spent today making some stands for '"jarrah"
I'm not sure if I want to add some curved sections either side at the base of the upright, but I can easily do that if/when I decide, I have a small quantity of timber left.
At this stage they have one coat of oil and the speakers are just sitting on top, no feet on the stands yet, think I'll use some brass conical spikes, 2 at the front one at the back. we will see. any comments ?
still a bit dusty, cleaning up work still to do !!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gradds55/Jarrah_stand.jpg
I'm not sure if I want to add some curved sections either side at the base of the upright, but I can easily do that if/when I decide, I have a small quantity of timber left.
At this stage they have one coat of oil and the speakers are just sitting on top, no feet on the stands yet, think I'll use some brass conical spikes, 2 at the front one at the back. we will see. any comments ?
still a bit dusty, cleaning up work still to do !!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gradds55/Jarrah_stand.jpg
Hi Andy; very plain for you, but i was thinking they have a sort of simole art-deco look to them.
I would think some gilded brass brackets on the sides or little sculptured gold feet would look good.
More importantly how do they sound?? and do you consider them better than your own designd sound-wise??
I would think some gilded brass brackets on the sides or little sculptured gold feet would look good.
More importantly how do they sound?? and do you consider them better than your own designd sound-wise??
Moondog55 said:
Wellllll.. I was hoping people wouldn't ask, you see... I'm not using the Zaph x-o any more, but replaced it with an AR type series x-o.... maybe its just that my ears don't like parallel x-os,
but I just like the new x-o better. As for the appearance, I deliberately wanted to make it a more 'usual' type of speaker, plus doing anything 'different' with my limited supply of jarrah timber would have been really difficult. Even so, cabinetwise, this would have to be one of the most difficult ones I have built.
Andy Graddon said:
Wellllll.. I was hoping people wouldn't ask, you see... I'm not using the Zaph x-o any more, but replaced it with an AR type series x-o.... maybe its just that my ears don't like parallel x-os,
Can you describe what is the main difference which one is better your series or Zalph's parallel in terms of sound reproduction if not can I assume there is no one which is superior they just sound different, it is possible for to characterise it,ie the difference?
Cheers.
Firstly I have to say that speakers are dependant on partnering equipment used and the taste of the individual so I'm not knocking Zaph's design at all.
Listening to the parallel xo there seemed a lack of cohesion between the drivers as you could hear the same note during intros being produced from the 2 drivers, upper mids had a bit too much bite and the bass lacked drive, extension and had an odd quality about it.
Andy's then threw in an AR series that was modelled using Jeff Bagby's series crossover designer using Zaphs data as well as SEAS data. The difference was easy to spot with the drivers working as one so cohesion was good, the bass was there with drive and tonal quality. The top was recessed and the upper mids were still too hot.
The changes required for the AR series crossover were obvious as the crossover point had to be lowered and the tweeter required less padding. I haven't heard this version but Andy said it's hit the sweet spot. The phase at xo point is very good and the impedance is very amp friendly and is between 4R9 and 8R2 all the way except for the woofer resonance.
I'm not saying series is better than parallel or visa versa.... it's just what works and gets the job done to suit the listener and I just happen to find that's easier for me with AR series.
Listening to the parallel xo there seemed a lack of cohesion between the drivers as you could hear the same note during intros being produced from the 2 drivers, upper mids had a bit too much bite and the bass lacked drive, extension and had an odd quality about it.
Andy's then threw in an AR series that was modelled using Jeff Bagby's series crossover designer using Zaphs data as well as SEAS data. The difference was easy to spot with the drivers working as one so cohesion was good, the bass was there with drive and tonal quality. The top was recessed and the upper mids were still too hot.
The changes required for the AR series crossover were obvious as the crossover point had to be lowered and the tweeter required less padding. I haven't heard this version but Andy said it's hit the sweet spot. The phase at xo point is very good and the impedance is very amp friendly and is between 4R9 and 8R2 all the way except for the woofer resonance.
I'm not saying series is better than parallel or visa versa.... it's just what works and gets the job done to suit the listener and I just happen to find that's easier for me with AR series.
yes, those comments are about spot on.
I should thank Rabbitz for modeling the AR x-o for me., there may still be some minor tweaking, but its sounding very nice.
I may have mentioned it befroe, but over the years I have tried several parallel x-os from different people, and they all seem to sound like they treat the drivers separately instead of combining them.
Maybe its just an expectation bias affecting what I hear?, but I'm sticking to series from now on!
I should thank Rabbitz for modeling the AR x-o for me., there may still be some minor tweaking, but its sounding very nice.
I may have mentioned it befroe, but over the years I have tried several parallel x-os from different people, and they all seem to sound like they treat the drivers separately instead of combining them.
Maybe its just an expectation bias affecting what I hear?, but I'm sticking to series from now on!
Hi Andy, as soon as I have a combination of drivers whose impedance is the same at the crossover point I AM going to try a series cross-over, as I understand it though the impedance match has to be close and I do have a listening preference for MTM, so I'm thinking the mismatch from an 8R woofer to 4R mid-range won't work
Moondog55 said:
The impedance issue is overstated. its the smoothness of driver roll-offs etc that is much more important in a simple series.
Blackwood uses a pair of 8 ohm mids in parallel, with an 8 ohm woofer. So long as the woofer has the balls to match the output of the mids, there is not a problem.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gradds55/ARGOS/blackwood.html
I have never had an issue with impedance differences, in fact in 2-ways I generally cause the tweeter impedance to be higher than the woofer to achieve as sort of psuedo BSC.
Andy's comment is spot on and I've never been concerned about the impedance of the individual drivers. It's more important as Andy said to look at the roll off and other characteristics as with series you can only do a small amount of correction.
AR series is a bit more flexible than standard series with drivers that are more problematic.
I'll vouch for Andy's Blackwoods and were the speakers that set me on a new path for my mains.
AR series is a bit more flexible than standard series with drivers that are more problematic.
I'll vouch for Andy's Blackwoods and were the speakers that set me on a new path for my mains.
Jeff Bagby's Series Crossover Designer. There's an example of an AR series in the download.
http://www.pvconsultants.com/audio/crossover/scd.htm
http://www.pvconsultants.com/audio/crossover/scd.htm
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.