m00n Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 I think the question says it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbley Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 My understanding of a tapered array is that it's a 3 way but two of the drivers overlap in the bass frequencies. So only one driver does the midrange, but both do the lower frequencies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 It keeps the main vocal frequencies in a single driver, one of the woofers. It is one of the truly special engineering feats of the RC7. It keeps slight timing differences from blurring the critical dialog channel. This in one item that I have been harping over for years, yet others pay no heed, contending that the only true measure of a center speaker is TIMBRE MATCHING. NO OTHER CENTER speaker has it. Not the KLF-C7, not dual Heresies, not even the much-heralded Academy. I'm done- flame away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted March 23, 2005 Author Share Posted March 23, 2005 Hmmmm.... I know the RC7 has it... Just donned on me that I didn't know for sure if it was just analagous to a 3-way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Well it's three separate networks, one is hipass to horn, one is lopass to one woofer, one is a special bandpass to other woofer so it goes all the way low, but on the high end, stops short of the vocal range, therefore only ONE woofer handles the vocal range. So three-way, kinda, maybe.. It's very specialized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted March 23, 2005 Author Share Posted March 23, 2005 I wonder if converting my RF7 center into a tappered array would be beneficial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 It's a two and half way. Rick, I don't know much about HT receivers, but can't you just cut out the lower frequencies from playing through your center RF-7s? Relieve it of having to reproduce the low frequencies, and the midrange will clean up considerably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 The benefits of a tapered array are only noticed off-axis from the speaker. The on-axis signal recieves no benefit from a tapered array, so if all your listeners are on-axis, then you don't need to worry about it. Nevertheless, it'd never hurt to build one for yourself. If nothing else, it'd be a bragging right, or another fact that you could ramble about to impress the new visitors to your HT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Even on-axis, wouldn't there be less comb filtering effects? Cutting out that driver early also reduces IM distortion - always a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 On-axis both drivers are the exact same distance from you and thus there is no lobing. If there was, then you would most certainly expect lobing to occur when listening to mono material in 2 channel (which isn't the case). Having both drivers running at the same time actually reduces IM distortion as well because having two drivers gives you an additional 3dB of output for the same excursion (which means less cone excursion for the same SPL). In fact, converting to a tapered array lowers the sensitivity of the system, which means a little attenuation of the HF section will be necesary. You'll notice that the RC-7 shares the same HF section as the RF-7 which is rated at 102dB sensitivity. The RC-7 also shares the same woofers as the RF-5 which is rated at 99dB. Yet the RC-7 is rated at 98dB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted March 23, 2005 Author Share Posted March 23, 2005 How do you know all this DrWho? You going to school for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 No, he probably just gets more sleep than we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 lol Though I'm going to school for it, I'm still doing the gen-ed crap (which is why i didn't hesitate taking that job in michigan which i've since quit). The little bit that I have picked up comes mostly from reading this forum and then finding other websites that discuss the topics mentioned. I also started mixing live concerts at the age of 8 and then mixing in the studio at around 14, which has it's own pool of learning as well. I picked up a lot of concepts simply because I had to. Ironically, I never really started listening to recorded music until I was 18 or so...and even then, it was only when friends were in the car with me. It wasn't until I met nightwish back in 02 that I started listening hardcore just for the sake of enjoying music. Anyways, I'm basically a product of having WAAAAAY too much free time and the annoying need to know how everything works and why (sadly not limited to audio). Anytime a new concept is presented, I'll go reading about it until it makes sense. In which case, I'm usually presented dozens of new concepts which just perpetuates the cycle. Right now I'm reading about cabinet construction (like ports and TL designs), which is quickly getting me into the realm of horn construction (yuck). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted March 23, 2005 Author Share Posted March 23, 2005 Right on.. I used to be like that with software engineering. Now it's old hat. Samething over and over, mostly because of the type of development I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmtnbikr Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 "NO OTHER CENTER speaker has it. Not the KLF-C7, not dual Heresies, not even the much-heralded Academy. I'm done- flame away." Fire! Fire! Fire! LOL! Actually even my poor little RC-25 has this feature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 well i think he meant the entire reference lineup, but whatever I noticed the new synergy lineup has it as well...Basically, the new stuff uses it because they only thought of it recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klewless Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 It seems to me that "comb filtering effects" are an issue only if you are moving around in the sound field. If you are sitting in one spot you cannot hear what the drivers are doing to each other someplace else! And I always sit in one spot. You know, one of those freeks who actively listens to the rig, then turns it off when done. When I really want to hear bass, I sit in another room. Have been tempted to put the sub in that other room so I can hear it where the system resides. But only tempted at this point in my life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boom3 Posted March 25, 2005 Share Posted March 25, 2005 The classic definition of a tapered array is an array of identical drivers, operated in the following manner. By using absorptive material, or by network(s), only the center driver transmits (or in the case of the network-based approach, receives) high frequencies. Some tapered arrays route mid-freqencies to the drivers above and below the "tweeter" thereby creating a sort-of MTM arrangement. The advantage of this is that the line array shrinks with frequency, reducing lobing effects. This concept is hardly new, it's been around for at least 50 years! I'm not sure approaches using just three different drivers qualify as an array of anything. B&O used a "2 and a half" approach years ago to fill in the notch between the woofer and the mid. It was an interesting idea, but with more recent thinking, i.e. MTMs using Linkwitz-Riley 24dB/octave networks, it was a technological dead end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.