Crossover points and music power distribution

[Prune]

Like I said, most of that distortion is from the output transformer. Also, the electrostatic diaphragm is much lighter than a dynamic driver's cone, and it's inertia negligible.

Plasma waterfall plot (graph). Note the time scale.

 

[Pan]

That´s the authors theory, and it may very well be true, but still there are speakers with lower dist at 1k and those e-stats will have higher dist at lower and higher frequencies.

Inertia has nothing to do with distortion. BW and decay is interesting and there are dynamic designs that are up there with e-stats... and better as well.

That plasma thingy looks cool though!

/Peter

 

[Prune]

I'm going to need some way of measuring the frequency response of my plasma tweeters when they are finished. I have no idea how to do that. Is a cheap microphone into a computer sound card sufficient? What about phase?

 

[Prune]

Some localization cues are monaural:
"Temporal Localization Cues and Their Role in Auditory Perception" 95th AES Conference, Preprint #3798

It doesn't say that such queues are only amplitude dependent. Thus, there is still no conclusive evidence phase distortion is not perceptible.

 

[Prune]

By the way, anyone try this?
http://www.wavearts.com/WaveSurroundPro.html
Simulates binaural playback through speakers.
The method is described in Gardner's thesis:
http://sound.media.mit.edu/Papers/gardner_thesis.pdf

 

[wimms]

I'm going to need some way of measuring the frequency response of my plasma tweeters when they are finished. I have no idea how to do that. Is a cheap microphone into a computer sound card sufficient? What about phase?

Price isn't all. You need meaningful data you can rely on. If the mic has required range and you can calibrate, any would do, unless you are after distortion measurements. Really cheap means just unreliable data. Decent electret with PC card should do pretty well.

Some localization cues are monaural:
"Temporal Localization Cues and Their Role in Auditory Perception" 95th AES Conference, Preprint #3798

It doesn't say that such queues are only amplitude dependent. Thus, there is still no conclusive evidence phase distortion is not perceptible.

Do you have that paper? Somehow I doubt it has anything to do with phase. Temporal cue is not equal to phase.
Phase distortion is all around you. Its a better part of acoustics.

 

[Adrie]

Crossover points and music power distribution vs perfect midrange choice

So concluding all opinions

1) XO at 250 Hz max and another rather high (4-5 kHz)

or:

2) XO at 1.5 kHz and another one if you want to go for a 3 way system

If you pay that much attention to where you want to cross over an I think its really important that you first need to decide where to cross over and then to start the unit selection.

In this philosophy you first need to select a midrange unit and then tweeter and woofer. Too choose a mid range with this phylosophy in mind is much more difficult and you end up with the best of the best IMO

option 1:
XO at 250 Hz leaves only a very few midranges working up to 4 kHz or so

ATC SM75-150S:
Who has measured this device or has real specs???
It seems to be very good

Thiel C2-79:
Seems to be very good but over the range of 300-4kHz SPL between 82 and 90 and that's something I don't like
Any comments on that or suggestions to overcome ??

Audio Technology: All seem to be very good
4H52 flex unit, up to 5 kHz flat
6H52 flex unit, up to 4 kHz flat
18H52 C-quenz, up to 5 kHz flat

Seas Excel M15CH001

Seems to me that a midrange choice comes down a bit to cone or C2-79 as exception


Option2: XO at 1.5KHz

Thiel C2-44 would be great, maybe best part from specs I can find around

There should be goods fits then for a good 2 way system as well

Input on usage of these devices and performance is welcome
I'm struggling to make a choice between Thiel C2-79 or C2-44 or Audio Technology for these specific reasons