Planar Speakers and Diffusors

ozzy OP

7,161 posts

03-27-2024 at 06:14am

This is a recent post from the Audio Sharks Forum by SunCoast Audio about the Clarisys speakers.

"Clarisys are panels, dipoles, so the sound is coming out the front and back. It doesn’t care what’s on the side walls as its radiation pattern is unlike a box speaker or Omni. With Clarisys, unlike some of it’s competitors (or what some claim to be full ribbon - which are really Mylar in the bass), from the lowest note to the highest note, the driver material is identical. This creates a very coherent sound. The entire frequency range is one material."

I intend no offense to SunCoast Audio as I don’t know them and have no conflict of interest, but that quote reads more like dealer promo than tutorial physics-based guidance.

The Clarysis company website claims live rooms with walls of concrete or similar to be ideal, so your drywall @ozzy probably matters, and possibly not in an ideal way.
My own speakers aren’t planar but do behave similarly in some ways. One meter behind them is a full-wall window, about 14’ x 8’ of glass. Being able to play with a bank of wood blinds the same size gives interesting results that vary in favorability depending on the person listening, but no one has favored fully exposed glass. That’s why I suggested trying something a bit less reflective than glass (tv) and a bit more diffusive than a flat plane (of said glass). Wouldn’t cost you much to try.

A potential issue I see in the way these speakers are designed (basically one driver mechanism for all frequencies? Cool! And, hmmm…) is how they manage to balance the whole bandwidth at MLP distance. It’s known the +/- 3dB ratings given for speakers don’t always hold strong outside of the 1m measuring pocket, so if Clarysis are “down” meaningfully in part(s) of the lower frequencies then the benefit of using solid walls (concrete or the like, as recommended by the manufacturer) should be at least in part to reinforce the bass via strong room gain. If that scenario reflects (pun!) reality, then an active crossover and higher-crossed subwoofers might be more beneficial than they presently seem.
Main critique should be, nifty as this design is, the company doesn’t give enough info about their frequency-dependent behavior for consumers in typical North American homes to have much to work with, empirically speaking. At least not for the prices on these models (IMO). Perhaps I’m missing something.
The speakers are made in Vietnam - if testing is also done there, I wonder if it’s in a fully concrete building as is common in SE / E Asia. I expect my system (which is highly dependent on room interaction) would probably need considerable adjustment if moved from its present all-concrete-boundaries into a drywall-above-slab residence. American homes seem asymmetrical nightmares, structurally/boundary-wise (for sound waves), in this regard. Speakers that play with the room to such an extent as Clarysis suggests might be even more sensitive to these factors. Obviously the room boundaries can’t be changed, but worth considering rather than only making assumptions based on what’s inside the room?

You might also try laying down some large panels of wood on the floor between / in front of the speakers, to see what a more symmetric pair of vertical boundaries (bare ceiling and fooor) accomplishes. Just a thought in line with much of what I tried during setup for a similar sound. BIG sound is such good fun.

@ozzy That is incorrect. The back wall reflection is their one big weakness. The design is so successful because it limits reflection from everywhere else except the back wall. Instead of having to worry about four walls, the floor and the ceiling you only have to worry about the front and rear walls. Line sources also project sound better. 

Sound diffusers are best used to kill echos, but again they only work well at higher frequencies. Bass traps are a total and complete waste of money. Four subwoofers is the best solution for bass problems. 

Analog crossovers, as you noticed are insufficient. The crossover has to be digital to do everything it needs to do. The problem is now you need four DAC channels instead of two. The MiniDSP crossover is excellent except for those DACs. You can use a MiniDSP SHD Studio and two stereo DACs, but that is going to cost $6 K. The DEQX Pre 4 is way more powerful than the MiniDSP, has fabulous room control functions and great digital bass management. It also Streams and has a MM phono stage designed by Dynavector. I own the Pre 8 which is the same unit with a 4 way crossover. You can triamp your speakers and run subwoofers. I just got a pair of step up transformers. Once I build the complete MC transformer I will comment on the phono stage. It will be a bit as I am still waiting for the Permalloy shielding. 

mijostyn,benanders

Thank you for your comments they are welcome and interesting but seem to be off track from my original question.

I have learned that keeping my system simple is the best way. I no longer have a dac, preamp, etc. The signal goes from my Lumin X1 to my mono blocks- Clarisys speakers, which have internal crossovers for the treble ribbons and the midrange/woofers ribbon.

I guess each type/brand of speakers has its own set up values and to me, the Clarisys speakers play best with minimum room treatments. BTW, my ceilings and walls are all internally insulated and covered with double 5/8" drywall. The floor is concrete covered by carpet with no padding.

I am interested in diffusors because from what I have researched they are supposed to make the soundstage even larger. But I don’t know if that would be a plus, thus my initial post and question.

ozzy

@ozzy, I like your approach of diffusing rather than absorbing the backwave. Ime the backwave energy of a good full-range dipole can be very beneficial, but you want to preserve its spectral content rather than degrading it by using absorption, which will remove the shorter wavelengths moreso than the longer ones.

When you say that you want "to make the soundstage even larger", that can imply different things. Strong early same-side-wall reflections tend to widen the soundstage, but dipoles have a null to the side so that may not be practical. Greater soundstage depth and/or an increased sense of immersion in the acoustic environment on the recording is imo more likely to be feasible with appropriate frontwall treatment.

I think you said your speakers are about 30" from the side walls. How much distance between the backs of your speakers and the wall behind them? Ime this distance plays a significant role in perception because it strongly influences the time delay between the first arrival sound and the strong onset of reflections.

You mentioned that Clarisys uses a reflector behind their speakers at audio shows. Imo that makes a lot of sense. Have you heard them at audio shows? If so, what did you think? And, what do they suggest for your situation?

I might be able to make some general suggestions based on your responses to these questions, but imo making specific acoustic treatment recommendations is something that I’ve learned to leave to the pros because they can make a MUCH bigger improvement than I can. If you don’t have anyone in mind I recommend Jeff Hedback of Hedback Designed Acoustics, he’s a multi-award-winning studio designer who also does home audio, and he’s still affordable. He works remotely.

Duke

dipole speaker dealer for 25 years, multidirectional speaker manufacturer for 16 years

audiokinesis,

Thank you for your response. To answer the questions posed:

The speakers are 60" from the front wall, 30" from sidewall, no toe in. I have never heard these speakers prior to purchasing them. They have a very wide soundstage. Unless the music comes directly from the left or right channel you cannot hear the speakers individually.

SunCoast has advised using large plants behind them for diffusion (on the cheap side).  I am always looking for ideas to improve, thus my question.

ozzy