A "few centimeters" could be several wavelengths at very high frequencies, each wavelength is 360 degrees of phase difference.The mids measure slightly different, though in both cases the mic was @ 1m and on-axis. Well, perhaps a few cm more or less than 1m.
And what happened with the phase response of the mids.
If you did not recalculate distance for the second measurement, and the distance was not exactly the same, the HF phase measurement won't be accurate.
Good luck making passive crossovers
!Vistaton mids that don't go to 1000.
I posted some graphs earlier in this thread showing my experience with the M10 mids. It appears to me that you are suffering the same fate. Since those posts, I have milled out the entrance hole in my "test horn" to something oblong and around .75"x.875" with some tapering behind the hole as well (frustum). Below is a graph of the difference between the stock M10 and my "screen door" version (with the Misco 5" as a reference) with this larger hole. Since you are committed to this driver (based on the creative way you designed your horn) you may want to experiment with the drivers. Instead of pasting on a mesh I'm curious about gluing some kind of ridges to the cone. Perhaps toothpicks? If you play with the cone you can see that it flexes very easily around the outer edge where the slope of the cone becomes almost non-existent. This is the part that I believe needs reinforcing.
The gold color is the Misco 5", the Green is the stock M10 and the purple is the screen door M10.
Still the mids don't go as high as I'd like them to. I'm not sure what exactly is prohibiting them from going up to 1Khz
I posted some graphs earlier in this thread showing my experience with the M10 mids. It appears to me that you are suffering the same fate. Since those posts, I have milled out the entrance hole in my "test horn" to something oblong and around .75"x.875" with some tapering behind the hole as well (frustum). Below is a graph of the difference between the stock M10 and my "screen door" version (with the Misco 5" as a reference) with this larger hole. Since you are committed to this driver (based on the creative way you designed your horn) you may want to experiment with the drivers. Instead of pasting on a mesh I'm curious about gluing some kind of ridges to the cone. Perhaps toothpicks? If you play with the cone you can see that it flexes very easily around the outer edge where the slope of the cone becomes almost non-existent. This is the part that I believe needs reinforcing.
The gold color is the Misco 5", the Green is the stock M10 and the purple is the screen door M10.
Despite all the 'shortcomings', I am quite happy with my xover and eq fiddling results of today 
. I need (a lot) less eq now to get the response I want. The most difficult thing is to get accurate measurement results. The room influence can kill an absolute flat response . So this is what I did...
I started with just the compression driver. I put the mic at different distances and angles to get an idea of what was room influence and what was the actual response of the driver. I used REW's pink noise generator and RTA function. It's far from ideal and needs a lot of trial and error.
Then I rolled in the mids, got them in the ball park, SPL-wise, and started changing the xover and phase settings, still while moving the mic around. What seemed to work well was an HP LR24@1kHz on the compression driver and an LP LR24@1.57kHz on the mids, both sections at normal polarity and 0 degrees phase shift. This, together with the following EQ on the compression driver yielded excellent results. No dip in the xover range. Compression driver eq setting:
1. BP, 1.98kHz, -4.7dB, Q: 3.5
2. BP, 3.04kHz, -3.6dB, Q: 2.2
3. BP, 5.78kHz, -3.2dB, Q: 2.8
4. HP, 11.7kHz, +10.6dB, 12dB/oct
5. BP, 9.06kHz, +1.9dB, Q: 4.5
6. BP, 13,9kHz, +1.4dB, Q: 5.6
Obviously the last two are not going to do very much, so perhaps they can be turned off.
Now I dialed in the woofers. After getting the volume about right, these xover settings seemed to work:
On mids: HP LR24 @303Hz,
On woofers: LP But24 @214Hz.
Woofers: normal polarity, phase shift 150 degrees.
Now for some eq:
On mids:
1. BP 467Hz, +3.4dB, Q: 5.6
2. BP 662Hz, +1.2dB, Q: 5,6
3. BP 691Hz, -3.6dB, Q: 5.0
On woofers:
1. BP 214Hz, -3.0dB, Q: 5.6
Then I grabbed a collection of flac files with different genres of music and started to listen through my RME Multiface soundcard. The mids and woofers were powered by a Powersoft D2002, the compression driver by a DIY headphone amp(!) with BUF634s in the output. And of course the Behringer DCX2496 for the crossover.
I admit, the above settings are the final settings, as I tweaked a little while I listened, so they're not purely determined by measurements and sweeps etc.
I think it sounded better then before. I even got my first goose bump moment, which is very good for just a single speaker playing one channel, I guess. I hooked up my drumriser sub to complement the bass and it just got better. Low passed at 80Hz, the sub took over everything below that.
I then recalled I promised to compare them to my Mackie HR824s. To keep it fair, I just switched on a single Mackie and set the volumes to be the same, everything mixed down to a mono channel going to both the Mackie and the synergy.
Then the true nature of the synergy concept became apparent. At first I thought something was wrong with how I set up the Mackie... I even switched to the other HR824 to double check. Nope. The synergy beats this well known 'reference studio monitor' by a couple of magnitudes. I remember when I first heard the Mackies, to me they sounded really good. Some friends agreed and even stated I was crazy not to use them in home, but only in the studio, they sounded that good . But compared to the synergy they sound REALLY flat. There seemed to he hardly any depth in the sound. There's so much more 'breathing room' for the various layers of instruments and voices in the synergy it's almost insane. Though you can hear all the sounds and layers on the Mackies, the seperation between them is so much bigger with the synergy .
And yet, if you fire up the synergy without any direct reference, they sound so 'natural'. Not over-articulated or anything. I guess you have to hear it for yourself to understand. Get up from your lazy chair and start building !
It depends on the music of course. The synergy excelled at complex music parts with lots of things going on, which were effortlessly set out and separated from each other, even in mono! (I have no second one to listen in stereo. Yet! But after this afternoon I can't wait to build a second).
I'm already doubting whether I want these things in my living room or use them just for my e-drum setup
...
. I need (a lot) less eq now to get the response I want. The most difficult thing is to get accurate measurement results. The room influence can kill an absolute flat response . So this is what I did...I started with just the compression driver. I put the mic at different distances and angles to get an idea of what was room influence and what was the actual response of the driver. I used REW's pink noise generator and RTA function. It's far from ideal and needs a lot of trial and error.
Then I rolled in the mids, got them in the ball park, SPL-wise, and started changing the xover and phase settings, still while moving the mic around. What seemed to work well was an HP LR24@1kHz on the compression driver and an LP LR24@1.57kHz on the mids, both sections at normal polarity and 0 degrees phase shift. This, together with the following EQ on the compression driver yielded excellent results. No dip in the xover range
. Compression driver eq setting:1. BP, 1.98kHz, -4.7dB, Q: 3.5
2. BP, 3.04kHz, -3.6dB, Q: 2.2
3. BP, 5.78kHz, -3.2dB, Q: 2.8
4. HP, 11.7kHz, +10.6dB, 12dB/oct
5. BP, 9.06kHz, +1.9dB, Q: 4.5
6. BP, 13,9kHz, +1.4dB, Q: 5.6
Obviously the last two are not going to do very much, so perhaps they can be turned off.
Now I dialed in the woofers. After getting the volume about right, these xover settings seemed to work:
On mids: HP LR24 @303Hz,
On woofers: LP But24 @214Hz.
Woofers: normal polarity, phase shift 150 degrees.
Now for some eq:
On mids:
1. BP 467Hz, +3.4dB, Q: 5.6
2. BP 662Hz, +1.2dB, Q: 5,6
3. BP 691Hz, -3.6dB, Q: 5.0
On woofers:
1. BP 214Hz, -3.0dB, Q: 5.6
Then I grabbed a collection of flac files with different genres of music and started to listen through my RME Multiface soundcard. The mids and woofers were powered by a Powersoft D2002, the compression driver by a DIY headphone amp(!) with BUF634s in the output. And of course the Behringer DCX2496 for the crossover.
I admit, the above settings are the final settings, as I tweaked a little while I listened, so they're not purely determined by measurements and sweeps etc.
I think it sounded better then before. I even got my first goose bump moment, which is very good for just a single speaker playing one channel, I guess. I hooked up my drumriser sub to complement the bass and it just got better
. Low passed at 80Hz, the sub took over everything below that.I then recalled I promised to compare them to my Mackie HR824s. To keep it fair, I just switched on a single Mackie and set the volumes to be the same, everything mixed down to a mono channel going to both the Mackie and the synergy.
Then the true nature of the synergy concept became apparent. At first I thought something was wrong with how I set up the Mackie... I even switched to the other HR824 to double check. Nope. The synergy beats this well known 'reference studio monitor' by a couple of magnitudes
. I remember when I first heard the Mackies, to me they sounded really good. Some friends agreed and even stated I was crazy not to use them in home, but only in the studio, they sounded that good . But compared to the synergy they sound REALLY flat. There seemed to he hardly any depth in the sound. There's so much more 'breathing room' for the various layers of instruments and voices in the synergy it's almost insane. Though you can hear all the sounds and layers on the Mackies, the seperation between them is so much bigger with the synergy .And yet, if you fire up the synergy without any direct reference, they sound so 'natural'. Not over-articulated or anything. I guess you have to hear it for yourself to understand. Get up from your lazy chair and start building
!It depends on the music of course. The synergy excelled at complex music parts with lots of things going on, which were effortlessly set out and separated from each other, even in mono! (I have no second one to listen in stereo. Yet! But after this afternoon I can't wait to build a second
). I'm already doubting whether I want these things in my living room or use them just for my e-drum setup
...No. In the first prototype only the mids needed a few milliseconds delay. In this second proto they are about 2 cm closer to the compression driver and I was kind of hoping/thinking that adjusting the phase would be enough. But I probably have the DCX run its time alignment blips just to be sure.
Hi Thijs
nice build, I am busy with one who has a two way and smaller for home use.
I am however not ready for what concerns the woofers who can go to 1.2 khz but then I need to keep VTC small, how to do that without trouble the port (not longer peaks!).
So fill up the cone space is not so easy I need a faseplug like thing who only fill not disturb. Speakers has 0.448 liters room in cone, and this x 2 because I use two speakers and hornresp do not acount for that.
regards
kees
nice build, I am busy with one who has a two way and smaller for home use.
I am however not ready for what concerns the woofers who can go to 1.2 khz but then I need to keep VTC small, how to do that without trouble the port (not longer peaks!).
So fill up the cone space is not so easy I need a faseplug like thing who only fill not disturb. Speakers has 0.448 liters room in cone, and this x 2 because I use two speakers and hornresp do not acount for that.
regards
kees
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.