New Funkywaves High Efficiency Monitors? - Page 3

Originally Posted by penngray

I have a custom HT room to do with as a please .

Originally Posted by penngray

I have no idea what ASW is...

Originally Posted by penngray

....but spaciousness will be determined when I get them running (probably late summer).

Originally Posted by penngray

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.

Originally Posted by AJinFLA

Nice.


ASW


True. But no game plan? Are these specifically for HT, like the room?

So it basically comes down to personal preference...
....subjectivism?

cheers,

AJ

Originally Posted by penngray

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

Originally Posted by penngray


not exactly true. The steeper the slope the sharper the null making it pretty much a non-audiable measurement discussion.

300dB brick wall filters would sound nice right about now

Originally Posted by Bigus

...a really steep slope only highlights the problem as there is an abrupt change in vertical response at the xo frequency.

Originally Posted by noah katz

But not if the woofer and WG are the same height, right?

Originally Posted by noah katz

But not if the woofer and WG are the same height, right?

Originally Posted by Bigus

Steep slopes remove the high frequency driver - horn, ribbon or otherwise - from contributing below the xo point, which leaves you with raw ctc spacing of mids or woofers as the case may be. You can't use spacing of mid to tweeter as a way to 'cheat' a further separation. If the mid drivers are close enough for the xo then brick wall I agree is fine, but rarely do I find designs that meet that criterion.

You would think that a steeper slope would ultimately limit the bandwidth over which this lobing occurs, and you would be correct as it usually does. But in my experience, if the design has ctc lobing issues, a really steep slope only highlights the problem as there is an abrupt change in vertical response at the xo frequency. Whether things are ok on axis or not is about as important as is the case for the much more journalized horizontal response. Meaning, if you have abrupt shifts in vertical polar pattern the room illumination and power response are affected and the sound can be quite unnatural.

Sometimes the best way to deal with a problem is to ease in and out of the problem and hope psychoacoustic masking helps to prevent calling undue attention to it.

Originally Posted by Bigus

I'm not sure I really understand the question noah. Same height as in a horizontal center channel type mounting? If so, just swap horizontal and vertical in my above posts and we're still talking about the same issues. Same height as in same physical vertical dimension of cone or horn throat? If so, recall that radiation pattern isn't defined by just the physical size, especially if we are comparing a woofer and a horn. Even in a two way MT design (where the tweeter is a horn in this case), it is difficult to match the polar response of horn and woofer, though some designs like Geddes manage to do a good job around the xo point.

But my posts were about the speaker topic of this thread specifically, though I guess I should have said that explicitly. This is an MTM design. So my point was that a steep crossover slope removes the horn contribution completely below xo point, which leaves a physically big hole and instant lobing occurs. You go from the radiation pattern of the wide flare horn, which is smooth wrt frequency, abruptly to the radiation pattern of the widely spaced woofers, which will be pretty horrendous to be honest and all over the place wrt frequency. If you're going to design a speaker like the one in the original post, I'd at least avoid really steep slopes so that whatever is happening as you transition from horn polar response to widely spaced woofers polar response is at least done gradually.

FWIW, I haven't heard or listened to these speakers either myself, let alone done any measurements of them. But I do tend to agree with mayhem that some generalizations can be made from appearance alone. I'd be very surprised if the vertical pattern was anything better than "bizarre" to be polite. I draw then same conclusions about the MTM designs you sometimes see using a long ribbon for the T with a mid/woofer on either end. I've seen marketspeak about how this is done intentionally to "control vertical dispersion" and "limit floor ceiling bounce" etc., which really means "our vertical response is atrocious, and you need to sit exactly at tweeter height because anywhere else is a complete crapshoot"!

Originally Posted by Bigus

Same height as in same physical vertical dimension of cone or horn throat?

Originally Posted by Bigus

But my posts were about the speaker topic of this thread specifically, though I guess I should have said that explicitly. This is an MTM design. So my point was that a steep crossover slope removes the horn contribution completely below xo point, which leaves a physically big hole and instant lobing occurs.

Originally Posted by mayhem13

For the record......it wasn't my intention to bash Nate or Funky Waves......or to incite Penn. I just felt like sharing my opinion. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Bigus

penn,

I wonder if your thought train might possibly stem from an MT configuration, not an MTM?

In an MT, it is true that brick wall slopes effectively remove the overlap region between M and T, thus no lobing occurs (or more correctly as you pointed out, it is over such a narrow frequency range that we may well ignore it). See above however for my thoughts on abrupt shifts in polar pattern from M to T.

However, again the speaker of the thread topic is an MTM. In this case, what I was describing is the lobing not between M and T but rather between M and M. Brick wall or not, you will still have that lobing. A steep slope allows more lobing below xo, a shallow slope allows more above.

Originally Posted by pbc

Could be wrong, but it sounds like from Penn's post above that he sent them back 2 years later?

In any event, my interest in the FW speakers was more from the standpoint that they actually "look" nice which is important in my family room setup. Most of the high efficienty designs I see (e.g., 3pi, etc.) simply look like large theater boxes/speakers and was looking for something smaller/sleeker (understanding that with smaller comes a compromise). When/if I build a dedicated HT, I won't care, but until then ...

Originally Posted by flyng_fool

Looks pretty smooth to me except for the dip around 900 Hz and 14K but overall not bad at all. What do you think the flat pack will cost Nathan?

Originally Posted by Funky Waves

Our measurements are done ground plane with the tweeter at recommended height, 28" in this case, So they include ground reflections, we choose to do it this way so it includes the ground refection in the results so we can design it to compensate for this as the speakers are always used with at least a floor under them. No one listens in free space so why make a speaker perfect in free space only to know there will always be a floor reflection in real use.