Re: ART Arrays for Home Theater [message #65017 is a reply to message #65008] |
Tue, 30 November 2010 13:36 data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/413e0/413e00f5cba1f3b2b5107f9dcfe0ee2b05c7be55" alt="Go to previous message Go to previous message" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bd0ac/bd0ac06bc0716245c70e1d7ca4a193e4fbe25374" alt="Go to next message Go to previous message" |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6b0b8/6b0b8078a953053baa04facec1beff407ed1de69" alt="" |
Wayne Parham
Messages: 18836 Registered: January 2001
|
Illuminati (33rd Degree) |
|
|
I'm going to defer to some of the other guys here that are using ART Array loudspeakers, and have lived with them for a while.
A bit of history: Fred Thompson designed the ART Arrays and built the prototypes. He gave them to me, along with two crossovers, and my participation was really limited to just measuring them. I found that one of the two crossovers measured better, so that's the one I recommended. The other crossover was pretty good too, had sort of a "BBC dip" in the response curve. There was some discussion about whether or not a more sophisticated crossover with higher parts count might work better, adding baffle step compensation, for example. I personally think the design with its simple first-order crossover works very well, and while I would have initially thought maybe a higher slope might be better, after measuring the system, I concluded that it was probably my favorite solution. It was simple and cost-effective, which was sort of the spirit of the design. It also measured and sounded very good.
|
|
|