Always good to hear of someone using Carver gear. I have several Phase Linear pieces in my setup and absolutely love them. However, nine of of ten people on web forums have nothing good to say about Carver's creations.
Word has it that Marchand crossovers are about as good as you can get. When I Can't take my DBX 234 any longer I'll go with an Ashly or Marchand. Check out the XM44: http://www.marchandelec.com/xm44.html
Word has it that Marchand crossovers are about as good as you can get. When I Can't take my DBX 234 any longer I'll go with an Ashly or Marchand. Check out the XM44: http://www.marchandelec.com/xm44.html
marchand xovers
Took a look at em. While they may sound great, they have nowhere near the flexibility of the DCX (which may be why -- don't have all that DAC stuff and different xovers, digital and balanced inputs, etc). I'm glad they have a picture of the open box, as it looks like a simple POT-type switching system for various L-R xover's which are configured by the resistors on replaceable boards (which, if they're priced anywhere near what I'm guessing, I'd sure be more apt to make than buy for different slopes). I'm curious to see that EI (I notice in their tube crossover and every other product I saw, they use a toroidal xformer) transformer over to the left, would like to see the rest of the board, doesn't look like much. I can't even compare this to the DCX in flexibility and control.
I'm thinking DCX modded may be the way to go. I liked most of the analog mods that the Audioxpress article made, except I would've nuked the mute entirely (I would have preamp do this) and would like to modularize the actual xovers (three are offered, but "hard code" to a certain degree). Would be nice to slot of cable changeout specific xover boards. Would also like to make it single-ended all the way through as my cable runs aren't long enough (between pre-amp to Xover) to require a balanced input (I doubt anyone's are except perhaps in a production environment) to justify needeing balanced inputs and they're just wasting space, IMO.
What I'm really wondering about is where Behringer is going. DCX has been out for a while and they seem to be getting limited in supply at retail (partsexpress has been back-ordered for a long time), so I'm wondering if a new version is due out Any Day Nowl.
Took a look at em. While they may sound great, they have nowhere near the flexibility of the DCX (which may be why -- don't have all that DAC stuff and different xovers, digital and balanced inputs, etc). I'm glad they have a picture of the open box, as it looks like a simple POT-type switching system for various L-R xover's which are configured by the resistors on replaceable boards (which, if they're priced anywhere near what I'm guessing, I'd sure be more apt to make than buy for different slopes). I'm curious to see that EI (I notice in their tube crossover and every other product I saw, they use a toroidal xformer) transformer over to the left, would like to see the rest of the board, doesn't look like much. I can't even compare this to the DCX in flexibility and control.
I'm thinking DCX modded may be the way to go. I liked most of the analog mods that the Audioxpress article made, except I would've nuked the mute entirely (I would have preamp do this) and would like to modularize the actual xovers (three are offered, but "hard code" to a certain degree). Would be nice to slot of cable changeout specific xover boards. Would also like to make it single-ended all the way through as my cable runs aren't long enough (between pre-amp to Xover) to require a balanced input (I doubt anyone's are except perhaps in a production environment) to justify needeing balanced inputs and they're just wasting space, IMO.
What I'm really wondering about is where Behringer is going. DCX has been out for a while and they seem to be getting limited in supply at retail (partsexpress has been back-ordered for a long time), so I'm wondering if a new version is due out Any Day Nowl.
If you want UHF drivers that will add a new dimension to your system, I recommend JBL 2402H ring radiators. However, you'll have to build an enclosure for them. The 2405 are better, but they are the old alnico product. You can buy new 2402H in the $500 - $600 range. I have a pair of 2402H, 2405, and 035Tia. The 035Ti is inexpensive on the used market and will amaze you with their brilliance. I haven't heard the LCY-100K, but wouldn't be surprise if the 035Ti sounded as good.
I spent quite a bit of time designing/planning my subs. Overall size was one of my primary design drivers. They had to be small. If you want to blow the walls out, consider a JBL 2245 driver. It will require a huge enclosure, but you'll only need one - build two if your house is made of steel reinforced concrete. I'm already designing my next set of subs. Can't leave well enough alone. The present set will vibrate the floors, walls, and windows. Not to mention you can feel the bass in your bowel - very cool!
I spent quite a bit of time designing/planning my subs. Overall size was one of my primary design drivers. They had to be small. If you want to blow the walls out, consider a JBL 2245 driver. It will require a huge enclosure, but you'll only need one - build two if your house is made of steel reinforced concrete. I'm already designing my next set of subs. Can't leave well enough alone. The present set will vibrate the floors, walls, and windows. Not to mention you can feel the bass in your bowel - very cool!
HipoFutura said:
Going for the elusive brown note?
Nice to hear of another 2245H fan. I've got a pair in a 22 x 25 room. Much better than a single. Kettle drums now sound real where a single didn't quite get there, even with ~1kW available. Too bad they discontinued it, but they pop up on eBay every so often.
Bob, have you considered therapy?? Anyone with two 2245H subs in their home is my hero! Do you have the sheetrock and window repair people on retainer?
I've just designed my next generation subs. They will use 2235H drivers. I just don't have the room required for 2245s. I'm going to build a pair of ported, front loaded 6 cu. ft. enclosures. I'm agonizing over what veneer to use. The subs will function as a base for my L100s and 2405s. For this reason they should be walnut with a satin finish. However, I think they would look really sharp with some sort of high gloss rose wood veneer. Any thoughts?
Presently, I'm building Anthony Holton's AV400 (two - one for each sub) to replace the Phase Linear 400 that drives my existing subs.
Don
I've just designed my next generation subs. They will use 2235H drivers. I just don't have the room required for 2245s. I'm going to build a pair of ported, front loaded 6 cu. ft. enclosures. I'm agonizing over what veneer to use. The subs will function as a base for my L100s and 2405s. For this reason they should be walnut with a satin finish. However, I think they would look really sharp with some sort of high gloss rose wood veneer. Any thoughts?
Presently, I'm building Anthony Holton's AV400 (two - one for each sub) to replace the Phase Linear 400 that drives my existing subs.
Don
homebuilt sub's
I've been eyeing the Eminence 4018LF 18" driver (800 watts RMS, 1600 watts max, freq 36-200, and vas 8.4 cu feet). Parts express has 'em for 288. Dayton 15" dual-coil which will take 600w rms to both coils, has a vas of 9.9 cu ft. Combine that with the Dayton hpsa1000 sub amp (class G, crossover 30-200hz 24db/octave) for 325 (current special - a steal!), total of 625 (before building simple closed or ported, prefer closed for subs myself, box and some filling) and you should be able to make some serious rumbling (hopefully without ever wearing out your cone edges).
I've been eyeing the Eminence 4018LF 18" driver (800 watts RMS, 1600 watts max, freq 36-200, and vas 8.4 cu feet). Parts express has 'em for 288. Dayton 15" dual-coil which will take 600w rms to both coils, has a vas of 9.9 cu ft. Combine that with the Dayton hpsa1000 sub amp (class G, crossover 30-200hz 24db/octave) for 325 (current special - a steal!), total of 625 (before building simple closed or ported, prefer closed for subs myself, box and some filling) and you should be able to make some serious rumbling (hopefully without ever wearing out your cone edges).
Amplifier discussion moved here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86484
dave
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86484
dave
Bi-Amping and Tri-Amping, Oh! My!
To eliminate the passive crossover is devine. It consumes half
your power and reduces the damping ratio -- the amps ability to
"control" the movement of the driver. By putting the "passive
components" into a circuit that is active, we can control the
undesired and pass on the desired. I remember the day I blew
my first pair of woofer! Heaven!
Why did they blow? Too much power was delivered to the voice coil!
Light bulbs going on! I've been wasting half my power in that little
"coil thingy." And it made my loudspeaker sound muddy and a little
sloppy. You will only need about half as much power out of your
amp to drive your low frequency transducer -- same for the MFT
and HFT (Mid Frequency Driver and High Frequency Driver).
It would be beneficial to isolate each driver cabinet but maintain
the closeness of the drivers to prevent weird phase problems.
Vandersteen Audio uses individual "boxes" and time aligns them -
something that can be done with time delay at the electronic
crossover. Maybe little boxes stacked with silicon between them?
A top mounted super tweeter like the Fostex T90A.
Like all DIYer, I'm working my way there.
Audio Control Richter Scale Series III Electronic Crossover.
2 Yamaha M-45 Amps (Modified - picts coming soon)
1 Rotel RB-850 (modified - picts coming soon)
JBL J325 Loudspeaker (modified - blow LFT and replaced with different driver, changed passisve crossovers)
Cerwin-Vega Sub (blew passive with M-45 bridged)
I switch between sub and passive in JBLs or JBLs only with
LFT active to MFT+HFT. I made up several "modules" for
the Audio Control. . .works great and I can crossover at
a lower value that the passive could -- somewhere in the high
800s to 1400s if I remember correctly.
To eliminate the passive crossover is devine. It consumes half
your power and reduces the damping ratio -- the amps ability to
"control" the movement of the driver. By putting the "passive
components" into a circuit that is active, we can control the
undesired and pass on the desired. I remember the day I blew
my first pair of woofer! Heaven!
Why did they blow? Too much power was delivered to the voice coil!
Light bulbs going on! I've been wasting half my power in that little
"coil thingy." And it made my loudspeaker sound muddy and a little
sloppy. You will only need about half as much power out of your
amp to drive your low frequency transducer -- same for the MFT
and HFT (Mid Frequency Driver and High Frequency Driver).
It would be beneficial to isolate each driver cabinet but maintain
the closeness of the drivers to prevent weird phase problems.
Vandersteen Audio uses individual "boxes" and time aligns them -
something that can be done with time delay at the electronic
crossover. Maybe little boxes stacked with silicon between them?
A top mounted super tweeter like the Fostex T90A.
Like all DIYer, I'm working my way there.
Audio Control Richter Scale Series III Electronic Crossover.
2 Yamaha M-45 Amps (Modified - picts coming soon)
1 Rotel RB-850 (modified - picts coming soon)
JBL J325 Loudspeaker (modified - blow LFT and replaced with different driver, changed passisve crossovers)
Cerwin-Vega Sub (blew passive with M-45 bridged)
I switch between sub and passive in JBLs or JBLs only with
LFT active to MFT+HFT. I made up several "modules" for
the Audio Control. . .works great and I can crossover at
a lower value that the passive could -- somewhere in the high
800s to 1400s if I remember correctly.
Re: Bi-Amping and Tri-Amping, Oh! My!
ah HA! Someone who's there, doing it! Muchas gracias, THAT's the post I was looking for. OK, question numero uno, the one that seems to be giving me the hardest time (which makes sense, but I was so ready to go DCX2496 until I started to hear some neg's on it and after reading the Audioxpress mod article, I began to have some doubts about some of the methods used for the xover creation and junk like in-lin muting, etc. that would make it less "invisible" than I would like"): So how did you decide on your active xover?
ah HA! Someone who's there, doing it! Muchas gracias, THAT's the post I was looking for. OK, question numero uno, the one that seems to be giving me the hardest time (which makes sense, but I was so ready to go DCX2496 until I started to hear some neg's on it and after reading the Audioxpress mod article, I began to have some doubts about some of the methods used for the xover creation and junk like in-lin muting, etc. that would make it less "invisible" than I would like"): So how did you decide on your active xover?
gni said:
Crossover Decision
My decision was two fold. First, I burned up the chock in the passive that was part of the Cerwin Vega Sub. I didn't have the extra M-45 at the time but bought it since I knew I would electronic crossover. I did a little research and came across the Audio Control Richter Scale Serise III (now no longer made). It was made in the United States, it is very simple with all discrete parts, it has resistor modules (8 I believe) to
change the crossover point (I made about 6). The resistors are metal film 1/4W (easily found in almost any value). It had 24dB/Oct Linkwitz Riley alignment that seems to work so well (didn't know much at the time. It was about $200 at the time (I also considered the Rane crossovers and would like to get one so I can full time electronic crossover). I do own a Rane VP-12 Voice Processor
and they will have to pry it from my cold dead hands
(all equipment should be made with the flexablility of the VP-12).
The choice of electronic crossover in the end is one of personal preference. Buy from a place you can return. . .what is good for
one persons ears my sound harsh to anothers. I do own a Behringer Shark. . it does what it says, but not as musical as my Rane or Audio Control. The Shark works great as a compressor on the TV (loud explosions are smooshed down and make movies watchable). I do not like surround sound/ultra dynamic movie sound tracks. . . it is a motion picture first! Picture!
Let me know if I haven't answered your question. Professional
equipment can provide some pleasing results in the home listening
environment. Not all pro equipment will sound good - remember,
it is made for the harsh road life, driven to max rail voltage on
a daily basis. . .
The Rane MA6S (discontinued but still sold) is a great 6 channel
amp (prime for triamping a stereo system. I had to fix one that
was in a pro install. . . I tested it at home an loved the open,
dynamic sound. . .very versitile with connections. There were
three in the install. . .would love to buy one off of them. . .the
system was a reverb system for a Symphony Hall. . . added
reverb to an acoustically dead hall.
Sorry. . .
Let me know.
Chris
My decision was two fold. First, I burned up the chock in the passive that was part of the Cerwin Vega Sub. I didn't have the extra M-45 at the time but bought it since I knew I would electronic crossover. I did a little research and came across the Audio Control Richter Scale Serise III (now no longer made). It was made in the United States, it is very simple with all discrete parts, it has resistor modules (8 I believe) to
change the crossover point (I made about 6). The resistors are metal film 1/4W (easily found in almost any value). It had 24dB/Oct Linkwitz Riley alignment that seems to work so well (didn't know much at the time. It was about $200 at the time (I also considered the Rane crossovers and would like to get one so I can full time electronic crossover). I do own a Rane VP-12 Voice Processor
and they will have to pry it from my cold dead hands
(all equipment should be made with the flexablility of the VP-12).
The choice of electronic crossover in the end is one of personal preference. Buy from a place you can return. . .what is good for
one persons ears my sound harsh to anothers. I do own a Behringer Shark. . it does what it says, but not as musical as my Rane or Audio Control. The Shark works great as a compressor on the TV (loud explosions are smooshed down and make movies watchable). I do not like surround sound/ultra dynamic movie sound tracks. . . it is a motion picture first! Picture!
Let me know if I haven't answered your question. Professional
equipment can provide some pleasing results in the home listening
environment. Not all pro equipment will sound good - remember,
it is made for the harsh road life, driven to max rail voltage on
a daily basis. . .
The Rane MA6S (discontinued but still sold) is a great 6 channel
amp (prime for triamping a stereo system. I had to fix one that
was in a pro install. . . I tested it at home an loved the open,
dynamic sound. . .very versitile with connections. There were
three in the install. . .would love to buy one off of them. . .the
system was a reverb system for a Symphony Hall. . . added
reverb to an acoustically dead hall.
Sorry. . .
Let me know.
Chris
Re: Re: Bi-Amping and Tri-Amping, Oh! My!
go ahead and get the behringer and more than likely you will be happy with it in the short run at a minimum. the price is right and the functionality is good. if you need something better down the road, you can worry about it later.
i am currently using it as a crossover between martin-logan electrostats and a velodyne sub and as multiple parametric eq's on each of the 3 channels. any degradation of the sound quality (which i am skeptical of) is more than offset by the enhanced crossover and better room integration with the eq.
just make sure that you get your levels right between your preamp/crossover/amps. i wouldn't be too concerned about volume control between the crossover output and the amps (other than getting your overall levels right). i realize that in theory, it would give you better digital resolution at the crossover, but in practice it doesn't seem to make much difference too me. or rather, i have not felt compelled to mess around with it because controlling volume via a preamp into the crossover seems to work fine for me.
YMMV, but at the price, you can try the behringer without much risk.
tlparker said:
go ahead and get the behringer and more than likely you will be happy with it in the short run at a minimum. the price is right and the functionality is good. if you need something better down the road, you can worry about it later.
i am currently using it as a crossover between martin-logan electrostats and a velodyne sub and as multiple parametric eq's on each of the 3 channels. any degradation of the sound quality (which i am skeptical of) is more than offset by the enhanced crossover and better room integration with the eq.
just make sure that you get your levels right between your preamp/crossover/amps. i wouldn't be too concerned about volume control between the crossover output and the amps (other than getting your overall levels right). i realize that in theory, it would give you better digital resolution at the crossover, but in practice it doesn't seem to make much difference too me. or rather, i have not felt compelled to mess around with it because controlling volume via a preamp into the crossover seems to work fine for me.
YMMV, but at the price, you can try the behringer without much risk.
lenardaudio and other co. that already does "separate box" configuration
I was going back and looking for the "there's a company that already builds the "Totally Separates" boxes I built this discussion on, then came across this post and took another look at the lenardaudio.com site. Definitely impressive stuff, but even in my 25x75 room, does he/they have something for the home market? Looked like commercial stuff to me, unless he has a different site or outlet for domestic stuff.
I was going back and looking for the "there's a company that already builds the "Totally Separates" boxes I built this discussion on, then came across this post and took another look at the lenardaudio.com site. Definitely impressive stuff, but even in my 25x75 room, does he/they have something for the home market? Looked like commercial stuff to me, unless he has a different site or outlet for domestic stuff.
Cameron Glendin said:The finest speaker system I have ever heard is a 4 way active system built by lenard audio. lenardaudio.com.au
Lenard only makes 4 way active systems since 1977 and horn loading is his favorite. He uses industrial style of components ie PA but his results are true audiofile. The Opal series are heaven and the Cinema System is the finest sounding cinema I have experienced (the Chauvel in Paddington, Sydney. Australia.)
Lenard has told me that active can and is the ideal, but to beware of poor quality active crossovers.
Have you considered TDM for a XO? I've used one for over ten years to biamp, triamp, and quadamp* my home theatre; you'd have a tough time convincing me to replace (upgrade) it.
Granted it's analogue, pro gear, but you can pick up one to tri-amp on ebay for 15-20 cents on the dollar compared to a new one. They offer much flexability between boosting or cutting input signal, infinately varible frequency, 4th order LR filtering across the board.
*another story for another day
As far the discussion of passive verses active DIY, (see above) active all the way!
Just my $0.02
cheers
tony
Granted it's analogue, pro gear, but you can pick up one to tri-amp on ebay for 15-20 cents on the dollar compared to a new one. They offer much flexability between boosting or cutting input signal, infinately varible frequency, 4th order LR filtering across the board.
*another story for another day
As far the discussion of passive verses active DIY, (see above) active all the way!
Just my $0.02
cheers
tony
Re Lenard Audio
Yes they do have a home version, its an iscobaric twin 12, with high quality and fairly high efficent hi fi components, 4 way active sounds wonderful, it is the only design that is not seperates, I believe the cost is near $5,000 Australian, an industrial ie louder version which uses a 1" horn for the midrange is being designed. Its called the Seriban from memory.
And a cheaper intro system is also being developed.
The Education section of his site is amazing!!!!!!
Yes they do have a home version, its an iscobaric twin 12, with high quality and fairly high efficent hi fi components, 4 way active sounds wonderful, it is the only design that is not seperates, I believe the cost is near $5,000 Australian, an industrial ie louder version which uses a 1" horn for the midrange is being designed. Its called the Seriban from memory.
And a cheaper intro system is also being developed.
The Education section of his site is amazing!!!!!!
Re: Bi-Amping and Tri-Amping, Oh! My!
I went over to Vandersteen Audio's (very pooryly designed) web site, and it wasn't entirely clear to me that that they were designed for active XO's. I saw the way they had the low/mid/hi stacked a little back from each other to get some better time alignment, but didn't see anything re multi/tri amping and active XO. If I missed something, please let me know, I almost felt like I was at the wrong web site it was so low-qualit (vandersteen.com was the site).
Right now I've got some boxes with four 8 inch openings (old Advents which the surrounds wore out on and aren't worth fixing) and the cases are in excellent shape and very nice (black, rounded corners, with small curved wooden "trim" piece on bottom). Anyways, I've hooked them up in a 3-way system to a very old Pyle 3-way passive XO with Lpads that'll let you attenuate the mid and tweets, and with them in a very "test" setup, they sound pretty damn good (except from hiss from the "super tweet" I am using, but I figure a Cap should fix that). So I was thinking of putting a tweet in top, then two mid/mid-woofs, then a woof, and hooking up to something like DCX2496 and seeing what I can get them to do. To me, that seems to be the main advantage (as a DIY-ser, mainly interested in speakers, though I'm getting sidetracked into chip-amps (LM3875) and may also build a Sloan totem after picking up a set of cheap boards "on sale" at his site) in the electronic XO's, being able to play around and find optimal settings, then possibly building a "hard wired" passive or active XO for final speaker and moving on to use the DCX for next project. Or am I delisuional and I'll need to keep the DCX hooked up for different modes (AV vs. music, etc).??
Feedback, bring it on. Just place mic right in front of monitor and whistle.
I went over to Vandersteen Audio's (very pooryly designed) web site, and it wasn't entirely clear to me that that they were designed for active XO's. I saw the way they had the low/mid/hi stacked a little back from each other to get some better time alignment, but didn't see anything re multi/tri amping and active XO. If I missed something, please let me know, I almost felt like I was at the wrong web site it was so low-qualit (vandersteen.com was the site).
Right now I've got some boxes with four 8 inch openings (old Advents which the surrounds wore out on and aren't worth fixing) and the cases are in excellent shape and very nice (black, rounded corners, with small curved wooden "trim" piece on bottom). Anyways, I've hooked them up in a 3-way system to a very old Pyle 3-way passive XO with Lpads that'll let you attenuate the mid and tweets, and with them in a very "test" setup, they sound pretty damn good (except from hiss from the "super tweet" I am using, but I figure a Cap should fix that). So I was thinking of putting a tweet in top, then two mid/mid-woofs, then a woof, and hooking up to something like DCX2496 and seeing what I can get them to do. To me, that seems to be the main advantage (as a DIY-ser, mainly interested in speakers, though I'm getting sidetracked into chip-amps (LM3875) and may also build a Sloan totem after picking up a set of cheap boards "on sale" at his site) in the electronic XO's, being able to play around and find optimal settings, then possibly building a "hard wired" passive or active XO for final speaker and moving on to use the DCX for next project. Or am I delisuional and I'll need to keep the DCX hooked up for different modes (AV vs. music, etc).??
Feedback, bring it on. Just place mic right in front of monitor and whistle.
gni said:
Vandersteen Boxes
It seems to me that Vandersteen isolates their drivers
and uses mostly passive components to bring things
back into phase and levels. Something that would be
done with the active crossover. It just seemed that
Vandersteen was doing what the original post wanted
to do, but now use active crossovers. . .
I've heard the Vandersteen loudspeakers and they did
sound "unboxy" at points. The ability to isolate
the driver baskets is a plus, but it physically puts
distance between them causing phase problems.
Like all things, fix one problem, create two new ones.
The whole point is to get good sounding audio in "your"
listening environment. I think that fact gets lost on a few
in this forum. Each environment requires a different solution
to good sounding audio.
I think the "single driver" group makes great points.
but
a single driver just can't produce the complex sound
waves in all the octaves that humans hear. Period.
Depending on the source material. . .a good single
driver can perform very well. If I only played jazz LPs,
I could design a great single driver that makes your
neighbor's $50K audio system sound like a cheap
Bose Acoustic Wave Radio (isn't that a single driver
per channel?).
I think that it has been well established (not in a conservative
way--in all practical experience that is) that you need two or
three drivers of some sort to reproduce the sounds that
a human can hear.
Passive components do introduce and create new problems
when introduced into the audio signal path. I would rather
use the components in an active manner (isolated and controlled).
It just provides better control of the signal and allows the use
of lower power amplifiers and a chance to better match an
amplifier type to the transducer type.
Chris
It seems to me that Vandersteen isolates their drivers
and uses mostly passive components to bring things
back into phase and levels. Something that would be
done with the active crossover. It just seemed that
Vandersteen was doing what the original post wanted
to do, but now use active crossovers. . .
I've heard the Vandersteen loudspeakers and they did
sound "unboxy" at points. The ability to isolate
the driver baskets is a plus, but it physically puts
distance between them causing phase problems.
Like all things, fix one problem, create two new ones.
The whole point is to get good sounding audio in "your"
listening environment. I think that fact gets lost on a few
in this forum. Each environment requires a different solution
to good sounding audio.
I think the "single driver" group makes great points.
but
a single driver just can't produce the complex sound
waves in all the octaves that humans hear. Period.
Depending on the source material. . .a good single
driver can perform very well. If I only played jazz LPs,
I could design a great single driver that makes your
neighbor's $50K audio system sound like a cheap
Bose Acoustic Wave Radio (isn't that a single driver
per channel?).
I think that it has been well established (not in a conservative
way--in all practical experience that is) that you need two or
three drivers of some sort to reproduce the sounds that
a human can hear.
Passive components do introduce and create new problems
when introduced into the audio signal path. I would rather
use the components in an active manner (isolated and controlled).
It just provides better control of the signal and allows the use
of lower power amplifiers and a chance to better match an
amplifier type to the transducer type.
Chris
The possible "Perfect" Solution
IF I WERE STARTING FROM SCRATCH!
I would probably start with a subwoofer (or two) with active servo technology. Cross between 200Hz and 300Hz to a wide range driver. Finally cross to a super tweeter around 10kHz. This pushes the
crossover away from the "critical" midrange region. All would cross
with the 24dB/Oct Linkwitz Riley alignment in the; all crossovers
would be active, level controls, phase, and EQ for BSC and other
physical problems with the drivers.
All cone drivers would be in sealed enclosures (which creates
a built in high pass filter to the driver and will help protect
it if it ever does receive too much low frequency information).
Sealed = -12dB/Oct
Ported = -24dB/Oct
The electronic crossover will be set to at least 1/2 octave above
resonance to avoide maximum excursion at resonance of the
sealed driver. Keep everything in control.
Basically, a single driver with help at the low end and high end via
electronic crossover and optimized drivers for the low and high.
All drivers will be in their own "Box" or enclosure and adjustable.
There will be two subs (200Hz isn't really sub region any more,
they will handle the first 3 to 4 octaves). The Wide range driver will cover the next 5 to 6 octaves. While the super tweeter will cover the last octave (which is half of the audio spectrum 10kHz).
So, the Super tweete gets about 50% of all the frequencies, the full range gets about 48.5% and the sub gets 1.5%!
20Hz to 20,000Hz = 19,980Hz
Sub = 20Hz to 300Hz ( 280Hz) 1.4%
Full = 300Hz to 10,000Hz ( 9,700Hz) 48.5%
Super = 10,000Hz to 20,000Hz (10,000Hz) 50.1%
------------------------------------------------------------------
100.0%
IF I WERE STARTING FROM SCRATCH!
I would probably start with a subwoofer (or two) with active servo technology. Cross between 200Hz and 300Hz to a wide range driver. Finally cross to a super tweeter around 10kHz. This pushes the
crossover away from the "critical" midrange region. All would cross
with the 24dB/Oct Linkwitz Riley alignment in the; all crossovers
would be active, level controls, phase, and EQ for BSC and other
physical problems with the drivers.
All cone drivers would be in sealed enclosures (which creates
a built in high pass filter to the driver and will help protect
it if it ever does receive too much low frequency information).
Sealed = -12dB/Oct
Ported = -24dB/Oct
The electronic crossover will be set to at least 1/2 octave above
resonance to avoide maximum excursion at resonance of the
sealed driver. Keep everything in control.
Basically, a single driver with help at the low end and high end via
electronic crossover and optimized drivers for the low and high.
All drivers will be in their own "Box" or enclosure and adjustable.
There will be two subs (200Hz isn't really sub region any more,
they will handle the first 3 to 4 octaves). The Wide range driver will cover the next 5 to 6 octaves. While the super tweeter will cover the last octave (which is half of the audio spectrum 10kHz).
So, the Super tweete gets about 50% of all the frequencies, the full range gets about 48.5% and the sub gets 1.5%!
20Hz to 20,000Hz = 19,980Hz
Sub = 20Hz to 300Hz ( 280Hz) 1.4%
Full = 300Hz to 10,000Hz ( 9,700Hz) 48.5%
Super = 10,000Hz to 20,000Hz (10,000Hz) 50.1%
------------------------------------------------------------------
100.0%
Perhaps it would be better to devide the frequencies up into groups of 2 octives as no single speaker can cover more than that without introducing distortion. 4 way system active 24db slope.
P.s I am currently listening to a full range with sub system at home and really enjoy it! the single point sorce, low crossover is nice.
P.s I am currently listening to a full range with sub system at home and really enjoy it! the single point sorce, low crossover is nice.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.