Post by ocezam on Dec 13, 2014 11:13:10 GMT -5
I have another thread concerning the planer speakers I'm building, but I decided to put this info in a separate thread since that thread is a bit clogged. The following is an article that helped me design my speakers. I had lost this article. It was the most influential of many articles I’ve read involving the use of B&G line arrays. This article was the biggest single reason I went ahead and pursued my design. I thought some here might enjoy reading it.
Among other things, this article explains the advantages of a two way design that has an exceptionally low crossover point. The advantages of a line array, and the advantages of active bi-amping.
The two differences of my design are my use of a 50” driver versus the author's 75” version, and my use of a single cabinet per channel versus his sub/satellite combination. I did this purposefully as I wanted a bit shorter speaker and I do not have the space for separate subs. This will give my design a few, I think subtle, sonic differences:
1. At first glance my design would appear to be a bit less able to deal with high power due to the shorter array. I will deal with this by crossing at a higher frequency than the author does. His are crossed at 200hz and mine will be approximately 350hz. According to my talks with the driver manufacturer (Bohlender Grabener), this will produce a speaker that has higher power handling and greater dynamics than the lower crossover will provide. It is also where B&G crosses their own speakers when using these drivers.
2. My design will give a bit higher F3 point than his design because of the sub boxes are a part of the main cabinet instead of being separate. That means I will not be able to couple to side walls as the author can, but I will still couple to the floor and probably the rear wall. My design will have an F3 in the mid 20’s versus the authors flat to 20hz claim.
3. My use of Dayton’s Reference Series subs versus the author’s use of Dayton’s Titanic subs will IMO provide for clearer more accurate mid bass. Although both subs are quality drivers and I considered using the Titanic for some time.
He also gives a good argument for using commercial digital crossover/equalization. Once my speakers are complete, I will start by continuing to use my analog DBX 223 crossover. I also own a DBX Driverack digital speaker management crossover/equalizer that I will play with in the future. I believe that my DBX Driverack is a higher build quality than his Behringer, although they both operate similarly.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy the read, here is the article:
www.perrymarshall.com/articles/ultimate2way/
Peace...
Among other things, this article explains the advantages of a two way design that has an exceptionally low crossover point. The advantages of a line array, and the advantages of active bi-amping.
The two differences of my design are my use of a 50” driver versus the author's 75” version, and my use of a single cabinet per channel versus his sub/satellite combination. I did this purposefully as I wanted a bit shorter speaker and I do not have the space for separate subs. This will give my design a few, I think subtle, sonic differences:
1. At first glance my design would appear to be a bit less able to deal with high power due to the shorter array. I will deal with this by crossing at a higher frequency than the author does. His are crossed at 200hz and mine will be approximately 350hz. According to my talks with the driver manufacturer (Bohlender Grabener), this will produce a speaker that has higher power handling and greater dynamics than the lower crossover will provide. It is also where B&G crosses their own speakers when using these drivers.
2. My design will give a bit higher F3 point than his design because of the sub boxes are a part of the main cabinet instead of being separate. That means I will not be able to couple to side walls as the author can, but I will still couple to the floor and probably the rear wall. My design will have an F3 in the mid 20’s versus the authors flat to 20hz claim.
3. My use of Dayton’s Reference Series subs versus the author’s use of Dayton’s Titanic subs will IMO provide for clearer more accurate mid bass. Although both subs are quality drivers and I considered using the Titanic for some time.
He also gives a good argument for using commercial digital crossover/equalization. Once my speakers are complete, I will start by continuing to use my analog DBX 223 crossover. I also own a DBX Driverack digital speaker management crossover/equalizer that I will play with in the future. I believe that my DBX Driverack is a higher build quality than his Behringer, although they both operate similarly.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy the read, here is the article:
www.perrymarshall.com/articles/ultimate2way/
Peace...
