in a 58 L sealed chamber and the midrange is in a about 15 L semi-sealed chamber. It's sealed all around, but it has three tiny holes drilled in the back of the cabinet to let out just the slightest bit of compression. This gave especially the lower midrange a little more weight and "body". Effectively, the midrange can breathe so freely it's like a open baffle though the rear reflections are captured, broken up and eventually absorbed. See where that soundstage is coming from?
It's not just a large semi-sealed midrange chamber. It's more advanced than that. It's round/bubble/sphere/oval-shaped to minimize standing waves and waves bouncing around. Though the walls aren't smooth. If it where, the waves would travel along the walls and get directed right back to the driver by the smooth round shape. Instead, the walls are dimpled. I made the midrange chamber this round shape by stacking MDF plates with different diameter holes in them, though the edges aren't rounded off. These ridges break up the waves and prevent them from traveling along the walls back to the driver.
Also, making the midrange chamber by stacking MDF results in solid blocks of MDF at places around the midrange chamber, this makes it again heavier for vibration damping and extremely stiff. The tweeter is actually housed entirely just in a hole in one of these solid pieces.
Attachments
So you're trying to decide between MTM and MMT. Have you considered what sound you want playing to the front, to the ceiling and to the floor, and how to get that?
Hey Threewayaddict!
You've done your speakers! CONGRATULATION!
It seems you enjoy them. Nice.
Oh, and you studied about points which have been pointed to you along your journey.
Ok about your thread, i like the path you are going. I would say too that if you take active dsp filtering way Hornbach - Keele filter is to be seriously considered. It'll give you the ability to have a large membranne area with a controlled vertical directivity YOU can define the way you want ( within limits though).
If paired with a constant directivity loaded compression driver or tweeter ( or even a full range) you could manage horizontal directivity too.
The option of a 1" CD or a fullranger as to be seriously considered too imho as it could give you vertical and horizontal coverage pattern control to match with the pair of direct radiators as low as 1khz. This freq is an intresting point i think :as the works of E.Geddes have a cross over point in this range or lower for his waveguide for reasons, and the works of Robert Walker on the C.I.D. principle at the BBC defined the area of 1khz as a range of interest to manage wide stereo image. Other example could be found i'm sure.
Thus said you'll probably need to go with lower numbers of drivers but they'll have to be bigger in diameter.
And this will probably lead you to professional drivers range to have high efficiency too( and probably way cheaper as a bonus). Think beyma ( XXmi100 range are quite good for example).
Study the Hornbach-Keele pdf you 'll learn a lot usefull info ( as well as how to design a system this way).
You've done your speakers! CONGRATULATION!
It seems you enjoy them. Nice.
Oh, and you studied about points which have been pointed to you along your journey.
Ok about your thread, i like the path you are going. I would say too that if you take active dsp filtering way Hornbach - Keele filter is to be seriously considered. It'll give you the ability to have a large membranne area with a controlled vertical directivity YOU can define the way you want ( within limits though).
If paired with a constant directivity loaded compression driver or tweeter ( or even a full range) you could manage horizontal directivity too.
The option of a 1" CD or a fullranger as to be seriously considered too imho as it could give you vertical and horizontal coverage pattern control to match with the pair of direct radiators as low as 1khz. This freq is an intresting point i think :as the works of E.Geddes have a cross over point in this range or lower for his waveguide for reasons, and the works of Robert Walker on the C.I.D. principle at the BBC defined the area of 1khz as a range of interest to manage wide stereo image. Other example could be found i'm sure.
Thus said you'll probably need to go with lower numbers of drivers but they'll have to be bigger in diameter.
And this will probably lead you to professional drivers range to have high efficiency too( and probably way cheaper as a bonus). Think beyma ( XXmi100 range are quite good for example).
Study the Hornbach-Keele pdf you 'll learn a lot usefull info ( as well as how to design a system this way).
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.