Jon, thanks for the concise comparison. As I read it, I was thinking: "alright, some differences and associated issues to deal with , but looks like monopole is okay". Then I got to: "...usually better imaging" in the dipole pros section. Hmmmm....
The NEO 8's in Danny's Alpha LS are a monopole implementation. the NEO's are backed by a separate long isolated chamber that's filled will absorbtive material. The imaging of those Alpha's was great, so I think I may stick with monopole.
That brings up my quandry. I was leaning towards RD-40's monopole with no mid-woofs alongside, but a stack of two 10" below the RD/enclosure.
Are you saying that this implementation won't work too well because:
1. A stack of two woofs is not enough to qualify as a line source, and/or
2. The woof line source must be parallel with the mid/tweet line.
Looks like this is the final big question leading to my basic configuration decision.
The NEO 8's in Danny's Alpha LS are a monopole implementation. the NEO's are backed by a separate long isolated chamber that's filled will absorbtive material. The imaging of those Alpha's was great, so I think I may stick with monopole.
That brings up my quandry. I was leaning towards RD-40's monopole with no mid-woofs alongside, but a stack of two 10" below the RD/enclosure.
Are you saying that this implementation won't work too well because:
1. A stack of two woofs is not enough to qualify as a line source, and/or
2. The woof line source must be parallel with the mid/tweet line.
Looks like this is the final big question leading to my basic configuration decision.
Comment