High output, multiple driver DIY main recommendations? - Page 5

Nice work...you sure do get stuff done faster than most of us.

I just hooked up 9.1 with 'front height' speakers so I can use Dolby PLIIZ and DTS Neo:X to their fullest. Going from 5.1 to 7.1 really smoothed out the 3D sound field, and the move to 9.1 has proved quite awesome for movies... tonight is my first night auditioning PLIIZ +THX Cinema - with Terminator: Salvation. Half way through it now, taking a snack break. So far it's worked as advertised. I'm a speaker addict.

There are some real theaters equipped with 7.1 now, so I think as a standard it will be common for bigger-budget movies going forward. I looked at a master list of 'real' 7.1 flicks and I've got a handful of them in my Blu-Ray collection - time to re-watch.

If I can pimp my delta max for a second. The delta max has one of the lowest cross overs relative to its driver spacing that I know of in the kits. Not sure where the 8" b&c is crossed though. Anyways, this is quite important for surround duty IMO. You need wide vertical coverage to maintain a uniform coverage over the listening area and ceiling reflection. Java implemented this design exactly as intended.

I'm watching this thread with a lot of interest too as I've also decided to build a set of these SEOS speakers. I just need to pick the design and order the kits. Whatdoes SEOS stand for anyway?

What are the advantages of running such a large driver in a HT? It seems strange to me having a 15" main like it shouldn't be playing the mid frequencies. Does a 15" or 18" speaker really play notes up to 1000hz as well as a smaller 8-12 in driver?

Nathan

Hey Tux, is there going to be a kit for that one Java did? the great thing about it is the shallow depth. a down angle version would be great as well.

Yup, it's the delta max. You could angle the box.

SEOS is the basic shape of the waveguide "Super Elliptical Oblate Spheroid".

You would be surprised at how well the two 15" woofers I have used do up to 1000hz. No lack of midrange clarity that I can tell compared to the 8” models I have around. Now I don't know about an 18" playing that high but I have seen some the look like they could come close.

Hmm. Which kit is that on the site? I don't see it.

Right here: http://www.diysoundgroup.com/waveguide-speaker-kits/fusion-series-kits/fusion10-max-kit.html

I think Java requested a sealed baffle though.

Not just sealed. He used the .75ft^ box I thought

Could be. Java and Erich could tell you the exact setup. What ever it was, they ran it by me and I was ok with it.

It's not for those who are space challenged though

Nice, gald you were able to work them out for your space. I am playing that same waiting game, its very easy to get impatient isn't it:) Its going to be very interesting to compare these to the JTR and Seaton speakers at the GTG. I myself am very curious how close and DIY'er can come to top level performance at that little of a fraction of the cost.

I know you said you talked to the guys a bit more than I did about using surrounds, and you mentioned a concern that I thought of as well. The "minion" uses a nice B&C driver, but a different CD and waveguide. What do you think the trade offs will be using either the same CD/wave but differently voiced woofers and visa versa. Not sure what your thoughts are on the future, but I plan to add height and wide speakers so the matching qualities are a concern and it would seem a bit excessive to use a 15" main as a height speaker. On the other hand, the month I have spent in the diy section has led me to the land of excess, which coincidentally you may be in the running to be mayor of:D

Yesterday I went to town on my new AVR, trying out every permutation of speakers, surround modes, etc. to find out what sounds best. I settled on having the front mains and the front height speakers all be identical towers. With the rears, using bookshelf speakers was fine - probably because surrounds are closest to the listener whereas the height speakers are the furthest from the LP of all the speakers. The end result is the front height speakers need to be powerful. The effect is sublime IMO. The first time I heard a 'height' effect of a fly-over make me realize that until now movie/music listening has been strictly 2 dimensional.

Taking close-mic readings (6" from the tweeter) of each speaker playing various tracks in PLIIz mode, a pattern emerged. The center channel pulls a lot of duty - let's say it is running at 100db average. The mains and the front high speakers are all cranking out somewhere around 96db and the surrounds are a mere 92 db average. The advantage is the height channels blend the center in a way that is far more natural than what I have experienced in the past. I was a fan of phantom center and 2-channel listening for music. This rig flips the script, PLIIz + THX Music is my new favorite. Totally worth the 12-hour re-arrangement marathon.

The key to front height mode is that the sounds move through the vertical field totally seamlessly. Don't skimp on it, it's the most exciting thing to come along in a while, I cannot wait until movies are properly encoded with height effect. 'The future is looking up'

Great info guys!! Thank you imagic for taking the time for such a response! It convinced me enough that the L/C/R, height and width speakers will all match exactly when I build them. I would love for the surround and rears to match as well, but like Gorilla, I have space issues with them. They will be built into columns and might take the size of the columns to a place where they don't look great. Sorry to thread jack, and thanks for the info.

I'd like to add, in my personal opinion, the 'front wides' are not mandatory. Dolby PLIIz only uses height. I'm not going to suggest a 'completist' should skip the wides but I'm not going to add them. People who's theater is rectangular and have set up their system with the screen on the narrower wall won't have room for wide channels. If you have the room and the capability, why not go for it.
Edited by imagic - 1/3/13 at 3:09pm

I opted out of the whole 11.1 thing. I use 5.1 with massive spl speakers that present a huge soundtage and dynamics and the theater experience is better than IMAX(not even close). Many speakers are not needed if your 5.1 can fill the room properly. I would go 7.1 myself but it puts the sides too close to the side seats and it gets annoying to have speakers there. If I had only two seats in the sweetspot then I could do 7.1 but monster 5.1 works, and works well!

MK are your surrounds placed in the back corners or right down the middle firing over your 2 rows?

Actually I agree. I am only using two bookshelves in the rear for now - before I had the towers as side surround and a pair of bookshelves for rear. The towers went up front for the height channels and I moved the rear surrounds to side positioning, about 1 foot behind the LP. When combined with the front height, the 'surround' illusion is more sophisticated. I'll be buying (yet another) pair of speakers for rear surround but until I do, I'm finding 5.1+ front height more rewarding than traditional 7.1 or 5.1

As for IMAX, haha yeah sorry but a movie theater cannot compete. I dedicated one Crown amp to the L/R mains and another to the subs. I'm only driving 5 channels with the AVR - and not the mains - it's quite dynamic. There is 3,400 watts on tap in a 9'x11'x20' room (1980 cubic ft.) = 1.717171 watts per cubic foot. A standard IMAX theater with 80x70x52 dimensions = 291,200 cubic feet - with 30,000 watts we've only got only .103021 watts per cube. Even with their more efficient drivers (more so for mids and trebble), 17X the power per cube gets it done.

Edited by imagic - 1/3/13 at 12:04pm

I have two towers in the corners toed in. Almost like two sets of 2 channel speakers with a center up front. Like the giant surrounds IMAX has but without the little speakers, my room is much smaller. I can tell you that the surrounds are so dynamic, powerful, and full sounding I don't want to go back to smaller surrounds anymore and have 4 of them. I crave more surround info now! Plus it helps to have the exact same speakers so there are no differences in the tone.

Interesting comparison. I don't have room for heights as my fronts are arrays that go to the ceiling so the sound goes from floor to ceiling like my sceen. I have a 2100 cubic foot room with 17500 watts on tap for 5.1. I could add more watts with a different 5 channel amp but it will be wasted.
Edited by MKtheater - 1/3/13 at 12:12pm

Great feedback, thank you. I am sure that once I have the seven channel plus heights, for a total of 9.2 I will be quit happy. I have not had anything close to this type of setup before, so I am sure it will overwhelm. I was actually having an email convo with Erich earlier and he made a good point. I think that I have been so under whelmed in the past with the performance of the main street market stuff that I over estimate what is needed in this realm. I am certain this happens to make of us when we make our first venture into the diy/pro world.

In regards to wides not working simultaneously with heights, a lot of manufacturers claim that it will work 11.x with fronts and wides activated, is it due to the way the signals are processed that there won't be sound out of both simultaneously?

i currently run wides, but not setup correctly
transitioning to heights which i could set up properly for the most part

i found that wides expanded my soundstage quite a bit even though it was not in the most ideal position.

I have my left and right as wide as they could go in my room so I could not fit anymore speakers. This is why I have powerful speakers with a huge soundstage.

That is correct. Many receivers are simply providing binding posts so that both sets of speakers can be connected concurrently, wide and height. That way the receiver can use the appropriate pair, depending on the sound processing you select. Dolby PLIIz only uses height channels and it is my favorite of all surround modes as of now. I could not afford a so-called 'true' 11.2 receiver so I make do with one that can switch. It's true that Neo X sounded great with the wides, but to me ears still not as good as PLIIz with height. Audyssey has a system that uses all the channels:
Audyssey Dynamic Surround Expansion
(A-DSX)
Audyssey DSX® is a scalable system that adds new speakers to improve surround impression.
Starting with a 5.1 system Audyssey DSX® first adds Wide channels for the biggest impact on
envelopment. Research in human hearing has proven that information from the Wide channels is
much more critical in the presentation of a realistic soundstage than the Back Surround channels found
in traditional 7.1 systems. Audyssey DSX® then creates a pair of Height channels to reproduce the
next most important acoustical and perceptual cues. In addition to these new Wide and Height channels,
Audyssey DSX® applies Surround Envelopment Processing to enhance the blend between the front
and surround channels. taken from the Marantz AV-8801 manual

And just for a different pov, imo wides are the most important after the basic 5.1 if your room can handle them. Makes a super wide soundstage that just sucks you into the action. I don't disagree that in your room highs are better than wides but to just say that wides aren't important will mislead many people. In fact audessey states that wides are more important than heights as well. I'm currently running 7.2 surround with wides off my 4311 which is capable of 11.2 with my separate amps but my ceiling isn't high enough in my current theater for highs. The new house we're building has 9' basement ceilings so I will likely go 9.2 or 11.2 there.