3" Audio Nirvana 2-way project - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27th September 2012, 09:13 PM   #11
Bigun is offline Bigun  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Bigun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Brines View Post
All of the above pretty well demonstrates why FAST has to be active crossed. Then you do not care about the efficiency of the two drivers. All is handled in the DSP or by adjusting the volume of the separate amps.

Bob
Bob - there are many who scoff at putting so much silicon in the signal chain - what has been your experience of the sound quality that can be achieved with a DSP in the picture - and are you using the mini-DSP that can be found on this forum ?
__________________
"The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed." Robert M Pirsig.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2012, 10:10 PM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
tuxedocivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ladysmith, BC
I agree with Bob that active is the way to go with FAST. For the cost of passive components alone it's worth it.

As for the sound quality. I haven't gotten to really gauge that yet unfortunately. I usually use my minidsp for testing things. Or when I run out of coils I'll try and do an A/B comparison tonight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2012, 03:21 AM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
Bob Brines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hot Spring Village AR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigun View Post
Bob - there are many who scoff at putting so much silicon in the signal chain....
Do you have any idea how much silicon is in the chain that made the recording?

As you know from reading my posts, I personally do not like the lush sound that tubes add to the music. This is not a condemnation of tubes, just a statement of personal preference.

Quote:
- what has been your experience of the sound quality that can be achieved with a DSP in the picture
A decent DSP works wonders at fixing problems with speakers and rooms, But, be realistic in your expectiations. Try to fix the problems at their source. Now, is a flattened FR better than any noise created in the DSP? You will have to try it youself to decide.


Quote:
- and are you using the mini-DSP that can be found on this forum ?
Yes. However, to avoid as much signal degridation as possible, use the miniDigi SP/DIF interface. Otherwise, you are going DAC>ADC>processing>DAC. The miniDigi eliminates the first DAC>ADC conversions.

Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2012, 06:14 AM   #14
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Brines View Post
All of the above pretty well demonstrates why FAST has to be active crossed.
To passively XO a FAST one has to VERY carefully choose drivers and boxes. It is much easier to go active.

We have usually been able to use PLLXOs (no silicon) on our active FASTs, again careful with drivers and boxes.

If one needs to go beyond the capabilities of PLLXO, then cascaded sections buffered with FETS likely does the least harm. There is at least 1 thread on this using Nelson's B1 as the buffers.

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2012, 08:54 AM   #15
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post
I used second order on the speaker I linked to combat these issues.
Hi,

Contemplation (or simulation) of a 1st order series (rather than parallel)
x/o will indicate the bass drivers inductance rise helps the series case
rather than hinders it as in the parallel case. Similarly the Fbox peak
of the FR is less of an issue, it doesn't peak up as it does with parallel.

Second order parallel is more flexible, as you can adjust Q and offset
the electrical x/o points, but sometimes 1st order series works well.

rgds, sreten.
__________________
There is nothing so practical as a really good theory - Ludwig Boltzmann
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail - Abraham Maslow
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2012, 03:39 PM   #16
diyAudio Member
 
tuxedocivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ladysmith, BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by sreten View Post
Hi,

Contemplation (or simulation) of a 1st order series (rather than parallel)
x/o will indicate the bass drivers inductance rise helps the series case
rather than hinders it as in the parallel case.

Right, thanks for pointing that out. Woofer breakup can still be an issue though, imo.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sreten View Post

Similarly the Fbox peak of the FR is less of an issue, it doesn't peak up as it does with parallel.

You still get the peak. Sometimes it's wose, sometimes it's better than the parallel circuit. It's dependant on the woofer. And usually not as bad.


I confess I don't know much about series circuits, so if I'm wrong, I'm open to correction. I've alway found parallel to offer better control over the drivers individually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post
I'll try and do an A/B comparison tonight.
Bob mentioned some good points about dsp. Last night I compared my active settings with minidsp to a passive circuit I'm working on, on a two-way. It's not a fair comparison because my passive xo is a work in progress, as they always are, where the dsp can give pretty much theoritically perfect results with some button clicks.

And that's exactly the sound I got. The active sounded theoritically perfect. Almost to perfect. No FR abberations, just perfect tonal balance. But I did feel it was almost robot like. Sometimes I preferred it, other times I did not. For the most part though, it was better.

There was some very very quite buzz in the system, only when I put my ear right up to the tweeter. The passive didn't have this.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2012, 05:08 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Thanks so much for all the replies I have a simple Gemini active crossover that I could try, but I don't have anything built just yet, just comtemplating the idea and if its feasible. I like what both of these drivers would offer me.

Has anyone here had any experience with the AN 3" driver and could chime in?
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd October 2012, 03:01 AM   #18
Bigun is offline Bigun  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Bigun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Brines View Post
Do you have any idea how much silicon is in the chain that made the recording?

As you know from reading my posts, I personally do not like the lush sound that tubes add to the music. This is not a condemnation of tubes, just a statement of personal preference.
I'm quite encouraged to try the mini-DSP one of these days. Perhaps in a future pre-amp project.

As for tubes - I wasn't really referring to tubes when I commented on too much silicon - I was simply saying that lots of electronics in the signal path is something that many audio enthusiasts worry about.
__________________
"The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed." Robert M Pirsig.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd October 2012, 01:16 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
Bob Brines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hot Spring Village AR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigun View Post
....I wasn't really referring to tubes when I commented on too much silicon - I was simply saying that lots of electronics in the signal path is something that many audio enthusiasts worry about.
There are various levels of audio purism. Vinyl, tubes, no passive components, exotic wire, yada,yada. My motto is "Do what you need to do to get the results.

Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd October 2012, 03:12 PM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
+1
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EnABL project, Audio Nirvana Super 12 hajj Full Range 52 13th July 2012 11:21 PM
How to put 10" Audio Nirvana drivers in 8" speakers designed by Decware? hebrer Full Range 2 16th August 2010 11:13 PM
First speaker project - Audio Nirvana 15" tuckers Full Range 27 5th September 2009 09:58 AM
new project based on audio nirvana 12in drivers Jamh Full Range 89 1st August 2008 10:21 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:06 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2