Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DIY Flat Panel Speaker Love

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LOUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Unbiasedsound View Post
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KI5NJCqnPc.
    If that's the only speaker delivering to the audience, the back row is going to get a much weaker level compared to the poor, abused top-of-singer's-head.
    It's hard to draw any conclusions when there's no A/B comparison (or comparison of any kind) to draw any conclusions from. The SPL from that speaker isn't mentioned. The rest of the speakers being used (if any) aren't mentioned. I don't think they even said whether or not the speaker in-frame was the one being used at the time. :(

    A conventional driver monitor with decent EQ from the desk to avoid problem frequencies and a sensible SPL (both to avoid feedback and to avoid deafening the singer) should also be able to accomplish this.
    A conventional array might have better luck by narrowing the vertical dispersion to avoid blasting the singer and the ceiling...focusing more audio onto the audience, further avoiding feedback, and lessening the amount of floor/ceiling-echo.

    I don't know if that particular TT speaker being shown is a focused array type (I suspect it is) or a wide-dispersion type. I'll try to take a look at their website in hopes of finding some information on the different models and their patterns.

    Some of the TT BMRs (maybe all?) have really lumpy mid/high response that looks like comb-filtering. This levels out under 1/3oct smoothing which they use in many of their graphs, but it might help against feedback if the mic/speaker are positioned where there's a null in the worst problem frequency/ies for the mic. This would kind of be a specialized advantage of the BMR that would take a pretty niche design to attempt using conventional drivers...though it's also pretty finicky either way and would require a very careful mic-handler. A neat trick, if possible, but not practical.
    I'm not sure what other things the BMR driver itself could do that would give it any advantage against mic feedback in that position. I'm going to try and look into this a little more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Unbiasedsound
    commented on 's reply
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KI5NJCqnPc

  • LOUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Unbiasedsound View Post
    I first heard about it from reading Dr.Jose Bertagni's articles and patents.
    Answer: It has to do with reflections. DML's have a "DIFFUSED" sound. Diffused sound equals less reflections and or WEAKER reflections. Less reflections equals more coherency. In a highly reverberant space there will still be an echo but due to less reflections cancelling each other out the sound will be more intelligible.

    Also its been stated that because these diffused type of reflections dont cancel each other out as much as a conventional cone driver, instead what they do is reinforce and use the reflections to there advantage. Bertagni states in one of his articles or patents that his speaker uses the rear wall reflections to increase performance of his loudspeakers due to its diffused nature.

    A diffused type of sound with weaker reflections will also have way less microphone feed back which is why you can place a DML panel right in back of the mic. as shown in Tectonic video.
    A well-diffused sound can easily result more/stronger/worse reflections against lateral surfaces.
    Echos cancelling or reinforcing the original source will depend on the location of the surface and source and listener (and the frequency/ies themselves, I think) so depending on this can be finicky for any source...and may still result in slight "ringing" or sloppy sound.

    I think the more important aspects for coherency in a gym or auditorium or tunnel will be:
    -the echo's volume relative to the source (which is largely controlled by the listeners' distance from source..narrowing dispersion can help avoid the worst reflection locations where possible)
    -the echo's pre-delay time (which depends on the distance and angle of source/surface/listener, which can be controlled by careful placement of sources and narrowing/limiting source diffusion)
    -the echo's trail length and frequency-response (pretty sure this can only be controlled by room treatment...though careful pattern control can use the audience as "room treatment", lol).

    The extremely diffused sound can be great help for a situation where there will be several quieter sources spread around near listeners to maximize direct-source volume over reflection volume, but any decent 2way/3way or appropriately small single FullRange conventional driver can be designed to do this as well.


    I don't believe a BMR with wider diffusion compared to a conventional cone array at the same listening-distance SPL and same frequency-response will result in less microphone feedback.
    But you can minimize feedback with either speaker type by being aware of the microphone and speaker diffusion/pickup pattern and by using the mixing board's equalizer to tame problematic frequencies...so the video might've simply been making good use of conventional means.

    A wide-diffusion onstage PA without additional audience-only/primary reinforcement PA will mostly result in the stage/players getting blasted by more SPL than the middle and back rows of the audience. A bad situation, even with BMRs.
    A wide-diffusion stage-monitor PLUS additional audience-facing PA will have the monitors facing the stage toward the mic dead-zone, and audience PA would be forward or high, also in the mic deadzone...so neither is causing microphone feedback because of their location/facing/controlled-diffusion-pattern. Easily accomplished with either technology.
    A controlled-diffusion array can probably be tuned to do a decent job at both stage and audience coverage from onstage while avoiding feedback...but this can be accomplished with either technology.

    I'm likely missing some important benefits somewhere, however.
    I'm sure the BMRs can do some really cool things, and I'd love to hear some pros/cons from anyone experienced with large, indoor live-sound (preferably an objective 3rdParty instead of a salesman/installer/customer, if possible).

    Leave a comment:


  • Unbiasedsound
    replied
    Actually the answer is really simple, so simple in fact you might not believe it. lol I think I did mention it someone here or on another site. I first heard about it from reading Dr.Jose Bertagni's articles and patents. I forget which one and they are so long so dont ask me to find it. LOL Even Tectonic mentions it but uses high tech terminology so its harder to understand. lol

    Answer: It has to do with reflections. DML's have a "DIFFUSED" sound. Diffused sound equals less reflections and or WEAKER reflections. Less reflections equals more coherency. In a highly reverberant space there will still be an echo but due to less reflections cancelling each other out the sound will be more intelligible. The only way to significantly cancel out reflections to the point of very little echo is to use room acoustic treatments.

    Also its been stated that because these diffused type of reflections dont cancel each other out as much as a conventional cone driver, instead what they do is reinforce and use the reflections to there advantage. Bertagni states in one of his articles or patents that his speaker uses the rear wall reflections to increase performance of his loudspeakers due to its diffused nature.

    So one of my advice for DML speakers is " DO NOT USE ACOUSTIC TREATMENT ON THE REAR WALLS" behind the panels like how Tech Ingredients says in his video and or in the comment section.

    This is actually the so called "MAGIC" sound of DML's as it sounds like a live show.

    A diffused type of sound with weaker reflections will also have way less microphone feed back which is why you can place a DML panel right in back of the mic. as shown in Tectonic video.

    Leave a comment:


  • Unbiasedsound
    commented on 's reply
    Oh ok I just wanted to be sure as I thought maybe I missed something in the video that you found. lol

  • LOUT
    replied
    Digging through some BMR specs, it looks like they have impressive off-axis performance at pretty high frequencies for their diameter. Kind of like an RS75 for half the price...though that might also be a brandVSprice thing.
    Their high-frequency coverage and LF-output isn't quite enough that I'd want to completely omit a tweeter and woofer, and it looks like some manufacturers agree, so I'm not sure there's much remaining advantage...at least not for hifi.
    Obviously there's a nice advantage for affordable lofi singleFRdriver PA though.

    Looking at some of the other BMR (advertisement?) videos, it seems many of the other videos are somewhat ironically focusing less on the single-fullrange and wide HF coverage aspects and instead showing examples where large/tall rooms with multiple wall speakers were replaced with line-array type systems to avoid some of the surface bounces.
    It's not something exclusive to BMRs nor the TT brand, so it's a little odd that the technology and brand is the focus rather than the better setup.

    Maybe there's a cool advantage, directly tied to the BMR technology, that they're forgetting to mention or show in the videos?

    Leave a comment:


  • LOUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Unbiasedsound View Post
    What causes conventional cone speakers to sound unintelligible in that underground railway station? Answering this question will give one a hint as to why DML/BMRS are more intelligible.
    Originally posted by LOUT View Post
    In that video/example, it appears the conventional drivers were spaced farther apart and the recording was taken from a more distant location while the BMR replacements were spaced much more frequently, allowing each to play at a lower level while keeping a more balanced/constant output volume for listeners. This also results in the microphone being noticeably closer to the nearest source.
    You can still hear a lot of echo, so the BMR doesn't seem to help that, but getting the mic/listener closer to the source allows more of what's heard to be direct-VS-reflected.

    In this example, I'm unsure if the BMR had an advantage in size/shape/price to allow this, or if it wasn't so much an advantage of the chosen BMRs as much as simply a better plan for the retrofit.

    It would be interesting to hear a comparison against conventional fullrange drivers (properly EQed for low distortion) with similar output and spacing.
    Originally posted by Unbiasedsound View Post
    So are you just assuming what you think they did or is it actually what they did? Like the recording being taken from a ore distant location and or the conventional drivers being spaced further apart etc.?
    I only meant it "appeared" that way, because they failed to describe the older situation at all and didn't give a microphone position for either situation. I probably could've been clearer about that, but it sounds like you're already aware of the video's lack of information.
    There's also a large volume difference between the examples, likely indicating the microphone was significantly farther from the source in the quieter example.
    Did they share more details somewhere else?

    Alternatively, do you have any other examples or maybe a more direct comparison under your own experience you can comment on?
    Or is there an experiment folks can try "at home" to experience the differences you'd like to show?

    If I have to drag a small amp and a small DML and small FR-cone-driver into an echo-y bathroom, I'm totally willing lol.
    Last edited by LOUT; 03-24-2022, 03:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Unbiasedsound
    commented on 's reply
    So are you just assuming what you think they did or is it actually what they did? Like the recording being taken from a ore distant location and or the conventional drivers being spaced further apart etc.?
    Last edited by Unbiasedsound; 03-24-2022, 06:25 AM.

  • LOUT
    commented on 's reply
    In that video/example, it appears the conventional drivers were spaced farther apart and the recording was taken from a more distant location while the BMR replacements were spaced much more frequently, allowing each to play at a lower level while keeping a more balanced/constant output volume for listeners. This also results in the microphone being noticeably closer to the nearest source.
    You can still hear a lot of echo, so the BMR doesn't seem to help that, but getting the mic/listener closer to the source allows more of what's heard to be direct-VS-reflected.

    In this example, I'm unsure if the BMR had an advantage in size/shape/price to allow this, or if it wasn't so much an advantage of the chosen BMRs as much as simply a better plan for the retrofit.

    It would be interesting to hear a comparison against conventional fullrange drivers (properly EQed for low distortion) with similar output and spacing.

  • Unbiasedsound
    replied
    Originally posted by Unbiasedsound View Post
    Tectonic BMR Speakers Before/After Audio Quality Difference in Underground Railway Station - YouTube

    Lets see if anyone can tell me why the BMR speaker is more intelligible then the conventional cone driver?
    What causes conventional cone speakers to sound unintelligible in that underground railway station? Answering this question will give one a hint as to why DML/BMRS are more intelligible.

    Leave a comment:


  • LOUT
    commented on 's reply
    I like this.
    Easy-to-digest bulletpoints with helpful tips.
    If someone disagrees for some reason or wants to know the "why" behind the tips, it can spark conversation.
    Good stuff.

  • Unbiasedsound
    replied
    Basic Do's and Donts of DML.

    1. DML's should not be placed directly on the wall as sound radiates both from the front and back. Now if you modify a DML panel then you can place it on the wall, which is to enclose one side of the panel so that only one side radiates sound. Or you can place the panel directly INWALL.

    2. Like with most conventional cone speakers a DML's height placement should be at around "EAR LEVEL". I see a lot of people hanging there DML panels very high up like surround sound speakers.

    3. To sound its best DML's need to be at least a foot from the rear wall.

    4. For my designs a "FRAME" is a must. I do NOT believe in hanging panels. Also a frame is needed to attach the spine brace to hold the exciter in place. Without a frame there is no were to attach the spine/brace on a free hanging panel.

    5. The height of a DML panel should not be higher then your head when seated, unless you are sitting really far back. I see some people making there panels 8ft. tall in which it is to high for such a small room.
    Last edited by Unbiasedsound; 03-22-2022, 02:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Unbiasedsound
    replied
    Today I want to talk about a DML subwoofer. Just last week I decided to rebuild my DML subwoofer using a Dayton puck bass shaker. I bought the puck bass shaker about a year ago and experimented with it for a brief time but never really got around to making a final sub design for it.

    All I have to say is WOW. lol These puck bass shakers are the key to DML low frequency bass. These wont play really loud or hit you in your chest like a conventional cone subwoofer but what they do is make very tight/accurate/articulate bass. If one DML sub is not enough I am sure TWO will do to satisfy one in the bass department.

    How do you build one? Simple you just follow the basic fundamental steps of DML. OH WAIT yawl dont even know the basic fundamental steps? LMAO

    This is why I cant stress enough the basic fundamentals of DML 101 because everything including a DML sub starts with the basic foundation techniques.

    The Dayton puck bass shaker is now double the price it use to be just around a year ago. I was hesitant to post this info since the more people that buy this product the more the price will rise especially in todays time when inflation is at a all time high and still increasing. Its better to buy it now then wait 3 months when the price doubles again. LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • Unbiasedsound
    commented on 's reply
    I dont think many people visit this forum. Plus the title of this topic does not include the words DML so many will just pass it up.

    There is no white paper on these basic fundamental techniques in designing a DML panel, unless I write my own white paper. lol

    The problem is many do not understand these basic fundamental 101 techniques. One cant disagree if one does not know WHY each specific technique is done.

    I dont think people arent engaging because of my condescending tone. In fact a condescending tone usually brings on a challenge. The problem is there are no challengers due to lack of participants aka forum members interested in DML and or lack the knowledge.

    I follow the topic on the DIYaudio forum and its mind boggling the stuff they come up with as if these panels can defy physics because they dont even understand the fundamental basic steps in designing a DML panel. Including those that seem to be veterans on DML. One cant build on a weak foundation as everything built on top will eventually crumble. Once you get why the fundamental foundation techniques are used it will set you on the right path.

    If you've been following my recent posts I have mentioned that these DML panels are very similar to conventional cone drivers as you cant defy certain physics.

    My questions are to make people "THINK FOR THEMSELVES". Most people seem to like to "COPY" someone elses design instead of designing it themselves.

    I am not concerned if anyone replies to my posts, its more to make one think and pounder on those questions and seek the truth for themselves.

  • LOUT
    commented on 's reply
    Perhaps some simply disagree, or maybe they don't feel like answering/engaging at the time?
    I literally don't know why DML corners "need" to be rounded, so in my case digging through 244pages would be a hindrance more than a boon.

    I do feel like your specific questions here, if meant to act as teaching tools, should probably include a link to the whitepaper or thread or page detailing the reasoning behind the answer.

    I also admit to automatically reading your questions here in a pretty condescending tone, so that might be making some people avoid engaging if they're having the same issue I am...though I'm not sure how you could change that because I'm not exactly a beacon of good communication.
Working...
X