I’m trying to confirm how the 6 woofers (3 forward facing and 3 rear facing in adjacent vertical arrays) are configured in this speaker, including the baffle arrangement. It appears from some photos and videos that I’ve seen that the front and rear baffles only extend half way across the width of the speaker so as to allow the sound wave emerging from the rear of each set of 3 speakers to travel to the front or rear of the speaker, as the case may be. To put it another way, both sets of 3 woofers are operating as true dipoles and are projecting sound into the room in both directions.
Is this correct?
Also, presumably the rear facing set of 3 are electronically out for phase with the front facing 3 so that all 6 push in the same direction at the same time - ?
Is this correct?
Also, presumably the rear facing set of 3 are electronically out for phase with the front facing 3 so that all 6 push in the same direction at the same time - ?
This link location is at the description of the woofers.
There are some translation issues at this site. I corrected the "face"/phase issue below.
https://bestofhighend.com/peter-lyngdorf-explains-steinway-lyngdorf-model-b/
"I was thinking and thinking how we can make something that is smaller, less expensive but at least has the same impact as a Model D. We had to continue with the dipole principal. The dipole is wonderful because you don’t need a particular space. Especially now, since we have RoomPerfect technology. I thought let me try to work out a very efficient way of packing the driver’s baffle. That became kind of a zig-zag pattern for the woofer system; three woofers facing forward and three woofers facing backwards. They are each 34 cm wide, but the speaker is only 60cm. We had to overlap the drivers, reverse the phase of the rear ones and carefully design the surrounding of the woofers. We actually pressure loaded them quite a bit. This means that we kind of squished the sound off from the baffle structure in a different way that we did with the Model D.
There are some translation issues at this site. I corrected the "face"/phase issue below.
https://bestofhighend.com/peter-lyngdorf-explains-steinway-lyngdorf-model-b/
"I was thinking and thinking how we can make something that is smaller, less expensive but at least has the same impact as a Model D. We had to continue with the dipole principal. The dipole is wonderful because you don’t need a particular space. Especially now, since we have RoomPerfect technology. I thought let me try to work out a very efficient way of packing the driver’s baffle. That became kind of a zig-zag pattern for the woofer system; three woofers facing forward and three woofers facing backwards. They are each 34 cm wide, but the speaker is only 60cm. We had to overlap the drivers, reverse the phase of the rear ones and carefully design the surrounding of the woofers. We actually pressure loaded them quite a bit. This means that we kind of squished the sound off from the baffle structure in a different way that we did with the Model D.
Last edited:
Thanks I have seen those. It’s the photo you’ve posted that indicates what I’ve described in the OP. There is a front cover and I’m assuming its acoustically transparent across the full width of the speaker, but that is what I’m looking to confirm.
Great speaker! Heard it once at the Dutch Audio Event in Veldhoven. Magic, though regrettably I only found the Steinway LD room at the end of the day, so could not listen too long. I decided to stick with open baffle and made a new DIY speaker very loosely based on this concept. AMT+6"+15" dipole, active class D.
Fedde
Fedde
I’ve never heard them but Peter Lyngdorf is the real deal and a speaker that (allegedly) can reproduce the sound of a piano so well that you can‘t distinguish from the real thing must be pretty damn good.
I’m taking inspiration from the woofer configuration, although using 4 not 6.
I’m taking inspiration from the woofer configuration, although using 4 not 6.
Also designing OB using 2 12in and 2 18in per side. The idea is to use the 12in woofers with a 6.5in mid and amt tweeter. The 18in are only used up to about 80hz - to add additional bass. Lots of issues, such as using active vs passive xover, using a DSP and dealing with latency issues if only used for bass, etc.. Was searching for 16 ohm 12in drivers suitable for OB, could not find any. Obviously some 8 and 4 ohm drivers as good candidates.
Not sure what you mean with the last sentence. By same direction, do you mean realative to the listener (dipole, a waste of 3 woofers) or in relation to the box (a bipole, but given bass frequencies, actually omni-directional).
If the later, possibly with a LP filter on the back to eliminate the bipole dip. If pulled far enuff into the room, one has no bafflestep, the rear drivers mean no 2∏ to 4∏ transition.
In the video matstat posted it says dipole thou.
dave
Last edited:
If I had to guess, it's a horizontally squeezed as tight as possible version of this old idea, stacked 3 high. https://www.linkwitzlab.com/proto.htm
Yes, three of the six woofers are in reverse electrical phase. This way, asymmetric behaviour of the woofers (during excursion) is reduced...
Quite the thread resurrection!
I think it's pretty clear what Studley meant, and the answer is yes, the rear facing woofers are connected with opposite polarity, and therefore all the woofers move in the same direction at the same time. They are dipoles. The answer's there in post #2.
Why is it a waste of woofers? (And there are 6, not 4.) There are plenty of successful dipole designs around, and plenty of knowledgable people who've used and advocated them.
I think it's pretty clear what Studley meant, and the answer is yes, the rear facing woofers are connected with opposite polarity, and therefore all the woofers move in the same direction at the same time. They are dipoles. The answer's there in post #2.
Why is it a waste of woofers? (And there are 6, not 4.) There are plenty of successful dipole designs around, and plenty of knowledgable people who've used and advocated them.
Last edited by a moderator:
I was pretty sure but wanted to make sure.
As a dipole you have to either give up a lot of bass or invest a lot more to get the same bass as if you had a box. Bass requires brut force.
I don’t want to get into an argument about dipole bass.
These guys are known for some “unusual” designs.
dave
Indeed one needs radiating area to accomplish satisfactory bass. In a "typical" room, say 14 x 16 ft with 8ft ceilings. dipole bass can work quite well. I suppose one reason OB people use big drivers in multiples.
You‘ve missed the point……it’s the elimination of the box that makes dipole so special……..no resonant energy re aligning through the cone……just free air direct performance………there’s a difference. No…….its not for everyone for the obvious reasons of size but make no mistake, an OB system with the same response range of any other alignment will sound better than any other alignment. There’s no need for an argument on this point.
I understand the rationale. Itiesd it more than once and was never really happy.
too many compromises for a questionable benefit.
dave
too many compromises for a questionable benefit.
dave
I agree on the compromises…..absolutely….expense, large foot print, etc. But a questionable benefit?……we’re going to have to agree to disagree here in as much as I respect your opinion and contributions to this hobby over the many years. My SLOB prototype is done and in the testing and tweeting phase but already with 4 12” woofers I must say it’s the absolute best bass I’ve had in any of my rooms over decades of trying…….all in a 15”x15” footprint.
Are you also trying to say that other properties, such as the dipole radiation, are not significant enough to contribute or to explain the differences we hear?