Re: frugahile
I haven't heard either. I have the major parts for both down in the lab... just need some time.
Reviews of the EL34 amp in the schematic were quite glowing.
I hope to be able to run 4 channels of gain clones, 4 channels of PP EL84 and 2 channels of SE EL84 in a tri-amped system.
dave
rick57 said:
I haven't heard either. I have the major parts for both down in the lab... just need some time.
Reviews of the EL34 amp in the schematic were quite glowing.
I hope to be able to run 4 channels of gain clones, 4 channels of PP EL84 and 2 channels of SE EL84 in a tri-amped system.
dave
tri-amping
(I'm also tri-amping, drivers of 98 db efficiency).
Maybe I missed somethings, please clarify:
The dynaco SCA-35s are for the schematic, so they're EL84 or SV83s?
The description was "push-pull . . EL84/SV83". Should that be EL 34?
And (real ignorance) the design shown is the PP?
Getting subjective again but the SE you like is?
How do you think they compare to a good 300B design, say with the better TJ tubes; or a 2A3?
(I'm also tri-amping, drivers of 98 db efficiency).
Maybe I missed somethings, please clarify:
The dynaco SCA-35s are for the schematic, so they're EL84 or SV83s?
The description was "push-pull . . EL84/SV83". Should that be EL 34?
And (real ignorance) the design shown is the PP?
Getting subjective again but the SE you like is?
How do you think they compare to a good 300B design, say with the better TJ tubes; or a 2A3?
The SCA 35 is for the iron. 2 gives me 4 OPTs & 2 power trafos so i can build monoblocs (with 2 OPTs left over -- which i have some salvaged medical instrument power trafos for -- 4 monoblocs). The SCA35 uses EL84s -- the SV83 is a close sub that many think is better.
Yes. The SE i can afford is an EL84 (because i have OPTs -- lots of them)
Most would say these would be better (althou i cherish one comment about a triplet of EL84s giving a 300B a solid run for the money). With the appropriate iron the VSE design can be adapted for almost any pair of output tubes -- Frank says i can use 300Bs with the Dyna Mk III iron i recently swapped for -- but that is WAY down the road.
dave
I was reading this article.
*laughs*
Phase Audibility section
"If we believe the "absolute phase" lunatics, this would not be the case, so your wife may sound like your wife in one part of the room, but sound like the milkman in another."
http://sound.westhost.com/ptd.htm
*laughs*
Phase Audibility section
"If we believe the "absolute phase" lunatics, this would not be the case, so your wife may sound like your wife in one part of the room, but sound like the milkman in another."
http://sound.westhost.com/ptd.htm
I've done some more reading, but I am still confused
on the all-pass delay concept.
I understand that the delay is caused by:
1) The crossover
2) Physical placement of the drivers
But here's where I get in trouble:
The entire response of the tweeter is "ahead"
of the mid-woof. So Why does the delay circuit have
a corner freq just above the cross over freq?
Shouldn't the entire response of the tweeter be delayed?
(Corner freq of all-pass = 1Mhz or greater)
Are we only concerned with delaying the response
within the band of frequencies that are shared by
both drivers?
Check out http://www.linkwitzlab.com/models.htm#E
He describes it in detail, but I guess I didn't
take enough smart pills this morning.
P.S. Here's a quote from Linkwitz that makes me think
this topic is very important:
"Active crossover circuits that do not include phase correction
circuitry are only marginally useable."
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/filters.htm
on the all-pass delay concept.
I understand that the delay is caused by:
1) The crossover
2) Physical placement of the drivers
But here's where I get in trouble:
The entire response of the tweeter is "ahead"
of the mid-woof. So Why does the delay circuit have
a corner freq just above the cross over freq?
Shouldn't the entire response of the tweeter be delayed?
(Corner freq of all-pass = 1Mhz or greater)
Are we only concerned with delaying the response
within the band of frequencies that are shared by
both drivers?
Check out http://www.linkwitzlab.com/models.htm#E
He describes it in detail, but I guess I didn't
take enough smart pills this morning.
P.S. Here's a quote from Linkwitz that makes me think
this topic is very important:
"Active crossover circuits that do not include phase correction
circuitry are only marginally useable."
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/filters.htm
A first order allpass filter section with flat amplitude response but phase shift that changes from 0 degrees to -180 degrees, or -180 degrees to -360 degrees, is often used to correct phase response differences between drivers. Multiple sections may delay the tweeter output and compensate for the driver being mounted forward of the midrange. Active crossover circuits that do not include phase correction circuitry are only marginally useable.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/filters.htm
Yeah, pretty bold statement to
say his own crossover is marginally
useable if the drivers are not physically
aligned. LOL
If you are really worried about
time alignment of drivers and
want your crossover to have
an "all pass" filter (lets all frequencies
pass... with delay), why not add
the circuit and use a switch to
enable/disable the circuit.
I prefer Rod Elliot conclusions
as his conclusions are more
down to earth. Read his thoughts..
My overall opinion, based on the research for this article (primarily tests and simulations), is that time alignment is a very good thing, and perhaps all speakers should be designed this way. On the negative side, the offset required to achieve time alignment can lead to diffraction effects that may damage the sound quality far more than the misalignment. A sloped baffle means that you are always listening off axis from the drivers - not by a great deal perhaps, but off axis nonetheless. This conundrum can be resolved, and it has been by several manufacturers, each in their own way.
http://sound.westhost.com/ptd.htm
If it was me, I would just build the LR
24db crossover, build some good
speakers cabinets with good design
methodologies and everything
magically falls into place sounding good.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/filters.htm
Yeah, pretty bold statement to
say his own crossover is marginally
useable if the drivers are not physically
aligned. LOL
If you are really worried about
time alignment of drivers and
want your crossover to have
an "all pass" filter (lets all frequencies
pass... with delay), why not add
the circuit and use a switch to
enable/disable the circuit.
I prefer Rod Elliot conclusions
as his conclusions are more
down to earth. Read his thoughts..
My overall opinion, based on the research for this article (primarily tests and simulations), is that time alignment is a very good thing, and perhaps all speakers should be designed this way. On the negative side, the offset required to achieve time alignment can lead to diffraction effects that may damage the sound quality far more than the misalignment. A sloped baffle means that you are always listening off axis from the drivers - not by a great deal perhaps, but off axis nonetheless. This conundrum can be resolved, and it has been by several manufacturers, each in their own way.
http://sound.westhost.com/ptd.htm
If it was me, I would just build the LR
24db crossover, build some good
speakers cabinets with good design
methodologies and everything
magically falls into place sounding good.
I'm in Guam this week looking at the air traffic control tower,
but my mind is on my project
So, next question:
I am thinking of building an aleph 4 to run the mid/woofs.
Since it supplies 100watts/channel and my Zen4s supply
25 watts per channel, this would be a 6dB difference,
correct?
I am just thinking of how much flexibility I should build in
to my active cross.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense - I am still recovering from
that long flight...
but my mind is on my project
So, next question:
I am thinking of building an aleph 4 to run the mid/woofs.
Since it supplies 100watts/channel and my Zen4s supply
25 watts per channel, this would be a 6dB difference,
correct?
I am just thinking of how much flexibility I should build in
to my active cross.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense - I am still recovering from
that long flight...
warning, warning
don't fly through guam if you can avoid it! as the person who is supposed to be checking the flight control tower, has his mind elsewhere
on his own admission, his mind is not on his job but on personal projectswith his head in the clouds
NO OFFENSE COBBER, JUST RIBBIN YA CHEERS,
TJB::
Sorry If I missed it, but did anyone bring up this link, speaking of Raven and Scan Speak?
http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=CRITERION
Anthony
http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=CRITERION
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Anthony
I have had these up and running for some time now, but
have never given a write up, so here goes...
Raven R-1 & Scan Speak 15W/8530 K01
Roughly 9.5 liter sealed
Rane AC22 active crossover
Crossed at about 3.6kHz
Driven by 4 channels of a Carver AV-806 amp
MIT Terminator 2 cables for Low
MIT Terminator 6 cables for High
Several comments:
1) The little 5 inch goes lower than you think. Most times I
am happier to listen without the sub than to tolerate
sub-satellite integration problems (is that a sentence?)
2) After listening for a few weeks, I think the Raven provides
very enjoyable highs. It also has a very strong magnet.
Cannot be used within 6 feet of a TV.
3) I believe these are the best drivers I have ever had in my
house. Both seem to be VERY good at what they do.
4) That doesn't mean that they integrate as well as I would
like. Still much more work to be done in this area!
5) I have not implemented the tweeter delay ( The delay in the
Rane is set up to slow down the lows, so I have to transplant
the circuit into the highs. Easily done - even explained in the
directions - I just have not done it yet.)
6) No measurements yet, and maybe not for a while.
7) I don't think the MIT cables make a damn bit of difference when
compared to Radio Shack 14 guage
8) No baffle step compensation or shelving low pass (yet).
Thanks for all the help guys.
have never given a write up, so here goes...
Raven R-1 & Scan Speak 15W/8530 K01
Roughly 9.5 liter sealed
Rane AC22 active crossover
Crossed at about 3.6kHz
Driven by 4 channels of a Carver AV-806 amp
MIT Terminator 2 cables for Low
MIT Terminator 6 cables for High
Several comments:
1) The little 5 inch goes lower than you think. Most times I
am happier to listen without the sub than to tolerate
sub-satellite integration problems (is that a sentence?)
2) After listening for a few weeks, I think the Raven provides
very enjoyable highs. It also has a very strong magnet.
Cannot be used within 6 feet of a TV.
3) I believe these are the best drivers I have ever had in my
house. Both seem to be VERY good at what they do.
4) That doesn't mean that they integrate as well as I would
like. Still much more work to be done in this area!
5) I have not implemented the tweeter delay ( The delay in the
Rane is set up to slow down the lows, so I have to transplant
the circuit into the highs. Easily done - even explained in the
directions - I just have not done it yet.)
6) No measurements yet, and maybe not for a while.
7) I don't think the MIT cables make a damn bit of difference when
compared to Radio Shack 14 guage
8) No baffle step compensation or shelving low pass (yet).
Thanks for all the help guys.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.