monacor advantage system
Printed From: Speakerplans.com
Category: Plans
Forum Name: Other plans
Forum Description: Discussion / Questions about all the other plans
URL: https://forum.speakerplans.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1915
Printed Date: 27 March 2026 at 8:46am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.08 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: monacor advantage system
Posted By: james folkes
Subject: monacor advantage system
Date Posted: 24 May 2005 at 8:17am
|
came across this booklet promoting monacor branded drivers whilst
looking for information on mckenzie. users.libero.it/creat/Pdf_altro/ manuale_autocostruzione_casse.pdf (if that doesn't work google mrh-3244 and it's the 4th one down) the advantage system, pages 5-11 and page 75 for top construction, looks interesting for pubs and house parties. it'd go in a hatchback with the seats down i reckon. anyone heard these designs? they seem to target the german home market... subs: i like: small portable and modular subs, easy to carry. suitable for small venues, relatively high output? only required to fill small frequency band so good application of bp box. specifies high sensitivity 100w 1dB driver. it would be easy to use a different driver and tune with bass box pro. i don't like: steel chassis. tops: i like: good looking spread of drivers to ensure adequate frequency response. crossover frequency should ensure adequate high-mid/ high dispersion. passive crossover design included. good use of cabinet space. braced drivers. small system footprint. adequate height without stands? high efficiency drivers specified. i don't like: inherant lack of time alignment between drivers. mixture of horn and reflex technologies. adequate low-mid dispersion questionable. not enough power in the 100-150 hz range? low mid and bass cones seem to share enclosure (surely not!). any thoughts? i have asked monacor to send a price list and catalogue, although i cannot find the 10" fibreglass mid horns anywhere on their website anymore and they may be discontinued. james. |
Replies:
Posted By: tb_mike
Date Posted: 25 May 2005 at 8:11pm
Some thoughts:
No bad effect apart from internal rear wave reflections bouncing out of the lightweight cones.
Direct radiator 15" works well enough. Use an HD15  Most cant fit the horn required for 100hz(1.2m straight horn)
Nothing wrong with reflex.-At the Fc the DI of a 15" direct radiator is very similar to HF horn = good,rather than an omnidirectional tweeter. You dont want large charges in off axis directivity,affects sound at listening position on axis when indoors.
Stick HD15s underneath 
150hz horns not possible.
Extra cost or DIY
Hardest part of all. Active 4th order solves alot of problems including damping factor etc. Passive filters have their place but for the higher fidelity systems active is a must. Have you read up on the characteristics of passive filters? It will make you feel sick   Only expensive ring radiators look decent off axis FR dips at ~150hz-Low Qts driver probably. The sub is all BP6 super 55hz peak Dedicated midhorn will increase vocal clarity if implented correctly. Summing acoustic + electrical filters is a must for system design. Cheers Mike.e |
low mid and bass cones seem to share enclosure (surely not!).
Posted By: james folkes
Date Posted: 26 May 2005 at 4:08pm
|
hi mike, cheers man, there's some food for thought there. the above post
is a perfect example of why i love speakerplans... the thing about the 12 and 10" drivers sharing cabinet space that i thought would be a problem would be the change in internal air pressure resisting the movement of the cone, furthermore i thought the 10 required a very small volume like the mt102/122 to get higher response out of it. i did wonder how good dispersion on the ring radiator would be, strangely monacor spec the mhd-540 as being 60x60 and the advantage top as having about 90 degrees horizontal spread, these two figures sadly do not tally. i don't know if it is a particularly expensive one (~£55), the 2" compression driver it is supposed to mate with certainly is at around £250! (somehow i was expecting a lot less, like p-audio bm-d750 territory). now, the biggy: what do you mean by summing the acoustic and electrical filters, and just what is so bad about passive crossovers? the losses? the slopes? the reason i was attracted to this ickle system was its ability to run off two amps and an active crossover for simple plug and play events, the lynch pin being the passive filter network in the tops. making the subs as a bp3 (i get confused about the nomenclature, i mean venting off both sides of the driver though like x-1 or eminence designs) would make for less of a single peak response, twin peaks at least! but is the compactness lost? yes an hd15 is a similar size and two would go underneath to make a good plinth, but surely i'd lose the bottom end response. the hd15 plot looks like a big lump at 130, and the electrovoice t18 looks like mt everest at 100, but we know they sound a little more rounded than that in groups, maybe this would be similar. i had got the measure of this system wrong in many ways, having started pricing up components they work out as rather expensive boxes; i had thought they were a bit more entry-level. it does of course mean it is not the inexpensive sollution i had dreampt of for pubs and house parties and as an unproven design that makes it significanly less attractive to build. that lead me onto thinking "ooh, i could re-tune the reflex ports to use my rcf l12p530 12" as bass, mckenzie c8-100gp on a wooden horn as low mids and fane kc18-300c on the bottom end. i'd only have to buy a 2", horn and ring radiator and some wood and bingo..." why i keep thinking crazy driver swaps like that will work i don't know; but then i thought hey, i could build one and fettle the crossover until it was nice, then repeat! this almost entirely misses the point of the design process, but is an inevitable consequence of having really nice drivers sat on my bedside table staring me out for 18 months. james. |
Posted By: tb_mike
Date Posted: 29 May 2005 at 12:44am
|
Its great to simply discuss things without any pressure from commercial companys.
The 10" probably will want its own enclosure-its doing the mid right?
Well the ring radiators ive seen on partsexpress.com,are a similar price and have shocking off axis response-unusable infact,but I know that people do use them,and normaly their only used for the extreme top end for the extra sizzle.
The final response is determined by both the drivers responses + the electrical filters overlaid ontop. Passive filters -Significant power losses in components -Lack of damping factor -Can make resonant circuits with the transducers -http://www.sound.westhost.com/biamp-vs-passive.htm -difficult/expensive for high order slopes
BP4 - one port,sealed rear BP6- port on both chambers. BP6 tend to favour vented drivers. Transient response goes out the window but it makes big noise,I would consider one for the right uses.
Yes the t18 is like that. Note that I heard a couple of t18s per side,+ 1 18" BR per side,at a drum n bass gig and was well happy with it.the 18s probably did enuf low while the t18 did the kick effectively.
But you could be lucky and end up with a decent sound ! Things to consider are - off axis pattern - Music intent/type of gig - general quality of the drivers(cheap horn with resonances etc) Tell u the truth-for my first basic PRO system id go 15" + 1" HF horn- 90 x 40 for one per side,with a reflex/bandpass sub underneath,simple as that. This way the 15" has a similar directivity as the HF horn so the off axis response is nice and smooth and not rough and crazy like a 6" cone crossed over to a 1" tweeter at 3khz For increased vocal clarity id go 3way,15" ~6" cone driver on conical midhorn to 2khz then 1" HF ,again 90 x 40 or similar unless horizontal arrays where expected then id narrow it up. People are used to bad sounds - so if your system sounds 'average' then thats ok.
Or you could just sell the components and buy some turbosound http://www.sound.westhost.com/articles.htm - http://www.sound.westhost.com/articles.htm |
Posted By: Timber_MG
Date Posted: 29 May 2005 at 2:53pm
|
@ Mike, please show me the commercial 90x40 degree horn that is 1) not
astigmatic and 2) has a power response that matches a 15" or a small
mid driver on a conical horn? Agreed that a 15"/1" is enough for most
people, especially if there is alc. involved (or other substances,
but remember the word Alba popping up somewhere in the past in
that contest but Speakerplans lacks some smilies Sj has ;-) A 6" Mid driver crossed 2k5ish to a nice 1" vs 15"/1" in the midrange and above is a very,very skewed comparison (and not in favour of the 15"/1" I might add) Edit: It just dawned on me that you may have meant hifi type setups. @ james...: the 2" is one of the 4" diaphragm P.Audios (have a look at the PA series iirc) |
Posted By: james folkes
Date Posted: 29 May 2005 at 8:13pm
|
ah, well spotted, looks a lot like the like the pa da99 or de99.
mike, i read the article on how bad crossover networks are. i do indeed see the points (damping factor bit was unpleasant reading) but the passive crossover is one of the main project aspects for me and also what enables the desired simplicity. with passive filters, just how big do the coils and caps need to be to create steep slopes with acceptable losses? i had a good link on my windows machine to an australian who experimented with phase plugs. he had a really cool site with a whole section on nifty tools he'd made, including an excellent table saw thing, can't quite remember where it was... anyway he wound his own coils and reckoned the results were well worth the small amount of effort. thanks very much for the continued input by the way, this is i think going to manifest itself in a very educational practical project. i'm now considering a beyma cp21f to get the dispersion on the high stuff. there are a plethora of tempting p audio 2" flares to complement a bm d750, maybe even go 1 1/2" with a bm d740 as it will play over an 8". perhaps rather naievely i was thinking getting adequate dispersion on the 8" up to ~2k was going to be the hardest aspect of this, i want a good 70 degrees but preferably more. so far i had got as far as copying walts conical horn from the x-tro and cutting it down a bit to fit the cab. i hope the gods of audio are smiling on me. james. |
Posted By: tb_mike
Date Posted: 29 May 2005 at 8:49pm
|
Its not a comparison-its simply admitting that the 15" wont produce the vocal clarity that a dedicated midhorn can. 90x40bi radials are meant to sound excellent-I was planning on buying the paudio clones. Perhaps in reality the HF horn isnt always matched to the midrange driver effectively,due to cheap horns or mis sized horns. |
Posted By: tb_mike
Date Posted: 29 May 2005 at 8:54pm
|
Sometimes the $/space doesnt outweigh the improvements in sound.
Not so much the size of coils,but the number of components generally large components400hz inductors,by the time you add zobels and all sorts.And all these components must be rated at speaker level eg 50-150v
Martin can comment on the HF horns.The 8" simply will get narrow when the wavelength being produced approaches the cone circumference/diameter. How narrow you ask?? A direct radiating 8" midrange simply wont keep up. http://www.linkwitzlab.com/x-sb80-3wy.htm - http://www.linkwitzlab.com/x-sb80-3wy.htm That narrow! |
Posted By: Timber_MG
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 6:22am
|
an 8" DR should have about 90degress dispersion at a touch under 2kHz.
In a horn matters change significantly and diffraction at the mouth
complicates things even further, but a conical flare holds its
dispersion quite well aboce the frequency where the mouth is big enough
to support the directivity. Now for some GedLee SPEAK32 sim
action to show you what really happens (unfortunately not quite yet) Edit: spelling |
Posted By: james folkes
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 9:03am
|
that linkwitz site is a treasure. as is his moustache. i have had a brief scan
through a couple of articles and the active/passive argument comes up again and again, i have a possible compromise in mind. i have a spare dod 834 series II which is a 3 way stereo or 4 way mono active crossover with 18 dB slopes. there is the option of using this to actively filter the 12" direct radiator reflex element from the horns in addition to driving the sub output. this gives some more flexibility in terms of giving the output of the high bass stuff a chance to keep up with the mid-high. more amps though, so a heavier drive-rack. it is a tricky balancing act this. however this way a passive crossover is only needed for the 8", 2" and 1" horn section and presumably less overall padding and fiddling will be required. i shall be using harris tech crossover-pro to do the gritty work, seeing as i have a copy i might just as well. the p audio ph-2380 at 90x40 dispersion from 400 Hz is the horn i'm looking at. i have found that the highest freqencies don't spread nearly as wide with this kind of horn/driver combo as the high mids, so this will determine the intended crossover point with the beyma slot. again, the dispersion of the 8" mid element seems to be the critical bit, i have few doubts now from experimenting with my rcf in a reflex box that the direct radiating element of the 12" will spread fine. what is this GedLee SPEAK32 sim of which you speak timber? do you know of something which is capable of modelling horn response into the midrange? obviously the alternative would be knocking up a few simple flare and 8" chamber prototypes, which is easy enough to do anyway. james. |
Posted By: Timber_MG
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 9:52am
|
You just mentioned THE app for modelling midrange horns ;-) However
using it properly might be another matter (said to have a big learning
curve). Personally I'd wait for their next release though. Otherwise
AJHorn is said to be fairly good at modelling on-axis response of
mid-horns. The above mentioned 2" horn looks like a copy from a well known manufacturer;-) |
Posted By: james folkes
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 11:31am
|
"big learning curve" are not inspiring words to be hearing at this point in
my life. AJHorn sounds worth a go, but it is off-axis response that particularly concerns me here. what i need to do i think is determine the frequency range the 8" will be playing. i like the idea of the 2" above it playing to around 2k, or just before the sound gets a bit metallic, but will the (active) crossover point with the 12" be determined by the power handling of the 8" horn at lower frequencies? power from the 12" to match can be dialed in to suit. objectives are becoming clearer for this (ambitious) system design, and i'm finding that is really helping my understanding of how to evaluate the specification of various components. i am working towards an ultra-small footprint, high portability, visually imposing stack capable of high spl in small venues and adequate levels for outdoor general public address and sound reinforcement. horn mid and top section to have excellent useable horizontal dispersion to <-10 dB @ 90 degrees across the whole frequency range. excellent separation and clarity in vocal ranges are desired functions, resolution of acoustic instruments and percussion with a bright but not over imposing sound would be nice. the bass section does not need the brutal front and projection of a horn system. for those events i have my other system. high bass will need to match system power from 80-90 Hz (how high should i tune the reflex response of this element in order to preserve low level full range operation?). ultra compact subs to be optimised for high fidelity with useful output down as low as practicable. this will be at the expense of transient response, for hard dance music in a small venue the 12" must take care of the punch. performance optimisation will lean towards fidelity over spl. i love this, the more i look (and ask) the more i see, the more i see, the less i understand. james. |
Posted By: james folkes
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 6:39pm
funny you should say that. i have just had the windows machine out to have a furtle with bass box pro. the spec driver modelled in that enclosure was indeed all 55 Hz peak. my fane classics come out as a similar shape but with a more dramatic peak followed by a flatter shelf. i want to keep the enclosure size if possible; the computer came up with a taller design with the same footprint to get a nice flat shelf from 50 to 100 Hz with the fanes, nearly 1m tall. the challenge now is playing with the port tuning to get as close as possible in that tiddly package. it might well require trying twin ported chamber tuning. all good stuff, james. |
Posted By: tb_mike
Date Posted: 30 May 2005 at 7:57pm
|
Build a ~400hz conical midhorn and dont worry about dispersion,just copy others like Graeme or Adrian. the 8" on horn will be loaded to near 400hz,excursion will be minimal,thermal power handling will be the limitation,but because below this theres a 12" direct radiator-the limitation will be the 12" 12" tuning will simply depend on its parameters. What F3 do you desire?Make the response flat to ~70hz etc-this then can form part of the xover function to the subwoofers. http://www.centauriaudio.com.au/diy - http://www.centauriaudio.com.au/diy http://www.geocities.com/adrian_mack/homepage.html - http://www.geocities.com/adrian_mack/homepage.html |
Posted By: _djk_
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 5:13am
|
"The sub is all BP6 super 55hz peak" The drawings show a BP4 with a peak at 65hz and only 85dB/W at 40hz. ------------- djk |
Posted By: james folkes
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 10:32am
|
having just found the cursor tool on bass box pro, it is indeed 65 Hz. not
good. i have spent ages trying to tune the box lower and am coming to the realisation that it is too small for that. the Vas of my fanes is quite a lot more at 444 litres against 333 for the monacors which i don't suppose helps. firstly, can flat response be managed at reduced output in a box this small? then i tried isobaric loading in a 184 sub. mild port tuning rendered +/- 1 dB from 40-110 Hz. not loud, but looking smooth. the 184 is slightly smaller than 2 advantage subs (good for transport, bad for carrying, less stacking height) but isobaric loading? clamshelling drivers has always held a fascination for me, but i know you do it at the expense of output. better lf response with tighter cone control are the potential rewards if i remember correctly. if i'm going to put 2 18" drivers into a box 864 x 615 x 536, that might not be the best way to do it. imagine an infrabass type arrangement, or triple chamber bandpass. the reduced height seriously raises the issue of low mid projection. in light of that excellent conical horn article (i had assumed tractrix would be necessary for dispersion) the top might need a bit of layout modification with the 8" horn going up top. problem then is, where do you put the slot? ha! i've also just noticed you can't fit isobaric driver loading in the 184! back to the drawing board... james. |
Posted By: james folkes
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 3:58pm
|
i really should have spent today doing other stuff, but you can fit
isobaric driver loading in the 184 shell if you tilt the baffle. by then making the port a single shelf with flared ends you retain the performance. i wish i could host pictures so i could put a sketch up but i'm sure you get the idea. the bass box plots look excellent though, except for perhaps a quite loud broadband harmonic resonance on one of the ports they are really encouraging. really smooth and even from 40 to 110 Hz. i find myself warming to the idea. the box is actually still smaller and lighter than the top, breaking the subs down isn't essential although it was useful. output level becomes an issue, building another is not the preferred option as amp requirements rocket. and so does system size. the 12" won't struggle to keep up with it. i don't think so anyway, the shift is back to dispersion and mid top layout/tuning. james. |
Posted By: Timber_MG
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 4:15pm
| There is a trick to tame those becasue they result in really nasty resonances. Drill holes in the port at the presure maximum of the first mode (might require some experimentation to get in just right. |
Posted By: _djk_
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 8:37pm
|
If you live in the USA I have a design for the Eminence 15257, a $58 speaker designed as a sub for Baldwin Organ Co. In a BP4 24"X24"X36" (external using 3/4" plywood) it is 102dB/2.83V/1M using BassBox Pro. 40hz~100hz, 124dB with only a 150W/8R rated amplifier. ------------- djk |
Posted By: james folkes
Date Posted: 31 May 2005 at 9:41pm
|
as it happens the drivers in question for this project are the fane classic
kc18-300c, by virtue of the fact that there is a large pile of them gathering dust in my man's store so the price is right. $58 is good, as are those dimensions, but i live in the uk. 600 W into the pending isobaric design is looking at producing around 122 dB at 1 m flat from 40-110 Hz. the rcf 12" in the top with Fb 70 Hz will do that without a crossover when driven with 250 W, crossed with the subs at 80-105 even response will be achieved with less power still. so far so good. assuming the port resonances can be tamed during the box and port tweaking phase, i think i have found my subwoofer element. it seems odd to sacrifice 124 dB output at 1 m from only 300 W from my best working of a fane in the single compact box, but that is still only at 65 Hz and by 40 you are 10 dB down. reflex bandpass things don't get more lf from grouping (?) so if i remember the trick is to tune low. now i see that the standard monacor sub design is all about output for size. i want fidelity and extension, if anything just to see what the fuss is all about. potential problem. dod active crossover proposed can offer lowest crossover point of 750 Hz for the mid-high. i was thinking of ~400-2k for the 8" mid horn. this will determine the demands put upon the 2" from a passive crossover perspective. the rcf has good rich tone up to 1.5k though, would 750 Hz crossover work? james. |
Posted By: tb_mike
Date Posted: 01 June 2005 at 5:57pm
|
Oops.
While looking at the SPL graph,imagine the graph simply of the same shape but in parallel and of higher magnitude. Isobaric 50hz F3 is probably ok for most people.
|
Posted By: james folkes
Date Posted: 02 June 2005 at 7:36am
|
as vaguely stated elsewhere i have realised that i need to do some
subjective listening tests. i can't ask people here to tell me if a power trade of for lf response is right for me, but you can keep me in check with regards the laws of physics and sound reproduction. i have two workings of the same 150 litre box. one is a slight improvement on 65-100 Hz response but basically the same as the monacor box, the other is less output but f3 of 40 Hz. when i have time they can be prototyped and then i shall report my experiences and findings. in the meantime, less dreaming, more woodwork. james. |
Posted By: tb_mike
Date Posted: 10 June 2005 at 12:40am
| Dont go crazy with two choices when the graphs are so similar the difference is hardly 3dB. 50hz is 'enough for most' as it captures most fundamentals of normal music. Id normally want a F3 of 42hz if possible |