ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 05:12:18 pm 
Started by Pierre Olivier - Last post by Ray Aberle
I think Pierre's very active participation on this board over the past 22 months since his initial thread was last posted upon indicates that he's been very happy with the knowledge here.

-Ray

 2 
 on: Today at 05:09:57 pm 
Started by John Roberts {JR} - Last post by Art Welter
But not in 1960.... 

The speakers in the movies were stock old school 901s just turned around.

JR
What bugs me is recent "period pieces" set in the 1950s through 1970s that use Shure Beta 58s (which were not released until the late 1980s) instead of SM 58s.

 3 
 on: Today at 05:04:38 pm 
Started by Doga Sagun - Last post by Chris Grimshaw
Doga,
Taking into account Luke's comments, I will correct a typo by Chris.  Where he suggested LR4, he meant LR24.  You probably would have figured it out, but ...just playing safe.

Ah, I meant LR4 as in Linkwitz-Riley, 4th order. I can see that LR24 may also be used.
Similarly, I'd say BW3 to mean a 3rd order (18dB/octave) ButterWorth slope.

Chris

 4 
 on: Today at 04:53:37 pm 
Started by Pierre Olivier - Last post by TJ (Tom) Cornish
Thanks to all for nothing.
I think you got at least your money's worth from this forum.  Sorry you're unhappy with the forum, but glad you're happy with your repaired speakers.

 5 
 on: Today at 04:43:18 pm 
Started by MIKE Lynn - Last post by Tim McCulloch
hey

well, to maybe meet somewhere in the middle I'd say it's a little similar to servodrive in that as you say Ivan, they're both piston like system to move the cone.

Very different i execution though, as (again as Ivan says) servodrive were a belt motor type system, where as this would be a bit closer o a solenoid.

On a traditional speaker it is a moving voice coil inside a fixed magnet. The voice coil had to be pretty thin and lightweight to make sure the cone can move at the required speed, which of course limits how much current can be put into it before it goes pop.

On the other hand, M-force as said flips this around and its the traditional magnet that is the moving part, and the voice coil the fixed part wrapping around it.

This means it can be as big and bulky as needed, with nice big heat sinks, and LOTS more current can be thrown at it.  This then makes cone weight less of an issue as it has the current, and hence motor force, to move much heavier weights. So I'm sure there is a 24", 30" and even 40" cone available that are made from a lightweight plastic rather than paper, so they're super rigid and can push a LOT of air at very high pressure.

K

The fundamental difference is the use of a rotary servo motor and the belt linear motion transformer.

Pistonic transducers, in and of themselves, are not unique.

 6 
 on: Today at 04:40:15 pm 
Started by Wayne Garton - Last post by Scott Mullane
I was of the understanding that those Beta3 mid/high cabs have a passive crossover built in. So using an external mid and high band across those cabinets is really going to mess things up. I think Ivan was mentioning this as well. I have had the misfortune of mixing on a couple of Beta3 systems and let's just say that they are much better than most chinarrays, but still way off a well designed system. Their pattern control is terrible.
Having said that, you should be able to make it work, well at least sound more correct for those that will be in the beam of the three cabinets.
You really should get a medal for persevering with what looks and sounds (from your description) of a really terrible install.
The good news is that you should easily be able to run that system from a single drive rack and hopefully your volunteers from Aukland will be of great assistance to you...at least once they get over the shock of what they are faced with.
I am looking forward to hearing of some very positive improvements after they arrive.

 7 
 on: Today at 04:38:05 pm 
Started by Jeff Schoonover1 - Last post by Mark Wilkinson
Are you able to take an impedance curve...of the drivers in the box, wired in parallel?

It's a necessary step in the 'smell test' for using bridge mode IMO....
If the curve hangs out too far below, or even too long mildly below 4 Ohms, I say no go.

Curves can be made with DATS (parts express), or even REW with a little more effort...

 8 
 on: Today at 04:03:54 pm 
Started by Pierre Olivier - Last post by Pierre Olivier


As a final conclusion, this issue has been resolved by changing the two woofers. I deduct cone sag might have been the problem.
They sounf fine now.

Thanks to all for nothing.

 9 
 on: Today at 03:55:13 pm 
Started by Jeff Schoonover1 - Last post by Mac Kerr
I have heard this rule of thumb, but I don't think it's nearly so simple.
That's why it's a "rule of thumb" not the law of the land.
Quote
  The duty the amp has to perform has much more to do with it.  For example, mine are rated at 1,800KW RMS each.  But if you really were to throw heavily compressed EDM at them, I would bet they won't hold up at nearly that continuous power for very long.  Similarly, if you have an amp (like mine at 1.2KW per channel) with much less than the speaker's rating and throw some serious transients toward them, it could be more than enough to blow the cones right out of the frame.
1200 watts is a barely discernible difference from 1800 watts (it's 1.7dB). You need to stop thinking in terms of watts and start thinking in terms of dB of difference.
Quote
I'm more interested in what goes on within a single box, as to differences in running each driver on it's own circuit or the same circuit for all.
Running each passband on its own amplifier, with a capable system processor, is almost always the way to go for better speaker performance. The downside is you need more amp channels and the processor. Like everything in life you have to decide where your priorities lie.

Mac

 10 
 on: Today at 03:31:37 pm 
Started by Jeff Schoonover1 - Last post by Jeff Schoonover1
Buy an amp that has an rms output, per channel, equal to 1.5 or 2 times the rms rating (continuous rating) of the speaker being powered.
I have heard this rule of thumb, but I don't think it's nearly so simple.  The duty the amp has to perform has much more to do with it.  For example, mine are rated at 1,800KW RMS each.  But if you really were to throw heavily compressed EDM at them, I would bet they won't hold up at nearly that continuous power for very long.  Similarly, if you have an amp (like mine at 1.2KW per channel) with much less than the speaker's rating and throw some serious transients toward them, it could be more than enough to blow the cones right out of the frame.
one cabinet per channel. More control, and best sound quality.
I'm more interested in what goes on within a single box, as to differences in running each driver on it's own circuit or the same circuit for all.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 15 queries.