New Funkywaves High Efficiency Monitors? - Page 2

I could have sworn that I read somewhere that a Horn does not work well in a MTM design...am I mistaken?

Yes. If all the usual factors are taken into account, eg C-C spacing it can work fine, maybe even better than say a dome, as the constrained vertical directivity of same flares may simplify design.

Ok......so the C to C spacing is somewhere between 15-16 inches and the XO point is 1350hz.(10" for 1350hz?) Forget the vertical nulls as they're everywhere in an MTM (see Parnham) and given the HF driver is a planar with a really low XO point i doubt the slope is shallow so........

The midwoofers would be better stacked on the side of the planar.

That may be one of the reasons that that the higher attack angle on the waveguide is on the vertical instead of the horizontal like we see on most of the horn builds, its done this way possibly to fight the nulls.

The waveguide looks like a minaturized 152i that was flipped on its side.

Ask Funky Waves...


Also, no need to quote Parnham on this. Zilch did it 50 plus times during our waveguide design discussions. Geddes has 15" ROUND waveguides and 15" woofers... Please feel free to argue with Dr. Geddes how his speakers have flaws Lets also call Duke at Audiokensis or the guys at Emerald phsyics....How about the "Mummy speakers" coming over from Poland in the group buy....Check out their history and look at that C to C. I could go on about listening SUCCESSFUL speaker designs that have LARGE C to C but will that matter to you?? Some people have a hard-on for C to C, others do not. I will go with people that actually build and sell speakers myself

Steeper slopes, speaker position CAN minimize this issue. No one is arguing about the theory and yes everyone knows zero C to C is perfect but audio is a great world of compromises and once we understand any design compromise we have the choice to accept it/remove it/minimize it.

ah ok. Thanks for the explanation...

to fight the vertical null of an mtm design with a horn like this would it be effective to make the top driver angled up to allow more vertical dispersion from the horn?

95db@1watt, and they can take up to 500 watts each.

one of the 'advantages' outlined in the original d'appolito paper on his design was that the cancellations could be used to minimize floor and ceiling reflections when in a vertical arrangement.

set them up so the tweeter is near ear level and don't worry about cancellations. from my first quick look, they appear to be a good design that do many things right.

as for their cost, that is tricky because most "home audio" speakers are pretty low sensitivity, so you might need 4x the amp for equivalent performance. so, if an amp with 4x the power costs a thousand over what one has now, that should be considered when comparing speaker prices.

hey, Penn -- if I remember correctly, Zilch was quite on the opposite side this subject -- that Geddes waveguides, being round, had too much c- c distance. I think parham had similar opinions, that rectangular wg's were a way to minimize the problem. No?

Yes, and EG didn't like it much.
Wayne lays it out quite well in this paper.
http://www.pispeakers.com/Pi_Speakers_Info.pdf

Yes, that is what I posted above. Zilch and I debated this many many times. Zilch is with Parnham on this topic.

My point remains that C to C distance is a known issue but it can be minimized. Geddes has a massive XO,its XOed below 1KHz and he has specific positioning instructions for his speakers. That is how he minimizes his C-C issue.

Its how something sounds, Zilch went after Geddes all the time but Zilch never once heard Geddes speakers. Heck Zilch thought the Selenium/JBL waveguide sounded great too though and it sounds like complete crap.

Im not against pendantic measurement hawking but what is more important is figuring out all the compromises and finding out as a sum how they sound. Lets just say that crap JBL horns with their better c-c spacing can not touch a large c-c spacing from a better design in terms of how they sound.

Understand and choose your compromise and remember many, many, many SUCCESSFUL designs (meaning they sound AWESOME) have larger C-C.

Penn, I think that when someone mentions C-C issues, they are implying the C-C is too large for the given XO point. There isn't much you can do about that and it is generally beyond compromise to the point of fatal if the null is sitting on axis. For some it is a question of how wide of a vertical is necessary and that is a personal question. Most people like some leeway so they can slouch in their chair, but others are fine with a tiny vertical sweetspot.

Geddes has C-C induced nulls that cause a very narrow vertical beamwidth near the crossover. Is it too narrow? Does the waistbanding in the vertical matter? Those are legitimate questions that can be debated. Geddes obviously believes this is an acceptable compromise (it certainly isn't a positive). Where Geddes runs into trouble is that he won't accept that there are compromises in his designs. It is a shame because by all accounts his designs are very well done.

I don't know if these FunkyWave speakers will have issues with nulls as I don't know the crossover points or C-C spacing. I trust that these guys know what they are doing.

As Pen noted, that is a bit of a generalization. Even if one tries to abide by the general CTC rules, it might be possible this design falls within its parameters. If the CTC distance and xover line up the ribbon's output should be factored in and the CTC distance could then be considered from woofer-ribbon-woofer and not just woofer to woofer.

I.e. if the ribbon is about 6" one ends up with a CTC distance (between woofer center and ribbon center) of about 10". The x-over is at 1350Hz and the CTC distance of approximately 10", the minimum req’d x-over is 1350Hz, assuming the output of the tweeter can sustain the wave front at that frequency, the design is within the parameters of CTC. Theoretically, to eliminate audible comb-filter distortion the drivers must combine to form a unified near-field wavefront.

Of course I’m making a boatload of assumptions so my math could be totally wrong

What about the C-C between the woofers being twice that?

Without any comment as to how they sound (I've not heard them, obviously), considering the parts costs and the craftsmanship they seem very reasonably priced to me.

What happens with a non-crap, better c-c design? How do those stack up vs large c-c but good sounding designs? Maybe a Danley SH vs Summa (I realize that wouldn't be the only difference)? Just curious.

cheers,

AJ

If my assumptions are are correct, it doesn't matter. Assuming the CTC distance and xover line up and one can factor in the ribbon's output (this presumes the ribbon is contributing a significant output at the x-over point), then the CTC should be considered between each "adjacent" driver; i.e. CTC should measure the center distance between woofer and ribbon, and between ribbon and woofer. If the ribbon does not combine to form a unified waveform, then one must consider CTC between the woofers instead. But then again, I could be wrong

Judging by the Danley thread in the Speakers section, they have their own set of problems. Although the speakers appear to be excellent, they do seem to have a ragged frequency response, so to get the most out of them one should equalize their response. (I wonder if their active speakers have been eq'd to minimize the system's response raggedness).

The distance between the woofers will become a factor once the crossover drops the ribbon response out of the picture. Above that point, the ribbon will help combine, but below that the woofers are on their own. So, basically, below the crossover point the woofer to woofer distance will cause nulls at some listening angle, which might or might not be a problem.

(My own opinion, not that anyone should care, is that sound going out at significant level into any direction of the room will eventually come back to the listening position, so any big response peaks or wide dips in those angles will likely still matter. Just because it points away from the listener doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Except when listening outside or in anechoic chambers, which aren't commonly used for listening rooms. Another tradeoff that has to be dealt with, choose your mix of poisons).

lmao, sorry about that....buy them!!

btw, Im in Mississauga Jun 10 to 24.

If you have follow all the discussions. You will know that Im actually 100% for phase coherence and zero C-C. Its the single reason I just bought 2" Coax CDs that play down to 300hz along with 24" IWATA horns (total cost about $2K!!)

My point here is that C-C issues can be minimized and sometimes a necessary evil, meaning there is no need to assume it will be bad until we know from listening and measuring. I did not post they do not exist and I have also pointed out that measurement wise there can be some people who get worked up too much over that specific compromise (ie. Zilch always did).

I posted saying someone should as Funky Waves. Too many assumptions here about the XO point, they slope and the recommended listening angle.

C to C is kind of a funny topic. I read about builds and the lengths of some DIYers go on worrying about C-C even when the build is using cheap and mostly crap drivers in the first place. I think all the attempt of perfection and still using crap drivers is pretty funny. Its like watching kids put a 450 hp Hemi in a Pinto.



All speakers have compromises. People need to just know them and minimize them. Geddes commented many times that a EOS-15 would be a better choice (hence our SEOS-15) but much harder to reproduce so he inherently admitted to the compromise but his XO is a monster and he is XOing below the XO point where it will matter with his distance. Im hoping we prove that theory wrong It will be nice to offer one for a fraction of his offerings



yeah, I think its a big unknown but still people like to point out specific things that "might" matter as somehow make it a horrible design.

Nathan at funkywaves probably knows what he is doing, definitely more then I do and as much as Mayhem or others making comments. I think there are OTHER compromises that are more important and arguing C-C, this is probably a like Seinfeld....its a whole lot about nothing.

CTC isn't 'nothing', it's just something difficult to optimize for as it requires fundamental driver and design choices that lead you down a certain road. From my own experience it is very important. But if you choose horns, you almost have to shrug your shoulders at this one and let the chips fall wheee they may. The only tool left in the arsenal is the use of a low xo point, which fortunately you can get away with in many horn designs.

I agree. No question we evolved to hear laterally, but we certainly can discern height. Nor that lateral spectral reverberation is second in importance to the direct soundfield. But I don't think vertical spectral reverberation is unimportant, because it is less important.


I thought you said you were married? Where does something like that go in a domicile to maintain your current status?
Btw, how will something like that affect ASW and spaciousness?


Is someone arguing differently?

cheers,

AJ

I am seriously considering these speakers for my living room HT (driven by W4S monoblocks). Does anyone have suggestions about questions I should get answered or something else I should consider before buying? I am also considering Seaton Catalysts. Thanks

Not sure how a marriage question comes into this discussion but I have a custom HT room to do with as a please

I have no idea what ASW is....but spaciousness will be determined when I get them running (probably late summer).




Yes, some post that its 100% no-no. Declaring the designs flawed. I would say thats a huge generalization without knowing the details or knowing how they sound in the end.

Definitely true! My point was that the arguments around it is a lot about nothing. CTC itself is important to understand and try to minimize.

On the other hand. I use active XOs so for me CTC is actually a whole lot about nothing

What I think is funny is that people assume way too much. FunkyWaves designs do sometimes use DSP amps so in the end this speaker COULD have an active XO design and then I wonder if certain individuals retracting their "oh my look at that bad CTC" comments?? I doubt it