Martin,
We both have had good luck with the 2 pole filters and not having to
invert the phase of one of the drivers to achieve not only flat response
in the crossover, but the fairly ideal characteristic where the
individual drivers come in around -5 db each where they meet.
Do you expect to see that with 4 pole filters, especially with the
high pass and low pass frequencies fixed as equal?
We both have had good luck with the 2 pole filters and not having to
invert the phase of one of the drivers to achieve not only flat response
in the crossover, but the fairly ideal characteristic where the
individual drivers come in around -5 db each where they meet.
Do you expect to see that with 4 pole filters, especially with the
high pass and low pass frequencies fixed as equal?
Nelson Pass said:
Nelson,
I reran my simulation with 4th order filters for both the high and low pass and iterated the crossover frequency to find something that worked. I found that a common crossover frequency of 100 Hz with the filters both connected in phase produced reasonably flat SPL response. I am sure if you allowed me to split the two crossover frequencies a little the SPL response could be improved, but probably not by much.
Hope that answers your question,
Godzilla, I will keep you update with my progress w/ pictures on the lil buddy and goldwood h frame.
ttan98, like you I do not like the selenium at all and been using the b&c de10 on me10 horns on a different set of econowave with altec 414. I love the sound of these mylar diaphrams - very pleasant to my tin ears... thanks for the head up on this
ttan98, like you I do not like the selenium at all and been using the b&c de10 on me10 horns on a different set of econowave with altec 414. I love the sound of these mylar diaphrams - very pleasant to my tin ears... thanks for the head up on this
MJK said:
Thanks Martin, I think I'll have to try it. It seems counter-intuitive.
Ordinarily in your regular box-type speaker you have to flip the phase
of one of the drivers to get flat response with 2 pole networks. In the
open baffle, we see examples where you leave them in phase to get
flat response, so its a bit surprising that the 4 pole networks would
work "out of the box".
Hi,
First-order filter gave the most natural and seamless integration, at least to my ears it sounded like that. However, the slope is too shallow and there's a lot of out-of-band sounds coming out of the woofer, spoiling the experience. Full-ranger sounds very nice at 1st order hi-pass.
On the other hand, second order filter did a better job on the woofer, but the fullranger does not sound that well. I don't know how to describe this, but somehow some of the full-range magic gets lost and it sounds more like multiway speaker and there is more subjective indication that there's a crosover in the path!
I haven't tried 4th order crossover though.
It's intersting that a 2nd order crossover on the woofer, crossed low at 50-60 Hz, and a fullranger run full range also sounded nice, but was limited to low SPL due to the cone excursion on the fullrange speaker...
Thank you very much for your input regarding Open Baffle speakers. But they still make me feel like Alice in Wonderland...
First-order filter gave the most natural and seamless integration, at least to my ears it sounded like that. However, the slope is too shallow and there's a lot of out-of-band sounds coming out of the woofer, spoiling the experience. Full-ranger sounds very nice at 1st order hi-pass.
On the other hand, second order filter did a better job on the woofer, but the fullranger does not sound that well. I don't know how to describe this, but somehow some of the full-range magic gets lost and it sounds more like multiway speaker and there is more subjective indication that there's a crosover in the path!
I haven't tried 4th order crossover though.
It's intersting that a 2nd order crossover on the woofer, crossed low at 50-60 Hz, and a fullranger run full range also sounded nice, but was limited to low SPL due to the cone excursion on the fullrange speaker...
Thank you very much for your input regarding Open Baffle speakers. But they still make me feel like Alice in Wonderland...
Godzilla said:
Godzilla said:
It looks like you are using this amp in stereo. The specs don't say what the power rating is in stereo with a 8 ohm load just 2 x 75 watts with a 4 ohm load.
Not sure what the measured impedence is for the Alpha's but they look to be closer to 6 to 8 ohms.
Does this amp provide any headroom?
BTW this amp looks to be a clone of the Emotiva BPA-1 which is now discontinued.
http://www.emotiva.com/bpa1.html
Brad
is the little Dayton reference fullrange good to passively try with the Goldwood in regards to sensitivity and sonic outcome? (for low $)
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=295-358
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=295-358
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=300-380
Seems Dayton has gotten its hands on this amp too.
I will tell you more about the other Dayton amp when i get it back from PE.
It seems to be very powerful but i want to wait for volume knob to be fixed.
Godzilla
Seems Dayton has gotten its hands on this amp too.
I will tell you more about the other Dayton amp when i get it back from PE.
It seems to be very powerful but i want to wait for volume knob to be fixed.
Godzilla
is there something a lot cheaper than the Jordan which might work enough for fun? - a friend cut baffles but I don't feel well enough to glue them nor make room for them yet - is the Driverack a quieter and "better" than the Behringer?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
hi Sean - thanks for the suggestion and also for mentioning Basta in another thread. do you think FF125K with a bit of resistive or transformer padding might work on the cheap?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
i'd like to mate the H-frame with something larger - maybe an 8- - FWIW- got one H-baffle playing - no xover - no FR/etc. - GW1858 "could" be driven into breakup in the 100-200 region with test tones and some "car bass" but at levels higher than most would want - bass is phat and extended (did not examine for harmonics) and GW1858 a good value -- If one were to use 2-GW1858 per side - what general tradeoffs would there before two stacked H-frames vs two 18 stacked on flat or U baffle? would two vertical stacked 1858 lose a bit of LF extension compard to one H-baffle on the floor?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.