Compensation Is The Go Ime.
Ime fitting a Zobel RC network across the tweeter will dramatically lessen 'zinginess'.
Also, if the tweeter is allowed to be driven with any level at it's resonance frequency, this will further contribute to 'zinginess' and is cured by fitting a series RLC network across the driver.
Fitting both these networks will produce a much better behaved tweeter.
Eric.
Ime fitting a Zobel RC network across the tweeter will dramatically lessen 'zinginess'.
Also, if the tweeter is allowed to be driven with any level at it's resonance frequency, this will further contribute to 'zinginess' and is cured by fitting a series RLC network across the driver.
Fitting both these networks will produce a much better behaved tweeter.
Eric.
TROELS, MATT & NADIR , to troels first, please don't misunderstand I AM NOT TRYING TO LESSEN / diminish OR KNOCK WHAT YOU HAVE DONE SO FAR[ WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK] AS WE BOTH KNOW WELL, BUT PURELY CONCENTRATING ON THE 2KhZ "HUMP"HAS NO EFFECT ON SIBILANCE AS YOU rightly CONCEDE WHICH IS WHAT i WAS TRYING TO POINT OUT TO YOU AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO CARES TO take note AS I mentioned it does make a difference on vocals, speech etc, by all means don't let me put anybody off from building the "clone's" because as you and someone else rightly pointed out, looking for perfection is akin to looking for the proverbial"needle in the haystack" so at some point in time we all have to live with what we create the children we sire and the women we marry, I think it is called a comprimise like all things in life so don't take a lot of things too much to heart..
if you worry about every little thing you will end up like me grey haired with a long grey beard, and wrinkles around your eyes, you know it takes less muscles to smile than frown, be that as it may I can't help get the feeling that you troels feel slighted a little and you souldn't, as I was not having a go at you personally, but as it often happens after going to the trouble that you obviously have you can't help but feel offended by somebody trying to point out something else that had been skipped over in the first place cheers to all TC....Just throwing in some more comments here to help revive this old thread...its long so bring your tent and sleeping bag...ZzzzZZzzz...
I would not describe the 8513 as metalic at all, not even almost metalic but I know what is meant by this, a zingy/sibilant oriented/lush & sweet/"you can wash your face in it sound, it will never dry out " (Stereophile reveiw, 1996); does that mean you need a towel wrapped around your face when you listen to them, may reduce some of the zing (itsa joke?. For a tweeter that is 2nd from the bottom of the Scanspeak range its very good, IMO. Don't forget the 8512, a tweeter model under the 8513, was one of the most widely used tweeters in the last 20 years within a certain speaker range and even very expensive ones - Linn Isobariks & Kanns used them, so did Sonus Fabers, Spendor SP1/2s, and many more. The 8513 is based on the legendary 8512 and improves on it by being smoother sounding and sweeter. The "zingy" sound for me is actually an advantage as it adds a lot of presence, musicality, lushness and sweetness. Thats why at this point in time I am very reluctant to change this part of the clone, because that was what caught my attention in the showroom when I scored a pair of new commercial 2.5s in 1998 (less than 1/2 price shop closing down . In the showroom at the time was a pair of Response 3s which used I believe 9000 tweeters similar to 9500s and the 2.5s sounded better to me (deeper more tuneful bass and interesting treble). 19mm dome tweeters are meant to image better as well compared to 25mm units. As some of you know I am not a fan of the 9500 tweeter which I had in a North Creek Okra clone, it was too boring for me although technically more detailed and neutral.
I had the 2.5s for over 2 years and over time the same issues about the midrange hole and zingy treble were there mostly same as the clone though a little different. During that time I used the the commercial 2.5s alongside older Linn Kans (Ls3/5a variations) and for a 2 way full range floorstander to beat or keep up with the Kans in the mid and treble area, it shows that the 2.5 midrange while not the best is still very respectable, and you got free killer extended bass as well. I have not heard the Response 1sc but the Hifi Choice review said the 2.5 was basically a 1sc with bass if you believe the reviewer. He also said it was like an ESL - this is where his brain must have got starved of o2 I think because an ESL and a 2.5 are completely different animals.
While we are focusing on the negatives of the clone/2.5 don't forget its positives - the best bass in its class (extension, texture, poise), good midrange (yes not the very very best), interesting lush sweet treble, big soundstage, nice overall coherence and balance. Where as look at the overall balance of other designs - maybe better midrange but no bass, average soundstage and boring treble - sounds technically correct but why don't you want to keep it my friends ? You can play with a number of DIY designs in the same class or higher and it will take years or never to get the same results. If you want an easy project with high confidence of success the clone is it (provided it suits your tastes), otherwise Troels has shown the degree of design work that is needed to do your own thing.
Our friend Jacq has done many direct comparisons with commercial 2.5s and we believe the clone can be made better with the DIY quality parts. Imaging, clarity and focus are things that can be improved, IMO. The zingy sound of the commercial 2.5s can be expected for 1996 to around 2001/2 Proac models, this you can be assured of. However, if you want the latest voiced 2.5 sound try Troel's mods but keep watching events as they unfold here.
By the way, all the good website builder reviews were for the early Chinese crossover, so with the various work done by everyone to improve things it has only got better.
Take care and keep enjoying the debate :}
Troels - English was not my mother tongue either, but since I forgot the mother tongue (?), it is now
I would not describe the 8513 as metalic at all, not even almost metalic but I know what is meant by this, a zingy/sibilant oriented/lush & sweet/"you can wash your face in it sound, it will never dry out " (Stereophile reveiw, 1996); does that mean you need a towel wrapped around your face when you listen to them, may reduce some of the zing (itsa joke
?. For a tweeter that is 2nd from the bottom of the Scanspeak range its very good, IMO. Don't forget the 8512, a tweeter model under the 8513, was one of the most widely used tweeters in the last 20 years within a certain speaker range and even very expensive ones - Linn Isobariks & Kanns used them, so did Sonus Fabers, Spendor SP1/2s, and many more. The 8513 is based on the legendary 8512 and improves on it by being smoother sounding and sweeter. The "zingy" sound for me is actually an advantage as it adds a lot of presence, musicality, lushness and sweetness. Thats why at this point in time I am very reluctant to change this part of the clone, because that was what caught my attention in the showroom when I scored a pair of new commercial 2.5s in 1998 (less than 1/2 price shop closing down . In the showroom at the time was a pair of Response 3s which used I believe 9000 tweeters similar to 9500s and the 2.5s sounded better to me (deeper more tuneful bass and interesting treble). 19mm dome tweeters are meant to image better as well compared to 25mm units. As some of you know I am not a fan of the 9500 tweeter which I had in a North Creek Okra clone, it was too boring for me although technically more detailed and neutral.I had the 2.5s for over 2 years and over time the same issues about the midrange hole and zingy treble were there mostly same as the clone though a little different. During that time I used the the commercial 2.5s alongside older Linn Kans (Ls3/5a variations) and for a 2 way full range floorstander to beat or keep up with the Kans in the mid and treble area, it shows that the 2.5 midrange while not the best is still very respectable, and you got free killer extended bass as well. I have not heard the Response 1sc but the Hifi Choice review said the 2.5 was basically a 1sc with bass if you believe the reviewer. He also said it was like an ESL - this is where his brain must have got starved of o2 I think because an ESL and a 2.5 are completely different animals.
While we are focusing on the negatives of the clone/2.5 don't forget its positives - the best bass in its class (extension, texture, poise), good midrange (yes not the very very best), interesting lush sweet treble, big soundstage, nice overall coherence and balance. Where as look at the overall balance of other designs - maybe better midrange but no bass, average soundstage and boring treble - sounds technically correct but why don't you want to keep it my friends ? You can play with a number of DIY designs in the same class or higher and it will take years or never to get the same results. If you want an easy project with high confidence of success the clone is it (provided it suits your tastes), otherwise Troels has shown the degree of design work that is needed to do your own thing.
Our friend Jacq has done many direct comparisons with commercial 2.5s and we believe the clone can be made better with the DIY quality parts. Imaging, clarity and focus are things that can be improved, IMO. The zingy sound of the commercial 2.5s can be expected for 1996 to around 2001/2 Proac models, this you can be assured of. However, if you want the latest voiced 2.5 sound try Troel's mods but keep watching events as they unfold here.
By the way, all the good website builder reviews were for the early Chinese crossover, so with the various work done by everyone to improve things it has only got better.
Take care and keep enjoying the debate :}
Troels - English was not my mother tongue either, but since I forgot the mother tongue (?), it is now
I've been following this thread with great interest. It shows that the clone has come a long way and has improved over the (already great) initial design.
I'm planning to build some speakers in a couple of months and the clones look like the best choice. Although some things worry me a bit, maybe we're getting obsessive here but hey, here goes :
- In Troels Gravensen last pdf he states that the new batch of 8535's were different. So what is this about? Is scanspeak secrectly improving their speakers without telling us? This could become a problem because then there'd have to be some changes in the original filters.
- The tweeter seems to give some people a lot of headaches if you look at the trouble some go to ged rid of these problems. Would it not be better to change the tweeter for another one like Troels Gravensen did with the 9500? But why would we stay with scanspaek, I know scanspeak makes very good speakers but they're also quite expensive. Maybe it could be an option to use something like the vifa XT300, they're not to expensive and sing quite nicely when crossed over high enough (3kHz in this case would be ideal I think).
This is spoken from the viewpoint of a normal builder who doesn't have measuring devices or the nerve to tweak the h*ll out of those speakers.
Anyway all people improving the clone, great work and a big thank you to you all.
I'm planning to build some speakers in a couple of months and the clones look like the best choice. Although some things worry me a bit, maybe we're getting obsessive here but hey, here goes :
- In Troels Gravensen last pdf he states that the new batch of 8535's were different. So what is this about? Is scanspeak secrectly
improving their speakers without telling us? This could become a problem because then there'd have to be some changes in the original filters.- The tweeter seems to give some people a lot of headaches if you look at the trouble some go to ged rid of these problems. Would it not be better to change the tweeter for another one like Troels Gravensen did with the 9500? But why would we stay with scanspaek, I know scanspeak makes very good speakers but they're also quite expensive. Maybe it could be an option to use something like the vifa XT300, they're not to expensive and sing quite nicely when crossed over high enough (3kHz in this case would be ideal I think).
This is spoken from the viewpoint of a normal
builder who doesn't have measuring devices or the nerve to tweak the h*ll out of those speakers.Anyway all people improving the clone, great work and a big thank you to you all.
To all
What is clear is the basically good design of the 2.5. It seems to be a great starting point and from my point of view I wanted to ensure is what Nadir and Troels are doing is pushing a great design to it’s limits. The particularly interesting dimension to all this is that we all like slightly different things and this forum and project gives us all the options to ‘tweek’ the sound to our own preferences. That so many enjoy the 2.5 in its ‘normal’ state shows its got some basics correct.
Troels has provided some great opportunities not only to experiment but in providing the explanation of how to do it. That is just first class to novices like me. I personaly would like to thank every one and particularly Troels who provides an idiots guide to making the changes and his willingness to offer advice when asked.
But what I am trying to ensure is perspective. I began to think that the 2.5 were going to be a mistake with more problems than solutions to my audio upgrades. This is because every one was trying to polish off the perceived blemishes and these few issues were becoming bigger than the basic sound. I was concerned that after all this I would end up were speakers nothing better than one could purchase from a budget store!
I don’t think this is the case. The 2.5 seem very good to many people so they have something. Some I’m sure will hate aspects of the sound which others won’t hear and this is where Troels and Nadir and every one else takes over and pushes forwards.
All in all the advice is great and it is interesting to read every ones views because some one is bound to hear things the way I do and they may have the solution to my questions. My R1SC are great, if the 2.5 improve only a little bit on them I will be over the moon. It has to be a great opportunity to look at centre and rear speakers too, and expand the projects and end up having a system to wipe the floor with commercial systems costing 10 the price it costs to make and not so much fun.
Thanks Troels for your last comments about the sound comparisons it gives me some ideas of what to expect. I truly can’t wait to get them up and running. I have the Boxes built now just got to stuff them and make the Xover (V6 I think to start) then cut them for the drivers.
Any views on damping and stuffing would be welcome. Quality thickness etc. Does it make difference in sound? Does it matter. I know that in the RSC1s there is the smallest amount of wadding that It hardly seems worth it. Finally in the R1SC the internal end of the port has a square of MDF with a hole in with the port tube end passing through. Is this standard? I haven’t seen it in any of the 2.5 diagrams.
What is clear is the basically good design of the 2.5. It seems to be a great starting point and from my point of view I wanted to ensure is what Nadir and Troels are doing is pushing a great design to it’s limits. The particularly interesting dimension to all this is that we all like slightly different things and this forum and project gives us all the options to ‘tweek’ the sound to our own preferences. That so many enjoy the 2.5 in its ‘normal’ state shows its got some basics correct.
Troels has provided some great opportunities not only to experiment but in providing the explanation of how to do it. That is just first class to novices like me. I personaly would like to thank every one and particularly Troels who provides an idiots guide to making the changes and his willingness to offer advice when asked.
But what I am trying to ensure is perspective. I began to think that the 2.5 were going to be a mistake with more problems than solutions to my audio upgrades. This is because every one was trying to polish off the perceived blemishes and these few issues were becoming bigger than the basic sound. I was concerned that after all this I would end up were speakers nothing better than one could purchase from a budget store!
I don’t think this is the case. The 2.5 seem very good to many people so they have something. Some I’m sure will hate aspects of the sound which others won’t hear and this is where Troels and Nadir and every one else takes over and pushes forwards.
All in all the advice is great and it is interesting to read every ones views because some one is bound to hear things the way I do and they may have the solution to my questions. My R1SC are great, if the 2.5 improve only a little bit on them I will be over the moon. It has to be a great opportunity to look at centre and rear speakers too, and expand the projects and end up having a system to wipe the floor with commercial systems costing 10 the price it costs to make and not so much fun.
Thanks Troels for your last comments about the sound comparisons it gives me some ideas of what to expect. I truly can’t wait to get them up and running. I have the Boxes built now just got to stuff them and make the Xover (V6 I think to start) then cut them for the drivers.
Any views on damping and stuffing would be welcome. Quality thickness etc. Does it make difference in sound? Does it matter. I know that in the RSC1s there is the smallest amount of wadding that It hardly seems worth it. Finally in the R1SC the internal end of the port has a square of MDF with a hole in with the port tube end passing through. Is this standard? I haven’t seen it in any of the 2.5 diagrams.
AI.M, Bylie, AI.M post was thought provoking to say the least, so I thought it better to check scanspeaks frequency response graphs for the 851200/ 851300, tweeters, and if anybody else cares to do the same to see for yourself's why the 851300 tweeter has the hump at 2-4 k which is the cause of the aggravation you will see that the driver without x-over still has that hump[ which btw
is a breakup mode of the dome] verified by the funny curve of the impedance plot, then I looked at the 851200 to see if it had the same or similar characteristics, which it did to a much lesser extent, without the funny business in the impedance plot, 
from this I can only surmise that the x-over components are reacting with the tweeters electrical response at that frequency, exagerating the effects of the break up mode so I WOULD SAY TO ALL WHO ARE PLANNING ON BUILDING A CLONE TO GO FOR THE 851200 version of the tweeter simple solution to a complex problem: , no? in any event without having one of each to hand nor the clone enclosures with the bass units to measure them with I can only surmise that this is the way to solve the problem not with the added complexities of more inductors resistors /caps, etc...etc.... 
CHEER AND BEST REGARDS TO ALL 
TC
I think the way this discussion has developed just goes to show that we all perceive sound differently. That's why I really think new cloners should start off with the basic Jacq crossover (or even the Chinese) and proceed to the various mods only if they hear the types of problems we've been discussing.
It's always difficult to convey accurately what we hear. A case in point is Al's and my own definitions of "zingy". For me, a "zing" is the type of sound I hear when I scrape a razor blade along a wound steel guitar string - definitely metallic and sometimes unpleasant. For Al it equates to "presence, musicality, lushness and sweetness". I certainly hear some of that in the unmodified 8513, but I also hear something I find disturbing - and if I have to put words to it, "almost metallic" is the best I can come up with. I'm sure some will hear it as I do, but obviously there are many who will agree with Al.
The lesson has to be: trust your own ears, not mine, Troels', Al's or anybody else's.
It's always difficult to convey accurately what we hear. A case in point is Al's and my own definitions of "zingy". For me, a "zing" is the type of sound I hear when I scrape a razor blade along a wound steel guitar string - definitely metallic and sometimes unpleasant. For Al it equates to "presence, musicality, lushness and sweetness". I certainly hear some of that in the unmodified 8513, but I also hear something I find disturbing - and if I have to put words to it, "almost metallic" is the best I can come up with. I'm sure some will hear it as I do, but obviously there are many who will agree with Al.
The lesson has to be: trust your own ears, not mine, Troels', Al's or anybody else's.
there's a lesson in here somewhere for everyone which everybody keeps missing... 
it isn't enough to just look at a drivers f/r alone or the waterfall plot, if you are you might as well look at contour plans of the grand canyon for all the good it will do
rather as I found by long and innumerable measurements and analysing the results using tips left by others who have gone down this route before as a clue it finaly came to me in a moment of inspiration having read some magazine reviews and the comments of why certain speakers behaved the way {read sounded} the way they do and the reviewer an electronics engineer and speaker designer of some esteem.. responsible for some of the very early MONITOR AUDIO speakers THAT actually established that makes well desrved reputation in the early70's pointed me in the direction of the impedance plot of the system which is also just as relevant to a single driver without x/over [ read this with reference to my earlier post ] so it goeas without saying that as some punter in an earlier post on the subject suggested that the tweeter supplied to PRO AC IS Made especially for them aaah now this is a new twist, but how deo we know that? or anyone apart from PROAC or could it be, that PROAC are using the earlier 851200 dome assembly in the newer cosmetically more acceptable housing, this being the major visual difference to the standard item, dome assembly and voice coil would be identical apart from the doping of the domes which would account for the more severe break up of the more up market version of this tweeter, because just as with anything in life more of the same { read dopingof the dome} does not necesseraly mean better, hence gentlemen I WOULD suggest to you that going for the earlier cheaper version of this tweeter[ 851200] is the better option, and I THINK SPENDOR ARE doing the same also the other lesson here is that because something is the newer and more expensive does not always mean it is better so you be the judge save yourseves the agony of weeks and $'s of stuffing around trying different caps inductors etc, in the end you may be able to convince yourselves to justify why you have spent all this time and effort for nought, when the answer was right under your noses all along cheers to all and sundry 
topcatQwad
Thanks for the input but the sound of 8512 & 8513 are quite different. I have compared the 2 tweeters and the 8513 is smoother, less roug/more refined and much sweeter. Spendor use the 8512 in the Sp 1/2 model and the 8513 in the SP100 larger speaker more expensive model, which has a reputation for being one of the sweetest sounding 3 way cone speakers. The Proac 1sc is also supposed to be very sweet sounding, so to the 2.5. Use of the 8512 in the clone would be a step backwards, IMO, although on paper/technically you may be correct but to not the human ear and brain when listening.
Thanks for the input but the sound of 8512 & 8513 are quite different. I have compared the 2 tweeters and the 8513 is smoother, less roug/more refined and much sweeter. Spendor use the 8512 in the Sp 1/2 model and the 8513 in the SP100 larger speaker more expensive model, which has a reputation for being one of the sweetest sounding 3 way cone speakers. The Proac 1sc is also supposed to be very sweet sounding, so to the 2.5. Use of the 8512 in the clone would be a step backwards, IMO, although on paper/technically you may be correct but to not the human ear and brain when listening.
qwad,
I looked at the 8513 frequency response and saw nothing on the scale of the actual hump that the Response 2.5 displays. If you look at my simulation in the "Active 2.5" thread you will see that at least the majority of the problem is due entirely to the electrical interactions between the drivers (really the woofer) and the crossover, not the mechanical design of the 8513 tweeter.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=8541&
I looked at the 8513 frequency response and saw nothing on the scale of the actual hump that the Response 2.5 displays. If you look at my simulation in the "Active 2.5" thread you will see that at least the majority of the problem is due entirely to the electrical interactions between the drivers (really the woofer) and the crossover, not the mechanical design of the 8513 tweeter.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=8541&
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Dooohhh, 
but I 'm sorry to say you are wrong, I think you missed the point I was making entirely shows the superficial stance you are taking just by looking only at one aspect that is the response curve on it's own but if you look below you will see the funny hump in the imp plot on the upside of the resonance peak compare that to the 851200 imp plot and you will see it is nice and smooth, now I don't like to lecture nor try and explain something as complex as the electrical interaction of this hump IN THE DRIVERS impedance with the reactances introduced by the x/over components which by themselves will agravate the minor bump in the response plotshown in your attached image centred almost on 2k[ also present in the response plot of the 851200 BTW], now with the x-over components introducing the roll-in for want of a better word of the tweeter slope this bump will be shifted upwards, so untill you have gone through this process yourself it will be difficult for you to grasp and come to terms with and it seems equally difficult to convince an armchair expert who relies on his appendeges on each side of his noggin more than what is inside think with an open mind as one famous scientist found a long time ago that IS tought even today in physics is that each and every action has an equal and opposite reaction so take my word for it from one who has been through this perocess before trying to track down the cause of this effect not in these tweeters mind but in many ways just as relevant to this discourse... , without prejudice I am yours sincerely TOPCAT Qwad,
These are your own words:
I just don't see it. Yes, there is something funny about the impedance plot. No, I don't see a big hump in the frequency response.
To me, it looks like a red herring because the known bump in the Response 2.5 is too big to be explained by it. I'm not saying the tweeter isn't having some effect, I'm just saying it certainly isn't the prime culprit in that case.
I was going to say something about the tone of your reply but it is probably best to let it pass.
These are your own words:
I just don't see it. Yes, there is something funny about the impedance plot. No, I don't see a big hump in the frequency response.
To me, it looks like a red herring because the known bump in the Response 2.5 is too big to be explained by it. I'm not saying the tweeter isn't having some effect, I'm just saying it certainly isn't the prime culprit in that case.
I was going to say something about the tone of your reply but it is probably best to let it pass.
Disabled Account
Joined 2003
Version 6.x crossover clarification help
Hello,
This is what I've concluded from my readings of Troel's final paper:
V6 crossover- best for standard (uncoated) woofer and standard tweeter.
V6.1 crossover- best for modified woofer + modified tweeter.
However when compared to the V6, it seems their is only 1 difference, and it is in the LP section. A 3R3 resistor is increased to 3R9.
What is the reason for and effect of this resistor change?
V6.2 crossover implies that this is for the new coated woofers and modified tweeter. However, the changes are again only the LP section. In this crossover, the changes can be done in 2 steps-
a) the resistor is increased from 3.3R to 4R7, capacitor from 6.8 to 7.8uF (add a 1uF inductor)- these are both reasonably cheap (and thus easily reversible)
Am I correct in understanding that this was done to extend the HF cut-off of the coated 8535 woofers?
b) A LCR notch filter is added (10mH, 6.8uF, 10R) for those who want to smooth out the 800Hz bump
What are the downsides of adding notch filters to the all-important midrange? Would it be best to add a notch filter only if you think there is too much midrange?
The tweeter modifcation is irreversible and potentially destructive, thus some people may not want to do this.
Since the HP section of V6, V6.1 and V6.2 are unchanged, is it correct to conclude that all V6.x crossovers are suitable whether or not you modfiy the tweeter?
I am trying to come up with 'solutions' to those people who are stuck with the near rear "coated" 18W/8535-00 woofers but who are not daring enough to modify the tweeter
(My pair purchased in Oct 2003 Australia is coated)
Hello,
This is what I've concluded from my readings of Troel's final paper:
V6 crossover- best for standard (uncoated) woofer and standard tweeter.
V6.1 crossover- best for modified woofer + modified tweeter.
However when compared to the V6, it seems their is only 1 difference, and it is in the LP section. A 3R3 resistor is increased to 3R9.
What is the reason for and effect of this resistor change?
V6.2 crossover implies that this is for the new coated woofers and modified tweeter. However, the changes are again only the LP section. In this crossover, the changes can be done in 2 steps-
a) the resistor is increased from 3.3R to 4R7, capacitor from 6.8 to 7.8uF (add a 1uF inductor)- these are both reasonably cheap (and thus easily reversible)
Am I correct in understanding that this was done to extend the HF cut-off of the coated 8535 woofers?
b) A LCR notch filter is added (10mH, 6.8uF, 10R) for those who want to smooth out the 800Hz bump
What are the downsides of adding notch filters to the all-important midrange? Would it be best to add a notch filter only if you think there is too much midrange?
The tweeter modifcation is irreversible and potentially destructive, thus some people may not want to do this.
Since the HP section of V6, V6.1 and V6.2 are unchanged, is it correct to conclude that all V6.x crossovers are suitable whether or not you modfiy the tweeter?
I am trying to come up with 'solutions' to those people who are stuck with the near rear "coated" 18W/8535-00 woofers but who are not daring enough to modify the tweeter
(My pair purchased in Oct 2003 Australia is coated)
I am not an expert in electronics, but I build two pairs of ProAc 2.5. My first pair was the version 6.x with no notch filter and the combination 8535 and 8513. I used a value of 8ohm in the resistor of the tweeter circuit. I used the stock8535 and the stock 8513. At first, the sopranos voices a bit too metallic, a bit too sibilant for my taste. After more than 300 hours of play, the sound became much better. Now, with more than 400 hours, the sopranos voices a quite good.
I also built a pair with the stock 8535 and the 95000. For me, the sound was almost perfect from day one. They now have more than 300 hours of play, and they sound lovely. Every one who listened to them, including two guys who both have systems costing more than $10,000 loved them too.
According to a comment made by Troels, notch filters seem to delay the sound a little bit (which shows in his cascade graphs).
I would be careful to buy only 8535 with little coating on the back of the cone. I will soon help a friend make a pair, and I will make sure that the 8535 that we get have little coating on the back.
Hope this will help.
I also built a pair with the stock 8535 and the 95000. For me, the sound was almost perfect from day one. They now have more than 300 hours of play, and they sound lovely. Every one who listened to them, including two guys who both have systems costing more than $10,000 loved them too.
According to a comment made by Troels, notch filters seem to delay the sound a little bit (which shows in his cascade graphs).
I would be careful to buy only 8535 with little coating on the back of the cone. I will soon help a friend make a pair, and I will make sure that the 8535 that we get have little coating on the back.
Hope this will help.
I have read all the threads on the 2.5 clone and done much searching on the web. In keeping with the spirit of making the best possible speaker, the ProAc being bass reflex, what results could I expect if I tried to reduce standing waves by building the speaker in a curved shape like the Sonus Faber Amati all while maintaing the exact same volume.
I know this stretching the idea of a clone. But from what I have read and thanks to the great contributions everyone has made, we have an excellent speaker on our hands.
I am probably going to make the clones using the shape I've described and will post the results.
Thanks for The 2.5 clone!
I know this stretching the idea of a clone. But from what I have read and thanks to the great contributions everyone has made, we have an excellent speaker on our hands.
I am probably going to make the clones using the shape I've described and will post the results.
Thanks for The 2.5 clone!
Tktran
I am in the final stages of finishing my clones and I have to say it is all very puzzling. Having not heard the finished product it is difficult to comment but my understanding is this. Using the new coated woofer you may want to make the modifications to 6.1 to compensate for the new changes. This involves a change of Resistor values from 3R3 to 3R9 and 5R6 to 8R2.
This is to modify the cross over point to compensate for the new coating. The physical mod to the tweeter is a means of taming the harshness inherent in the design and can be effected irrespective of crossover mods.
Remember though that in both the uncoated and coated woofer the dust cap has been doped with Dammar varnish a modification which is supposed to aid sound quality.
What I plan to do is: Finish building my system which consists of the standard un-modified tweeter with the coated (on the back) woofer with the V6 cross over. Then I plan to coat the woofer dust cap with dammar varnish and see what difference this has. Then I plan to change the Resistor values to the V6.1. Then if the sound is too harsh consider modifying the tweeter although the sound will have to be quite hard for me to do this. I have Response 1 SC which have the same tweeter and I’ve been very happy with them for several years now so I’m hoping the sound will be ok for me.
Using the 9500 is an option to consider and I may one day embark upon that project or maybe try and modify the existing cabinets but I think you should take one step at a time. The notch filter as far as I can see was an interesting experiment but didn’t lead anywhere important.
I’m not sure what Alain means with getting a driver with a ‘little’ coating on the back. Isn’t it standard? It either is there or not? I have to say my drivers seem to have quite a heavy coating.
Remember the original Proacs on which these are based were considered very top quality speakers. All these mods are trying to improve on that design, so even with the basic system you should have a quality speaker. Taking the mods one step at a time is a good option to see where they lead and what effect they have. The final mod on the tweeter is of course irriversable so ought to be done as a last resort. If they don’t work you could always go to the 9500.
Finally I have emailed Troels during my build and asked various questions, he if very approachable and offers very good advice if you are a little confused on any issues. A top rate cloner.
Regards
Matt
I am in the final stages of finishing my clones and I have to say it is all very puzzling. Having not heard the finished product it is difficult to comment but my understanding is this. Using the new coated woofer you may want to make the modifications to 6.1 to compensate for the new changes. This involves a change of Resistor values from 3R3 to 3R9 and 5R6 to 8R2.
This is to modify the cross over point to compensate for the new coating. The physical mod to the tweeter is a means of taming the harshness inherent in the design and can be effected irrespective of crossover mods.
Remember though that in both the uncoated and coated woofer the dust cap has been doped with Dammar varnish a modification which is supposed to aid sound quality.
What I plan to do is: Finish building my system which consists of the standard un-modified tweeter with the coated (on the back) woofer with the V6 cross over. Then I plan to coat the woofer dust cap with dammar varnish and see what difference this has. Then I plan to change the Resistor values to the V6.1. Then if the sound is too harsh consider modifying the tweeter although the sound will have to be quite hard for me to do this. I have Response 1 SC which have the same tweeter and I’ve been very happy with them for several years now so I’m hoping the sound will be ok for me.
Using the 9500 is an option to consider and I may one day embark upon that project or maybe try and modify the existing cabinets but I think you should take one step at a time. The notch filter as far as I can see was an interesting experiment but didn’t lead anywhere important.
I’m not sure what Alain means with getting a driver with a ‘little’ coating on the back. Isn’t it standard? It either is there or not? I have to say my drivers seem to have quite a heavy coating.
Remember the original Proacs on which these are based were considered very top quality speakers. All these mods are trying to improve on that design, so even with the basic system you should have a quality speaker. Taking the mods one step at a time is a good option to see where they lead and what effect they have. The final mod on the tweeter is of course irriversable so ought to be done as a last resort. If they don’t work you could always go to the 9500.
Finally I have emailed Troels during my build and asked various questions, he if very approachable and offers very good advice if you are a little confused on any issues. A top rate cloner.
Regards
Matt
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.