|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
What are the advantages of the D'Appolito design vs. a conventional design of 1 woofer and 1 tweeter. With some music the D'Appolito design sounds very good but with others it is very midrange heavy especially with Rock music. This makes sense but is there a design advantage for this arrangement or what?
Follow Ups:
Below is a quote from the Living Voice website (URL below, search for Appolito) => "This shared the D'Appolito configuration that allowed the modified 104 to punch above its weight, and kept the same manifestly popular dimensions. The D'Appolito, however, is a tricky configuration to design. There is a knife-edge between an obnoxious and a joyous result."I have the Living Voice Avatar model, and IMHO, it's the best at its price range and even beyond. Eats my former Proac Response 3 and Naim SBLs for breakfast ... never midrange-heavy on rock, totally super with Megadeth, Metallica, Nirvana, etc.
power handling, control of vertical pattern, reduced distortion, to name a few.
Disadvantges are lobey off axis response unless tweeter crossover is very low and high order crossover is used.
Owned Infinity Prelude PFR's, used D'Appalito.
The canadiens dont like em!
First thing Floyd Toole did when he took over at Infinity was to re design Prelude and got rid of the good doctors alignment, EH?
You are right. But I would add that the overall "in-room" response (both vertical and horizntal) often ends up better with an MT design. The separation of the drivers with MTM usually causes vertical reponse and lobing irregularities when you take floor and ceiling reflections into account. Often a suck out in the upper midrange that you have to cross over quite low to avoid (if you can).Think of all those centre channel speakers (MTMs on their side) that have lousy horizontal dispersion characteristics, and should be avoided (lying down) IMO for that reason.
I would rather use an MMT design if the extra SPLs are required.
Good point, Double.An MTM design is capable of superb imaging, but the timbre (influenced by the in-room response) often isn't as rich because an MTM is particularly directional just below the crossover frequency. I was building MTM's long before D'Apppolito's paper, and abandoned the approach in favor of MT's with correspondingly more expensive (higher quality) drivers. Incidentally, D'Appolito's design covered not only the MTM geometry, but also interdriver offset and true 3rd-order acoustical crossover for a symmetrical-summing fill of the vertical radiation pattern. My choice would now generally be a WMT over an MTM design, as an appropriately-designed WMT usually does more of the things that I think matter most.
You and Floyd Toole are in agreement.
How about the cajun alignment Duke ??
Crawfish file crawfish ???
why not go several steps ahead of even the D'appolito configuration (which is just a bit of asymetry) and mount each of your drivers in their own boxes!? Stack'em up like and move 'em around a bit untill the Phase is EXACTLY to your liking and listening postion. Works fine but involves serious setup ;-)
http://www.madisound.com/cgi-bin/discuss.cgi?read=203257
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: