Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
96.234.41.97
In Reply to: RE: How many quads should I stack? posted by Chaffey on January 30, 2016 at 12:08:47
Unlike the 57s the 63s are not a good speaker to stack. The 57s are sort of a line source making them OK to stack though Peter Walker would probably rotate in his grave a few times. But the 63s simulate a point source so you would end up with 2 or more point sources which would interfere with each other and foul up imaging and create a comb filter sort of frequency response at some frequencies.
The later, larger Quad speakers only add to some bass panels to increase bass output which you could do, since bass excursion is usually the loudness limiting factor. So adding bass panels only may be the way to go. But this will only allow increased output, not lower bass response. The extra panels don't go any deeper.
This does not mean you can't stack whole speakers for more output, only that the speaker will sound and image differently and still won't go any lower though paling louder does appear to increase bass because our ears are more sensitive to bass frequencies at higher output levels.
This does not mean
Follow Ups:
But this will only allow increased output, not lower bass response. The extra panels don't go any deeper.
That's a shame since Sound Lab models do extend lower with additional panel area.
Sound Lab response
3125 sq in - 24 hz
2758 sq in - 26 hz
2350 sq in - 28 hz
1800 sq in - 30 hz
1328 sq in - 32 hz
If you took two of the 1328 speakers and operated them together would you still have a 32Hz speaker?
Dave.
You get the extension for lower cost.
Why indeed. It's only 1db vice 6db.
Dave.
lower bass response!
4Hz is nothing. Easily EQ'd.
Dave.
of doubling M3s - something that no one would likely ever do in practice.
On the other hand, I think that lowering the bass capability from 32 hz down to 24 hz as with my U1s is meaningful. It may only be 8 hz, but that is nearly half the bottom octave!
Along with obviating the need to compromise the full range signal with active EQ.
I was using YOUR arbitrary (disparate) configuration of an M3 to an M1. 28Hz to 32Hz (4Hz) differential....if I read the SoundLab webpage correctly.
http://www.soundlab-speakers.com/millenium-series.html
Only 2.2db EQ required to move the M3 4Hz lower. EQ like that can be done easily at line-level passively. No active EQ required.
But, obviously a person is purchasing other capabilities besides this measly 4Hz if selecting the M1 over the M3.
The M1 would have fully 5db more SPL capability than the M3......or the same SPL capability but with lower distortion.....all other things being equal.
Whether that's worth the extra $13k, I don't know. :)
Dave.
I was using YOUR arbitrary (disparate) configuration of an M3 to an M1.
Let's return to your initial contribution to this thread following my observation to hahax. Why would anyone spend the money to do as you suggested? They most likely wouldn't given the investment.
But, obviously a person is purchasing other capabilities besides this measly 4Hz if selecting the M1 over the M3.
I'm delighted you understand that.
or the same SPL capability but with lower distortion
Exactly the point of my last post.
I wasn't suggesting anyone spend money. It was an obvious hypothetical. I thought that was....obvious. (To everybody but you I guess.)
But anyway, we agree! Oh my goodness. I'm stupendously excited.
Dave.
It was an obvious hypothetical.
Obvious? One that would never be used?
But anyway, we agree!
Cool!
More panel area using examples that folks actually choose delivers:
1. Lower frequency response
2. Lower distortion
3. Wider directivity
4. Improved vertical image size
5. Obviates active equalization which sacrifices transparency.
I'm confused that it won't move the -3dB point lower. Won't overall SPL be down by adding extra panels in parallel but since there are more panels, the -3dB rolloff for bass should be better with more surface area to move air no? However insignificant, more bass panels = more ability to play lower. It doesn't matter if excursion is the same, if 4 things are trying to play 35hz now as opposed to 2, the SPL has to be higher no?
The 63 is a very unique design unlike just about any other speaker ever built.
The speaker produces bass over its entire area. The outer 'bass' panel, a bit of a misnomer, simple increases the size of the baffle.
Adding extra bass panels will not make the speaker play any louder or go any lower.
Yeah I've read that each panel is in fact full range, it's just that the concentric circles do the time delay? It still escapes me how adding additional "bass" panels doesn't affect the SPL in a conventional way. Is it because the outer panels are essentially the "outer ring" in the time delay not really translating to a whole panel being excited for playing low notes?
The delay line assembly performs several functions. It rolls off more and more top end as we move out from the central area to prevent beaming, delays in time each successive ring to emulate a point source, and attenuates output to each ring as we move out from the central area. The outer ring is down in output substantially compared to the central full range area.
In theory yes adding more bass panels will increase output but given the low output of the outer ring, the bass panels, one would have to add a whole lot of them to have any real impact.
If what you want is more output, more bass energy you have a couple of options. Add a good sub or find a different speaker. The 63 is what it is. No amount of tweaking adding bass panels, etc., is going to change the nature of the speaker.
This is good advice and really sheds light on the situation at hand. I'm definitely now leaning towards leaving them as they are, other than the restoration. I'm very happy with the sound, they just sound so good it's easy to get carried away with the right material. When I blew up the one the other day, I definitely didn't think they were playing quietly. I decided to push the limits and see what happens and well, I had failure. I'm also using 3 micron thickness which may be much more susceptible to abuse.
The speakers were originally built with 3 micron film. Gauge of the film will have no impact on reliability.
I kind of worded the title jokingly, I was thinking stacking the 2 point source type panels would cause issues, it's good you confirmed that. Mainly I was debating if I should go as far as adding 4 bass panels per speaker.
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: