Yeah, that is not what I want. With his mounting there is a 1-inch deep mouth in the front. I hope to avoid that.
I did consider the sandwich approach that you mentioned, but I have decided on something that is a little easier.
I plan to use those little plastic u-channel edge protector strips. I just placed an order and they should show up in a week or so. What I can then do is make a rectangular "U" cutout in top of my baffle a little wider than the driver, glue the edge trim strips in place around the inside of the cutout, and then just slide the driver down into them. I can assemble and disassemble it in seconds.
Last edited:
Yes, I hope to see tests about H2 to H5, a waterfall and non-linear distorsion tests between two of those units (concistency).
Flatted with passive L//R, what one could hope bafled from 300 hz to ? with a flat spl please ?
I really asking myself ho it could compare with the 4" Audiotchnology you talked about and which is known for good details and transcient and subjectivly good tones when correctly loaded ?!
I remember Juha member tried the Neo10 in his open bafle adventures but certainly didn't find it to have spl enough in the low end and prefered a PA 12" ... That's will be great to know what is the spl max the new GRS is able to shout in the 300 hz after high pass... Btw, looked at the Echelon and despite it's seeming to sounds very good and had palms, I really didn't understand why a so high Le bass driver was used below a fast planar ??? The design is sealed in the bass IIRC... maybe he chose a low QTC below 0.6 ? Still important for the voices with such XO upon 100/150 hz ?
Thanks CharlieLaub for the thread 🙂 😎
Last edited:
I read a lot about the neo10 many years ago on this forum (or maybe AudioCircle) and there was talk of stacking two of these drivers with a thin sheet of wool felt in between to boost the SPL while maintaining the panel size. Obviously the lower XO'd here the better, but the consensus was not to play the neo10 above 2500hz anyway. Also, the rear driver could be low-passed to play only in the range that the drivers couple.
Now that this driver is getting some attention again I hope someone will experiment with this!
Now that this driver is getting some attention again I hope someone will experiment with this!
CharlieLaub,
Please forgive the off topic question. I noticed that you posted off axis plots from Edge software. How do you determine the angle of the microphone?
Thanks for the info.
Please forgive the off topic question. I noticed that you posted off axis plots from Edge software. How do you determine the angle of the microphone?
Thanks for the info.
Great project thanks Charlie! What do you think of the idea of increasing the SPL at 700Hz by using two of the PT5010 side by side? As you have got a pair I wonder if its worth modelling and measuring?
I remember Juha member tried the Neo10 in his open bafle adventures but certainly didn't find it to have spl enough in the low end and prefered a PA 12" ... That's will be great to know what is the spl max the new GRS is able to shout in the 300 hz after high pass... Btw, looked at the Echelon and despite it's seeming to sounds very good and had palms, I really didn't understand why a so high Le bass driver was used below a fast planar ??? The design is sealed in the bass IIRC... maybe he chose a low QTC below 0.6 ? Still important for the voices with such XO upon 100/150 hz ?
I don't have or have had Neo10s. Low mid 12" PA driver was chosen primarily by cloning Gradient 1.3. But it soon came obvious to me why below say 300Hz a dipole needs large surface to avoid distortion problems! With dsp I don't have to care about T/S figures much, and my 12" is highpassed around 150Hz to monopole closed box sub, creating cardioid response around xo.
A cone driver is problematic above dipole peak, it's directivity has more variation and steeper of-axis dip than a planar, because it is not symmetrical. Small 3-4" cones have huge problems as dipolebecause the frame/spider/motor/magnet structure is making diffractions above 3kHz.
Echelon | Parts Express Project Gallery
I don't have or have had Neo10s. Low mid 12" PA driver was chosen primarily by cloning Gradient 1.3. But it soon came obvious to me why below say 300Hz a dipole needs large surface to avoid distortion problems! With dsp I don't have to care about T/S figures much, and my 12" is highpassed around 150Hz to monopole closed box sub, creating cardioid response around xo.
A cone driver is problematic above dipole peak, it's directivity has more variation and steeper of-axis dip than a planar, because it is not symmetrical. Small 3-4" cones have huge problems as dipolebecause the frame/spider/motor/magnet structure is making diffractions above 3kHz.
Echelon | Parts Express Project Gallery
Last edited:
Charlie, I'd recommend running the planars lower than 700Hz or you're loosing part of what they do so well. Traditional cone woofers will never have the same degree of clarity and pitch definition that a planar will give you. Run a pair of them if you need more SPL and lower distortion in the 300-500Hz range. That's what I did years ago with the original Neo10.
I've got one of the GRS 10" here, along with the standard 8" and 8" slim. Once the Radian 8" planar arrives, I'll be doing a big shootout, including BG Neo10 and Neo8-S versions.
Greg
I've got one of the GRS 10" here, along with the standard 8" and 8" slim. Once the Radian 8" planar arrives, I'll be doing a big shootout, including BG Neo10 and Neo8-S versions.
Greg
Attachments
Hi Studiotech,
Have you an idea of the max spl the Neo10 around 300 hz can outputt, or at least the good sounding spl limit of it at these low freqencies, please ?
With the good price of the GRS, if it pass the quality tests, a vertical MTM with a ribbon as your cool monitor with the Raal and the Iluminator could be very cool : vertical pattern = good for modest sized rooms, no ?
cheers
Have you an idea of the max spl the Neo10 around 300 hz can outputt, or at least the good sounding spl limit of it at these low freqencies, please ?
With the good price of the GRS, if it pass the quality tests, a vertical MTM with a ribbon as your cool monitor with the Raal and the Iluminator could be very cool : vertical pattern = good for modest sized rooms, no ?
cheers
First, here is the info from the author of the program, taken from:
Home of the Edge
Microphone
The microphone position is given by the "mic distance" and the positioning of the "mic" symbol in the baffle designer. The mic distance is given in meters, and the default distance is 100 m, which is about the same as "far field". The mic distance is the perpendicular distance (z coordinate) between the baffle plane and the microphone. The x and y coordinates are given by the placement of the mic symbol.
It should be noted that if the distance is not very much larger than the baffle size, the baffle step will not be a full 6 dB. For example, a square 250-by-250 mm baffle will only exhibit a ~5 dB step at a microphone distance of 0.25 m. The reason for this is the longer pathway from the edge to the microphone. The longer distance combined with the distance law will reduce the sound pressure produced by the edge sources relatively more at close range. This is true also in real life and is particularly visible when making extreme close field measurements, where the baffle step is hardly visible at all.
The bottom line here is that the microphone distance should be set to a normal listening distance (usually ~4 m) when designing a system, but it should be set to the actual microphone distance (usually ~1 m) when comparing to measurements if the comparison should be valid. The default microphone distance is set to 100 m just to make sure that the microphone is in the far field.
What I typically do is set the mic distance to 3m. Then I move the mic icon in several (5?) steps from x=0 to x=3m to give me info for a few angles. Exactly what those angles turn out to be is not critical, I just want to see the trend and shape, whether there is crossing, etc. This seems to equate to going from on axis to 45 degrees off axis.
What is a bit odd is that if you simulate a closed box and then try and move the position in an arc along a circle, as if you had tied a string to the baffle and then moved around towards 90 degrees off axis, the curves do not overlap at low frequency. I have not ever figured out exactly why that is, and have not been able to rectify that by changing the mic position.
Not yet. I am still trying to finish some outdoor projects before winter really sets in. But sooner or later I will do it!
This puzzled me also, and eventually found that a factor = Cos(off-axis-angle) was being applied to the magnitude. I incorrectly concluded that perhaps the code was erroneously applying dipole directivity to the monopole radiator. After a bit of back and forth in another thread(and carefully reading the documentation) it winds up that the EDGE normalizes the response by the distance “Z” between the mic and the plane of the radiator.
Off axis response of multiple drivers
Off axis response of multiple drivers
Normalizing by “Z” does simplify normalization for multiple drivers. But, it prevents the user from being able to easily create a set of polar response curves at incremental angles for a constant “true distance” from mic to center of a driver(or other reference point) as is typically done when measuring. The responses for each angle would need to be exported and adjusted by the Cosine factor of the off-axis-angle such that the responses all line up at low frequency.
Attachments
What do you think about PT5010 + PT6825 (mid) @ 1500 maybe passive
for power distribution
and maybe PT5010 will go to 500 single
for power distribution
and maybe PT5010 will go to 500 single
Anymore updates from anyone using the PT5010? I would like to use them crossed with a miniDSP 4x10 HD from 300 - 3000. I was thinking about pairing them with the 12" Peerless 830669 and the GRS PT2522 (Neo3 clone).
I'm also very curious about if the PT5010 could be used successfully as a replacement for the Neo 10... would like to implement in a Line Force build.
