The Ultimate Array Conclusions [message #24392] |
Mon, 19 May 2008 09:43 |
jphaggar
Messages: 51 Registered: May 2009
|
Baron |
|
|
Everybody agreed on the 3 way array versus the 2 way. Almost everybody agreed on using ribbon tweeters versus domes . Nearly everybody agreed to use smaller than 5" mid/bass Approx everybody agreed to active digital xover and room correction (DEQX) . Imperatively triamplification is necessary. Next step is the choice of drivers : Could we have suggestions that almost everybody would agree upon? This could be the Ultimate Array !!!!!!What are forums for ? I could start building it tomorrow !! Everybody would be welcome to come and have a listen ( Alexandria , Egypt ). JPH
|
|
|
room size [message #24393 is a reply to message #24392] |
Mon, 19 May 2008 11:11 |
lcholke
Messages: 73 Registered: May 2009
|
Viscount |
|
|
Hi JPH, The room size will affect the ultimate choice. I like open baffle dipole arrangements, but if the room is to small they are hard to place and the WAF is low. The ultimate array needs an ultimate listening space! I attended a demonstration in a room that was tuned. It seemed that they deadened everything first. Then used resonators to flatten out the bass. And finished with bringing back the highs to taste with diffuse reflectors. When I listened to someone talking I could tell where exactly they were standing and I could hear them very clearly. -Linc
|
|
|
Re: The Ultimate Array Conclusions [message #24394 is a reply to message #24392] |
Mon, 19 May 2008 11:36 |
Marlboro
Messages: 403 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
1. I still prefer domes, but quite honestly the only choice you have is the Dayton Neo20. If you want to go more expensive, then there are simply no other 3/4 inch neo domes that can have their flanges cut tight enough to make the c-to-c requirements, and none of the non-neos will have a magnet structure strong enough to be small enough. In groups of 30, though, they are simply amazing.If I can't use domes then the B&G Neo is the only thing I would touch. 2. If you want a 3 inch midrange, since the SAMMI's are no longer available I don't think anyone has a choice other than the HiVi M3N 3in aluminum/magnesium which has an xmax of 3.0 mm and 90-8k. If you go up to 4 inch, then I would go with the Dayton RS 100, 4 ohm, hands down. 3. Electronic crossovers can be digital or analog. Unless you need to tailor your system in unusual ways such as a 48db or 96 db crossover, you can get by with the workhorse Rane models. I think the cylindrical wave of the nearfield(provided you are in the nearfield) leaves the need for room corrections in the dust. 4. Tri amping is easy to do. My personal recommendation is, despite the efficiency of the array allowing smaller amps, to have the reserve you might need, and not to go for less that 60 watts rms/ch for the tweeters, 150 watts rms/ch, for the mids, and assuming that you are using a pair of hot 12 inch woofers for the bass, not less that 350 rms watts/ch for them. Marlboro
|
|
|
|
NO, NO, NO: you have to tell us upfront! [message #24396 is a reply to message #24395] |
Mon, 19 May 2008 15:47 |
Marlboro
Messages: 403 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
Thy, You can't tantalize us with a $50K DIY system, and then take it to email. I've heard of people who put together amplification systems where there was one separated op-amp for each individual speaker: a 60 amp line for the tweeters, a 34 amp line for the mids, and a bi amp line for the woofers, in my case. Someone here I think actually talked to me about that and said the sound in the limited way they put it together was simply astounding. There are things you can do with the CD player. Tell us what you are talking about!
|
|
|
|
|
start with $5K of NdFeB magnets and 1005 steel [message #24407 is a reply to message #24392] |
Tue, 20 May 2008 16:18 |
Scooter
Messages: 8 Registered: May 2009
|
Esquire |
|
|
The positive reviews on hi-tech Apogee re-makes would convince me to start with $5K of NdFeB magnets and 1005 steel and DIY some 8' high dipole midrange and tweeter ribbons, plus construct a dipole line array of 15" woofers for bass....a better alternative to the Apogee single-end drive bass panels. DIY Class-A amps that can direct drive each ribbon without step-up transformers. Ultimate 3-way Dipole Linesource
|
|
|
If shooting for "The Ultimate"... [message #24408 is a reply to message #24392] |
Tue, 20 May 2008 17:35 |
Darkmoebius
Messages: 20 Registered: May 2009
|
Chancellor |
|
|
I guess super expensive drivers are not out of the question, here a few candidates. I have no idea how they would perform, but their graphs look awfully nice. For midrange, how about the ACCUTON C²79-6 ceramic driver. Covers 200Hz-4kHz and is intended for 1.5L-4.0L sealed enclosures. Low resonance frequency allows first order filtering from 200 to 4000 Hz. Or, the Monacor SPH-135KEP. It's a 5.25" driver, but is ruler-flat from 120Hz-5kHz w/ an Xmax of 3.25mm It's smaller brother, the 5" Monacor SPH-102KEP has nearly as deep LF, but has a rising response above 1.5kHz. It has a much lower Xmax of 1mm, so lows might be a problem. Though, it is intended for a 3.7L sealed box. Audio Technology (Skaaning) 4" Flex Unit 4 H 52 06 13. It's got a 4mm Xmax and a pretty flat from 100Hz-4.5kHz. Peerless 4"(830872) High Definition Sound (HDS) NOMEX. FS 85Hz and 2.5mm Xmax. The Peerless 832873 goes a little deeper w/ an FS 58.6Hz and Xmax of 3.5mm
|
|
|
Forgot the obvious - CSS WR125ST (14 ohms) [message #24409 is a reply to message #24408] |
Tue, 20 May 2008 19:27 |
Darkmoebius
Messages: 20 Registered: May 2009
|
Chancellor |
|
|
16 ohm version of the first 4.5" speaker with patented XBL^2 motor technology and truncated for closer driver spacing. Parameters are Fs: 65 Hz, Qms: 3.98, Qes: 0.77, Qts: 0.65, Vas: 5.8L, Sd: 57 cm^2, Xmax: 6mm one way, Re: 14.1 Ohms, Le: 0.65 mH, BL:5.7 N/A, Mms: 4.5 grams, SPL: 85.8 dB @ 1W, 1m. Spec sheet (pdf)
|
|
|