New bad to the bone, open baffle speakers development.

jbandpc · « **Reply #20 on:** 6 Oct 2005, 02:18 pm »

The 6 woofers are the 16 Ohm M-130's, right? The same as in the AV3's? Will those still be available individually? I assume that the tweeter is not a gr-research-only item. Right?

If what I said is true, then can I just purchase the PLANS for these speakers? Then, later, if I can scrape up the money, I can order the parts and build them - or build just the open-baffle part and the lower portion - or whatever.

Whadaya say?

Thanks,
Philip

arthurs · « **Reply #21 on:** 6 Oct 2005, 03:04 pm »

What's going on with Dodd Audio?

Danny Richie · « **Reply #22 on:** 6 Oct 2005, 04:55 pm »

The open baffle speaker uses a pair of our 16 ohm M-130's in the center (open baffle area) and four 8 ohm M-130's on the ends in a series parallel configuration.

The tweeters can actually be ordered right from our web site. The SW-12A can be ordered right from our web site too.

I would imagine that if you contacted me wishing to purchase the components and plans and bought the drivers from our web site then something could be arranged but this would not be an advertised deal.

Dodd Audio left the show with a new dealer or two that will be coming on board soon and one rather larger dealer committing to large numbers. No names will be given yet.

Milehighguy · « **Reply #23 on:** 6 Oct 2005, 05:18 pm »

Josh,
I'm sorry if my comments seemed to criticize your earlier post. I agree with you that it is sad for the DIY community when a great deal goes away. My remarks were meant to be more general to those out there who were thinking about getting the "anonarray" speakers (anonymous array)and may be tempted to be angry at Danny. I didn't assume that you were one of those people.

Secondly, I wanted to motivate anyone who is interested in the anonarray to go for it while you have the chance. Either the kit,or contact Danny about getting one of the early wholesale-priced assembled models. Don't procrastinate.

But if you do procrastinate, or can't raise the cash right now, don't dispair.There's always the RA8 option!

eros28 · « **Reply #24 on:** 6 Oct 2005, 06:01 pm »

First off, congratulations Danny…it must be a great feeling to see one of your DIY designs be appreciated to the extent of having your yet un-named speaker hit the big time. Best of luck to you with this new venture.

Have you already begun work on the “miniature or smaller” version of your un-named speaker and will there be a chance to get them in kit form before the transition?

You say that you’re A/V line is going to have the RAW ribbon tweeter, can you shed some light as to why? Is there a benefit or a vast sonic difference?

Will your A/V 4 still be available through RAW and will it also change its GR tweeter to the ribbon tweeter that Al offers?

klh · « **Reply #25 on:** 6 Oct 2005, 06:24 pm »

Congratulations Danny... it must feel great to get that kind of response. I would imagine it is some form of validation for your designs and body of work. As for the smaller/ported speakers. I would think the MTMWW as fronts and surrounds and the WMTMW center would make an incredible home theater or multichannel setup (I know the W isn't really a W, but it's easier to describe it that way). I too hope they will be offered in kit form if only for a week or two. Good luck with the new venture.

klh · « **Reply #26 on:** 6 Oct 2005, 06:27 pm »

What is the ideal distance from the back of the enclosure to the rear wall? What would you say should be the minimum distance?

Danny Richie · « **Reply #27 on:** 6 Oct 2005, 06:39 pm »

Quote

You say that you’re A/V line is going to have the RAW ribbon tweeter, can you shed some light as to why? Is there a benefit or a vast sonic difference?

All of our A/V series kits will continue to use the same GR-T2 tweeter and can be purchased through us or any of our re-sellers including Raw Acoustics.

However, Raw Acoustics will exclusively be offering all of our A/V series kits with their new Ribbon tweeter. This is why he had it custom built with the same size face plate as our GR-T2.

These will be referred to as the RA/V series.

Reason for it is that Al likes our kit designs and wants to offer them with his ribbon.

Quote

What is the ideal distance from the back of the enclosure to the rear wall? What would you say should be the minimum distance?

No different than any typical speaker and it is less sensitive to side wall reflections.

gprro · « **Reply #28 on:** 6 Oct 2005, 10:02 pm »

Still going to do an Alpha replacment as a GR kit?

Danny Richie · « **Reply #29 on:** 6 Oct 2005, 10:53 pm »

Quote

Still going to do an Alpha replacment as a GR kit?

Yep, LS-6's and LS-9's.

klh · « **Reply #30 on:** 7 Oct 2005, 06:55 pm »

If one wanted four m130s instead of two in each speaker (essentially the big one sans subwoofer), would it be that hard to do? Would the crossover need to be altered? Since kits will be available for a limited time I may want to go this rout. I would imagine the WWMTMWW would have more dynamics and sound better than the MTMWW. I would think the MTMWW would be perfect as surrounds. Would having a WWMTMWW instead of MTMWW as front R&L make much of a difference? I understand if you don't want to deal with all of this... we all appreciate the fact that you're allowing the kits to be purchased at all considering the venture you're starting.

Brucemck · « **Reply #31 on:** 7 Oct 2005, 07:36 pm »

I heard the "no name speakers" at RMAF. Really very nice. Among the best sound I heard, even among far more expensive units. (Would be really nice if a hotel would someday build rooms with built in bass traps!)

How would you contrast the LS series with the "no name" series? How should I think about which might make more sense for my applications?

Thanks.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #32 on:** 7 Oct 2005, 07:40 pm »

Quote

If one wanted four m130s instead of two in each speaker (essentially the big one sans subwoofer), would it be that hard to do?

Same speaker minus the powered sub in the side? No problem.

Quote

Would the crossover need to be altered?

So long as the drivers placement is maintained then there would be no changes needed.

Quote

I would imagine the WWMTMWW would have more dynamics and sound better than the MTMWW.

Slightly higher sensitivity but similar dynamics and the same overall sound.

Quote

Would having a WWMTMWW instead of MTMWW as front R&L make much of a difference?

Not hugely.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #33 on:** 7 Oct 2005, 07:44 pm »

Quote

How would you contrast the LS series with the "no name" series?

Ask me that when I have completed the LS series. I am still waiting on the woofers. The latest woofer as of last week still had an issue or two. It is being sent to Adire to see what the deal is with the XBL^ motor structure and figure out what needs to be done to remedy the slight problems. I am sure Dan Wiggins will have a solution once he gets a hold of them.

klh · « **Reply #34 on:** 7 Oct 2005, 09:40 pm »

Thanks for your patience, Danny.

One more set of questions. And this is based on theory. I know XBL technology allows greater excursion while minimizing distortion. If one limits the signal sent to the speaker to only above 60Hz, would XBL technology give much benefit? Since lower frequencies need greater excursion, cutting out the lower frequencies would mean the drivers aren't used to their full potential... ie why pay more for drivers if you won't use what you pay extra for? Then again, XBL tech may also cause less distortion at mid frequency levels, which would still warrant waiting for a speaker with that technology. Does the benefit of XBL tech apply to all frequencies, or just the lower ones? Am I off track? I'm just trying to figure out if I should wait for the LS series or get the un-named speakers now since they will only be available as a kit for a very limited amount of time. Thanks again.

Hank · « **Reply #35 on:** 10 Oct 2005, 05:00 pm »

Quote

XBL tech may also cause less distortion at mid frequency levels, which would still warrant waiting for a speaker with that technology.

That's it. That's why mid-woofs with that motor do/will sound so clean. I remember the curve of the first prototype that Dan showed me at CES 2 years ago - smoothest curve I'd ever seen! There are several new woofers on the market, with and without XbL^ motors that will give you good, clean bass and sub-base, but mid woofs and mids with XbL^ should give you excellent mids (where most music resides).

Danny Richie · « **Reply #36 on:** 10 Oct 2005, 05:55 pm »

Quote

If one limits the signal sent to the speaker to only above 60Hz, would XBL technology give much benefit?

It may still have some lower distortion through the mid range area.

Quote

Since lower frequencies need greater excursion, cutting out the lower frequencies would mean the drivers aren't used to their full potential...

Keep in mind that while a typical driver moves through it exertion range, the amount of voice coil in the gap can vary. With the XBL^ motor structure the woofer can travel through quite a range of travel and still maintain the same amount of voice coil in the gap. This makes it more linear even if it is not pushed to its limits.

Quote

Does the benefit of XBL tech apply to all frequencies, or just the lower ones? Am I off track?

I believe the lower the driver plays or the further it tends to travel, the greater the benefit.

Quote

I'm just trying to figure out if I should wait for the LS series or get the un-named speakers now since they will only be available as a kit for a very limited amount of time.

You can't go wrong either way.

klh · « **Reply #37 on:** 10 Oct 2005, 07:41 pm »

Thanks Danny. Sorry for being a nuisance. BTW, you're answers don't reflect that... but I'm sure I am.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #38 on:** 10 Oct 2005, 07:48 pm »

No problems here. I actually forwarded your message here to Dan Wiggins and was hoping he would have time to respond but I guess he hasn't.

DanWiggins · « **Reply #39 on:** 10 Oct 2005, 10:12 pm »

Quote from: klh

Thanks for your patience, Danny.

One more set of questions. And this is based on theory. I know XBL technology allows greater excursion while minimizing distortion. If one limits the signal sent to the speaker to only above 60Hz, would XBL technology give much benefit? Since lower frequencies need greater excursion, cutting out the lower frequencies would mean the drivers aren't used to their full potential... ie why pay more for drivers if you won't use what you pay extra for? Then again, XBL tech may ...

Hi all,

XBL² works at all frequencies; flat BL is ALWAYS a good thing, never bad. Now, with midranges you can get just about the same flat BL with an underhung driver, so in terms of BL-based distortion over underhung mids our advantage is lower.

Of course, we also tend to have less steel (primarily because of the rebates) around the voice coil which lowers the inductance, as compared to an underhung. Just like putting less steel in the center of an inductor will lower the inductance, removing steel from the top plate and core will lower the inductance of the driver. And Le-based distortion is a bit more important for midranges.

Also, you end up with a shorter top plate than an underhung for a given excursion level. That means lower cost, or you can use the same size plate and end up with more excursion, if desired.

Overall, compared to overhung mids, an XBL² mid will have less distortion, better extension (lower inductance), and tend to have lower moving mass (short voice coil) meaning more efficiency.

Compared to underhung mids, an XBL² mid will have about the same BL-based distortion, better extension (lower inductance), and lower cost.

And of course, for those that want to use copper rings in their motor, being able to put them in the rebates in the top plate and core means you get the benefits of copper rings without the losses normally encountered (with sleeves on the pole or top plate face). Typically copper in the gap (where it needs to be for a mid) will mean a wider gap, so lower BL - lower efficiency, more problems with flux modulation. But burying the copper in the rebates - where you don't have any flux to start with - means you can keep the original tight gap, and its resulting higher BL.

Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio®