Re: Murphy Corner Line Array (MCLA)
For a given input power level I would expect 6 dB less output in the region below resonance as a result of changing from a 1/4 space (pi steradians) acoustic load to a 1/2 space (2 pi steradians) load. See: Spatial Loading Tech Topic
A larger enclosure would allow for more bass output below resonance changing the required EQ but the excursion limited maximum acoustic output would not be increased. Technically, the maximum volume velocity (U) of the system is that of the driver alone. Changing the enclosure size changes the shape of the frequency response curve but not the maximum output capability. Changing the acoustic load does change the maximum output capability. The system requires precision EQ correction regardless of the enclosure so ultimately I see no clear advantage to using a larger enclosure. Measurements and Custom EQ correction would definitely be warranted.
It's hard to say precisely what the difference would be but there would likely be some small but measurable difference in frequency response. I don't see any real problem with this change. My motivation for rear mounting them was to provide a little protection for the drivers.
A dipole (open baffle) design would offer no corner or flush placement options but could be an interesting project. Free space loading would reduce the output below resonance considerably which would necessitate a subwoofer as you note. I once prototyped a full-range focused dipole line array which sounded quite nice. That prototype may have been the beginning of my affection for full-range speakers.
You could certainly use my enclosure (or similar) placed out of the corner but you would probably want to customize your EQ and add subs because of the reduced bass output. Just because you move it out of the corner doesn't mean the reflections go away..they just move further away from the real array instead of being clustered tightly in a single coherent bass radiator as in the corner line array. Consistency as you move about the room may not be as good as with corner placement.
Regards,
John
Originally posted by Chromedome2000
View Post
A larger enclosure would allow for more bass output below resonance changing the required EQ but the excursion limited maximum acoustic output would not be increased. Technically, the maximum volume velocity (U) of the system is that of the driver alone. Changing the enclosure size changes the shape of the frequency response curve but not the maximum output capability. Changing the acoustic load does change the maximum output capability. The system requires precision EQ correction regardless of the enclosure so ultimately I see no clear advantage to using a larger enclosure. Measurements and Custom EQ correction would definitely be warranted.
Originally posted by Chromedome2000
View Post
It's hard to say precisely what the difference would be but there would likely be some small but measurable difference in frequency response. I don't see any real problem with this change. My motivation for rear mounting them was to provide a little protection for the drivers.
Originally posted by Chromedome2000
View Post
A dipole (open baffle) design would offer no corner or flush placement options but could be an interesting project. Free space loading would reduce the output below resonance considerably which would necessitate a subwoofer as you note. I once prototyped a full-range focused dipole line array which sounded quite nice. That prototype may have been the beginning of my affection for full-range speakers.
Originally posted by Chromedome2000
View Post
You could certainly use my enclosure (or similar) placed out of the corner but you would probably want to customize your EQ and add subs because of the reduced bass output. Just because you move it out of the corner doesn't mean the reflections go away..they just move further away from the real array instead of being clustered tightly in a single coherent bass radiator as in the corner line array. Consistency as you move about the room may not be as good as with corner placement.
Regards,
John
Comment