 Rank: Moderator Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,856
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
|
Off the top, I have no idea , and have never heard these TL speakers the differences are so diverse I would not know where to begin 25 years of speaker design history might have something to do with it, though I still, in context admire the BBC LS3/5a 15ohm original of an earlier date Come and hear the TRK at NAS http://www.chestergroup....amp;id=81&Itemid=229 Martin C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Moderator Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,856
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
|
We will shortly post on the site in a TRK section: the enclosure drawings, the crossover, the first feature article, the responses , photos , the driver details, and the designers and suppliers
Martin Colloms
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: HIFI Veteran Joined: 02/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 902
Location: uk
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: HIFI Addict Joined: 08/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 95
Thanks: 1 times
|
Could a BMR be used in a standmount loudspeaker?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Moderator Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,856
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
|
We have shown that it is a fine low mid to treble driver for the money and a compact two way stand mount is entirely possible
for me a long throw sealed 61/2 inch in 18 litres would be about right
TRK CXover could be quite easily adapted for it
Martin Colloms
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: HIFI Novice Joined: 13/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 55
Location: Surrey
|
Martin,
I'm curious about possible heat dissipation problems. I've just glanced at the specification and it seems that the chassis of the BMR unit is made of "engineering plastic". I know that ordinary tweeters can have over-heating issues, even with all-metal bodies. The BMR unit is also carrying all the mid-range and some of the bass, so potentially has to dissipate a lot of heat. How does it handle this? Does the sound change much as the temperature increases?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administrator Joined: 19/09/2008(UTC) Posts: 1,668 ![United Kingdom]( "United Kingdom") Location: UK Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
|
Martin Colloms wrote:We have shown that it is a fine low mid to treble driver for the money and a compact two way stand mount is entirely possible
for me a long throw sealed 61/2 inch in 18 litres would be about right
TRK CXover could be quite easily adapted for it
Martin Colloms Now there's an idea for me to play with 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Moderator Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,856
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
|
Iston wrote:Martin,
I'm curious about possible heat dissipation problems. I've just glanced at the specification and it seems that the chassis of the BMR unit is made of "engineering plastic". I know that ordinary tweeters can have over-heating issues, even with all-metal bodies. The BMR unit is also carrying all the mid-range and some of the bass, so potentially has to dissipate a lot of heat. How does it handle this? Does the sound change much as the temperature increases? The unit is rated at 12W 50Hz to 20kHz It comes in at 330Hz and is in addition attenuated by 3dB that allow for a '24 W' rating , and then allow for the removal of the powerful LF range. In its working band a fair rating would be 50W Now it all depends how you drive the system but most tweeters are rated only a few watts yet operate in 200W program rated designs. The Cotswold driver is rated for IEC continuous pink noise in the defined music related spectrum. Heat is dissipated via the magnet and some air 'convection' around the voice coil. We rate TRK at nominally 100W programme. Martin C
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: HIFI Newbie Joined: 05/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 3
|
Any chance of this speaker design article being put on the website or can be purchased as a pdf online?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Moderator Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,856
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
|
I will ask the wizard to post the PDFs Martin C its here http://www.hificritic.com/sales/digital9.aspxEdited by user 25 July 2012 15:31:46(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: HIFI Newbie Joined: 05/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 3
|
Fantastic! Thanks Martin!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Moderator Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,856
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
|
that's about right
Martin Colloms
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: HIFI Newbie Joined: 05/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 3
|
Thanks for posting the design online, i've gotten them up over the weekend and have been listening to them. Posted by the Densen integrated, they give a very impressive performance so far but tends to sound abit etchy & harsh in the mids. The BMR should burn in over time... the lack of a crossover in the mids is telling, vocals and instruments are very coherent. The bass just kicks ass, very toe tappy! Pic of my TRKsEdited by user 26 August 2012 15:50:13(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: HIFI Veteran Joined: 02/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 902
Location: uk
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
Hoo-ray and well done. Keep us posted on how they progress. I see siting them wasnt and problem with the TRKs liking being close up to the rear wall- take note other speaker designers......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Moderator Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,856
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: schadenfreude  Thanks for posting the design online, i've gotten them up over the weekend and have been listening to them. Posted by the Densen integrated, they give a very impressive performance so far but tends to sound abit etchy & harsh in the mids. The BMR should burn in over time... the lack of a crossover in the mids is telling, vocals and instruments are very coherent. The bass just kicks ass, very toe tappy! Pic of my TRKs The BMR's do settle for a little, while the best balance for the TRK is found by carefully angling them inwards a few degrees at a time from a straight ahead position , checking on stereo focus. They major on clarity immediacy and timing but there is some residual mild roughness in the upper mid and high treble. If the system and room acoustic seems unsympathetic the series resistor to the mid can be increased in small stages to soften the tonal balance, say 0.22 ohms a time. More costly crossover parts also improve the sound somewhat Martin Colloms Edited by user 22 March 2013 15:16:30(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: HIFI Novice Joined: 15/10/2012(UTC)
Posts: 28
Thanks: 1 times
|
I'm curious about building a pair to possibly replace some Quave LS-1s, love the idea of something I can place close to a wall retaining bass timing and rythmn, but trying to get away from a slightly edgy mid/treble in the Quaves. Is this subtle in the TRKs, or quite noticeable? How much can you tame it by the above resistor mod, etc.? If not, any suggestions for something smoother up top, while still retaining clean bass, rythmn and drive, please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: HIFI Addict Joined: 08/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 95
Thanks: 1 times
|
Just out of curiosity, could the TRK's be built using the smaller 46mm BMR instead?
I expect the treble and midrange would be quieter than the larger BMR?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: HIFI Veteran Joined: 02/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 902
Location: uk
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
I am sure Martin will have the right answer but I would say no as a drop in replacement. If you have read the spec sheet and seen a lower efficiency then that is one reason. ALso a different BMR might have different bending waves that need filtering differently. And the unit wont fit the cabinets from Wilmslow. I think the best advice is to go with the speaker as it was designed!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Moderator Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,856
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
|
hear hear !
the inner balance is to full commercial , rather than 'knock it together kit' standards
If you want to change it , build it first and see where you want to go from there.
Quite subtle technical changes are immediately audible
The BMR is at its best on the end of an amplifer
so the two way active version will have the usual massive active gain plus the happier BMR to boot
Martin Colloms
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: HIFI Addict Joined: 08/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 95
Thanks: 1 times
|
Thanks for the reply A+M  Was the 46mm inferior to the larger version, or just not suitable for the TRK? Edited by user 23 March 2013 15:30:57(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
