Hello,
The work ofjimangie1973 is regarded as great, and many have reported that his filter is anupgrade compared to the original. I for my self bought parts for the originalfilter, but might upgrade later. I don’t know if the filter in post 1047 it isthe latest/best version of his work. I guess it’s to some extent is individual whenit comes to values, because of preferences and room acoustics/placement of the speakers.
The work ofjimangie1973 is regarded as great, and many have reported that his filter is anupgrade compared to the original. I for my self bought parts for the originalfilter, but might upgrade later. I don’t know if the filter in post 1047 it isthe latest/best version of his work. I guess it’s to some extent is individual whenit comes to values, because of preferences and room acoustics/placement of the speakers.
Colmo,
I am a huge fan of the Thor speakers, however I think there are much better speakers you could build for the same or less money. Unless you already have the drivers.
First, Yes that latest crossover design is much better than the original, I've built both.
Second, I don't know the Baffle Step but it's usually 3dB.
The Thor's are an exacting speaker, extremely precise with good but not great bass. Midrange and highs are awesome. Which means unless you have a good DAC and Amp upstream you won't be impressed by the Thors.
Personally I would build the Statement II s instead. I've built them also, 2 thumbs up. (gift) Also a center channel design I copied from Jed at Clearwave, changed two drivers and it is my home theater center. WOW it rocks and then some.
My favorites are my Ardents designed by John Marsh. $$$$$ though.
I still have my Thors, they're protecting the floor from dust. They may end up in the workshop.
Ron
I am a huge fan of the Thor speakers, however I think there are much better speakers you could build for the same or less money. Unless you already have the drivers.
First, Yes that latest crossover design is much better than the original, I've built both.
Second, I don't know the Baffle Step but it's usually 3dB.
The Thor's are an exacting speaker, extremely precise with good but not great bass. Midrange and highs are awesome. Which means unless you have a good DAC and Amp upstream you won't be impressed by the Thors.
Personally I would build the Statement II s instead. I've built them also, 2 thumbs up. (gift) Also a center channel design I copied from Jed at Clearwave, changed two drivers and it is my home theater center. WOW it rocks and then some.
My favorites are my Ardents designed by John Marsh. $$$$$ though.
I still have my Thors, they're protecting the floor from dust. They may end up in the workshop.
Ron
Attachments
It's been a while since we flogged the crossovers.
I just used the electrical model and compared the Original SEAS with JimAngie, DLD1 and DLD2 for the schematic shown on the SEAS website.
Will measure this afternoon.
I just used the electrical model and compared the Original SEAS with JimAngie, DLD1 and DLD2 for the schematic shown on the SEAS website.
Will measure this afternoon.
Attachments
Building my Odins for closed cabinets. Have used the 1,9Khz Jimangie xover before on ported Odins. But will now have subs also, therefore closed.
The subs are 84Liter ported enclosures with a Seas W26FX001 drven by a Hypex DS 4.0. Do you prefere the 1,9 or 1,5 Khz version of the jimangie xovers?
The subs are 84Liter ported enclosures with a Seas W26FX001 drven by a Hypex DS 4.0. Do you prefere the 1,9 or 1,5 Khz version of the jimangie xovers?
Attachments
Putting in some more smoke, no wonder the THOR's were screaming at me. The AX design. As others much smarter than me have opined, the crossover left a lot to be desired. The response of the 2x W18E001's does not continue to rolloff as stated in the 2002 article thus the boost around 14kHz.
Attachments
Well, I am not dead yet, but thanks for trying to resurrect.
The SPICE and CAD gurus did not seem to like the design, and perhaps it was not optimal, but in my listening room then it worked well. Since then I have learned from other posts and tweaked some more by listening. And listening. But at some point one just has got to stop. Currently, I am happy with this setup:
On the woofer side, 0.5mH followed by 8.2uF to ground followed by 1mH with 6uF to ground. The drivers are paralleled by 0.15uH in series with 8.2uF, to tame the 4.5kHz peak. The -3db point is around 2.5kHz; at that frequency, the Zobel network did not make any audible difference, so I left it out.
On the tweeter side, the signal passes through 3.9uF, followed by 0.27mH to ground, followed by 18uF. No resistor to attenuate the tweeter (I like the sparkle) but it is paralleled by 68uF in series with 1mH and 7.5R. Here, and this is probably speaker-design heresy, the crossover point lies about an octave above the woofer's crossover, and simulation software would probably reveal a horrible sag in the upper midrange. But to me and my pitch-perfect wife, in our acoustic environment, the speakers sound quite glorious. At least they are not shouting at us any more. There is probably much room for improvement here and there, but life is short, and I am done with tweaking Thors.
The SPICE and CAD gurus did not seem to like the design, and perhaps it was not optimal, but in my listening room then it worked well. Since then I have learned from other posts and tweaked some more by listening. And listening. But at some point one just has got to stop. Currently, I am happy with this setup:
On the woofer side, 0.5mH followed by 8.2uF to ground followed by 1mH with 6uF to ground. The drivers are paralleled by 0.15uH in series with 8.2uF, to tame the 4.5kHz peak. The -3db point is around 2.5kHz; at that frequency, the Zobel network did not make any audible difference, so I left it out.
On the tweeter side, the signal passes through 3.9uF, followed by 0.27mH to ground, followed by 18uF. No resistor to attenuate the tweeter (I like the sparkle) but it is paralleled by 68uF in series with 1mH and 7.5R. Here, and this is probably speaker-design heresy, the crossover point lies about an octave above the woofer's crossover, and simulation software would probably reveal a horrible sag in the upper midrange. But to me and my pitch-perfect wife, in our acoustic environment, the speakers sound quite glorious. At least they are not shouting at us any more. There is probably much room for improvement here and there, but life is short, and I am done with tweaking Thors.
I am a long time, silent lerker and has read a lot about the cabinet designs, crossovers etc. Thank you all for providing so much great information.
I purchased the original Thors some years back. I am quite happy with the clearity of these speakers, but I also miss some more punch in the bottom end. I also thought they were a bit to harsh for my liking, but have corrected that through room correction (minidsp).
Now I have the urge to rebuild the cabinets and maybe even modify/change the crossover.
I have invested quite a lot in this room regarding acoustic treatment - and with that I did a lot of measurements of the room. Artnovsion (which I am very happy with) simulated and suggested a solution. I attach the details of the report for those who care to have a look at the techical details.
1) FatThor ML vs SmallThor - which would you suggest for my listening space? Currently the Thors are appx. 50-60cm away from back wall.(4,88m x 3,13m x 2,12m - LxWxH).
2) I have the original XO. As mentioned I think the original sound was a bit harsh. Would you suggest to modify XO - or would you suggest to build a complete new XO (jimangie1973´s L4 design) ?
I purchased the original Thors some years back. I am quite happy with the clearity of these speakers, but I also miss some more punch in the bottom end. I also thought they were a bit to harsh for my liking, but have corrected that through room correction (minidsp).
Now I have the urge to rebuild the cabinets and maybe even modify/change the crossover.
I have invested quite a lot in this room regarding acoustic treatment - and with that I did a lot of measurements of the room. Artnovsion (which I am very happy with) simulated and suggested a solution. I attach the details of the report for those who care to have a look at the techical details.
1) FatThor ML vs SmallThor - which would you suggest for my listening space? Currently the Thors are appx. 50-60cm away from back wall.(4,88m x 3,13m x 2,12m - LxWxH).
2) I have the original XO. As mentioned I think the original sound was a bit harsh. Would you suggest to modify XO - or would you suggest to build a complete new XO (jimangie1973´s L4 design) ?
Years ago I built the Thors as originally designed. Wasn't happy. Bass was not that great and it seemed shouty in the midrange. So, I rebuilt the cabinets to a curved MLTL that look kind of like Renron's and redid the crossover to one of jimangie's designs. A bit better but still left something to be desired. I think the problem lies with the spike around 5k causing a resonance around 1.8 k or so even when it is suppressed. Recently I ran across an article about constructing a filter for a Purifi driver with a similar spike to the Seas. The basic point was to use a series notch filter instead of a parallel notch filter to get rid of the spike and it has major benefits for the lower resonance around 1.8 k. It occurred to me that every filter I have een for the Thor uses parallel notch filters. If I ever get time I might try and see if I can simulate a filter using a series notch and see how that works on the Seas drivers. Maybe someone here can beat me to it.
Here is a link to the article https://purifi-audio.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/220211_R05-Notchfilter.pdf
Here is a link to the article https://purifi-audio.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/220211_R05-Notchfilter.pdf