Hi Ben, Very interesting data! For base response, I will be pretty surprised of you can do much to improve it. There are three problems as I see it. DML panels make noise primarily by resonating in many different vibrational modes, and the lowest frequency vibrational mode available is the fundamental of the longest panel dimension. To produce any sound at a lower frequency than that, the entire panel must be moved back and forth piston like, basically like a conventional speaker. You can facilitate that by putting more drivers distributed across the panel. The more drivers, and the more evenly distributed, the more piston movement you can induce and thus increase output below the fundamental frequency. Or you can redesign the panel be be stiffer, and thus easier to move from a single point, for instance making it a cone rather than a flat panel. But of course you would be changing it into a conventional speaker. However, another aspect to keep in mind is that exciting a mode is very energy efficient and so a little input will produce a lot of sound, this is why DML panels are so efficient. However, trying to brute force the panel by moving it as piston takes a lot more energy for the amount of movement, and thus the amount of sound, which is why conventional speakers are relatively inefficient. So this is another aspect that limits sound output at frequencies below the fundamental of the panel. To be specific, this aspect necessarily causes lower output of sound energy below the fundamental frequency compared to the sound output at or above the fundamental mode and there is basically nothing you can do about it, because it is simply less efficient to emit sound by piston motion versus exciting a mode. Therefore, output from modes will always overwhelm output from piston motion. This principle is probably the single most important to understand regarding designing a speaker that will sound good, both DML and conventional piston speakers. The final issue DML speakers encounter with bass is that they are open-baffle, and so sound coming off the back can interfere with sound coming off the front, which is an increasing effect with lower frequency, so even if you manage to make the entire panel move as a piston, much of that output will be lost to destructive interference. This by the way, will limit low frequency output more for long narrow panels than for a square panel the size of the long dimension, because the interference roll-off frequency is controlled by the shortest dimension of the panel. Between these three effects, significant output below the fundamental is inherently limited. However, it can be easily improved by making the panel larger or squarer. That solves all issues, by reducing the fundamental mode frequency, and by increasing the self-baffling size, and thus reducing the frequency where destructive interference becomes important.
Hi Steve, thanks for the detailed info. I'm sure you're 100% correct and I don't expect to get any 'slam' out of these - I'm not going for pistonic movement on my main panels (and I wonder if you were to produce such movement, how it would affect the rest of the sound). I guess a better way to put it would be that I'd like to improve the quality of the lower frequencies, and they tend to sound a bit lacking. I'm happy to use a sub/s for the
I have also thought about putting a large number of exciters on a single large panel to make a kind of 'DML subwoofer' (not really DML though I guess) but component prices are too high at the moment to really consider it.
@@TypicalBenYT The wings idea will certainly work as a way of extending base by reducing destructive interference. However, why not just make the panel itself larger by the size of the wings? The effect on reducing destructive interference is identical, and you get the benefit of more sound generating area, and thus greater efficiency at lower frequency.
@@TypicalBenYT You probably would be better off with an open baffle subwoofer of conventional design, which should be sonically very similar to a really well implemented DML subwoofer. It certainly should be possible to make a DML subwoofer, but it will have to be pretty large to dig deep, and perhaps will need equalization to offset the interference rolloff. Not impossible, but probably quite demanding to achieve "well implemented".
@@stevefoster6047 I would actually like to build some big panels down the line, but at the moment I’m thinking of my relationship-friendly acrylic panels which are about 120x40cm. I hope to get good results with ‘folded back’ wings (maybe at 90 degrees like some of the GR Research kits have) so it won’t add much to the footprint or presence in the room. The trick I suppose will be preventing interference without boxing in the back wave sound. A single wing might be the sweet spot, or asymmetric wings. I’ll have to test and find out!
Hi Ben Thanks for sharing your work and thoughts. A great looking build but I gently suggest that maybe the form is somewhat compromising the function. Let me explain: When laid flat, the acrylic panel sagged excessively, leading you to add side supports. In so doing, you effectively created a series of sprung mounted smaller panels. You can visualise this by simplifying the panel into a lattice with longitudinal strips being supported by shorter transverse strips anchored at your fixing points. If you now consider the panel width being divided into 3 longitudinal strips, the centre strip will be more elastically supported than the two edge strips, but will still be affected vibrationally, and hence acoustically. This mounting would be expected to reduce the low frequency response and boost the mid/highs When vertically mounted with no side fixings, the self weight sagging would not come into play provided that most support is provided along the top edge ...ie suspended from the top with soft foam restraints at the bottom. That would restore the full panel length vibratory modes. If further stiffening is required sonically, then you could experiment with nicely finished timber braces, or even shaped acrylic strips on edge, glued to the rear of the panel. Whether acrylic is inherently a good dml panel material is a separate issue altogether. Keep up the great work..
Hey Jack, thanks for the detail. I understand your explanation re: dividing up the panel and I also would have expected a reduction in bass response compared with a single uninterrupted span of panel. My measurements don't bear this out however. In my 'Acrylic build 2' video at ~13:40 I show the side by side graphs of the 6 bolt and 10 bolt panels, and the 10 bolt (smaller divisions) exhibits much better low end. It may be that more power is required to excite those frequencies out of a less rigid panel, or there could be issues with my measurement - or maybe I did just get better bass out of the more rigid config. I do plan to improve my testing environment and measure again when I get the chance.
The suspension is very weak, so likely the jagged response is the result of the modes with the material’s damping properties. It might be that you could get a better response simply by getting thick rubber bands and suspending the panel inside the frame with them. I don’t know whether it makes a difference in the actual sound of the panel from a distance of more than one meter though. And I think your suggested solution of putting a driver diagonally across and down is a good idea.
Hi again Ben... watching your testing video repeatedly to try and understand the 8/10 attachment results..still puzzled..but I think references to 2/5, 3/5 etc are only relevant when the panel is unrestrained at the sides... What about splitting each section between the attachments into 2/5, 3/5 and testing those locations? The 3/4 exciter position / 10 bolt case actually coincides with the attachment location. If I recall correctly when you first trial tested this panel in video 1 you thought there was more bass when you held the exciter opposite the centre attachment? Cheers
Hi Ben, Thanks so much for being this thorough! I see that you come to the conclusion that an exciter placed in the exact center, would arguably be the least effective placement for a second exciter. This is exactly the opposite of conventional wisdom I've come across during my research into this topic. I've also heard some a/b testing with 1 exciter (2/5ths , 2/5ths) and a second one dead center, and the latter actually sounded fuller. Perhaps this gives me my answer, as how I experience it is all that really matters for myself, yet I'm super curious what your take is on that configuration of exciters. Have you experienced it diminishing the sound as opposed to, say, your proposal for a diagonally placed 2nd exciter?
Ben, love your videos - in depth and clear - especially for this amateur. I made my first set last week from foam board using two 4 ohm exciters wired in series per panel. They sound really good after making some adjustments with my AV receiver. Voices from the TV were exceptionally clear. These are to provide me with a solution to work better in the room design and to replace two old Heresy speakers. The cabinets on the sides of the fireplace are the wrong size for the Hersey’s and rebuilding is $5K. Above the cabinets are floating shelves that limit me to an 18” high DMLs. Width could be up to 40” but I used one of the 2’ squares so I ended up with 18” x 24”. I’ve read about the golden ratio but could not find any actual results supporting the ratio for these panels. Would love to hear your opinion on reducing the height to utilize the ratio or making new panels for 18” high with the width dimension 29 1/8”. My thinking is the difference would be negligible. Also, my exciters are at the 2/5ths, 3/5ths setup up with the second exciter as shown in Dayton Audio’s suggestions. I look forward to your future videos. Thanks!
Hey Weldon, thanks so much! Nice work on joining the DML club. 'Golden Ratio' panels seems to be something of a default view in the community, but like you I'm not too sure where the initial suggestion came from. Personally I've yet to make a panel with that ratio as I prefer a taller shape - and so far, so good if I'm any judge. That's actually a great idea for a upcoming video - measured differences between panel shapes. I'd imagine that your 24x18" panels would be lacking in the lower end. All else being equal, the larger a panel is, the lower it will play. Have a look at Steve Foster's comment on this video - I don't think I can explain it much better than he did! So anyway, for that reason I think going wider would improve the sound. If you decide to use larger panels, I'm going to follow up this video with a test comparing 2 exciters as you've set them up to a setup using my idea of 'opposite ends' to see if there is a noticeable difference. I just need to set up a better test environment to do it in.
@@TypicalBenYT Ben, I had already stuck my exciters to the panel prior to seeing this video or I would have used your configuration. Years ago, I ate at the same cafe as Paul Klipsch and would often visit his plant. (To learn about sound and play ping pong at break). The Klipsch Heresy speakers I am replacing were built in 1982 and still sound wonderful. This new DML sounds almost as good. My Pioneer AV receiver lets me adjust the crossover with my Klipsch modern subwoofer. It is set at 150 while I experiment with the adjustments. I played several songs, guitar and piano. I asked my wife to come into the den to hear Canon in D and she said she did not need to as she could here it perfectly in the bedroom about 40’ away with a 90 degree turn. She was right! Using these, we no longer need closed captioning while watching movies. I hope to see more of your analysis on size of panel and exciter placements. Thanks for you help with the details!
Ben, finally completed my speakers and installation. They look great and sound even better. I was worried that painting these would change the performance. I used a very thin coat of the leftover latex wall paint so they would match the existing wall. I could not detect any difference with the sound. Suspending them from the floating shelves did make an improvement. We thought they sounded really good after I tweaked the configuration in my AVR. However, after pulling the speaker wire through the wall and hanging them, I ran the MCACC setup program and it made some changes. The main one was changing the crossover from 150 HZ to 80 HZ. This was a surprise and it did improve the overall sound of the 5.1 setup. I would send you a photo if I knew how to send without posting my on video. Thanks for your input!
I know many people have said it's unnecessary, but I think I need to bite the bullet and purchase a calibrated microphone to properly test my DML speakers (when built) and the room with REW software. They're not prohibitively expensive, but more than I'd like to pay for something that I may only use a dozen times, apart from near-field playtime ;-) . Is that what you have done? I am looking at the MiniDSP UMIK-1 or the Dayton UMM-6.
Yes I bought my mic when I became interested in building the panels. I have the IMM-6 though because it was cheap. It’s designed for mobile devices which have a TRRS jack. I use it with REW on my old surface book laptop. www.daytonaudio.com/product/1117/imm-6-idevice-calibrated-measurement-microphone
Ah, I should read the specs, @@TypicalBenYT . The IMM-6 comes with a USB adaptor, so not confined to TRRS jack. I can connect to my laptop directly. Thanks again for your help.
Put my panels together last weekend. 1 on a 2'x2' and 1 on a 4'x2' 1" foam. I used the 2/5 - 3/5 method for the 2x2 and center placement on the 4x2. I'm not as happy about the highs as I thought I'd be. Kinda sounds like someone speaking in a bathroom on speaker phone. I've played around a little on the distance from the wall but so far I don't think it's made much of a difference. How clear are your highs and have you experienced this. On a side note I asked in your previous video about using a sub and how you went about wiring it in anyways I did manage to get mine going with these and in the grand scheme of things it sounds awesome for what they are. But if I can get it stop sounding like they're playing in a bathroom I would be extremely pleased. UPDATE - I am using the 40w exciters if that helps
Hey Thomas, that's a shame you're not getting the results you wanted but I'm sure it can be resolved. What kind of foam are you using? If you're talking about polystyrene (XPS / EPS) then you probably need to sand the skin (both sides) and apply a water/glue mixture across the panel to get the most out of it.
great series!... I've just heat-molded plastic panels into slight-curved shapes, to form the sound boards. VERY-interesting results, Ben...forget flat panels!! I'll leave it to y'all to experiment with the notion. :-) Ohhh....and please quit drilling holes to attach. There's thick soft foam adhesive tapes (aka: weatherstripping), you know :-) Every hole degrades the surface integrity! Do a "scatter test" as Tech Ingredient, et al, have demonstrated. Place your drilled panel on a "vibrator pad", add sugar, and see the crystals's vibration distribution. I'll bet every hole causes a radiant sub-radiance, which counters the Exciter's. Maybe :-) buona fortuna
Hey Antoniio! That’s really interesting - I’ve seen a few curved panels but not thought to try them yet. Would love to see what you came up with. I’ve seen the soft tape. My mounting setup on these is because I wanted more of a ‘floating panel’ type look going on. I’m also not convinced that such small holes (in the context of the large surface area) will make much difference to the sound. This gives me an idea though as I do have 2 identical panels in the garage - one with no holes and one with mounting holes. I think I’ll measure them back to back to see if anything jumps out.
Fascinating, Ben. Thanks for sharing. Are you planning to use two 40-watt exciters on each panel? That seems like a lot for this type of speaker in a home listening space.
Thank you 🙏 You’re not wrong, it’s probably a bit excessive given the efficiency of a DML setup. Originally I was going to use either a single 40w or 2x25w drivers on these. I read some good things about the Dayton DAEX30HESF-4 model and decided to use that, and if I do decide to go with multiple exciters, I’d prefer they be the same for the visual symmetry. I keep flip flopping on this. One one hand a single driver more closely adheres to my original, minimalist concept. But if two driver gives a smoother response then maybe it’s worth the slight extra visual clutter. I’d run them in series for 80w per channel @ 8 ohms so the output would be under control. What do you think?
I don't know enough to comment, @@TypicalBenYT . But I do plan on building a set of DML speakers. I was thinking of expanded foam panel, as in the famous @Tech Ingredients video, but I'm rethinking that approach now that I've seen your way-cool clear panels. They should work well if I include a subwoofer.
Hi Ben...hmm..interesting How about doing a Chladni test with blitzed dry black tea...popular with violin makers...lightweight and non abrasive..put the exciter in a ziploc bag ..that will give some insight into resonance although flat testing will introduce the mass of the panel into the equation... Cheers
Hi Ben, I've watched many of your videos with interest, your attention to detail is commendable. One of the drawbacks with acrylic flat panels, once you've tweaked the variables influencing the sound output, is that the cables connecting the driver to the amp are unsightly. Have you given any thought to how to tidy them up? Or to alternatives? Could you use copper tape or copper rods instead of wire and incorporate them into the design of the unit, running them to the frame where they could then run down - out of sight - to cable connectors at floor-level. Alternatively what about making the panels wireless (an especially attractive prospect if the panels are going to be wall-mounted or suspended from the ceiling), doing away completely with the need for ugly cables?
Yeah you’re not wrong about the cables. I’m actually avoiding the problem altogether on my current build, by not using clear panels. The one I’m testing with isn’t going on permanently, and I already have a pair of special ones stashed away for the final build. Having said that, I love the idea of using solid copper rods as you’ve suggested! I wish I’d thought of this during my previous acrylic attempt - I loved the look of them other than the ugly dangling cables!
@@TypicalBenYT Hello again. I got the idea of copper rods after watching "How to build a simple Ruban speaker" video on UA-cam. And using the copper tape occured to me after watching a video about using it to deter bugs from climbing into plant pots. I had toyed with the idea of making the Rubans as per the video (a) because they seemed to sound good and (b) because they look so different to traditional speakers and could be made using better quality materials into something quite artistic.
I have a ideia for the bass, a blank canvas maybe do the job, is tensionate and is not to flexible. Other thing that maybe work is a bass exciter in other panel
Hey Lucca - yeah the stretched canvas is an interesting idea that I've yet to try out. I'm interested in trying out a DML subwoofer type setup but I don't think it's a very practical solution compared to a conventional sub.
Yes! Please continue. I am looking for a first diy speaker project and I have some gift certificates for tools. Subbed. Woohoo. P.S. Your living room looks very good.
Thanks a lot, and I will do :) I think if you like the idea of DMLs then it's a great first project as it's quite easy to get a decent sound without too much effort.
I would like to hang these speakers from the pilings and structure that hold up the roof of my marine boathouse. Therefore there is no walls to reflect any sound. It would only be surrounded by water. Do you think that these speakers would do okay out on a boat house with no walls surrounded by water?
I would think they are ideal. If possible, have the left one hanging on the left side of the structure and the right one hanging on the right side rather than both hanging directly in front of you (if that makes sense). These things get LOUD - I'm using 20W typical/40w max exciters, two per speaker just like Typical Ben and I can't even crank the amp I'm using to the max without it being painful. Admittedly, I do have walls (6mx4m room), but even at 50%, it's difficult to have a conversation with someone next to you and the sound can clearly be heard throughout the entire ground floor of our house at that level.
Hey Tom, I agree with the other Ben - I think this would be really well suited to the application. Without wall reflections I think they'd sound great, and you'd presumably be free to make them very large as well, for a nice full range sound. You can also get waterproof exciters from Dayton Audio. I'd love to see how it turns out if you decide to build these.
@@TypicalBenYT I noticed Amazon has rolls of thin rubber sheets which may even be big enough to cut out a continuous surround from if the panel wasn't too big.,
Hi Ben, Very interesting data!
For base response, I will be pretty surprised of you can do much to improve it. There are three problems as I see it. DML panels make noise primarily by resonating in many different vibrational modes, and the lowest frequency vibrational mode available is the fundamental of the longest panel dimension. To produce any sound at a lower frequency than that, the entire panel must be moved back and forth piston like, basically like a conventional speaker. You can facilitate that by putting more drivers distributed across the panel. The more drivers, and the more evenly distributed, the more piston movement you can induce and thus increase output below the fundamental frequency. Or you can redesign the panel be be stiffer, and thus easier to move from a single point, for instance making it a cone rather than a flat panel. But of course you would be changing it into a conventional speaker.
However, another aspect to keep in mind is that exciting a mode is very energy efficient and so a little input will produce a lot of sound, this is why DML panels are so efficient. However, trying to brute force the panel by moving it as piston takes a lot more energy for the amount of movement, and thus the amount of sound, which is why conventional speakers are relatively inefficient. So this is another aspect that limits sound output at frequencies below the fundamental of the panel. To be specific, this aspect necessarily causes lower output of sound energy below the fundamental frequency compared to the sound output at or above the fundamental mode and there is basically nothing you can do about it, because it is simply less efficient to emit sound by piston motion versus exciting a mode. Therefore, output from modes will always overwhelm output from piston motion. This principle is probably the single most important to understand regarding designing a speaker that will sound good, both DML and conventional piston speakers.
The final issue DML speakers encounter with bass is that they are open-baffle, and so sound coming off the back can interfere with sound coming off the front, which is an increasing effect with lower frequency, so even if you manage to make the entire panel move as a piston, much of that output will be lost to destructive interference. This by the way, will limit low frequency output more for long narrow panels than for a square panel the size of the long dimension, because the interference roll-off frequency is controlled by the shortest dimension of the panel.
Between these three effects, significant output below the fundamental is inherently limited. However, it can be easily improved by making the panel larger or squarer. That solves all issues, by reducing the fundamental mode frequency, and by increasing the self-baffling size, and thus reducing the frequency where destructive interference becomes important.
Hi Steve, thanks for the detailed info. I'm sure you're 100% correct and I don't expect to get any 'slam' out of these - I'm not going for pistonic movement on my main panels (and I wonder if you were to produce such movement, how it would affect the rest of the sound).
I guess a better way to put it would be that I'd like to improve the quality of the lower frequencies, and they tend to sound a bit lacking. I'm happy to use a sub/s for the
I have also thought about putting a large number of exciters on a single large panel to make a kind of 'DML subwoofer' (not really DML though I guess) but component prices are too high at the moment to really consider it.
@@TypicalBenYT The wings idea will certainly work as a way of extending base by reducing destructive interference. However, why not just make the panel itself larger by the size of the wings? The effect on reducing destructive interference is identical, and you get the benefit of more sound generating area, and thus greater efficiency at lower frequency.
@@TypicalBenYT You probably would be better off with an open baffle subwoofer of conventional design, which should be sonically very similar to a really well implemented DML subwoofer. It certainly should be possible to make a DML subwoofer, but it will have to be pretty large to dig deep, and perhaps will need equalization to offset the interference rolloff. Not impossible, but probably quite demanding to achieve "well implemented".
@@stevefoster6047 I would actually like to build some big panels down the line, but at the moment I’m thinking of my relationship-friendly acrylic panels which are about 120x40cm. I hope to get good results with ‘folded back’ wings (maybe at 90 degrees like some of the GR Research kits have) so it won’t add much to the footprint or presence in the room. The trick I suppose will be preventing interference without boxing in the back wave sound. A single wing might be the sweet spot, or asymmetric wings. I’ll have to test and find out!
Hi Ben
Thanks for sharing your work and thoughts.
A great looking build but I gently suggest that maybe the form is somewhat compromising the function.
Let me explain:
When laid flat, the acrylic panel sagged excessively, leading you to add side supports. In so doing, you effectively created a series of sprung mounted smaller panels. You can visualise this by simplifying the panel into a lattice with longitudinal strips being supported by shorter transverse strips anchored at your fixing points. If you now consider the panel width being divided into 3 longitudinal strips, the centre strip will be more elastically supported than the two edge strips, but will still be affected vibrationally, and hence acoustically.
This mounting would be expected to reduce the low frequency response and boost the mid/highs
When vertically mounted with no side fixings, the self weight sagging would not come into play provided that most support is provided along the top edge ...ie suspended from the top with soft foam restraints at the bottom. That would restore the full panel length vibratory modes. If further stiffening is required sonically, then you could experiment with nicely finished timber braces, or even shaped acrylic strips on edge, glued to the rear of the panel.
Whether acrylic is inherently a good dml panel material is a separate issue altogether.
Keep up the great work..
Hey Jack, thanks for the detail.
I understand your explanation re: dividing up the panel and I also would have expected a reduction in bass response compared with a single uninterrupted span of panel. My measurements don't bear this out however. In my 'Acrylic build 2' video at ~13:40 I show the side by side graphs of the 6 bolt and 10 bolt panels, and the 10 bolt (smaller divisions) exhibits much better low end.
It may be that more power is required to excite those frequencies out of a less rigid panel, or there could be issues with my measurement - or maybe I did just get better bass out of the more rigid config. I do plan to improve my testing environment and measure again when I get the chance.
The suspension is very weak, so likely the jagged response is the result of the modes with the material’s damping properties. It might be that you could get a better response simply by getting thick rubber bands and suspending the panel inside the frame with them.
I don’t know whether it makes a difference in the actual sound of the panel from a distance of more than one meter though. And I think your suggested solution of putting a driver diagonally across and down is a good idea.
Hi again Ben... watching your testing video repeatedly to try and understand the 8/10 attachment results..still puzzled..but I think references to 2/5, 3/5 etc are only relevant when the panel is unrestrained at the sides...
What about splitting each section between the attachments into 2/5, 3/5 and testing those locations?
The 3/4 exciter position / 10 bolt case actually coincides with the attachment location. If I recall correctly when you first trial tested this panel in video 1 you thought there was more bass when you held the exciter opposite the centre attachment?
Cheers
Hi Ben, Thanks so much for being this thorough! I see that you come to the conclusion that an exciter placed in the exact center, would arguably be the least effective placement for a second exciter. This is exactly the opposite of conventional wisdom I've come across during my research into this topic. I've also heard some a/b testing with 1 exciter (2/5ths , 2/5ths) and a second one dead center, and the latter actually sounded fuller. Perhaps this gives me my answer, as how I experience it is all that really matters for myself, yet I'm super curious what your take is on that configuration of exciters. Have you experienced it diminishing the sound as opposed to, say, your proposal for a diagonally placed 2nd exciter?
Ben, love your videos - in depth and clear - especially for this amateur. I made my first set last week from foam board using two 4 ohm exciters wired in series per panel. They sound really good after making some adjustments with my AV receiver. Voices from the TV were exceptionally clear. These are to provide me with a solution to work better in the room design and to replace two old Heresy speakers. The cabinets on the sides of the fireplace are the wrong size for the Hersey’s and rebuilding is $5K. Above the cabinets are floating shelves that limit me to an 18” high DMLs. Width could be up to 40” but I used one of the 2’ squares so I ended up with 18” x 24”. I’ve read about the golden ratio but could not find any actual results supporting the ratio for these panels. Would love to hear your opinion on reducing the height to utilize the ratio or making new panels for 18” high with the width dimension 29 1/8”. My thinking is the difference would be negligible. Also, my exciters are at the 2/5ths, 3/5ths setup up with the second exciter as shown in Dayton Audio’s suggestions. I look forward to your future videos. Thanks!
Hey Weldon, thanks so much!
Nice work on joining the DML club. 'Golden Ratio' panels seems to be something of a default view in the community, but like you I'm not too sure where the initial suggestion came from. Personally I've yet to make a panel with that ratio as I prefer a taller shape - and so far, so good if I'm any judge.
That's actually a great idea for a upcoming video - measured differences between panel shapes.
I'd imagine that your 24x18" panels would be lacking in the lower end. All else being equal, the larger a panel is, the lower it will play. Have a look at Steve Foster's comment on this video - I don't think I can explain it much better than he did! So anyway, for that reason I think going wider would improve the sound. If you decide to use larger panels, I'm going to follow up this video with a test comparing 2 exciters as you've set them up to a setup using my idea of 'opposite ends' to see if there is a noticeable difference. I just need to set up a better test environment to do it in.
@@TypicalBenYT Ben, I had already stuck my exciters to the panel prior to seeing this video or I would have used your configuration. Years ago, I ate at the same cafe as Paul Klipsch and would often visit his plant. (To learn about sound and play ping pong at break). The Klipsch Heresy speakers I am replacing were built in 1982 and still sound wonderful. This new DML sounds almost as good. My Pioneer AV receiver lets me adjust the crossover with my Klipsch modern subwoofer. It is set at 150 while I experiment with the adjustments. I played several songs, guitar and piano. I asked my wife to come into the den to hear Canon in D and she said she did not need to as she could here it perfectly in the bedroom about 40’ away with a 90 degree turn. She was right! Using these, we no longer need closed captioning while watching movies. I hope to see more of your analysis on size of panel and exciter placements. Thanks for you help with the details!
Ben, finally completed my speakers and installation. They look great and sound even better. I was worried that painting these would change the performance. I used a very thin coat of the leftover latex wall paint so they would match the existing wall. I could not detect any difference with the sound. Suspending them from the floating shelves did make an improvement.
We thought they sounded really good after I tweaked the configuration in my AVR. However, after pulling the speaker wire through the wall and hanging them, I ran the MCACC setup program and it made some changes. The main one was changing the crossover from 150 HZ to 80 HZ. This was a surprise and it did improve the overall sound of the 5.1 setup. I would send you a photo if I knew how to send without posting my on video. Thanks for your input!
I know many people have said it's unnecessary, but I think I need to bite the bullet and purchase a calibrated microphone to properly test my DML speakers (when built) and the room with REW software. They're not prohibitively expensive, but more than I'd like to pay for something that I may only use a dozen times, apart from near-field playtime ;-) . Is that what you have done? I am looking at the MiniDSP UMIK-1 or the Dayton UMM-6.
Yes I bought my mic when I became interested in building the panels. I have the IMM-6 though because it was cheap. It’s designed for mobile devices which have a
TRRS jack. I use it with REW on my old surface book laptop.
www.daytonaudio.com/product/1117/imm-6-idevice-calibrated-measurement-microphone
Ah, I should read the specs, @@TypicalBenYT . The IMM-6 comes with a USB adaptor, so not confined to TRRS jack. I can connect to my laptop directly. Thanks again for your help.
@@HumeWinzar Interesting. I don’t think mine came with an adapter.
Put my panels together last weekend. 1 on a 2'x2' and 1 on a 4'x2' 1" foam. I used the 2/5 - 3/5 method for the 2x2 and center placement on the 4x2. I'm not as happy about the highs as I thought I'd be. Kinda sounds like someone speaking in a bathroom on speaker phone. I've played around a little on the distance from the wall but so far I don't think it's made much of a difference. How clear are your highs and have you experienced this. On a side note I asked in your previous video about using a sub and how you went about wiring it in anyways I did manage to get mine going with these and in the grand scheme of things it sounds awesome for what they are. But if I can get it stop sounding like they're playing in a bathroom I would be extremely pleased. UPDATE - I am using the 40w exciters if that helps
Hey Thomas, that's a shame you're not getting the results you wanted but I'm sure it can be resolved. What kind of foam are you using? If you're talking about polystyrene (XPS / EPS) then you probably need to sand the skin (both sides) and apply a water/glue mixture across the panel to get the most out of it.
It is sanded and edges rounded. But what's this gluing you're talking about. I've never heard of that or seen it done
great series!... I've just heat-molded plastic panels into slight-curved shapes, to form the sound boards. VERY-interesting results, Ben...forget flat panels!! I'll leave it to y'all to experiment with the notion. :-)
Ohhh....and please quit drilling holes to attach. There's thick soft foam adhesive tapes (aka: weatherstripping), you know :-) Every hole degrades the surface integrity!
Do a "scatter test" as Tech Ingredient, et al, have demonstrated. Place your drilled panel on a "vibrator pad", add sugar, and see the crystals's vibration distribution. I'll bet every hole causes a radiant sub-radiance, which counters the Exciter's. Maybe :-) buona fortuna
Hey Antoniio! That’s really interesting - I’ve seen a few curved panels but not thought to try them yet. Would love to see what you came up with.
I’ve seen the soft tape. My mounting setup on these is because I wanted more of a ‘floating panel’ type look going on. I’m also not convinced that such small holes (in the context of the large surface area) will make much difference to the sound. This gives me an idea though as I do have 2 identical panels in the garage - one with no holes and one with mounting holes. I think I’ll measure them back to back to see if anything jumps out.
Great job Ben, keep up the great work!
Fascinating, Ben. Thanks for sharing.
Are you planning to use two 40-watt exciters on each panel? That seems like a lot for this type of speaker in a home listening space.
Thank you 🙏
You’re not wrong, it’s probably a bit excessive given the efficiency of a DML setup. Originally I was going to use either a single 40w or 2x25w drivers on these.
I read some good things about the Dayton DAEX30HESF-4 model and decided to use that, and if I do decide to go with multiple exciters, I’d prefer they be the same for the visual symmetry.
I keep flip flopping on this. One one hand a single driver more closely adheres to my original, minimalist concept. But if two driver gives a smoother response then maybe it’s worth the slight extra visual clutter.
I’d run them in series for 80w per channel @ 8 ohms so the output would be under control.
What do you think?
I don't know enough to comment, @@TypicalBenYT .
But I do plan on building a set of DML speakers. I was thinking of expanded foam panel, as in the famous @Tech Ingredients video, but I'm rethinking that approach now that I've seen your way-cool clear panels. They should work well if I include a subwoofer.
Hi Ben...hmm..interesting
How about doing a Chladni test with blitzed dry black tea...popular with violin makers...lightweight and non abrasive..put the exciter in a ziploc bag ..that will give some insight into resonance although flat testing will introduce the mass of the panel into the equation...
Cheers
Hi Ben,
I've watched many of your videos with interest, your attention to detail is commendable.
One of the drawbacks with acrylic flat panels, once you've tweaked the variables influencing the sound output, is that the cables connecting the driver to the amp are unsightly. Have you given any thought to how to tidy them up? Or to alternatives? Could you use copper tape or copper rods instead of wire and incorporate them into the design of the unit, running them to the frame where they could then run down - out of sight - to cable connectors at floor-level.
Alternatively what about making the panels wireless (an especially attractive prospect if the panels are going to be wall-mounted or suspended from the ceiling), doing away completely with the need for ugly cables?
Yeah you’re not wrong about the cables. I’m actually avoiding the problem altogether on my current build, by not using clear panels. The one I’m testing with isn’t going on permanently, and I already have a pair of special ones stashed away for the final build.
Having said that, I love the idea of using solid copper rods as you’ve suggested! I wish I’d thought of this during my previous acrylic attempt - I loved the look of them other than the ugly dangling cables!
@@TypicalBenYT Hello again. I got the idea of copper rods after watching "How to build a simple Ruban speaker" video on UA-cam. And using the copper tape occured to me after watching a video about using it to deter bugs from climbing into plant pots.
I had toyed with the idea of making the Rubans as per the video (a) because they seemed to sound good and (b) because they look so different to traditional speakers and could be made using better quality materials into something quite artistic.
I really want to use panels for atmos speakers on the ceiling
I have a ideia for the bass, a blank canvas maybe do the job, is tensionate and is not to flexible. Other thing that maybe work is a bass exciter in other panel
Hey Lucca - yeah the stretched canvas is an interesting idea that I've yet to try out. I'm interested in trying out a DML subwoofer type setup but I don't think it's a very practical solution compared to a conventional sub.
Yes! Please continue. I am looking for a first diy speaker project and I have some gift certificates for tools. Subbed. Woohoo. P.S. Your living room looks very good.
Thanks a lot, and I will do :) I think if you like the idea of DMLs then it's a great first project as it's quite easy to get a decent sound without too much effort.
Very good and interesting work. Cheers.
I would like to hang these speakers from the pilings and structure that hold up the roof of my marine boathouse. Therefore there is no walls to reflect any sound. It would only be surrounded by water. Do you think that these speakers would do okay out on a boat house with no walls surrounded by water?
I would think they are ideal. If possible, have the left one hanging on the left side of the structure and the right one hanging on the right side rather than both hanging directly in front of you (if that makes sense). These things get LOUD - I'm using 20W typical/40w max exciters, two per speaker just like Typical Ben and I can't even crank the amp I'm using to the max without it being painful. Admittedly, I do have walls (6mx4m room), but even at 50%, it's difficult to have a conversation with someone next to you and the sound can clearly be heard throughout the entire ground floor of our house at that level.
Hey Tom, I agree with the other Ben - I think this would be really well suited to the application. Without wall reflections I think they'd sound great, and you'd presumably be free to make them very large as well, for a nice full range sound. You can also get waterproof exciters from Dayton Audio. I'd love to see how it turns out if you decide to build these.
I had to get mine off of Amazon. Cost a few dollars more
I'm curious what the acrylic panels would sound like if they were attached to the frame with a rubber surround like a speaker might be.
It's a good question - it might strike a good balance between rigidity and being able to resonate. There's a lot of things to experiment with here...
@@TypicalBenYT I noticed Amazon has rolls of thin rubber sheets which may even be big enough to cut out a continuous surround from if the panel wasn't too big.,
7:00 LOL
🙋👍❤️
Get rid of the background noise
BEN YOU NEED CELESTIAL EARS, NOT GRAFFS,AND COMPUTERS,BEETHOVEN CHECK UA-cam VIDEOS OF THIS 💥💥💥🥳