planet10 said:
I'll take some pics of a couple of the XO variations we've been playing with.
dave
That would be cool, thanks Dave.
When I built my Fonkens I whipped up a set of stands real quick. So quick I didn't let the sand I filled them with dry out all the way. Needless to say, they're starting to get moldy from the inside out.
A "two birds with one stone" solution would rock.
Ben
_henry_ said:i see there's alpairs and woofer combination on your picture.
I'm very curious how do you rate the sound? since i know you dont like the jordans
Yes, Alpair 5 and Silverflute W14.
Jury is still out on those. I have 1 pr of Alpair 5s and 2 pair of the earlier J6T. Initial testing has us with a preference for the FF85KeN, so we have been concentrating on it.
An MTM with W14 and FF85KeN (passive XO) is next in the queue.
dave
strider75 said:
That would be cool, thanks Dave.
When I built my Fonkens I whipped up a set of stands real quick. So quick I didn't let the sand I filled them with dry out all the way. Needless to say, they're starting to get moldy from the inside out.
A "two birds with one stone" solution would rock.
Ben
Next time try non-clumping/non scented kitty litter, or glass bead sand blasting media - either should come out of the bag quite dry.
planet10 said:
1 "mistake" i can see right off the bat ... using the rectangular PE box (which just isn't very good -- the curved one is much better (but fragile). I'd 'd be prone to using 167 instead of 166, but in that tiny box the 166 (measured data) does have a sealed F3 of about 125 Hz.
I'll take some pics of a couple of the XO variations we've been playing with.
dave
Sorry if I'm being a pest, but any info on the crossover end of the Fonkenwoof implementation?
Thanks,
Ben
Thanx for the poke, i've had the pictures prepped but never got to posting them...
Here is the outside of the 2 XOs we've done so far... these are for Tysen, we haven't gotten as far along with the fonkenWoof XO (the 2nd order active Ace Audio works well enuff that it keeps getting bumped in the queue, even thou we know it can be improved on)
dave
Here is the outside of the 2 XOs we've done so far... these are for Tysen, we haven't gotten as far along with the fonkenWoof XO (the 2nd order active Ace Audio works well enuff that it keeps getting bumped in the queue, even thou we know it can be improved on)
dave
Attachments
Inside of the completely passive version... this requires an input impedance of at least 50k on the mid-tweeter amp and the actual values need to be tuned for the amp in use.
Even better would be to integrate this circuit directly into the amps -- the HP could be split into 2 1st order sections.
Very simple thou.
dave
Even better would be to integrate this circuit directly into the amps -- the HP could be split into 2 1st order sections.
Very simple thou.
dave
Attachments
And the active version... we just put a buffer on each eand of the passive sections so that it could be used almost anywhere. To keep it simple we used opAmps with battery power. Using something like the B1 buffer or a CSS-ed Cathode Follower should take it to the next level (but a lot more work).
In most situations i suspect that one could get away with just a a buffer on the end of the HP circuit.
dave
In most situations i suspect that one could get away with just a a buffer on the end of the HP circuit.
dave
Attachments
cgrums said:Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere but is there any chance of getting a look at the plans for the 'Fonkenwoof'?
Mail me. The current TL doesn't -- i think -- take full advantage of the SDX7, we will likely go sealed in the next one. Mail me for the plans -- pretty simple to convert the TL to sealed.
dave
Thank you. That makes it much easier for me to start understanding what's going on.
Just thinking out loud: the passive route has less parts, but would be less versatile because the values of the components in it are tied to the input impedance of the amp.
the active version is more complex, but more versatile 'cause of it's ability to work with amps of varying input impedances.
Both active and passive are before the amps, so the speakers get the benefit of more controlled damping from the amps. From what I've read, though, this implementation is not "typical" because a passive crossover is usually after the amps.
Two questions come to mind for me. First, why is it just the input impedance of the HP amp that is important in the passive? The way I understand how the values of the components are chosen in a passive crossover is dependent upon the impedance of the device it's connected to, in this case the input of the amp. Why wouldn't it matter in the LP circuit? Second is kinda along the same lines of the first, but dealing with the active crossover. Why would you need the buffer on just the HP circuit and not the LP as well?
Just thinking out loud: the passive route has less parts, but would be less versatile because the values of the components in it are tied to the input impedance of the amp.
the active version is more complex, but more versatile 'cause of it's ability to work with amps of varying input impedances.
Both active and passive are before the amps, so the speakers get the benefit of more controlled damping from the amps. From what I've read, though, this implementation is not "typical" because a passive crossover is usually after the amps.
Two questions come to mind for me. First, why is it just the input impedance of the HP amp that is important in the passive? The way I understand how the values of the components are chosen in a passive crossover is dependent upon the impedance of the device it's connected to, in this case the input of the amp. Why wouldn't it matter in the LP circuit? Second is kinda along the same lines of the first, but dealing with the active crossover. Why would you need the buffer on just the HP circuit and not the LP as well?
strider75 said:Both active and passive are before the amps, so the speakers get the benefit of more controlled damping from the amps. From what I've read, though, this implementation is not "typical" because a passive crossover is usually after the amps.
Let's call it a buffered passive & a passive.
Two questions come to mind for me. First, why is it just the input impedance of the HP amp that is important in the passive? The way I understand how the values of the components are chosen in a passive crossover is dependent upon the impedance of the device it's connected to, in this case the input of the amp. Why wouldn't it matter in the LP circuit? Second is kinda along the same lines of the first, but dealing with the active crossover. Why would you need the buffer on just the HP circuit and not the LP as well?
Look at what happens when you start changing the input impedance of the amp... changing th LP amp will make no diff... but if thr you lower the value of the HP input, the resistors to ground in the passive circuit also have to decrease, and at a certain point the parallel resistors create a load for the pre-amp that worst case it cannot drive, at best you get a HF rolloff.
For the PLLXO to work best the input impedance of the HP amp needs to be large, Buffering the HP output could also be considered adding an active circuit to dramatically increase the input impedance of the HP.
dave
dave
_henry_ said:so tube amps is generally more suitable for PLLXO since they usually have higher impedance more than 50k?
In that sense yes... 1st order isn't an issue, it is only when you are trying to do 2nd order that it really becomes an issue.
dave
planet10 said:
Let's call it a buffered passive & a passive.
Look at what happens when you start changing the input impedance of the amp... changing th LP amp will make no diff... but if thr you lower the value of the HP input, the resistors to ground in the passive circuit also have to decrease, and at a certain point the parallel resistors create a load for the pre-amp that worst case it cannot drive, at best you get a HF rolloff.
For the PLLXO to work best the input impedance of the HP amp needs to be large, Buffering the HP output could also be considered adding an active circuit to dramatically increase the input impedance of the HP.
dave
dave
OK, that makes more sense to me now.
Basically, the buffered passive would work because you'd dictate what the input impedance would be when you build it. If we could use the B1 as an example, you'd build it with a 50k pot, giving it the 50k input impedance you'd need. This way the crossover would be more verastile, if you changed the HP amp you wouldn't need to redo the values in it. You'd also gain the ability to adjust the level of the Fonkens compared to the 'Woofs, right?
Is the crossover design stage where you'd take into account the sensitivities of the 2 speaker systems (Fonkens and the 'Woofs) so their output would be similar?
strider75 said:.... You'd also gain the ability to adjust the level of the Fonkens compared to the 'Woofs, right?
Is the crossover design stage where you'd take into account the sensitivities of the 2 speaker systems (Fonkens and the 'Woofs) so their output would be similar?
So far we have arranged to have a gain (vol) control (sometimes we have had to add it) on all the amps we use for bi-amping to avoid having to build it into the XO.
dave
This crossover stuff's enough to get my head spinning; me opening up one of my amps that's working fine now would probably not end well.
I hooked on to the B1 idea because I've been reading up on it lately. I don't necessarily understand how it works completely, but having the schematic, PCB layout, and pictures available really help me visualize how I'd start to use it in the crossover. Fooling around with the schematic last night, I think I know what I'd remove and change. Now I'm trying to figure out the crossover itself. I understand (to a point) the differences in first order, 2nd, etc., but I'm not really certain how that translates into what would be the best bet to start with in this instance. Rather then have you tell me what to use, could you possibly point me in a direction (article, link, calculator page) to start?
Thanks for all the help, Dave. I know you're a busy guy, and all my questions are probably pretty elementary, but it is helping me to understand.
edit: Forum-wise, is it cool to conitue posting in this thread, or should I start another thread of my own?
Ben
I hooked on to the B1 idea because I've been reading up on it lately. I don't necessarily understand how it works completely, but having the schematic, PCB layout, and pictures available really help me visualize how I'd start to use it in the crossover. Fooling around with the schematic last night, I think I know what I'd remove and change. Now I'm trying to figure out the crossover itself. I understand (to a point) the differences in first order, 2nd, etc., but I'm not really certain how that translates into what would be the best bet to start with in this instance. Rather then have you tell me what to use, could you possibly point me in a direction (article, link, calculator page) to start?
Thanks for all the help, Dave. I know you're a busy guy, and all my questions are probably pretty elementary, but it is helping me to understand.
edit: Forum-wise, is it cool to conitue posting in this thread, or should I start another thread of my own?
Ben
strider75 said:edit: Forum-wise, is it cool to conitue posting in this thread, or should I start another thread of my own?
Since this is moving into electronics, you would find more eyes to help if you started another thread...
It has been a long while since i updated this link list, so some are no doubt broken, but it might be a helpful place to start:
http://t-linespeakers.org/linx/xolinks.html
and some of the articles here might be interesting
http://t-linespeakers.org/tech/index.html
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Full Range
- First Speakers (Fonkens) Done! Next?