Pat Latimer wrote on Wed, 21 April 2010 21:18 |
Gene. Where, when, and how much??? You're not that far and I'd like to hear those pups. edit: I saw when and where. I wish I could make it. |
Tim Padrick wrote on Sat, 01 May 2010 09:51 |
Wouldn't a D'Appolito configuration have been better than having the horn at one end? Or are they a three way with 3 woofs and a mid? |
Lee Brenkman wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 14:29 |
Which 18 are you using underneath these? Ramsdell, I'm sure. But which model? |
Tim Padrick wrote on Sat, 01 May 2010 09:51 |
Wouldn't a D'Appolito configuration have been better than having the horn at one end? Or are they a three way with 3 woofs and a mid? |
Rory Buszka wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 18:11 | ||
Actually, my money's on a frequency-shaded design, or '2.5-way' where the lower woofers are rolled off progressively with increasing frequency. With a frequency-shaded design, if you get too many of them side-by-side to where pattern control begins happening because of the dimensions of the LF array, they'll start to take on a 'thick' character that has to be EQ'ed down 3-6dB depending on the room or absence of, but frequency-shaded trap boxes will sound fuller as single boxes in the midbass without needing a large number of enclosures because the shading frequency is usually chosen to be the frequency below which the enclosures lose pattern control and begin to radiate spherically. It looks like an interesting design experiment, but I doubt owners of EV Phoenix or JBL SRX would be dumping their stock to go with these. Now -- if the 10" drivers have a low Fs, the enclosure tune can be lowered into the 50's, and you can begin questioning the need for a subwoofer for a lot of material. I could see these being a useful box for the street festivals that happen around here, and they're probably different enough to generate some interest for the Ramsdell brand. |
Rory Buszka wrote on Fri, 21 May 2010 18:11 | ||
Actually, my money's on a frequency-shaded design, or '2.5-way' where the lower woofers are rolled off progressively with increasing frequency. |
Gene Hardage wrote on Sat, 01 May 2010 22:13 |
These columns are passively crossed with progressively lower crossover points for each 10. |
Kasey Linsberg wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 15:55 |
I know this is a bit of an older post, but I was wondering if you had an thoughts on how these might sound with two per side? It looks as though it would make a fairly nice scalable system. |
Mac Kerr wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 16:03 | ||
Since column speakers have very wide horizontal coverage they would not work very well side by side. stacking 1 on top of the other would work better, but involve a lot of safety structure. This is not a scalable solution. Here is the same thing from the late '70s. Mac |
Mac Kerr wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 14:03 | ||
Since column speakers have very wide horizontal coverage they would not work very well side by side. stacking 1 on top of the other would work better, but involve a lot of safety structure. This is not a scalable solution. Here is the same thing from the late '70s. Mac |
Mac Kerr wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 16:03 |
Here is the same thing from the late '70s. Mac |