Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Low Earth Orbit
DIY Audio
Coaxial Wedge Collaboration
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ron Kreiger" data-source="post: 22620" data-attributes="member: 68"><p>Re: Coaxial Wedge Collaboration</p><p></p><p>Some very good points Robert.</p><p></p><p>I'll approach a few point individually. Of course from my own perspective or madness whichever you prefer!</p><p></p><p>:I'm certainly not looking to create the end all of wedges here.DIY,affordable by the average Joe who can build things,good output,the right coverage,and most importantly good sounding.Basically looking to get a step above the better MI gear out there and stay with the lower end of the big boy toys without taking a second mortgage.</p><p></p><p>dispersion or off axis reproduction particularly in the hi-mid to high frequencies.</p><p></p><p>While most performers dont care for being in the vise when it comes to listening to wedges most sound guys dont like spill either.My take has always been along these lines.I can use multiple wedges to gain width in coverage if I need to do it. I simply cannot stop a wide axis spill from intruding another space on stage. I know it increases the hardware count but at least I can get where I need to go.So in my world a more narrow coverage up top is a better overall fit but not so narrow that you cant scratch your ass and loose your vocal!</p><p></p><p>Of course YMMV so that's why I was looking for input from others as to what they expect from a wedge.</p><p></p><p>I agree that from a design standpoint some things need to be laid out in advance but lets face it,the industry is inundated with cost effective DSP and most people even weekend warriors doing speaker on a pole use them.I'd have to insist this is the norm and no longer the exception.</p><p></p><p>:"Active expands the driver selection options not viable for passive"</p><p></p><p>Most definitely but these drivers will function nearly the same with passive 12dbLow/18dbHigh and perhaps a few other things in there to make the response pretty good.There will be some compromises as the passive box would be missing the HPF so the low end roll off will change.However the basic designs as they sit now will work well without the HPFs and better with them.I did all modeling before adding the HPFs!</p><p></p><p>I started modeling a passive network but fear this will be a test,retest and test again process when it comes to actually producing the network.My skill set is more limited in this regard but I'll work through it.</p><p></p><p>Anyone with crossover design experience feel free to jump in and have a go at it.I will send you any of the information I already have.</p><p></p><p>:Flat or not so flat!</p><p></p><p>As flat as possible tested in an open field with the raw design passive or processed.</p><p></p><p>From that point on you simply do as many do and tone and eq the box for each environment you encounter.I never leave a box flat sounding or attempt to flatten a curve in a live environment. It just never sounds good to my ears. If that goes against what others believe then so be it.It's worked well for me.</p><p></p><p>DSP settings.</p><p></p><p>Upon testing we can certainly determine different usage scenarios and adjust DSP settings accordingly.First and foremost it's a wedge.Anything else we can squeeze out of it becomes a bonus point to consider when deciding to build it.</p><p></p><p>:regarding driver selection.</p><p></p><p>Since it's a "coax" design the choices of pro level coaxs out there are relatively limited.While different forms of making a coaxial arrangement can be utilized such as horn loaded bottom and mouth loaded HF section or even the use of planners I have found it difficult to design around these parameters without getting very component specific and spending a whole lot of time on modeling one component.Not that I dont want to use horn response etc. and start looking at a lot of different possibilities.I dont have that much time and the current process is eating up a fair amount of time as it is.</p><p></p><p>Anyone else wishing to contribute their time is modeling different configurations feel free to chime in.If what you present to us is viable we will certainly concider it fully.</p><p></p><p>Different manufactures DSP responses.</p><p>I really dont know how to approach this at all.:?~:-?~:???:If I produce settings with a Drive Rack 260 or Ashley Protea will your Xilica or Peavey or Behringer give you the same results?</p><p></p><p>Most likely I will try and get a hold of as many DSP's as I can and produce the settings necessary and include them. I could also just ship the box out to anyone who wants to test it and make a DSP setting for it after I have exhausted all my personal resources.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />~:-D~:grin:</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ron Kreiger, post: 22620, member: 68"] Re: Coaxial Wedge Collaboration Some very good points Robert. I'll approach a few point individually. Of course from my own perspective or madness whichever you prefer! :I'm certainly not looking to create the end all of wedges here.DIY,affordable by the average Joe who can build things,good output,the right coverage,and most importantly good sounding.Basically looking to get a step above the better MI gear out there and stay with the lower end of the big boy toys without taking a second mortgage. dispersion or off axis reproduction particularly in the hi-mid to high frequencies. While most performers dont care for being in the vise when it comes to listening to wedges most sound guys dont like spill either.My take has always been along these lines.I can use multiple wedges to gain width in coverage if I need to do it. I simply cannot stop a wide axis spill from intruding another space on stage. I know it increases the hardware count but at least I can get where I need to go.So in my world a more narrow coverage up top is a better overall fit but not so narrow that you cant scratch your ass and loose your vocal! Of course YMMV so that's why I was looking for input from others as to what they expect from a wedge. I agree that from a design standpoint some things need to be laid out in advance but lets face it,the industry is inundated with cost effective DSP and most people even weekend warriors doing speaker on a pole use them.I'd have to insist this is the norm and no longer the exception. :"Active expands the driver selection options not viable for passive" Most definitely but these drivers will function nearly the same with passive 12dbLow/18dbHigh and perhaps a few other things in there to make the response pretty good.There will be some compromises as the passive box would be missing the HPF so the low end roll off will change.However the basic designs as they sit now will work well without the HPFs and better with them.I did all modeling before adding the HPFs! I started modeling a passive network but fear this will be a test,retest and test again process when it comes to actually producing the network.My skill set is more limited in this regard but I'll work through it. Anyone with crossover design experience feel free to jump in and have a go at it.I will send you any of the information I already have. :Flat or not so flat! As flat as possible tested in an open field with the raw design passive or processed. From that point on you simply do as many do and tone and eq the box for each environment you encounter.I never leave a box flat sounding or attempt to flatten a curve in a live environment. It just never sounds good to my ears. If that goes against what others believe then so be it.It's worked well for me. DSP settings. Upon testing we can certainly determine different usage scenarios and adjust DSP settings accordingly.First and foremost it's a wedge.Anything else we can squeeze out of it becomes a bonus point to consider when deciding to build it. :regarding driver selection. Since it's a "coax" design the choices of pro level coaxs out there are relatively limited.While different forms of making a coaxial arrangement can be utilized such as horn loaded bottom and mouth loaded HF section or even the use of planners I have found it difficult to design around these parameters without getting very component specific and spending a whole lot of time on modeling one component.Not that I dont want to use horn response etc. and start looking at a lot of different possibilities.I dont have that much time and the current process is eating up a fair amount of time as it is. Anyone else wishing to contribute their time is modeling different configurations feel free to chime in.If what you present to us is viable we will certainly concider it fully. Different manufactures DSP responses. I really dont know how to approach this at all.:?~:-?~:???:If I produce settings with a Drive Rack 260 or Ashley Protea will your Xilica or Peavey or Behringer give you the same results? Most likely I will try and get a hold of as many DSP's as I can and produce the settings necessary and include them. I could also just ship the box out to anyone who wants to test it and make a DSP setting for it after I have exhausted all my personal resources.:D~:-D~:grin: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Low Earth Orbit
DIY Audio
Coaxial Wedge Collaboration
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!