Speakers on a flat panel, all of them. Anything special?

I agree that it's a mistake to assume the Time Window's stellar qualities are a result of a specific design factor. Eberbach pulled off something magical with them, but his other designs are (to my ear, and the ones I've heard, obviously) very good but not as jaw dropping (and long term jaw dropping which is much harder). So I am not sure that even he knew what made them work. Plenty of people have made somewhat similar speakers (usually at much greater cost), but you don't hear about them as much - magic is hard to produce but obvious when encountered.
 
I agree that it's a mistake to assume the Time Window's stellar qualities are a result of a specific design factor. Eberbach pulled off something magical with them, but his other designs are (to my ear, and the ones I've heard, obviously) very good but not as jaw dropping (and long term jaw dropping which is much harder). So I am not sure that even he knew what made them work. Plenty of people have made somewhat similar speakers (usually at much greater cost), but you don't hear about them as much - magic is hard to produce but obvious when encountered.
Of course he knew what made them work. o_O
 
Does that mean that he decided not to use the magic on later speakers?
 
I always considered the Time Windows (1980s) to be a development of the EPI/Epicure designs of the 70s, and i am sure there were designs in the 60s that caught the attention of the EPI designers.
 
Not sure I see any resemblance between EPIs and Time Windows. Sealed vs TL/ported, inverse dome vs regular dome, absolutely minimal crossover vs more sophisticated, conventional box vs oval-ish column. Both offered relatively flat response and good treble extension at reasonable prices, but that's not exactly a connection.
 
The "Sub" is installed in an infinite baffle arrangement, mounted in the crawl space, basement, attic. So, it's never seen, just heard. :D

View attachment 1377103

Years back I saw someone over at Audioholics do an install with the biggest version of that pulse fan sub and they were getting excellent results ,I'm thinking they were easily hitting 10hz with that thing ,I'm gonna check tomorrow to see just how low they mesured that thing .
 
Years back I saw someone over at Audioholics do an install with the biggest version of that pulse fan sub and they were getting excellent results ,I'm thinking they were easily hitting 10hz with that thing ,I'm gonna check tomorrow to see just how low they mesured that thing .
Bruce supplied a set for the Trinity church TELARC Cameron Carpenter "Revolutionary" recording sessions with the resident Marshall and Ogletree digital sampling organ.
 
And I've been getting more into speaker design, and I know the idea has been around forever, but: Is there anything special about a given number of speakers splayed across the front of a speaker?
That concept was introduced by Roy Allison with his Model One, formerly of Acoustic Research for placement up against a wall. The big EPI 1000 shared a similar "two faced" design strategy.

I guess the reason why you don't find that concept used as much today is coherency. Wide tweeter spacing does cause comb filter effects that tend to blur the image.

And, as much as I am skeptical of flat panel design, I am also dying to hear a pair of mangeplanar speakers.
I confess that I've been a fan of large dipolar planars since I was a teenager. Magneplanars have been around since 1970 and current models are considerably better than older versions. I suggest you audition a pair to get a point of reference. With dipoles, the room becomes the "cabinet" and thus the panels must be placed away from the front wall for optimum use. In the dedicated main system upstairs, the big stats are 8' out into the room. Downstairs in the HT, they are only about 3' away. I use a Magnepan MMG-C center to match the Acoustat 1+1 mains which is also a full range design. I find dipoles provide a more realistic perception of depth without sacrificing clarity.

As a coherency freak, I prefer the full range electrostat flavor using a single driver (or multiples of identical ones) to cover the entire range.
 
Last edited:
Alison was going for wide and uniform dispersion and getting the woofers as close to the floor and wall as he could with the angled fronts of the One and Two. That made in room response more predictable, particularly since the speakers were essentially unusable in any location other than the one intended, against the wall, away from the corners.
Other angled driver systems may be less rigorously thought out, even though some sound excellent (and many not).

To respond to the OP's original question, there does not seem to be any consensus about the ideal number of drivers. A strong argument can be made for one being the correct answer, since it creates a point source, but translating that into a full range speaker is a very great challenge, even if whizzer cone or coaxial drivers are accepted as meeting the the definition. The more drivers used, the more comb filtering there is, and if the drivers cover different frequency ranges, they may interfere less, but phase relationships and the effects of crossovers become issues. The farther away you are from the speakers, the less some of these problems seem to matter, though, of course, getting far away requires the speakers to be able to produce more volume to fill a large room, and that is another issue.
 
I use point source drivers (vintage EV LS-12 triaxial) on a small open baffle sitting on H-frame 15" subs. Have no desire for multiple drivers or propeller bass (I can hit 20 Hz, which is low enough). Why make things complicated? OB's driven by 10 watt SEP amp. Those vintage speakers love it! Image good, too.
 
I use point source drivers (vintage EV LS-12 triaxial) on a small open baffle sitting on H-frame 15" subs. Have no desire for multiple drivers or propeller bass (I can hit 20 Hz, which is low enough). Why make things complicated? OB's driven by 10 watt SEP amp. Those vintage speakers love it! Image good, too.
Oooh, please post some pictures. :)
 
Oooh, please post some pictures. :)
They are butt-ugly right now. I built it all from unfinished MDF as a proof-of-concept idea. I plan on taller baffles with short wings on the finished project. Will have to wait for warm weather. It was -20 degrees this morning. Not working outside for a while. I'll charge up my camera batteries and take some pics later.
 
They are butt-ugly right now. I built it all from unfinished MDF as a proof-of-concept idea. I plan on taller baffles with short wings on the finished project. Will have to wait for warm weather. It was -20 degrees this morning. Not working outside for a while. I'll charge up my camera batteries and take some pics later.
Jeez Louise, to think that I was grumbling about us getting stuck with a high of 42 degrees F. :)
 
upload_2019-1-26_18-17-9.png

Like I said, ugly. The metal grill is to protect from my two 60 pound dogs tails. The one dog's tail could tear a cone beyond repair.
The 16" x 16" baffle isn't ideal. It's what I had. They are adapters to fit a 12" driver into a 15" driver opening. When Spring gets here, I'll rebuild the top and paint the whole thing nice.

Dave
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-1-26_18-14-26.png
    upload_2019-1-26_18-14-26.png
    349.4 KB · Views: 1
Back
Top Bottom