Thanks Nat for the reply. The reason I asked about Volt's specs is
I wanted to simulate its response to see how well it might integrate
with 2" mid dome. To just make it work for non critical listening, you
could try a more simple approach to do a filter. TS parameters do help
to figure out bass output, not the rest of the midrange though.
I wanted to simulate its response to see how well it might integrate
with 2" mid dome. To just make it work for non critical listening, you
could try a more simple approach to do a filter. TS parameters do help
to figure out bass output, not the rest of the midrange though.
As far as I remember Dynaudio never sold matched pairs as such because they did guarantee that every driver from one line matched every other driver from the same line to better than 0.5dB.
A statement which did shine a rather good light on their quality control I thought at the time.
Like pretty much every other manufacturer of drivers Volt has a little clause in the small print that specs may change at any time and without notice.
I use Volt RV3143 which I bought new about 10 years ago. I recently went to their site and the data they publish for that driver now is subtly different to what I remember they were back then. Fs and Vas have changed a little, leading to changes in their recommended enclosures which I'm not using. The rest stayed about the same to the best of my recollection.
At the moment I wonder about the usefulness of the M560 in a 3way speaker because of its limited useful band width. Seems ideal for a 4 or 5 way with low order crossovers ie the speakers Dynaudio themselves built.
When I was looking for spec sheets for them I stumbled across a german site where some one offered a pair for sale at €1100!
You could probably sell those and finance some ATC domes with the proceeds!
I don't mean to rain on you parade or pish you off in any way, it just seems odd to me to go through the hassle of designing a passive 3way crossover for a driver that doesn't even cover one octave.
When I was looking for spec sheets for them I stumbled across a german site where some one offered a pair for sale at €1100!
You could probably sell those and finance some ATC domes with the proceeds!
I don't mean to rain on you parade or pish you off in any way, it just seems odd to me to go through the hassle of designing a passive 3way crossover for a driver that doesn't even cover one octave.
I'd say you are taking a stab in the dark with this design approach. Baffle width, impedance and diffraction effects will significantly effect the presentation of the speaker. Using another systems crossover does not account for the drivers impedance vs frequency, phase characteristics of your alignment etc... Some of this can be done without measurements but you have to be pretty experienced or lucky to get good results . I'd either hire someone to do a proper design for the drivers in the given cabinet or go active. MiniDSP has decent sound quality and it almost guarantees decent results without much experience. You can play until your happy. A passive 3-way crossover can easily cost several hundred dollars if using decent components. Investment in a used 6 channel amp and 2x8 miniDSP is extremely reusable.
I use miniDSP extensively to find the crossover transfer functions that sound and measure good. Once I'm happy with what I hear, I design the passive crossover mimicking the miniDSP transfer function. I do prefer a passive crossover but I'd rather have a dsp solution if the passive crossover was not well designed specifically for the speaker system.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I use miniDSP extensively to find the crossover transfer functions that sound and measure good. Once I'm happy with what I hear, I design the passive crossover mimicking the miniDSP transfer function. I do prefer a passive crossover but I'd rather have a dsp solution if the passive crossover was not well designed specifically for the speaker system.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I ran across this article which sums it up pretty nicely: http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/crossovers.htm
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That is a great read. Practical data.
But I think it illustrates why
(1) modern crossovers are filled with numerous fiddly little components to straighten out the response curve,
(2) you can't take the parameters too seriously nor expect results that are good unless you hand-tune the little pieces based on mike testing with REW as in the link, and
(3) I can see no reason today to use that kind crossover instead of simply setting up a DSP and buying extra amps second-hand.
Ben
Hi Ben, not to get too far off topic but I like passive because I get immense enjoyment out of DSD with the ESS 9018 DAC. In my experience, miniDSP loses a little bit of magic when playing DSD->analog->adc->dsp->dac->amp. However, When I use miniDSP to help decide what the crossover should do, I get great results in a passive crossover design nearly every time. This of course takes a great deal of thoughtful design, careful measurements, and continual refinement before eve starting the passive xo development. Having designed maybe 12 speakers over the years, it's taken a long time to learn this art. FYI I use soundeasy for design and measurement with an Earthworks M30 mic and babyface sound card. Average design takes 15-30 hours not including building and finishing the cabinet.
Maybe in due time, consumer accessible DSP will handle multiple digital formats but for now everything gets re sampled which is not lossless at all. That said, miniDSP sounds very good to my ears; far better than a poorly designed crossover will ever sound
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I agree with much your judicious and helpful reply. But when you talk about fine-tuning, I think you are talking about skilled, effortfull tuning of fiddly crossover bits. In your experienced hands, no doubt successful. But for the rest of us, a Behringer DSP is a miracle come true for $150.Hi Ben, not to get too far off topic but I like passive because I get immense enjoyment out of DSD with the ESS 9018 DAC. In my experience, miniDSP loses a little bit of magic when playing DSD->analog->adc->dsp->dac->amp. However, When I use miniDSP to help decide ... snip
Maybe in due time, consumer accessible DSP will handle multiple digital formats but for now everything gets re sampled which is not lossless at all. That said, miniDSP sounds very good to my ears; far better than a poorly designed crossover will ever sound
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
B.
A little rain on the parade can freshen things up and get people focused from the malaize of a hot afternoon trudging in line! So no worries there.
Surely in any speaker, 3-way, 4-way, 5-way, the m560d is going to have the same frequency range. Kind of what you're saying is that you think Dynaudio made a pointless driver. That's an opinion and one which I can't disagree or agree with yet as I've yet to hear it myself..
Still, Dynaudio's own Confidence 5 is highly regarded and is a 3-way using the m560d in a relatively small frequency range. If their design is highly regarded then the limited frequency range isn't an issue, only the implementation could be.
I do actually have some ATCs.. but the m560d is relatively rare and it seems quite a few people love it out of those who have heard it in a speaker. That there is the motivation to do something with it after having had the good fortune to come across a Esotar tweeter/mid paring.
Sure I could go and buy some readily available stuff off the shelf and follow a set design but why would one bother to do that when secondhand hifi is often cheaper than DIY? For me the attraction of DIY is to do something unique, something you cannot buy simply off the shelf.
Hence the project.
As the Dynaudio drivers are sealed units, the tweeter and mid should only be effected by the cabinet difraction. I can easily make a baffle the exact width etc of the original so that isn't an issue. The mid/tweeter part of the xover, by my simple reasoning, should be exactly the same for ANY speaker using these sealed Esotar units given the same baffle shape and vertical mounting, simply because they are sealed units and we could reasonably assume aren't effected by anything internal to the cabinet. Obviously nothing is perfect and also Dynaudio do claim to tweek cross-over designs by listening at the final stage.
I had thought of going active with a Behringer/miniDSP but then I suddenly need 6 identical channels of amplification just to get started.... So that's a further practical barrier ahead of the barrier of my knowledge. Then when I go passive (because that's what I want) I'll likely loose money on the sale of the active kit - so maybe it works out exactly the same financially as starting with a passive x-over and cheaper parts, but with one less barrier to starting. Furthermore, I'd have to learn everything about filter types and orders to construct the filter in the DSP in the first place.. I already have a template here for the passive approach, minimal learning needed.
Hiring someone and then their part's profit margin and labour costs could move the project into the same price bracket as just buying some Confidence 5s..
Last edited:
I noticed that clause too - fortunately the data I have is from the same year as the purchase note I have. Hopefully therefore matching data.
The m560d datasheet states that they are supplied in matched pairs only - although of course that could be a marketting ploy if they are all matched to each other anyway - makes it sound like they are hand selected almost.
Those prices are realistic as ridicilous as it appears, although there
is a "better" alternative, the D52AF. With less motor strength, the lower
midrange response looks more friendly to work on. I know it because
I own it. Free of any resonances it is a treat for critical midrange freaks.
I crossed mine at 650 Hz and 3,5 kHz.
Well if all drivers are matched every pair they sell is a matched pair. ;-)
Still it shows an incredible uniformity in production which should be applauded.
But I still can't see the overall usefulness of a mid-range driver that only covers 900Hz. Some people advise to avoid crossing over between 300 and 3000Hz or so and I can see some merit in that but this driver forces one to cross twice in that range.
However I can see it being useful in something like the 5way Consequence (I do not know if Dynaudio actually used this mid in there) but in a regular 3way it just doesn't appear to be worth the hassle to me.
There is no need to use identical amps in an active setup.
My speakers are 4way active and I use 4 different amps from 2 different manufacturers (sometimes 3) without problems.
@Lojzek s/h Dynaudio prices went up fast since they stopped supplying bare drivers to us diyers and they were not cheap drivers to start with so the price may well be realistic. For above mentioned reason I'd sell it and get something with a bit wider coverage but that is what it is: My opinion.
Is "matched" an opinion of their marketing department or the engineering department? If matched, they need to provide the specs for degree of matching?
Maybe I'm posting to an unsympathetic thread audience, but I think all amps made in the last 30 years sound the same on cone drivers (or in the case of mellow tube amps, could simply be EQ'ed to sound the same). With active crossovers, the power requirements are a lot reduced for individual speakers and a lot reduced in total too*. If that is new information to anybody, their knowledge about the benefits of active crossovers may need a boost.
Ben
*buying multiple amps may not be, of course, a way of saving money. But just pointing out they don't have to be as big as when you have a single amp handling all the statistical peaks that occur in acoustical music and the occasional good recording.
Last edited:
I meant to say the prices may be realistic and ridicilous at the same time.
I have been watching ebay Germany for a long time, a pair of Esotar mids
would end up costing somewhere between 700-900 €. Fortunately there
is alternatives among Dynaudio and other manufacturers.
As I mentioned earlier: According to Dynaudio every driver matched every other driver of the same model to better than 0.5dB.
This is an engineering statement which the marketing men could use to sell 'matched pairs' since most other manufacturers who do sell matched pairs usually matched them to the same degree.
Good... but not to quibble too much and not that you can expect more, but ".5dB" is just the start of such a spec definition. For example do they mean, "... at 1kHz" or do they mean, ".... 200 to 22kHz"?
I suspect a lot of the really serious looking specs on woofers depend to a degree on the weather and the day of the week they made the cone, etc. But those who love sims take these numbers to mean absolute precision. If you're just a guy who takes it that way, that's pretty amateurish.
The issue is not trivial because in some spheres of life, a design might be different depending on whether you believe specs are always spot on and trustworthy the value versus to design for a more fallible world.
Being very empirical, I'd always say, a design for a pair of speakers is a best guess pending testing. But that POV implies you have a design which can be modified after testing.
Just sayin'.
B.
Last edited:
The response curve of one M560D will not deviate more than 0.5dB from any other M560D.
You can substitute any other Dynaudio driver, they are all matched to each other.
Ok, well I do now have enough channels to try active but completely different amps! Some ice200asc monos (recently bought, not tried them yet), some valve 150W monos and some meridian 605 monoblocks. All completely different design types!
With regard to the m560d, the Confidence 5s specs state cross-over points at 1080 and 4000 Hz - so only one point in the range you gave. I can see that if the m560d was ostensibly designed to match the T330 tweeter then you've got a great tweeter/mid paring which can mate to many suitable smaller bass drivers. Of course all drivers and their usable frequency ranges are about compromises - if Dynaudio has decided to focus on a particular set of strengths which aren't the usual focus in driver design, then they will appear odd to what many are used to. My uneducated guess is that moving a mid to cover much lower ranges will compromise it's speed and increase it's propensity to resonate.
By all sonic acounts, as opposed to Dynaudio's own claims (whatever they might have been), the original esotars seem to be all about speed and detail with very low resonance. Should make them a great match to the Volt B2500.1
So, if I try active with a hotch-potch of amps, will I have any hope in hell of re-creating Dynaudio's own impedance correcting (if that matters in active), phase aligned, time aligned 1st order cross over ? My guess at the answer to that is I'd need a lot more knowledge than I have now and from research the Behringer is ruled out although the miniDSP can do 1st order.. some say though that it is a little noisy. And then there's the issue that it only runs at 48KHz sample rate?
Sadly my main use for these if they sound as good as they could, would be for home/project studio and will be recording and monitoring in a minimum of 24/96 and desire to at least try out 192, 352KHz PCM and some DSD recording/playback. I can't find any digital active system which will cover that...
So the only use for miniDSP would be for getting things running in the immediate term (which would be great) and then for working out a cross-over before having a set of analogue cards made in the future.
What's wrong with the Behringer?* Lots of very happy users, me included. Easy to use, saves a large number of set-ups in memory, astonishing powers of time alignment, choice of filtering model, wide choice of slopes, easy to include sharp subsonic filtering, and more.
All kinds of uncontrollable gremlins are present in passive crossovers - such as weird variations in phase, impedance, etc. coming and going. But with an active crossover, quite settled and stable because it is all handled in the electronic realm rather than the electro-mechanical realm.
If Dynaudio achieves something good sounding with their special sauce, you really don't want to hear of it because ultimately in your room, you can't ever duplicate their special sauce. But with DSP (and REW mike measurements), you sure can achieve remarkable results.
If you ahve stereo amp ABC, connect it to the two tweeters, XYZ amp to the two mids....
Ben
*some problems when hooking up amps downstream from the Behringer if there aren't some volume controls to reduce the somewhat louder level the Behringer works at.
All kinds of uncontrollable gremlins are present in passive crossovers - such as weird variations in phase, impedance, etc. coming and going. But with an active crossover, quite settled and stable because it is all handled in the electronic realm rather than the electro-mechanical realm.
If Dynaudio achieves something good sounding with their special sauce, you really don't want to hear of it because ultimately in your room, you can't ever duplicate their special sauce. But with DSP (and REW mike measurements), you sure can achieve remarkable results.
If you ahve stereo amp ABC, connect it to the two tweeters, XYZ amp to the two mids....
Ben
*some problems when hooking up amps downstream from the Behringer if there aren't some volume controls to reduce the somewhat louder level the Behringer works at.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.