(1) Sorry, you are wrong infinia, I'm talking phase not output. Be careful.
(2) On the second phrase, about first order, I didn't bother look, because we (Loren42) are not there. Everything about the xover components Mid/Tweeter would change and a new complete simulation needed to be run, as you very much know. I personally like to revert to first order when I can.
Well, as a quick test I opened the cabinet and reversed the tweeter phase and I wired up an L-Pad that I had already installed in the cabinet between the + IN and the 40 uF cap in the midrange crossover.
The L-Pad is wired such that it simply adds resistance from 0 to 8 Ohms in series with the circuit instead of wiring it as a conventional L-Pad. This will impact the impedance of the mid depending on how much resistance is added.
I have not had a chance to run a sweep yet, but subjective listening tests did not impress me. Maybe some more tweaking of the mid level, but I need to actually run a sweep and I should order the components you changed in the schematic and try that.
The L-Pad is wired such that it simply adds resistance from 0 to 8 Ohms in series with the circuit instead of wiring it as a conventional L-Pad. This will impact the impedance of the mid depending on how much resistance is added.
I have not had a chance to run a sweep yet, but subjective listening tests did not impress me. Maybe some more tweaking of the mid level, but I need to actually run a sweep and I should order the components you changed in the schematic and try that.
\Hi Inductor
Please research the impact of horn loading dome tweeters you cant look at phase only it's affects everything esp near the new cuttoff. Zaph and Troels Gravesen with measurements.
Loren, 3-Ways are more difficult. A 2 year time frame of testing and measuring is a good bet for your xover to be in line with what you want (and need). No problem if you make any mistake, you will get there. So, first, I would bring the xover out of the enclosures.
Sure, you are wrong again infinia... if you want to go on complaining... I don't care what your gurus are.
(P. don't take it personal.)
Sure, you are wrong again infinia... if you want to go on complaining... I don't care what your gurus are.
(P. don't take it personal.)
Wow inductor woke up on the wrong side of the bed? No technical arguments! just a line in the sand is not helpful to anyone.
I appreciate both of your time and expertise on this. I need to and want to learn.
Differing opinions are good, but Ad Hominem attacks do nothing to resolve those differences. I appreciate good arguments when they do not get side tracked with fallacies because they open discussions up to peer review.
Differing opinions are good, but Ad Hominem attacks do nothing to resolve those differences. I appreciate good arguments when they do not get side tracked with fallacies because they open discussions up to peer review.
Inductor had some question as to which data to use for the morel horn tweeter. I believe the Morel data to be the correct response, yet he choose the PE data. I'm not sure what his simulation did with that information tho. If you compare the raw data from Morel, it has the classic peaked response with the gentle HF roll off of a horn, yet in the PE data the response is flattened indicating some sort of HPF is used, also showing up in the CSD plot ie no self resonance residuals.
Using stand alone absolute phase data ( probably with a HPF attached) without comparing it to the midrange as mounted in its final baffle configuration and spacing offsets to come up with a crossover design is problematical IMO.
I disagree with changing parts willy-nilly based on some unknown or perhaps false assumptions or models. Lets just see where madisounds LEAP design measures up first.
Using stand alone absolute phase data ( probably with a HPF attached) without comparing it to the midrange as mounted in its final baffle configuration and spacing offsets to come up with a crossover design is problematical IMO.
I disagree with changing parts willy-nilly based on some unknown or perhaps false assumptions or models. Lets just see where madisounds LEAP design measures up first.
"I disagree with changing parts willy-nilly based on some unknown or perhaps false assumptions or models. Lets just see where madisounds LEAP design measures up first."
That makes perfect sense to me.
As far as the L-Pad goes, you mean to wire it up as you would a conventional L-Pad, but place it before the mid's EQ network?
That makes perfect sense to me.
As far as the L-Pad goes, you mean to wire it up as you would a conventional L-Pad, but place it before the mid's EQ network?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Okay, then this should be the correct configuration...
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Since it is almost certain that I will need to attenuate ≥ 3 dB I will disable the blue components.
Well, thanks for everyone's input. I finally got the mids dialed in.
However, the bass just falls out at about 50 to 60 Hz. It looks like the retched peaks at 60 Hz and up were room artifacts. This room is very bad; ceramic tile floor, wood cabinets, and lots of drywall in an open space. Seems this is about the best it is going to get for now and I suspect that much of the bass issue is due to the room. Ran a number of different plots in a number of configurations driven with a transistor amp.
I can't account for any other reason that the cabinets would fall out so early in the spectrum with JBL 2235Hs in a 6 cubic foot vented box, but we get what we get.
However, the bass just falls out at about 50 to 60 Hz. It looks like the retched peaks at 60 Hz and up were room artifacts. This room is very bad; ceramic tile floor, wood cabinets, and lots of drywall in an open space. Seems this is about the best it is going to get for now and I suspect that much of the bass issue is due to the room. Ran a number of different plots in a number of configurations driven with a transistor amp.
I can't account for any other reason that the cabinets would fall out so early in the spectrum with JBL 2235Hs in a 6 cubic foot vented box, but we get what we get.
Last edited:
Tube amp, impedance rise (?)
Test the series RLC for the JBL I posted before (#90).
L=22 mHd
R=6,80 Ohm
C=220 uF
But... I might be wrong.
(If you can post measurements/data files on impedance/phase/output for individual drivers - Driver FRD & ZMA files)
Last edited:
The drivers were reconed before I bought them in 2002 and I have no idea what's inside.
I seemed to remember doing a free air impedance test some time ago when I got them and I thought the Fs was about 20 Hz, but I will pull one and rerun that test.
I did not put the impedance correction circuit in. I need to order parts.
Frequency response is the same with the tube amp or the solid state amp, so that doesn't appear to be the culprit.
I seemed to remember doing a free air impedance test some time ago when I got them and I thought the Fs was about 20 Hz, but I will pull one and rerun that test.
I did not put the impedance correction circuit in. I need to order parts.
Frequency response is the same with the tube amp or the solid state amp, so that doesn't appear to be the culprit.
Don't order and impedance correction parts until the very last thing, the values will change esp if you re-tune the box and they can get expensive re 22 mH. Using a transistor rig for testing is a good idea until things get sorted.
Hmm... mass loading "woofer ring", might be the answer to your issue but lowers the sensitivity. Measuring the JBL T/S is a very good 1st thing.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.