# Oh, you know...BG Neo10



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Thanks to Whoever I get a chance to play with these beasts. 

Mug:










Back, more robust terminals than those of the Neo8 I've used before:










Take a gander at the ultra thin diaphragm, you can see the traces if you look carefully:










An effort to make it more attractive, or just gasketing foam? I'll use my own gasketing foam and leave these aside for the owner to use. 










2.2 lbs a pop, hefty for how thin they are:










First audition, dipole, as they are meant to be used:










When you get to my level of audio proficiency wires don't matter


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

looking forward to this, thanks for taking the review on...


----------



## mattyjman (Aug 6, 2009)

what do those sound like anyway... i've seen bowdown has those in his build. what's the advantage to a traditional cone?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

mattyjman said:


> what do those sound like anyway... i've seen bowdown has those in his build. what's the advantage to a traditional cone?


Lower phase distortion: the surface is "uniformly" (per BG, not exactly true, it is closer to being uniformly driven than a cone where the voicecoil drives the cone through a concentric ring footprint) driven, and the radiating area is flat, aka equally far from listening point. In nearfield, like a car, this seems very desirable. A smaller CTC spacing can be achieved as well, since even the edge of the planar is directly driven (instead of measuring from the center of the planar you measure from the closest eyelet to the tweeter). 

Most often claimed: "planars have better decay than conventional speakers". From previous tests I would say that it is better than most conventional speakers but I'm not sold on all of them. A dome midrange for example likely has just as good decay. Anywho.

Often claimed: better dispersion. This depends on goals. 

Now, BG is not just a planar speaker it's THE planar as far as I can tell. Zaphs test showed unusually low distortion, particularly the annoying ones like odd and high order. It's also rated 100w IEC and 92db sensitive. That means it will hurt you if called upon. 

Unlike the traditional BG Neo8 this one can be crossed ridiculously low, 150hz in some applications. It's a robust have it all dedicated midrange. The sucker is huge.


----------



## jimbno1 (Apr 14, 2008)

I haven't messed with these but I have my doubts you could get decent output at 150 Hz unless you were using multiples in a line array. They may play that low as a single but at what volume? 

I have some 8" planars from VMPS which they HP at 150 Hz in their designs. What they did not specify is that they LP the midbass at 350-500 Hz I believe.

Sorry when I posted I missed your comment about certain applications. 

I would love to hear these in someone's A-pillars.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

Once CVJoint is done with them, as long as they best the scan revs, they are going in front of the Ciare 10ndh midbass here, they will be in a highly damped 5 liter enclosure.










They will be much more on axis once I move this:


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

jimbno1 said:


> I haven't messed with these but I have my doubts you could get decent output at 150 Hz unless you were using multiples in a line array. They may play that low as a single but at what volume?
> 
> I have some 8" planars from VMPS which they HP at 150 Hz in their designs. What they did not specify is that they LP the midbass at 350-500 Hz I believe.
> 
> ...


That's a good question. I'll put the Neo10 through a battery of tests to answer this question. Distortion performance in the bottom octave has been the stumbling block of planars, at least when compared against cones. 

I have some anecdotal evidence from playing with them free air so far. 

*Excursion limitations:*
I'm very familiar with planars cringing from overexcursion. My neo8 had a distinct "cry" when crossed at 200hz even at moderate output. When they bottom out, you know it. Believe it or not I power the Neo10s full range right now on my desktop. I started by EQing out bass but after a while I left it flat and they haven't cried yet. With my 20 watt amp they seem to handle full range quite well. There is some fade on bass heavy songs, but no bottoming out at all so far. This is VERY promising. With a proper HP filter I think these will take loads of beating without overexcursion. This is a huge improvement to the Neo8. 

*Sensitivity:*
This is fantastic. Compared to the Scan Illuminator 7" (88db) these are really responsive. It's good enough that I have to fiddle with the volume knob in very small steps or it's too loud or not loud enough. When you consider the Scans were 4 ohm, their output should be the same on the same amp but to my ears the BGs are much louder. 

*Best traits:
Intelligibility* is the best I've heard in any speaker. This is perhaps the biggest difference from traditional drivers. Vocals are almost detached entirely from the instruments. I can play them at the smallest fraction of a watt and the speach is clear as daylight. On some songs this is so unreal I feel like the artist sucks. It's kinda like getting that HD TV and watching Resident Evil. You can tell the actors are wearing zombie masks and the background is fake in the distance. I take this to be a direct result of low inductance in the diaphragm, tests will hopefully confirm this. This trait does seem to fade away on bass heavy tracks but I'm playing them full range, and for low to medium output the clarity is uncompromised. 
The insturments are also clearly distinguished and the dynamics are sureal. At high volumes it's so dynamic percusion instruments are almost cutting. 

Strings are fantastic. I get the feeling they are almost unreal good. Is it because the diaphragm vibrates too much on it's own, aka undamped? Not sure. But if this isn't realist reproduction I might not care. 

*Now for the bad stuff.*
*Low end performance, a pass. *
It's not really robust, even when accounting for the open air dipole playback. The Scan Illuminator 7" is bassy enough in the same conditions to satisfy most people. Do I think it's got enough bottom end to work as a midrange? Yeah, I think it will do. It needs either a big baffle or a box to get down low, but I doubt 160hz can be achieved without EQ. 

*Top end performance, a pass.*
The treble gets a bit funky over 5khz or so. It's a tad flat and uninspiring. The dispersion is also rather odd and only a precise sweet spot will give a proper reproduction. It needs a tweeter. I wouldn't say it's a poor performer, as it can be easily matched with a 3/4" dome, but some small cones may inch away especially given their superior dispersion. 

So the bad is that it only works as a midrange. Don't expect much above or bellow the telephone band (300hz-3khz). But in that band, expect to be blown away.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

whoever said:


> Once CVJoint is done with them, as long as they best the scan revs, they are going in front of the Ciare 10ndh midbass here, they will be in a highly damped 5 liter enclosure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is so nutty, I love it. When you mean more on axis I suppose you mean the neo10? The woofer won't matter. You can easily cross at 250hz or even lower. I hope you are planning on having a tweeter up top, if you get a really tiny one you can get way with odd firing directions.


----------



## 24th-Alchemist (Jun 16, 2011)

cvjoint said:


> [Lower phase distortion: the surface is "uniformly" driven, and the radiating area is flat, aka equally far from listening point.]


I'm confused by this. I can't remember if you guys discussed this elsewhere but doesn't that break down with the planers used as "monopoles" tilted on A pillars -- especially for the driver nearest to a listener's ear? What is the difference in distance from the nearside ear to the top versus bottom of the radiating surface when a planar is "tilt mounted" on a typical A pillar? If the delta is, say, a modest three inches that would be ~180 degrees phase at 2.2 kHz so it would seem that the endpoints of the driver would be cancelling leading to partial comb filtering.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

24th-Alchemist said:


> I'm confused by this. I can't remember if you guys discussed this elsewhere but doesn't that break down with the planers used as "monopoles" tilted on A pillars -- especially for the driver nearest to a listener's ear? What is the difference in distance from the nearside ear to the top versus bottom of the radiating surface when a planar is "tilt mounted" on a typical A pillar? If the delta is, say, a modest three inches that would be ~180 degrees phase at 2.2 kHz so it would seem that the endpoints of the driver would be cancelling leading to partial comb filtering.


While that is true it is still a smaller delta than that of a cone with 3 dimensions. It comes down to what are you comparing it with. To me, a good reference is a dual midrange setup, and the one that makes most sense is an MTM. To match output dual 4" cones should be used at a minimum (this would also be close in dispersion patterns). Dual mids in a pillar given their sunken cone are likely to have a much more distortion prone phase response.


----------



## 24th-Alchemist (Jun 16, 2011)

^^^ that makes sense.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> This is so nutty, I love it. When you mean more on axis I suppose you mean the neo10? The woofer won't matter. You can easily cross at 250hz or even lower. I hope you are planning on having a tweeter up top, if you get a really tiny one you can get way with odd firing directions.


As in Bruton Stalker nutty? Anyway...
Yes the Neo10's on axis. I'll be using either the Airborne RT 4001 or the 5002 up top. Considering the output capabilities of the Ciare I'll most likely cross the Neo10 in the 250-300hz region. Too many variables right now to say for sure though.


----------



## goodstuff (Jan 9, 2008)

You said thanks to whoever, 
I thought you meant you didn't know where they came from, 
Nobody told me we have a member named whoever, lol.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

*First round of testing: WT2 small parameters *

Unfortunately I can't find my calibration resistor but the software was originally calibrated to my leads so hopefully the error isn't too much. 










The FS is a bit high. I was expecting somewhere around 160hz, it's around 200hz. Whether it matters or not is tough to say, the peak is so small compared to conventional speakers it's more like a wiggle. A Scan Speak 12m Revelator goes from 3 ohm to 45 ohm at the peak. Compare this to the Neo10, which has a *low of 6.7ohm and a high of 8.1 ohm*. The impedance is then ruler flat by comparison, make note of the axis. There are some wiggles but again a fraction of what conventional speakers have. The high pass will most likely be dictated by desired output together with distortion rather than FS for this guy. 

*Inductance = 0*. It's below detectable limits of the measuring equipment. 

All in all this is fantastic. The FS is high but the magnitude is so small it's really a wiggle, there is no FS.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

Thats in line with what John over at Zaph reported also, will be very interesting to see CSD plots...


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

whoever said:


> Thats in line with what John over at Zaph reported also, will be very interesting to see CSD plots...


Yeah, other than the FS is a bit higher in frequency on your pair. I went ahead and made a trip to find a resistor to calibrate my stuff. Here are the new results.

*Sample1:*









*Sample2:*









*Comments:*
By their nature these planars have ideal impedance and LE results. Even if you zoom in to observe the impedance peaks in 1 ohm steps I'd say they are very very nicely matched. FS is within 1hz. This is exemplary unit to unit consistency. 


This concludes parameter testing, partly because those are all the tools I have, and partly because that's all you can do parameter wise without breaking the driver in two and weighing things on a planar speaker. 

Next, free air performance tests: CSD, HD, FR, SPL


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

Would have liked to have seen a little lower fs, however for the intended range I want to use these for its not an issue. I know BG has stated the FR will get a significant boost in the 300-1k range when put in at least a 2 liter enclosure. My guess would be they might sound a little anemic lower down compared to the Faitals.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I'm really not sure if the FS matters that much, I mean the magnitude is so small, 50 times lower than a cone midrange. If a 1 ohm blip precluded a driver from being use in a frequency band we would exclude the majority of speakers since they have blips like this throughout. I'm more interested to see if anything happens at 200hz in the CSD and HD plots. 

I have a good feeling about these Neo10s.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

Agreed, I'm just trying to find ways to curb my enthusiasm.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

whoever said:


> Agreed, I'm just trying to find ways to curb my enthusiasm.


Lol, I can only make things worse for you. I can't wait to listen to my favorite albums through these guys whenever I can during the day. I never felt this away about the Faitals. In the back of my mind I always question my beliefs, what if it's a particular type of distortion? So I will do my best to find wrongs with these guys, but if I can't you can get your empty box back. :laugh:


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

Ya right! I want insurance, tracking numbers, signed confirmation. much modification needed to fit them in the Honda? I'm starting to consider the Raals if the test's keep going this well


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

whoever said:


> Ya right! I want insurance, tracking numbers, signed confirmation. much modification needed to fit them in the Honda? I'm starting to consider the Raals if the test's keep going this well


I started working on an aluminum baffle to mount it in temporarily. It was a few hours of cutting and it looks like ****. I'll try to beat it into shape some more. A permanent solution requires reglassing the pillars but I'll cross that bridge when I get there. 

The good news is the frame hardly moves at all. Maybe the push pull design on this cancels some of the Newtonian forces, kinda like a Tympany LAT. So I don't think my pillars have to be perfect, just sealed decently well. I can put my hand close to them and there is lots of air motion but the frame is dead. The Faitals are ripping my pods up sometimes, I put my hands against the pod and the sucker is alive.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

Have you ordered in the resin and glass yet?

I'm about to order in Tilton pedal assemblies so I can move the clutch and brake from up in the dash to on the floor.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

whoever said:


> Have you ordered in the resin and glass yet?
> 
> I'm about to order in Tilton pedal assemblies so I can *move the clutch and brake* from up in the dash to on the floor.


:shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked::faint:


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

I promise its more of crazy than anything else. Its actually the other way around, I have just taken what I've read from people like you, Highly, MattR, BowDown, Chad, DS21, Nguyen and others, even on occasion Bikinpunk. You know how that goes, there's the people you guys have learned from, so its just one big THANK YOU to all of you...


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

whoever said:


> I promise its more of crazy than anything else. Its actually the other way around, I have just taken what I've read from people like you, Highly, MattR, BowDown, Chad, DS21, Nguyen and others, even on occasion Bikinpunk. You know how that goes, there's the people you guys have learned from, so its just one big THANK YOU to all of you...


Aww that's sweet. I really just poke around with a microphone. This reminds me of a thread I wanted to show you since you are attempting a coaxial, you'll find ds21 rocking it:

Coaxial vs non-coaxial... (paging DS-21!)... - Techtalk Speaker Building, Audio, Video, and Electronics Customer Discussion Forum From Parts-Express.com

As for the Neo10:

1. I failed at getting outside measurements but I'll post them anyway.
2. I ran my Faitals through a series of tests in car to show you what I want to do with the Neo10. Tell me if you want anything else.

Will post later tonight after I teach class.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

that link was interesting, I'll definitely be playing with speaker placement. 

Just have fun with them, as far as data goes I was most interested in the CSD plots, if not available no worries, for this car system I care more about the impact it has on the sense's, in a manner of speaking. I doubt the Quads or MBL 101e's would test great, although Wilson Watt Puppies might, those are the systems that have most moved me in the presentation and what I am looking to emulate. I dont know if I'm wording it correctly...I'm using the data to a degree, but it's not the final word.

throw some power at them, crossed over properly of course, I have xtant 2200ix's bridged mono for each one sooo...


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

*Open baffle tests. *

Ideally you have the measurement setup, open air, and a way to suspend the driver without inducing reflections. It turns out 2.2 lbs handing at the end of a rod adds quite a bit of torque, my sub box couldn't really hold it very well. 

So this is a failed experiment in that I could not get the Neo 10 far enough from the light pole. LOL I'll stick to in car measurements. 










FR (200hz 24db/oct HP):









HD (1/2 meter):









CSD:









If there is anything to get from these tests is that the upper frequency extension is rather poor, it needs a tweeter. The harmonic distortion seems to be absent, so that's good.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

thanks for taking the time to get those measurements. Is it just me, those CSD plots arent very inspiring, or is that test condition?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

whoever said:


> thanks for taking the time to get those measurements. Is it just me, those CSD plots arent very inspiring, or is that test condition?


Yeah, the weird thing is that the sound got amplified like nuts at the top of the parking structure too. It has this elevated edge so that cars won't fall of I guess, but it keeps all sound and and bounces it around. At 1am my test tones sounded like a fire truck in there. Totally unexpected. A speaker like this doesn't need more than 5ms to decay 30db. 

If there isn't a difference between this and the Faital in the car, then I'm not sure it matters anyway. The car probably overwhelms the 1/2 ms difference that could exist.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

*Faital Tests*

FR 200hz 24db/oct HP
corrupted 

HD 94db (vol. 40) (distance is roughly 1 meter)









HD 99.1db (vol. 45)









HD 103.6db(vol. 50)









CSD









The frequency response graph got corrupted somehow. Seems to be happening a lot to me today. I had a printer, scanner and now the Omnimic spitting out nonesense. I'll take another before I take the Faitals down so that I can overlap them with the Neo10. 

CSDs go up to 15ms or so to rest. It seems like a lot of time to me. I'm not sure our ear could pick up the small differences from speaker to speaker unless the troubles are bad, like a metal cone at the breakup.

For HD I chose 96db/oct smoothing. The next step from here is no smoothing, but without some smoothing it's hard to read anything up top. Unlike my previous testing where I used headunit gain and balance to mute channels on the P99 this time around I used the mute function so all the other speakers are dead silent. Seems to make a big difference. It's much harder to get high output and the distortion is crazy high. Me think the Neo10 will perform better. I'll try to get them installed this weekend to see what they can do.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

So I put my Android phone next to the Neo10 today. If you lay it right on the speaker it starts the Multimedia mode or gets into car dock mode. How does it know lol. Must be the magnets in the Neo10 messes with Androids. 

Another 24 hours and I might finish this research paper. Then it's time for Neo10 install epper:


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

See, they want to be in the car!  excited to read your impression of them installed


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

whoever said:


> See, they want to be in the car!  excited to read your impression of them installed


Off to test the FR of the Faitals before I butcher my pods for the Neo10s.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> Off to test the FR of the Faitals before I butcher my pods for the Neo10s.



where will you reposition the Scan's to, rather what are some of the ideas you have for placement?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

whoever said:


> where will you reposition the Scan's to, rather what are some of the ideas you have for placement?


Tweeters are back at the top, to get a nice high soundstage.

Neo10s are in! These have to be the best mids I have ever heard. Off to get some fast food, eat it in the car, and get these puppies tested. epper:


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> Tweeters are back at the top, to get a nice high soundstage.
> 
> Neo10s are in! These have to be the best mids I have ever heard. Off to get some fast food, eat it in the car, and get these puppies tested. epper:


Looking forward to the review! Any pics? Now to send you some Raal's...


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I have to take pics during daylight so they come out halfway decent. Not sure what I'd do with a RAAL in the car, it's huge!  Plus, if I break it I can't replace it. 


*BG Neo10 vs dual Faitals *

Frequency response
30+ averages 
200hz HP filter (24db)
Both at 45 on the volume scale (that means the neo10 is getting roughly half the power: 60w vs. 100w)










dual Faital 4" in Black
BG Neo10 in Red

*Sensitivity*
This plot simply blows my mind. Somehow the Neo10 working of half power is just as loud as dual pro audio 4 inch mids (8 ohm vs dual 8 ohm drivers bridged). For reference, the Faitals have 127 cm2 of surface area, which is equivalent to your average 7" midrange. They are also rated at 91db 1w/1m or 94db in pairs. The SPL meter does read 8db or so more on the Faitals but this is simply due to the massive peak at 280hz and better low end extension. The BG is louder 350hz to 1800hz and ties after that. Basically they are equal. With some EQ work to flatten both in a car they sound just as loud so I didn't even have to change my gain settings. 

This is really unusual and unexpected imo. The Neo8 seemed less sensitive than advertised and the Faitals were clearly doing better. By comparison the Neo10 seems better than advertised. The math worked out to 5db more output for the Faitals, 2db by rated sensitivity in pairs (91db+3db vs 92db for the Neo10 factory rating) and 3db more from doubling power. But...they tied!

*SPL*

I took the Neo10 up to 106db from 300hz to 10khz. It took it no problem. The compression stayed under 1db. With only 60w on tap I stopped there. These are rated 100W IEC so they could easily get 3db more if the power is available.

Next I checked to see if the planar cringes under load. Planars tend to be frail if driven hard in the low midrange since they have little excursion. I EQ.d in enough bass to make them flat past 200hz, cut the midbass and sub so I can hear it, and cranked up a few dozen songs. Nothing, no sign of bottoming out. I drove them to about 58/62 on my headunit and the gains on the amp are maxed out for a 5v input. It was surely near clipping and there was no cringing from the neo10. Fantastic! A planar that can take a beating. 

*Frequency Response*
People talk a lot about frequency response. I'm not that into it, I only care about it if some of the peaks are resonances in the time domain. I EQ. heavily in a car anyway. 

Both roll off early. For full range use both have to be eq'd heavily to barely get to 16khz. Beaming is nasty that high for drivers this big so I don't see the point. The neo10 seems to go flat down to 200hz, remember the early rolloff is partly driven by the filter. To match them to my midbass I didn't have to boost in the 200s at all.

I cross them at 5khz 24db slopes in my car. I can't detect any dispersion mismatch up to there and it sounds better than letting the little 3/4 Scan Speak cover from 3khz or 4khz. 

Next, harmonic distortion tests!


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

*Harmonic distortion tests*

I matched them by FR since SPL is so screwy with the extreme bass the Faitals put out. I think my pods may be too small for the Faitals and that peak is resonance anyway. So I'll present the Faitals and Neo10 plots next to eachother by volume on my deck since they are matched in output more or less. 

VOL 40 (92ish db)
Faitals 









Neo10









VOL 45 (97ish db)
Faitals









Neo10









Vol 50 (102ish db)
Faitals









Neo10









VOL55 (106ish db) per _whoever_'s request to test them hard 
Neo10











I didn't test my Faitals this loud because I didn't think the Neo10 could get this loud off 60w, my bad. :blush:



*My impression:*

The Neo10 is unexpectedly, again, cleaner in the bottom midrange. I thought that would be the strength of the cone speakers. That whole area under 800hz is a mess with the Faitals and really clean on the Neo10. 

The fundamental is quite a bit higher on the Faitals, so I suppose a comparison at the same volume may advantage the Neo10. Even so, the bottom distortion is lower on the planar if you compare vol40 with vol45. Notice also how the higher order distortion doesn't pick up at all until the last test. All good signs. 

Bot have some issues up top. The Faital has dual peaks 1,500hz and 3,000hz just how the Neo10 has 1,300hz and 2,600hz. It may be my baffle resonating since it's aluminum. I'll have to beef it up if I keep them.

*EDIT: *if you look at the HD plots I made outside the car, without a baffle, the 1300hz and 2,600hz blimps in distortion are there! That means my tests outside were not all in vain. It is not by baffle that creates these little bumps in distortion. It's likely the diaphragm of the Neo10 resonating a bit. The Faital blips are also not likely my baffle as it coincides with a wiggle in the impedance plot at 3khz and shows up in Erin's tests quite clearly. 

So far Neo10 is kicking ass left and right. An all star midrange? We'll see. 

I also produced an HD plot that is smoothed the usual way at 1/6 octave:










This is at vol. 50. Beautiful performance.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

*CSD*

Done at same vol., 45. 
FR normalized 


Faitals:









Neo10:









Not sure what to make of CSDs in a car. 14ms is a lifetime in speaker decay. The car overwhelms any differences that may exist I would think.

That concludes my Sunday testing session. I hope you all enjoyed. I need to shower now.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

George, check out US Patent number 7316290...you might be interested in it.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

Is that trough at 700hz environment? I'm REALLY suprised by the results, I thought for sure the Neo10 would sound anemic compared to the Faital's in the lower midrange. I'm wondering if the CSD plot came out the way it did due to them being in an enclosure, or is it fairly lossy? Theres not much to complain about except those blips.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> George, check out US Patent number 7316290...you might be interested in it.


You mean the acoustic lens part to control directivity? These things generally have side effects. The PDR versions for example lose output to gain wider dispersion. Then there is diffraction and so on. At the end of the day a dedicated supertweeter can be implemented more easily I think. I was surprised I could cross it at 5khz without any sort of directivity mismatch. Zaph's off axis plots show why, it does very well horizontally and my ear is in the top third of the frame, height wise, so vertical dispersion doesn't matter for my install. 

Today I'll measure the horizontal and vertical radiating surface and compare it to the Faital.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

whoever said:


> Is that trough at 700hz environment? I'm REALLY suprised by the results, I thought for sure the Neo10 would sound anemic compared to the Faital's in the lower midrange. I'm wondering if the CSD plot came out the way it did due to them being in an enclosure, or is it fairly lossy? Theres not much to complain about except those blips.


The 700hz dip is my car for sure, and it only happens for the right side regardless of location. I tested 5+ Honda S2000s with very different setups and the right hand side always has that dip. I also measured the dip in all my installs using various speakers. It's hard to get absolute results, if not impossible in a car. 

The low end performance of the planar is fantastic. Not sure how it does this well. My guess is that the push-pull design fares a lot better in my pods. It doesn't rock the pod as much. The other part is the wicked small impedance peak. The Faital rings 50 times more at FS. In my pods the FS on both is dangerously close if not within intended bandwidth. For example, I EQ. 200hz 8 to 9db down on the Faitals. The Neo10 gets + or -1 db. Pretty flat as expected. 

The clarity is actually quite creepy. I can head distortion in my midbass pretty easy now. I feel like I should either get my but going and install the Scan Speak 7"s in the doors sealed or get some Tympany Lat's for a clean push pull design.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

My vote is do both the Lat and Scans!


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

whoever said:


> My vote is do both the Lat and Scans!


We should start thinking about what you'll get back for these BGs. You are not getting themselves back so...


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I love my Neo-8Ss...just miss the impact of horns.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> I love my Neo-8Ss...just miss the impact of horns.


Put another set of Neo8S's in


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> We should start thinking about what you'll get back for these BGs. You are not getting themselves back so...


 :surprised:


Raal 140-15's would be nice


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

My first choice was the Neo 10s...


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I'm not a big fan of horns. I agree that they have nice output. After that, they are hard to tune, which is not unsurmountable. But, they have an odd range 1khz-18khz, and it seems to me like they have uncurable time domain problems. Since you can get high output easily 1khz and up through other means I don't see the point. 

Some will say they have great dispersion pattern control. Well, how come I see the same mouthpieces on all of them? Why isn't anybody fine tunning them? I prefer omni dispersion anywho. 

The Neo10s aren't a perfect midrange, the narrow peaks at 1.3khz and 2.6khz being evidence, but imo are better than other alternatives. If you go horns or 10" midranges I bet you'll play them loud to feel they are special. The Neo10 sounds special at any output level. OH, I have the perfect analogy for this. Do you all know the Dodge SRT4? I had about half a dozen kids trying to race me in those on the freeway. I drove one before, that's what it's built for, and only that: straight line racing for kids on a budget. Can you enjoy it's dynamics on a track? no. Can you enjoy cruising, no the transmission feels like it's out of a truck. Do you feel like touching it's body panel curves before driving it? No, it's a rather practical economy car deep down. Same with other mids vs. the BG neo10. The Neo10 has it all, some only have output, some only have bandwidth, and none can get close to it's ineligibility. I bet that nonexistant inductance really clear up the midrange, and perhaps it makes this a jewel.

Thank you BG for releasing this to Diyers. It's a steal.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

whoever said:


> :surprised:
> 
> 
> Raal 140-15's would be nice


I don't have those but I do have 4 Faitals? 4 for 2, deal or no deal?


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> I don't have those but I do have 4 Faitals? 4 for 2, deal or no deal?


:laugh:


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

*Install:
*



















Fiberglass sealed enclosure, my guess is that it is 2l or so, like BG recommends. The front baffle is aluminum, it's kinda thin but it does the job. I used both rubber and foam gasketing tapes from Home Depot. They are a helluva lot more expensive than the PE stuff but with shipping it would have been the same for one job. There are 2 to 3 inches of space behind the planar, again, like BG recommends.

I don't have any treatment on the pod (not recommended by BG ). I'm going to take the leather off eventually, make the front baffle out of MDF, dynamat the interior and drop open cell foam in there, about 1.5" of it. That will absorb the entire sound wave 900hz up and partially bellow that. 

Either that or rebuild the pods to make them blend in with the glass pieces as much as I can:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1569693-post23.html


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

Oh, ummm, they look terrible in there, you should really put the faitals back in.
Great review so far, my vote is for you to rebuild the pods the way you know you want to.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Not sure what I would want the pods to look like. The way it is now I get more depth behind the driver. To make my omni idea work I will have to reduce the depth otherwise there is no point. The lower the depth of the enclosure the closer it will be to the glass and make the omni work better. 

*Dispersion*
For this section I will present physical measurements. I can't do accurate off axis plots in a car.

Faitals
Width 3 1/8" (measured from peak of surround to peak of surround)
Height 9 1/8" (of the entire MTM ----//----)
CTC 3" (center of tweeter to center of mid)

BG Neo10
Width 2 7/8" (slot to slot)
Height 8 1/8" (slot to slot)
CTC 2" (slot to center of tweeter)

The Neo10 then should move the beaming point farther out in the frequency domain as both dimensions are smaller.

Coherence should also be improved since the CTC is also smaller. This also allows a higher cross point between the planar and tweeter. 

Some will say, but hey, the tweeter is in the middle in the MTM isn't that better? It's more like between and the CTC distance is longer. Stage height also suffers. With the planar it matters less that it's not in the middle because the midrange is now one unit and again the CTC is shorter. 

Win Win imo, BG pulls ahead imaging wise. Not to mention, and therefore mentioning, the diaphragm is flat which is ideal. Conventional drivers can be made flat but I'd think the breakup would move down and wreck havoc in HD.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

Wouldnt the Neo8S push beaming, in the frequency domain, out even further? Given your looking to create an omni, so to speak, it would also allow you to use a crossover point even higher with the tweeter. Not sure about the low midrange performance of the 8S but given it has the upgraded motor similiar to the Neo10 Id imagine you could cover 300-6k with it, or close. And you have that wonderful Illuminator to use @300 and down.


...Trying to find a way to get them out of your car


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

whoever said:


> Wouldnt the Neo8S push beaming, in the frequency domain, out even further? Given your looking to create an omni, so to speak, it would also allow you to use a crossover point even higher with the tweeter. Not sure about the low midrange performance of the 8S but given it has the upgraded motor similiar to the Neo10 Id imagine you could cover 300-6k with it, or close. And you have that wonderful Illuminator to use @300 and down.
> 
> 
> ...Trying to find a way to get them out of your car


Yeah, the Neo8s can probably be crossed even higher. The cross point between a tweeter and the Neos is not hard at all, I prefer 5khz but 4khz or 3.1khz can easily be pulled off with the Scan 3/4". The bottom cross point is the hard one. Since my midbasses, and well almost everyone's but yours are very low and far from the mids a lower cross point is very useful. The Neo8s appears to be good for 400hz as an equivalent to the Neo10 200hz cross point. BG crosses the Neo8s as low as 270hz in some designs but those are always multiples. 

I would use that Illuminator up to 2khz in an install where it's up on the dash. But between 300hz and 2khz I much prefer the Neo10 covering it.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

jimbno1 said:


> I haven't messed with these but I have my doubts you could get decent output at 150 Hz unless you were using multiples in a line array. They may play that low as a single but at what volume?
> 
> I have some 8" planars from VMPS which they HP at 150 Hz in their designs. What they did not specify is that they LP the midbass at 350-500 Hz I believe.
> 
> ...


Call me cynical, but I think the #1 reason that Brian Cheney from VMPS uses the Sonigistix panels instead of BG is that it gives Brian an 'exclusive.'

IE, you won't see the Sonigistix panels in a competitors speaker, so he has a marketing edge.

I have the Sonigistix panels here and the BG panels here. For the money, the BG's are spectactular.

I'm not saying it's the ultimate midrange EVAR, or that it absolutely destroys the Sonigistix, just that it's clearly a well built and well engineered panel.

Now that they've been kaput for nine years, the Sonigistix panels are getting collectable too. I saw a set of four sell on eBay for $110 last week, and I picked up most of my stash for well under half that, when they were more readily available.

To make a long story short, the VMPS panels are nice, but so are the BG panels. If you can't get the VMPS panels, I think anyone would be happy with BG, at this price point. Now if neodymium keeps going up that might be a different story.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

cvjoint said:


> *Open baffle tests. *
> 
> Ideally you have the measurement setup, open air, and a way to suspend the driver without inducing reflections. It turns out 2.2 lbs handing at the end of a rod adds quite a bit of torque, my sub box couldn't really hold it very well.
> 
> ...


You did your measurements in a public parking lot?! That's dedication 

Back before I had a garage, I used to drag speaker boxes out to a public park so I could work on them after 10pm. I lived in an apartment so even hand tools would generate complaints from the neighbors.

One night, when I was making sawdust at the park, a cop car rolled up. Dude thought I must be a tweaker, considering I was out there at midnight on a Saturday sawing away 

If only I had a battery operated saw I could've made quick work of it!


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

cvjoint said:


> Yeah, the weird thing is that the sound got amplified like nuts at the top of the parking structure too. It has this elevated edge so that cars won't fall of I guess, but it keeps all sound and and bounces it around. At 1am my test tones sounded like a fire truck in there. Totally unexpected. A speaker like this doesn't need more than 5ms to decay 30db.
> 
> If there isn't a difference between this and the Faital in the car, then I'm not sure it matters anyway. The car probably overwhelms the 1/2 ms difference that could exist.


My latest soapbox is good phase response, and that's the main reason I'm (probably) not going to use the neo8 in my car.

Basically, due to the flat diaphragm, you get ultra wider dispersion. Which means a crapton of early reflections. (Since the beamwidth is so wide, objects that are as far off as 90 degrees are 'illuminated' by the panels beamwidth.)

Plus, the flat diaphragm means that sound at the edge of the panel arrives later than sound at the center, further screwing up the step and CSD response.




I'm not 100% opposed to the NEO 8 though; it *does* sound clean, if you can get it away from anything reflective.

One idea I had was to mount it at eye level, but *suspended*. Similar to what JL Audio did with their GTI a couple years back, where the tweeters are on metal rods, to move them away from reflective surfaces.

The Coup De Grace is to put a PVC 'lip' on the NEO 8. The 'lip' would reduce edge diffraction, via the exact same methodology that it reduces edge diffraction in my Homster project:










From the top, the NEO 8 would look like a figure eight.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Patrick Bateman said:


> You did your measurements in a public parking lot?! That's dedication
> 
> Back before I had a garage, I used to drag speaker boxes out to a public park so I could work on them after 10pm. I lived in an apartment so even hand tools would generate complaints from the neighbors.
> 
> ...


It seems a bit too much but it was worth a try. It was a bit useful to pick apart hd in a freer environment.

I think you may be right that the off axis spl is a bit higher with the planars. Thats why the summed fr matched the faitals output but the hd fundamental, which is one mic position showed much lower output. I personally like the wide dispersion. There is no way you can get useable pattern contol in a car for a wide enough frequency range. Part of your fr band is omni as dictated by our hearing mechanism. It will be half assed at best.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

The price of the BG Neo10 has just spiked to $200 a pop at PE. It also has been out of stock for months and months. Looks like there is a lot of demand, people are noticing them. 

Whoever, I hope you got yourself some after these. You just earned $45 in each lol


----------



## Eskil (Apr 2, 2012)

In my experience this driver loses a lot of it's great sound when boxed. I'm curious to your findings regarding this matter.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Eskil said:


> In my experience this driver loses a lot of it's great sound when boxed. I'm curious to your findings regarding this matter.


It doesn't sound as good as dipole, but the difference isn't huge. Even sealed if the rear wave is absorbed entirely (via open cell foam) it should should very good. 

In a home I'd prefer omni, aka lots of them sealed in a cylinder shape with the entire rear wave absorbed. Dipole next. In a car you have to seal them, or at least some of the back wave will come back through the diaphragm. I haven't done any treatment on their box yet. I have some absorbent materials ready.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> The price of the BG Neo10 has just spiked to $200 a pop at PE. It also has been out of stock for months and months. Looks like there is a lot of demand, people are noticing them.
> 
> Whoever, I hope you got yourself some after these. You just earned $45 in each lol


I did, The only way I would get rid of mine would be if someone gave me another set in trade.  

There worth every bit of the $200.00 and then some.


When are those SLS's coming out?


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

Heard these today. They are all that and a bag of chips. Time to update the midbass George


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

It will be a little bit of time to the midbass switchover. I have 8 drivers heading my way for the purpose of replacing two SLS 6.5". Sounds like an unfair fight if you ask me. 

I'm thinking at least 12 days until the SLS 6.5" is out.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> It will be a little bit of time to the midbass switchover. I have 8 drivers heading my way for the purpose of replacing two SLS 6.5". Sounds like an unfair fight if you ask me.
> 
> I'm thinking at least 12 days until the SLS 6.5" is out.


I'm curious, what did you choose? 

I bit the bullet and ordered 2 airborne rt 5002's, wanted to give them a shot. If I dont like them Raal's are up next, they're a sure bet. Finally have the Omnimic V2 so I'll put some measurements up when they get here.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Since I've done this install I've listened to the Faitals free air and then some TB fullrange drivers too. Nothing is even close to being as exciting as the Neo10s. I've never been so sure of a driver dominating as this one. The distortion is so low in the lower midrange (I suspect from the lack of resonance/ inexistent FS) that the midbasses clearly sound like ass when they mate on the bottom. 

Since these are push-pull I decided to try out some push-pull bass drivers and hopefully get rid of rattles and resonance. Enter the LATs, 7 years after their conception I try them out. Just a little late lol.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

That's what makes it all the more interesting, I'm looking forward to the result's you have with the push-pull design...


----------



## BowDown (Sep 24, 2009)

This thread is awesome. Now I so want to try the neo10's... but really the wife would kill me.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

Well inline, somewhat, with the push-pull design, these came in today ...










Airborne RT 5002's. I'll get some measurements if I can tonight. 

She'll kill you for not having installed them sooner


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Nice! Let's hear it. I was thinking that I could use one sitting on it's belly wihtout the faceplate. Not sure how it would hold up to top down action. Try gently pushing air when flying by on the freeway.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> Nice! Let's hear it. I was thinking that I could use one sitting on it's belly wihtout the faceplate. Not sure how it would hold up to top down action. Try gently pushing air when flying by on the freeway.



Lol... AND I'd be more than happy to send you these to play with for a week if you'd like. Just no faceplate removal!  send me a pm if your interested, I didn't think you were otherwise I would of had these shipped straight to you.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

whoever said:


> Lol... AND I'd be more than happy to send you these to play with for a week if you'd like. Just no faceplate removal!  send me a pm if your interested, I didn't think you were otherwise I would of had these shipped straight to you.


Let me see how these lats work out first, I have a lot of work to do with them. Sounds tempting.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

I didn't get a chance to do FR measurments, however I did do impedance testing of the Airborne RT 5002 using DATS...










fs 1415, Q(ts)4.537, Q(ms)4.657, R(e)4.36, L(e).0076mH(10K)

on speaker B fs is 1582, L(e) is .0082(10K)


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Flat as an ironing board! I like it.


----------



## bconline (Apr 13, 2012)

Anyone have a pair of Neo10's just laying around? I'd like to buy a pair.


----------



## rugdnit (Dec 24, 2007)

CV-- when modeling these up on your pillars did you find that you pretty much had to have them very much on axis?


----------



## corcraft (Nov 16, 2010)

rugdnit said:


> CV-- when modeling these up on your pillars did you find that you pretty much had to have them very much on axis?


.....x2?


----------



## corcraft (Nov 16, 2010)

and was there a reason for using a tweeter rather than a neo3?


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

rugdnit said:


> CV-- when modeling these up on your pillars did you find that you pretty much had to have them very much on axis?


Over the past six months I've documented how to use a reflector so you can listen off-axis. It works out really nicely. Just check out my posts, particularly the thread named 'sunshine' on diyaudio.


----------



## rugdnit (Dec 24, 2007)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Over the past six months I've documented how to use a reflector so you can listen off-axis. It works out really nicely. Just check out my posts, particularly the thread named 'sunshine' on diyaudio.


Will do PB! I have followed some of your posts regarding reflectors here on DIYMA. At the end of the day I have to just start tearing down what is a bearable setup and start tweaking with it. Waiting on the PS8 release!


----------



## corcraft (Nov 16, 2010)

I was more curious as to how they would do in a 2 seater setup, on the pillar aimed at the opposite window. I am looking to do a dash mount mid and tweeter, I will probably go with a conventional 3.5" of some sort but I am also curious about these bg's as they will get loud and in this setup I will need loud.


----------



## rugdnit (Dec 24, 2007)

corcraft said:


> I was more curious as to how they would do in a 2 seater setup, on the pillar aimed at the opposite window. I am looking to do a dash mount mid and tweeter, I will probably go with a conventional 3.5" of some sort but I am also curious about these bg's as they will get loud and in this setup I will need loud.


I am quite certain that if you can fit them, they will be significantly better than a 3.5". Volume wise and SQ wise. Imagine sound being projected from a 3.5 cone vs being radiated from a nearly 5x10 surface.


----------



## whoever (Nov 21, 2008)

You may have better luck asking CVJoint over at M0Bile $ound & $cience.


----------



## niceguy (Mar 12, 2006)

Wow, pretty cool findings.....I just found the pair of small Neos that I bought at the old NPDang/DIYMA store clearance sale...about 4-6 years ago lol. They're still wrapped and boxed actually.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

rugdnit said:


> Will do PB! I have followed some of your posts regarding reflectors here on DIYMA. At the end of the day I have to just start tearing down what is a bearable setup and start tweaking with it. Waiting on the PS8 release!

































Neo 8 in a Paraline.

After first reading the Paraline patent (Patent US20090323997 - Horn-loaded acoustic line source - Google Patents), I thought the Paraline was a reflector. But it's quite a bit more. It's a conical folded horn, using a folding that allows us to change the wave shape.

This is pretty handy in a car:

1 - we can put the sound where we want it. For instance, fire the driver to the left and have the sound go to forwards or backwards. Bend it 90 degrees.

2 - change the wave shape. Make a circular source a rectangle, or make a circular source a ring, or make a circular source a square. This may sound like a subtle trick, but it's particularly handy when you're crossing over from two radiators with dissimilar shapes. For instance, from a square planar to a round woofer, or from a rectangular HLCD to a round woofer.

3 - bend the wave shape. For instance, we can take a loudspeaker and delay the output uniformly, or even based on angle(!!!)

This is some seriously crazy stuff. For instance, you could spend $200 on a DSP that will delay the sound of your tweeter. But a $5 Paraline can not only delay your tweeter, *it can delay it based on where you are sitting(!!!)* For example, delay the sound going to the driver MORE than what's going to the passenger, so that the image is centered.

crazy crazy stuff.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

rugdnit said:


> CV-- when modeling these up on your pillars did you find that you pretty much had to have them very much on axis?





corcraft said:


> .....x2?


In terms of modeling, the approach is to measure the aperture size and imagine they will beam as any other speaker of this size. That's not what I find empirically...which to me seems like better or actual evidence. 

Theory aside, in-car measurements show the frequency response of these guys is very very stable in almost any installation up to 10khz. I am now using them in the kickpanels completely off axis and I get virtually no shift in frequency response in the driver seat compared to the pillar mount. 

Kickpanel, sealed 2" depth box:








Frequency response pillar on axis, vs kick off-axis:









My best recommendation based on in car testing is that they are very usable 200hz-10,000hz. That is in terms of frequency response, distortion, decay, and spl. They are simply wonderful, I haven't tested or heard a cone that gets even close. SPL is the only area they can get surpassed, more on this below.




corcraft said:


> and was there a reason for using a tweeter rather than a neo3?


My 0.02 is the following, every technology has its benefits and they are only superior in a narrow application. I find that:

Air motion transformers are ideal for high frequency reproduction. The intelligibility surpasses all other technologies. However, to get an AMT to reproduce midrange is virtually impossible as there are so inefficient at moving large amounts of air.

Therefore, planars are the best choice for midrange use. The lack of harmonics, particluarly tall order, lack of resonance, lack of inductance variation and dispersion properties make them vastly superior to standard cones. Only BG makes a true midrange planar of small dimensions, so they virtually have a monopoly for car use. 

Therefore, I find the AMTs are superior to planars for high frequency use. The neo 3 is only better in one aspect, and that is output density. It has lower distortion than a similarly sized AMT. But if power density is a top priority, a high quality dome will still beat the Neo 3. The BG tweeter is therefore neither here or there imo and I never used it in any of my installation, yet I'm on the 4th pair of BG planars. 





corcraft said:


> I was more curious as to how they would do in a 2 seater setup, on the pillar aimed at the opposite window. I am looking to do a dash mount mid and tweeter, I will probably go with a conventional 3.5" of some sort but I am also curious about these bg's as they will get loud and in this setup I will need loud.


As I outlined above, the frequency response, distortion, and time domain behavior is text book perfect, even off axis. SPL wise, I wouldn't call them a high output design. In my testing I find that when driven hard they shriek when the diaphragm surpasses a certain output level. 

They are comparable to a 7" midrange in SPL but imagine this is how they work. For 90% of the volume knob twist they will sound noticeably better. For the last 10% the cone will have a gentle rise in distortion whereas the planars will fall flat on their face. If you are the kind of guy who runs a 7" midrange at over 90% of its capabilities then you may find a planar is not the right choice.

It will however anihilate any cone midrange smaller than 7". Maybe the new 5.5" B&Cs can get an equal SPL but you get the point.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I'll add that I don't recommend Paralines or any other obstruction on the BG planars. In car I don't find frequency response to vary much at all in various mic positions at the driver seat and much less when averaged. In turn, covering the diaphragm will most likely reduce output, increase diffraction, and increase distortion at a given SPL which are very noticeable downsides.


----------



## Inferno333 (Mar 29, 2006)

That is quite impressive!

How is the view of them from the drivers seat? Are they noticeable when you're driving?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Inferno333 said:


> That is quite impressive!
> 
> How is the view of them from the drivers seat? Are they noticeable when you're driving?


These are test boxes, and as such they don't really optimize leg room. With that said they are only noticeable if you want to use the footrest. I'm searching for the third pair of BG Neo10s. I'm going to fiberglass 3 per side in the kicks. I don't forsee the kickpanels gaining any more than 1" thickness over stock. I'm also going to remove the deadpedal because quite frankly it's too close to me to be usable anyway. I'd rather use the firewall to rest my foot. 

The box is not viewable from the driver position, it's about 7" off the ground and really far back. You can see the corner of the passenger one because the dash is more shallow on that side.


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

cvjoint said:


>


Is that a snake in a jar?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

oca123 said:


> Is that a snake in a jar?


yep.


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

damnit, i typed up a half decent reply and accidentally closed the tab.
i have been looking into these bg neos for a while but could not find a way to integrate them into my pillars. i'd forgotten about their dispersion due to their design, and it didn't dawn on me that they would work in kicks (i drive a small car also)
do you have them stacked up to improve spl?

I picked up a pair of these AMTs - The Madisound Speaker Store

not sure if I want to keep them, but I figured that once I receive them (tomorrow) and test them, if I like them (which I should, see decay below) then there will be more motivation to get some planar mids going.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Glad you guys are liking the amts. I really enjoyed mine with the neo8Ss I had. They seemed to have a bite to the air that domes don't have.

If I had deep pockets, a pair of neo10s per side with some larger amts would be very cool.


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

they would definitely tickle your legs. and these would be some very deep pockets.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

oca123 said:


> damnit, i typed up a half decent reply and accidentally closed the tab.
> i have been looking into these bg neos for a while but could not find a way to integrate them into my pillars. i'd forgotten about their dispersion due to their design, and it didn't dawn on me that they would work in kicks (i drive a small car also)
> do you have them stacked up to improve spl?
> 
> ...


I only have one AMT 5002 Airborne and one BG Neo10 per side now. I will upgrade to three planars and two amts per side during the Christmas break. 

I would be very weary of the resonance at 1,500hz. They seem to ring forever, so a high xover point is a necessity. The harmonic distortion of mine are on par with the 3/4" Scan Speak dome, despite being the largest model. don't buy the 300w rating, even if it's true (which I doubt) they will never sound good at 50w even. With new technologies output density is much smaller use the largest you can find or double up.


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

cvjoint said:


> I only have one AMT 5002 Airborne and one BG Neo10 per side now. I will upgrade to three planars and two amts per side during the Christmas break.
> 
> I would be very weary of the resonance at 1,500hz. They seem to ring forever, so a high xover point is a necessity. The harmonic distortion of mine are on par with the 3/4" Scan Speak dome, despite being the largest model. don't buy the 300w rating, even if it's true (which I doubt) they will never sound good at 50w even. With new technologies output density is much smaller use the largest you can find or double up.


Well, it was between these, and the Airborne 4001 (i think), which was the only round one I found on meniscus. Whichever one it was - it was roughly the same size as a 3.5''. I figured I'd get these first though, since there is not anything on them anywhere.
I was planning on a xover at 2500hz or so. I didn't get the test results until AFTER I ordered them and they were already shipped. They would do OK in a 3-way, but I don't see them in a 2-way unless some kick panels are involved.


Would the 4001 get loud enough?

Does it get loud enough with just one BG10 and one airborne per side?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

oca123 said:


> Well, it was between these, and the Airborne 4001 (i think), which was the only round one I found on meniscus. Whichever one it was - it was roughly the same size as a 3.5''. I figured I'd get these first though, since there is not anything on them anywhere.
> I was planning on a xover at 2500hz or so. I didn't get the test results until AFTER I ordered them and they were already shipped. They would do OK in a 3-way, but I don't see them in a 2-way unless some kick panels are involved.
> 
> 
> ...


You can see for yourself if you go to the local meet. I never had issues with output or harmonic distortion with the Neo10s mounted in pillars, but when I moved them in the kicks I lost about 6db of output and I do bottom them out sometimes. The AMTs seem to do fine but those are in pillars. The 4001 is smaller, I would cross it at 4khz minimum to feel comfortable.

How did you test the LCY AMT? You sent it off to someone?


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

Zaph tested them and said this:
"The LL2 AMT tweeter looks much better than a couple other AMT's I've tested. They are all naturally low in distortion but the trick is to get a workable response curve. The LL2 is workable but challenging. Clean and smooth enough above 2KHz to be usable."

And [email protected] said "Coming from him this is pretty high praise."

Here's the rest of the measurements:
























How about the B&G 8s?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I knew it haha, those CSDs look just like the rest he posts but Sound Easy is fairly common. Good info, and indeed they look very good. Sharp filters will be your friend, and that's really all it takes to make these guys work, just stay away from 1,500hz as that is the problem. With a 3,1khz HP 24/db like I'm using on mine I think you might get good results. 2,5khz I think it's a bit too close, maybe if you can use 30db filters or add an inline capacitor as an additional filter.

The Neo8 is a smaller output version of a BG midrange. I would only use it if fitting a BG Neo10 won't be feasible. It's several times larger in surface area.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

oca123 said:


> Well, it was between these, and the Airborne 4001 (i think), which was the only round one I found on meniscus. Whichever one it was - it was roughly the same size as a 3.5''. I figured I'd get these first though, since there is not anything on them anywhere.
> I was planning on a xover at 2500hz or so. I didn't get the test results until AFTER I ordered them and they were already shipped. They would do OK in a 3-way, but I don't see them in a 2-way unless some kick panels are involved.
> 
> 
> ...


If I remember correctly, the voice coil magazine test did suggest to use a Xover point of 3kHz or above... for both drivers the 4001 and the 5002 

Kelvin


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

Well, CVJoint, if it weren't for you, I would have an excuse.... "My car is a two door, I can't fit BG10s in there, 8 in the pillars is a stretch"
But then you come along and throw these in an S2000.

Honestly, the LL2s are probably too large, at 120mm in diameter... but we'll see. At < $100 the Airborne are definitely nicer.... law of diminishing returns...


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

FYI in case someone decides to use these in a car. I have not tested them. I am going to send them back and go a different route.
I will say that they are very nicely built, they are fairly heavy. They are too big for my pillars (for my taste anyway) - 12cm diameter. The faceplate does come off, and they could be fitted that way.

Now, given the availability of 3D modeling software, machine shops, etc. etc.
Wouldn't it be conceivable to use AMTs or ribbons, and aim them at the center of the car, but build a faceplate that would have sort of a flange and some kind of absorbing material to lessen reflectiosn from the windshield? Or would that flange have to be too large to be effective?
What about controlling these reflections and sending them towards the rear window?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

oca123 said:


> FYI in case someone decides to use these in a car. I have not tested them. I am going to send them back and go a different route.
> I will say that they are very nicely built, they are fairly heavy. They are too big for my pillars (for my taste anyway) - 12cm diameter. The faceplate does come off, and they could be fitted that way.
> 
> Now, given the availability of 3D modeling software, machine shops, etc. etc.
> ...


LCY does a good job coming up with interesting and unique designs. Props to them. I do think the AMTs will kick ribbon ass, and certainly that seems to be true for lcy vs lcy. 

Waveguides can be built for dispersion control. I believe this fails for 2 reasons in a car:
1. ratio of habitat to listener is too small
2. dispersion control requires obnoxiously large waveguides for low frequencies. 

Basically, to prevent any reflections a vary narrow beam of sound needs to be produced. If it's too narrow it won't even fit your head in it, yet that's what's required in a tight glasshouse. It is achievable in a large room, focusing on a few spots on a couch. 

Unless you want to cover your entire windshield dispersion pattern is only going to be achieved for vary high frequencies, and that's half assing it and a half. 

Omni is the way to go.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

oca123 said:


> Well, CVJoint, if it weren't for you, I would have an excuse.... "My car is a two door, I can't fit BG10s in there, 8 in the pillars is a stretch"
> But then you come along and throw these in an S2000.
> 
> Honestly, the LL2s are probably too large, at 120mm in diameter... but we'll see. At < $100 the Airborne are definitely nicer.... law of diminishing returns...


There are some big two door cars out there lols. Little roadster is a better description. You watch, 102 speaker system coming up, 3,000w rms, surface area equivalents:

Tweeter: 4 inch
Midrange: 12 inch
Midbass: 15 inch
Sub: 15 inch 

...and the same for the right side 

And for those that think it's too much, you haven't driven a screamer top down. Parking lot listening ain't a thing.


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

cvjoint said:


> Tweeter: 4 inch
> Midrange: 12 inch
> Midbass: 15 inch
> Sub: 15 inch


Oh come on... it's like you're asking for it.... but I will refrain from making inappropriate jokes 
That said my 2 door might look big on the road, but its pretty crammed int there. I don't have noise problems, even at high speeds, but there is still some noise. My wife's car on the other hand... feels like you're still in the parking lot at 85mph on the fwy.




cvjoint said:


> Waveguides can be built for dispersion control. I believe this fails for 2 reasons in a car:
> 1. ratio of habitat to listener is too small
> 2. dispersion control requires obnoxiously large waveguides for low frequencies.
> 
> ...


I generally agree with this. When I first forayed into car audio (not too long ago actually) I almost immediately tried to do processing with FIR filters, thinking I could get linear phase response in a car using time domain correction, and actually expecting it to work (and make an audible difference!)
It took a few weeks to realize that unless I was going to acoustically treat every panel in the car, dealing with reflections was not feasible and that frequency response correction and basic t/a were what I should focus on.

I did read something about mini transducer arrays that can very accurately "beam" sound, but I thought that if you were going to go this far, earphones might just be a better option.

I'm guessing you're working extra hard to have all of this stuff ready by the Dec 1st meet... looks like the bulk of it is there already. I am very much looking forward to hearing your AMTs and planars especially.
I am going to go with the Airborne 4001s. Not sure what to do about midrange since my 8'' midbass is in the doors and kick panels are not practical in my car. I guess I could mount 3.5'' mids next to the AMTs in the pillars... not sure. Maybe I'll get some input at the meet if I can make it.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

oca123 said:


> Oh come on... it's like you're asking for it.... but I will refrain from making inappropriate jokes
> That said my 2 door might look big on the road, but its pretty crammed int there. I don't have noise problems, even at high speeds, but there is still some noise. My wife's car on the other hand... feels like you're still in the parking lot at 85mph on the fwy.
> 
> *I won't refrain.  Could the world be broken down to 3 types of people? Those who brag about their penis, those who laugh at those bragging about their penis, and those who don't say anything about the penis? The first two get what they want, the last, well, he is last. :laugh:*
> ...


Hey! We had similar experiences. I built a carputer with phase correct filters. Then I realized tuning is where it's at, and I'll probably never have time to optimize a simple system let alone try out all the cool new speakers out there every day. But yeah, phase is a mess, what phase-correct filters fix is only 1/1000 of the problem. not-

Since we are talking about beams how about the mag lite? If sound was coerced into a beam like a flashlight would illuminate the driver's seat...can you illuminate the driver's head and every position it may be without illuminating parts of the car? I don't think so. 

Dood I show up rain or shine. First meet I showed up without an interior, let alone speakers, and I organized it! I get tired of hearing my car, I want to try someone else's and share.


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

cvjoint said:


> Hey! We had similar experiences. I built a carputer with phase correct filters. Then I realized tuning is where it's at, and I'll probably never have time to optimize a simple system let alone try out all the cool new speakers out there every day. But yeah, phase is a mess, what phase-correct filters fix is only 1/1000 of the problem. not-
> 
> Since we are talking about beams how about the mag lite? If sound was coerced into a beam like a flashlight would illuminate the driver's seat...can you illuminate the driver's head and every position it may be without illuminating parts of the car? I don't think so.
> 
> Dood I show up rain or shine. First meet I showed up without an interior, let alone speakers, and I organized it! I get tired of hearing my car, I want to try someone else's and share.


I went further than phase-correct filters and also tried group delay correction, etc.
As to beaming sound.... check this out: What is a parametric speaker?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

These might be interesting to mate with my horns...I love a large midrange.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> Omni is the way to go.


and done.

I've been on this train for a while now after purposely trying to beam... even going so far as finding speakers that perform well on axis outside of the beaming point so I could essentially make a straight path to my ear. all this did, however, was make the reflection points more noticeable. that's why I'm so against wideband drivers. I know people 'make it work'. I can also bust a brick by throwing it on the ground or hitting it with a hammer. which one requires less tools? in a diffuse environment, blast everything the same; don't try to work against reflections. accept them and fill the car up like a pool with 'em. it's better than the alternative of being able to pinpoint reflections in the system and suffering the consequence of poor staging characteristics. imho, of course. 


what is more along my current path (and what you guys could achieve with the multiple drivers if you weren't concerned about outside passband issues if you wanted to) is to cross lower than where we consider beaming to occur. the driver isn't omni up until c/(d/2); it starts beaming before then. typically, c/(d/4) is about the point at which the driver is still really omni. find a polar and you'll see what I mean, though most on/off axis measurements will suffice for this purpose. Note: c=speed of sound; forgo needless ambient condition corrections. that's how you achieve true omni wavefront. how necessary is it? can't say. I haven't read anything on it, though I'm sure there's literature on it if I cared to get in to it. regardless, it's something to consider as you go forward. personally, I have to do some things in order to pull this off that are outside the bounds of my wallet and my physical constraints.


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

cop out


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Good movie.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

bikinpunk said:


> and done.
> 
> I've been on this train for a while now after purposely trying to beam... even going so far as finding speakers that perform well on axis outside of the beaming point so I could essentially make a straight path to my ear. all this did, however, was make the reflection points more noticeable. that's why I'm so against wideband drivers. I know people 'make it work'. I can also bust a brick by throwing it on the ground or hitting it with a hammer. which one requires less tools? in a diffuse environment, blast everything the same; don't try to work against reflections. accept them and fill the car up like a pool with 'em. it's better than the alternative of being able to pinpoint reflections in the system and suffering the consequence of poor staging characteristics. imho, of course.
> 
> ...


cool. On the other hand the environment does offset it at times. A pillar does not have 180 degrees in its plane anyway, which may lead one to only worry about 120 degrees of polar response and therefor cross over the theoretical beaming point. All things to consider for sure.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

definitely


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

I understand the idea of trying to stay away from beaming by crossing over lower than we normally would, and I wanted to go that route as well, but it's far from being an elegant solution, since conventional cone drivers since the beaming itself is gradual as frequency increases, etc.
The solution I think would be to use flat speakers. I think there were issues with breakup, etc. but as with some of the fullrange drivers out there it seems like that condition can be "tamed"?
I think I saw some flat drivers on PE before... they should have wider dispersion than any cone possibly can, but IIRC their power handling and sensitivity were a little on the low side.
I wonder how a line of these across the dash would do. I'm guessing you would need a hefty amount of T/A.
Also, since these are flat, I wonder what would happen if you glued the front of the speaker to a window. Since at higher frequencies t/a doesnt seem to be as important as f/r, what about using a single one of these coupled to the windshield, kind of like a supertweeter, and still use tweeters on the l/r with no low-pass?

EDIT: I found them on PE. Hiwave makes them. Interestingly enough they make haptic feedback devices and.... "exciters" hmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

oca123 said:


> I understand the idea of trying to stay away from beaming by crossing over lower than we normally would, and I wanted to go that route as well, but it's far from being an elegant solution, since conventional cone drivers since the beaming itself is gradual as frequency increases, etc.
> The solution I think would be to use flat speakers. I think there were issues with breakup, etc. but as with some of the fullrange drivers out there it seems like that condition can be "tamed"?
> I think I saw some flat drivers on PE before... they should have wider dispersion than any cone possibly can, but IIRC their power handling and sensitivity were a little on the low side.
> I wonder how a line of these across the dash would do. I'm guessing you would need a hefty amount of T/A.
> ...


It is very very tough to make a flat cone speaker sound good, at least in the midrange that is.

Consider Typmpany's new line of shallow speakers:
http://www.tymphany.com/files/FLT-100N38AR01-04%20spec%20sheet%20r2_0%202011-12-16.pdf

The spider is a new clever design but it can't be the culprit here. Note how useless the speaker is over 2khz, and that's a 4"! That makes flat cone use for the purpose of extending the bandwidth an impossibility. 

The HIwave at PE seems to have similar issues controlling resonance at 2500hz, but at least the output doesn't drop like a rock. Either way, no reason to play through those cone modes. 

To have a flat diaphragm, new technology speakers need to be used, a la BG planars.


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

Agreed. I wish they would release a model that isn't as wide, but the same length. One that would be the exact size of my A-pillars would be nice 
I wonder if the Neo8s can be modified?

So, how about using one or several of these "exciters" to turn the whole windshield into a tweeter? Would the mass of the windshield be too much and cause massive distortion?
How about coupling some bass shakers to the windshield, then? kidding of course.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

BG can make a planar of any size you want for the right $$ haha. As it is you can only exploit economies of scales by going with the 8s or 10. No way you can modify them easily. The diaphragm does not have consistent traces to be cropped. 

The teonex/kaladex or traces are not see through, at least not as clear as you need it to so no windshield planar.

I never understood the bass shakers, isn't that like the opposite of push-pull manifolds like LAT? Is music the vibration of the seat or the movement of air. I sure as hell can hear music without vibrating my seat, and imo that's how it should be. 

I would basically pay not to bass shake lol


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

LOL, no, not bass-shakers, lol, these things are retarded.
I mean using an excited to have the entire windshield reproduce very high frequencies... but it probably wouldnt work, too much mass.


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

cvjoint said:


> BG can make a planar of any size you want for the right $$ haha. As it is you can only exploit economies of scales by going with the 8s or 10. No way you can modify them easily. The diaphragm does not have consistent traces to be cropped.


Oh, I'm sure the diaphragm can be scanned... and then laser cut....  but yeah.

I might call BG and let them know we car audio people exist.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

oca123 said:


> LOL, no, not bass-shakers, lol, these things are retarded.
> I mean using an excited to have the entire windshield reproduce very high frequencies... but it probably wouldnt work, too much mass.


Read something about that but the windshield was acting as a subwoofer... 

Kelvin


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

.... well, I mean I guess a 100'' sub wouldn't need much xmax to get loud... but.. i dont know....
so what did you read? did it work?


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

oca123 said:


> .... well, I mean I guess a 100'' sub wouldn't need much xmax to get loud... but.. i dont know....
> so what did you read? did it work?


Crap... It wasn't the windshield, it was the rear glass window - too bad, no upfront bass :laugh: 
Glass as a Speaker: The Car Audio Invention of the Century! | The CarGurus Blog 
Bass from Glass? Rear-Window Subwoofer Revealed by Magna - WOT on Motor Trend

Kelvin


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

subwoofery said:


> Crap... It wasn't the windshield, it was the rear glass window - too bad, no upfront bass :laugh:
> Glass as a Speaker: The Car Audio Invention of the Century! | The CarGurus Blog
> Bass from Glass? Rear-Window Subwoofer Revealed by Magna - WOT on Motor Trend
> 
> Kelvin


combine that with some of that glass etching cream sold at wallmart so you can have custom designs, and you'll have ass itching cream and bass from the ass


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Hmmm, too much bass is probably not going to bother anyone. You could probably vary the voltage and reduce the madness. There are countless ways to make sound, it's tough to make it sound good, but cool concept. 

My guess is they don't do it on the front windshield because it's a safety hazzard. 

I'm not sold on sound being isolated outside. Isn't it just like bolting a speaker to the roof panel?

"Objects May Appear Closer then Farther than They Are, but mostly on Rap and Hip Hop"


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

there are some clues that the motortrend article is not to be trusted for its accuracy, but overall it gives a good idea of how that would work.

its funny, when i found out about these exciters, i immediately thought they could be used for active noise cancellation using the windows. i wonder if they were able to get a patent on that. i dont think they have a patent on the exciters, thats for sure.

how much bass can a rear window produce though, realistically? if it were to move 2mm, that might actually screw with your ability to see in the rearview mirror.

hey, if it caught on, and they started mounting rear windows on springs, at least we wouldnt deal with obnoxious bass at 3am, because the front and rear waves would cancel outside the vehicle


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

oca123 said:


> I understand the idea of trying to stay away from beaming by crossing over lower than we normally would, and I wanted to go that route as well, but it's far from being an elegant solution, since conventional cone drivers since the beaming itself is gradual as frequency increases, etc.
> The solution I think would be to use flat speakers. I think there were issues with breakup, etc. but as with some of the fullrange drivers out there it seems like that condition can be "tamed"?
> I think I saw some *flat drivers on PE before... they should have wider dispersion than any cone possibly can*, but IIRC their power handling and sensitivity were a little on the low side.
> I wonder how a line of these across the dash would do. I'm guessing you would need a hefty amount of T/A.
> ...


I've yet to see any evidence of this. In fact, the few examples I've ever seen with on/off axis response of a flat cone driver shows it has a SEVERELY limited dispersion pattern; to the point of saying there is no dispersion to speak of. Heck, for all intents and purposes, you could say flat cone drivers ONLY beam. I've yet to see a single compelling argument for a flat driver. Not one I've seen has been able to control the cone resonance (easily identified in the impedance curve if you can't find a frequency response curve; and make sure you're considering the FR distance actually measured as this will show more resolution as the waves are propagating in real space; some companies use 1/2m measurements and add 6dB to the overall spl to normalize them to 1m which isn't terribly accurate). Tang Band drivers are a perfect example of this (look up the w4 and w3 flat models). For those reasons, I've had no reason at all to even _consider_ a flat cone driver.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

bikinpunk said:


> I've yet to see any evidence of this. In fact, the few examples I've ever seen with on/off axis response of a flat cone driver shows it has a SEVERELY limited dispersion pattern; to the point of saying there is no dispersion to speak of. Heck, for all intents and purposes, you could say flat cone drivers ONLY beam. I've yet to see a single compelling argument for a flat driver. Not one I've seen has been able to control the cone resonance (easily identified in the impedance curve if you can't find a frequency response curve; and make sure you're considering the FR distance actually measured as this will show more resolution as the waves are propagating in real space; some companies use 1/2m measurements and add 6dB to the overall spl to normalize them to 1m which isn't terribly accurate). Tang Band drivers are a perfect example of this (look up the w4 and w3 flat models). For those reasons, I've had no reason at all to even _consider_ a flat cone driver.


Are we talking about the principles of flat cones and directivity, or the realized speakers in the market with flat cones? Most flat cone speakers are bass drivers so they make different tradeoffs in other areas. 

In so far as principles go:
Flat surface has a wider dispersion pattern. See for example the manual on the JBL GTI 660, it shows how the flat part of the waveguide radiates sound compared to the concave part. 


In practice:
I think a lot of the flat cone speakers can't fight resonance very well, and that's basically where manufacturers will make other changes to the cone (other than geometry) to mitigate these effects. If you take the same cone and make it flat instead of concave it is less stiff. Less stiff cones will fall out of the pistonic range quicker, and directivity will increase (ie poor dispersion). If you add mass to strenghten it, it rings less and improves directivity but sensitivity suffers. So if you look at a realized speaker with a flat cone and directivity is poor, is it the "flat" geometry or is it the decrease in stiffness? If you could make a cone flat and maintain stiffness (by say adding more material or reinforcing ribs) wouldn't it have a wider directivity because it's flat?

The TB seems to be very good directivity wise, but still rings too much:









The FLT driver I posted also has good directivity for a speaker that size, the FR drops off steeply but it does so in all directions.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

As you stated, look at the example oca gave and you posted on MSS. the new tymphany:
http://www.tymphany.com/files/FLT-100N38AR01-04 spec sheet r2_0 2011-12-16.pdf


What happens after about 2.5khz on axis? nosedive.
this is indicative of the off-axis response (shown) as well. I've read that flat cones were initially marketed specifically as radiating in a straight wave front type fashion and this was supposed to help with side reflections (back to our mutual agreement on omni > beaming). so, that's where I draw my conclusion from. 

but, what's interesting is if you dig you'll find the w4-1757 here and the results show a nice off-axis response (provided by TB, no less).

so, which is it? do flat cones have better dispersion or do they fall off like a rock? Well, having so little to go on and based on what I've seen, I'm leaning toward the rock. But, if you have data that says otherwise, great. I had considered testing a few for this specific purpose but I don't really care enough to bother. 

bottom line: I've not seen enough on/off axis plots of flat coned drivers to say indefinitely they have a better dispersion pattern but the few I had seen in the past and the stuff I had read said the opposite. The two examples given above are in stark contrast as well. not sure why this is... not enough time to care because, as stated, the impedance shows serious modal issues. to be fair, most cone drivers have impedance ripples as well but they are not nearly as severe as what I've seen in the flat cone drivers and you don't as blatant an effect in FR due to this.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

The FLT FR does a nose dive but overall it seems pretty omni up to 8khz, a nose dive in all directions. It's probably part of the optimization Tympany makes for bass use, note the SLS6.5 does something similar, and it's if very much concave. 

They are probably more directive then say domes which are convex. Maybe that was the context for them being more directive? 

I wouldn't cast the flat cones to the curb, there are two instances I can think of where they would work great:
1. to optimize space as a bass driver (cone stiffness that low in band is ok even if flat and sensitivity higher up is not that important either even you add mass). All you get is more stroke over concave cones, a win imo.
2. nearfield for low output, omni applications. Just cast the cone much heavier, reduce resonance and get less directivity. Basically, sacrifice output to get everything else. 

Me thinks the Tympany and Alpine flat cones do no. 1. TB needs to up the cone mass to reduce cone resonance even more, because that honeycomb structure is not enough to do 2. Maybe TB tried to strike it in the middle somewhere because full range enthusiasts will used them and hook them up to a 1 w tube amp.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I own the alpine. It's a good speaker. I'll leave it at that.

As far as flat cones for subwoofer playback, that may be all fine and dandy but IF it's severe enough, given the fact that it is a resonance itself, there's a strong possibility it'll propogate in the sound system. you may not notice and be able to point to it, and it may be masked to some degree, but given that they would occur in the midrange passband, below 600hz (based on size), it's something to be legitimately cautious of. 

can't just add mass, though. other factors have to be considered. interestingly, you mentioned the full range crowd using these. if you add mass, there goes more of your sensitivity (that you already don't have because it's a full range and most full range drivers are in the low 80's). beyond lowering sensitivity which likely will alter dynamic capability (think compression) and depending on how the mass is added, altering the suspension profile which typically already limits linear excursion. all trade offs, of course. then there's the whole 'transient response' argument from the low mass cone marketeering. obviously this is part of the design but I guess my point is, if mass is key, then you can pretty much guarantee these other factors will come in. which to me just adds more negatives. in my very over generalized assessment, let's say they do get the modal issues resolved and additional mass was key. they started off at a low sensitivity and are now even lower... for what?... moving a breakup outside of the nominal passband? ummm... no thanks. I'll stick with a more conventional dome speaker with higher sensitivity and mate it with a driver that I can cross maybe a 1/2 octave lower than normal (or heck, buy two tweeters and damn the lobing Gods)... extra output, and ability to keep a much more predictable polar. it's not the perfect solution, but I view it as better than dealing with an idealized flat cone driver for the sake of an extra octave of output, assuming the marker for performance here is indeed the w4-1737 and *not* the NFT drivers because I don't like brick walls and that's essentially what the apparent built in LPF for that driver is.

as far as folks using them, I know a lot of the DIY crowd has had less pleasant things to say about them. Some still use them but the lengths they've gone through have caused others to question the usefulness at all (akin to a value debate).


Edit: You found the 1757 plot. I didn't want to dig it up again. Good job.


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> As you stated, look at the example oca gave and you posted on MSS. the new tymphany


Actually I was talking about Balanced Mode Radiators. They're not exactly speakers. I believe they are a mix between speakers and exciters, and the reason for that is that very resonance you talk about.
Check out the graphs here - http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/assets/documents/BMR_White_Paper.pdf


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

oca123 said:


> Actually I was talking about Balanced Mode Radiators. They're not exactly speakers. I believe they are a mix between speakers and exciters, and the reason for that is that very resonance you talk about.
> Check out the graphs here - http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/assets/documents/BMR_White_Paper.pdf


I have to take the following, quoted from your link, at face value:



> The modal, bending-wave operation starts in the
> frequency range where the piston-like operation of the membrane would otherwise cause
> the driver to beam, *filling in the off-axis response to maintain wide dispersion*. The result
> is a drive unit that, off-axis, operates like a piston at low frequencies, but becomes a
> bending wave device at high frequencies. On-axis the BMR is purely pistonic.


The choice of words here makes it sound like they're just talking about a rising response. Well, this is nothing new. Many companies use an increasing FR on the high end to decrease the effect of beaming (seen a few examples in the full range drivers I've tested). But, they still have a relative drop in output to the on-axis response. So, if you were to take any cone speaker, put a HPF at d/4 of (for example)* +*6dB, you'd wind up with the same kind of thing. The on-axis response would rise as well.





> In addition, the BMR radiates sound uniformly with the same dispersion characteristics
> in the horizontal and vertical plane. Although a conventional loudspeaker has even
> dispersion in the horizontal plane, *vertically dispersion is compromised around the
> crossover region* as the distance to each of the two drive units changes causing a shift in
> ...


Do what? A cone is a cone. It doesn't beam differently vertically than it does horizontally (as does a RAAL, for example). The only thing their presumed "better" dispersion is allow for a better mating of other drivers at the crossover. So, no, their driver is no better in this regard because it still beams in every direction the same. If I measure it at 30deg in the horizontal plane, I will get the SAME result in the vertical plane. Or... just turn the driver 90 degrees on the baffle and measure again at 30deg horizontally. 



They're touting this superb off-axis performance but provide no off-axis data. I'm not saying the design is BS. I'm just saying the marketing of it is disingenuous and not providing data to back up their claim of better dispersion is sketchy. I don't think companies lie. I just don't appreciate it when they go to such extents to market a product as better than others but provide no meaningful data (by meaningful, I don't mean their horribly designed conventional 2-way speaker example, either).


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Preaching to the choir haha. U know you won't see me use low output speakers or full range drivers. Even if the cone geometry makes a bit of an improvement in off axis response it's certainly overwhelmed by the size of the driver. 

If you have time domain plots for a flat sub I'd love to see it. I've always wondered how they behave in their intended band and near it.


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

I too thought the verbiage in the Cambridge documents was sketchy at best. The datasheets for the raw drivers on the Hiwave website also say "preliminary datasheet" or something of the sort.
Their low sensitivity and poor power handling do not qualify them as useable in as car audio drivers, but I don't think that is their intent in the first place. They are very cheap @ parts-express... $7.00/per or something. Maybe I'll pick some up just to see what they're about.
Also, the Cambridge document doesn't talk about the use of an exciter (piezo) to produce the higher frequencies.
Here's what wikipedia says: "Distributed Mode Loudspeaker (DML) is a flat panel loudspeaker technology, developed by NXT[citation needed], in which sound is produced by inducing uniformly distributed vibration modes in the panel through a special electro-acoustic exciter. Distributed mode loudspeakers function differently than most others, which typically produce sound by inducing pistonic motion in the diaphragm.

Exciters for distributed mode loudspeakers include, but are not limited to, moving coil and piezoelectric devices, and are placed to correspond to the natural resonant model of the panel.

[...]

Advantages

Broad frequency range (100 – 18000 Hz for 0.6m2 panel).
Less fading with distance. (For example, at 3.5 meters distance, whereas fading would be 4dB for a DML, a comparable dynamic moving coil loudspeaker would exhibit 11dB fading, compared to the signal level at 1 meter.)
The air radiation resistance is small and constant with frequency. This means that directivity is not affected by size of speaker.[7]
Bipolar (radiates sound in 2 directions), but may be made forward directed.
Flat, may be produced in different shapes, may be decorated etc.
Some DML units are designed to be plastered into walls and completely hidden.
Don't require enclosing.

Disadvantages

Problems radiating low frequencies. Increase in size makes it possible to radiate sound with lower frequencies.[3]
Low directivity and slow fading may lessen stereophonic sound impression because sound from same speaker in one ear almost does not differ from sound in other ear"

The "exciters" they talk about are little devices that will transmit vibrations to a surface you glue them to. I haven't seen or heard one, I bet they sound horrible when used full-range, but I was curious about whether they would work to excite an entire window... like a windshield.

That is all 

I've decided to order a pair of BG8s, just to get an idea of what they look like. Maybe I'll figure out a way to use them somewhere around the house.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> If you have time domain plots for a flat sub I'd love to see it. I've always wondered how they behave in their intended band and near it.


I'll do you one better:
http://www.diy-audio.narod.ru/litr/WooferSpeed.pdf

Mass kills efficiency but thats about it in terms of FR drawbacks. Inductance sucks.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

bikinpunk said:


> I'll do you one better:
> http://www.diy-audio.narod.ru/litr/WooferSpeed.pdf
> 
> Mass kills efficiency but thats about it in terms of FR drawbacks. Inductance sucks.


I thought Lycan shot this down a while back. My next quest is to understand the limitations of impulse response testing as used in the acoustics fields, minimum phase assumptions, how time domain info is stored in the impulse response, ETC curves and so on. 

For one, I don't see delay and decay by frequency in there and that's an exclamation mark for me. What's that phase plot for example:


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

The application for Danley's "Layered Combiner" finally appeared at the patent office. The device seems to have some potential applications for car audio.

(For some more in-depth information on the device, check out my threads 'square pegs' and 'sunshine' at diyaudio. In a nutshell, the Paraline and the layered combiner are devices which sum the output of multiple drivers. BUT they're also applicable to individual devices, and you can use the devices to do some weird stuff with sound, like bend a soundwave, delay a sound wave, or both!)

















The pic above is just a quick hack, but it gives you one idea of what you could do. Take a layered combiner, insert it in front of a BG Neo 8, and you can get a curved wavefront. (The dimensions in my pic aren't accurate; to be 100% correct the path on the outside needs to be LONGER than the path at the center. That's how we curve the soundwave.)


Now, you might wonder, "why would you want a curved wavefront?"

Here's why:

1) One of the big reasons that the large ribbons get ugly at high frequency is that the surface of the ribbon is larger than the wavelength being produced. For instance, 13500khz is 1" long, and the BG Neo 8 is 6" long. So as you go higher and higher in frequency, response gets worse and worse.

2) Curving the radiator reduces this effect. You can simulate the improvement using the array simulator from FRD Constortium

3) Nearly all speakers have a spherical wavefront. For instance, if you're mating a 6" woofer with a 6" ribbon, you have two varying wavefronts. The woofer has a spherical wavefront, while the ribbon's wavefront is flat. IMHO, this is probably the main reason that it's hard to get ribbons to blend with direct radiators. Basically the bigger the diaphragm is, the bigger a problem it is. I believe this is also the reason that under-dash HLCDs don't mate very well with woofers. The under dash horns have a wavefront that's asymmetrical, while the woofer is symmetrical.

All of the above is exacerbated by listening off axis, like in a car.











Here's what the layered combiner looks like in the Danley products, it's that device at the throat that's about 5" across.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Crunched some numbers with my calculator, and I think I came up with a schematic that will curve the wavefront of a flat driver, like the BGs:



















Here's the original schematic. See how the additional length on the edges creates a delay? Basically we want the center of the diaphragm to 'lead' the edge by about four centimeters.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Tom is a mad man!


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Earlier in the thread I posted some videos of the BG Neo 8 using a reflector. Basically the reflector allows you to mount the driver horizontally, then reflect the energy 90 degrees. Kinda handy if you put 'em on the dash.

Here's a couple more videos. IMHO, they sound best when by themselves. (One of the video uses a pair, basically firing face to face, so one neo8 is a reflector for the other, and vice versa.)

april 2nd 2012 bg neo 8 reflector II - YouTube

aprl 2nd 2012 bg neo 8 reflector I - YouTube


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

When you started recording video #1 a perfectly good song was playing ("**** bitches, get money") - why change it? ;-) 

What are your thoughts on reflectors used with Neo8s mounted in A-pillars?

PS: I'm not sure how to say this nicely, but one of the videos was so shaky that I started feeling nauseous. I have pretty sensitive ears and rollercoasters make me sick though.... but there should be some kind of camera you can use that has stability control.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

oca123 said:


> When you started recording video #1 a perfectly good song was playing ("**** bitches, get money") - why change it? ;-)
> 
> What are your thoughts on reflectors used with Neo8s mounted in A-pillars?
> 
> PS: I'm not sure how to say this nicely, but one of the videos was so shaky that I started feeling nauseous. I have pretty sensitive ears and rollercoasters make me sick though.... but there should be some kind of camera you can use that has stability control.


The big problem with the reflectors is just that the directivity is so darn narrow. You can hear it in the videos, as the camera moves around, the high frequencies just disappear as soon as you get off axis.

I know Geddes and Wiggins aren't fans of ribbons or planar; basically they seem to be of the opinion that anything a ribbon or planar can do, a dome or piston can do better. I'm kinda coming around to the same opinion.

Having said that, ribbons *do* have some advantages, since they're so darn shallow, so I'm not ready to write them off completely. I also think that the directivity problem could be solved with something like the layered combiner or the Paraline that Danley patented.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Patrick Bateman said:


> I know Geddes and Wiggins aren't fans of ribbons or planar; basically they seem to be of the opinion that anything a ribbon or planar can do, a dome or piston can do better. I'm kinda coming around to the same opinion.


BG Neo10:
LE 0.0000 mh
Maximum impedance variation +- .5ohm

Show me a dome or piston that can reproduce midrange signals as loud and clean as the neo10 with these properties. :surprised:

Looking through Zaph's 7" woofer category of HD tests there is not a single woofer that can match Neo10s 3rd order distortion performance. The average piston driver is 25db higher! 

What I really want to see is rise and decay performance ala Linkwitz style with BG planars vs. piston woofers to seal the deal.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

Wait you're selling them?!


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Wait you're selling them?!


Yeah, both pairs. I'm going to go with a simpler setup with a Neo8s in the pillar. I don't really need them to run down to 200hz. I can have the 10 midbass drivers go up to 500hz easily, and probably with lower distortion.


----------



## BowDown (Sep 24, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> Yeah, both pairs. I'm going to go with a simpler setup with a Neo8s in the pillar. I don't really need them to run down to 200hz. I can have the 10 midbass drivers go up to 500hz easily, and probably with lower distortion.


Copying me? Lol. Mine arrive today. 



Posted from my Samsung Galaxy S III 32gb via tapatalk 2.


----------



## corcraft (Nov 16, 2010)

hmmm....Neo8s be ok down to 500hz? Gonna loose right much volume aren't u?


----------



## BowDown (Sep 24, 2009)

corcraft said:


> hmmm....Neo8s be ok down to 500hz? Gonna loose right much volume aren't u?


All depends if they are on-axis or off. I'm going to shoot for 400hz @ 36db crossover point on mine. I need to get at least 90db for SQ comps.. So in a few days I should know how they perform compared to the neo8-PDR's. Which @ 700hz did meet those requirements.


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

Hey CV double check that the two that you have are yours. I am looking at mine right now and I think these might be yours.
How much are you selling yours for? Don't you have 4 of them?

BTW, that resin cured. guess you gotta shake the bottle next time


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

BowDown said:


> Copying me? Lol. Mine arrive today.
> 
> 
> 
> Posted from my Samsung Galaxy S III 32gb via tapatalk 2.


The greatest form of flattery is imitation. 

I expect to race this car a lot on the weekends from now on and I want to see the corkscrew at Laguna Seca. So pillars are out. Kicks are out because I need all the space I can get by the clutch pedal and want to keep by dead pedal. If I have any room at all in there I'll vent the 10"s in the chassis. I don't want to compromise my 10" midbass box to get two neo10s in there, I think one Neo8 in the pillar will do fine with a higher crossover.



corcraft said:


> hmmm....Neo8s be ok down to 500hz? Gonna loose right much volume aren't u?


I don't think SPL is going to be an issue. They really won't lose output above 300hz or so. The FR plots you see on the BGs are usually free air so there is a lot of cancellation. I'll be enclosing mine. 

The crossover will be optimized through HD plots. I'll cross the 10's with the Neo8s where I can achieve the lowest HD @ ~ 105db per side. I've had good luck with this rule. The 10" woofers have a surround resonance, like most 10"s around 700hz. That's why I was aiming for 500hz.

Second goal is to achieve nearfiled worthy CTC spacing. 



oca123 said:


> Hey CV double check that the two that you have are yours. I am looking at mine right now and I think these might be yours.
> How much are you selling yours for? Don't you have 4 of them?
> 
> BTW, that resin cured. guess you gotta shake the bottle next time


I have 4 of them. 2 are still in the car being used, and the two I grabbed from you I put on sale. I suspect the ones I grabbed are mine, they have wires attached just like the ones I dropped off.

They are listed for $125/piece in the FS subforum.


----------



## oca123 (Aug 16, 2010)

I soldered wires on mine too. I just can't remember if I used the real thick wires or not.

Anyway. I'm still going with Neo10s in kicks. Got my new 8'' midbass drivers today. Once they're in, I'll have to figure out how i'm going to make the neo10 blend in with the interior


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

whoever said:


> I didn't get a chance to do FR measurments, however I did do impedance testing of the Airborne RT 5002 using DATS...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Note that it's semi-impossible to measure the FS, qes and qms of a ribbon, because those parameters are based on the shape of the speaker's impedance peak, and ribbons basically don't have one.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Patrick Bateman said:


> Note that it's semi-impossible to measure the FS, qes and qms of a ribbon, because those parameters are based on the shape of the speaker's impedance peak, and ribbons basically don't have one.


The FS is useful. For some of these planars/AMTs you may not want to play through the wiggle. It is a resonant frequency and it will ring. It's one sure way of making them shriek with little power input. 

The Qs are worthless, but then again do they matter in tweeters ever? 

The other useful bit about FS and these types of drivers is that it can vary quite a bit. Use it to match pairs of drivers or to get the widest bandwidth by picking the ones with the lowest FS.


----------

