Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
76.91.168.101
In Reply to: RE: Show us your DIPOLE subwoofers posted by Davey on September 16, 2014 at 21:47:41
Down into the teens ?The W-Frame design and Ripole supposedly puts pressure onto the cone. Is that really a significant issue?
I like the idea of force cancellation of equal number drivers in the W-Frame. Fewer things bouncing around.
Edits: 09/16/14Follow Ups:
Davey,
Any more info on the 6 woofer dipole setup you posted?
Thank you,
David.
That's not my woofer setup. I don't know whose it is.
Dave.
Into the teens? Sure, it's all about tradeoffs. Probably you'd need even more excursion and/or more drivers.
The ripole concept doesn't do anything for me. Too many trade-offs in the wrong direction, and one of the main objectives was to lower the cutoff with increased air loading on the cone. However, you can accomplish that with electronic means.
The W-frame concept is superior IMO. A fairly compact footprint and the force-cancellation configuration.
Cheers,
Dave.
Davey, regarding your statement about the ripole config: "Too many trade-offs..", what would they be?
For perspective, this is why I am looking into them:
- thin-nish form factor - one driver in each vertical box would allow me to use one next to each Maggie in my place, or perhaps even under each MMG
- no large SPL numbers needed. The existing subwoofer can do the movies.
- looking for deeper frequency reach but in sync with the Maggies. Boomboxes need not apply...I keep my decent subwoofer off for music as it is.
Ripole would have to keep up with the Maggies in terms of textures, speed and definition. Do you see anything in the numbers that would make this too hard or impractical?
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: