Hi Shin,
That's really weird that the 4.3kHz dip should be different between the SM75-150 and the S version. I can't imagine how it could be anything other than a resonance in the dome or suspension.
You're right about not seeing the notch in the Concept 7 frequency response charts. But it's probably just that the smoothing has glossed over the anomaly and it is outside the upper passband. I found that if I used 1/3 octave smoothing on my FR plots of just the ATC that the dip was no longer visible. Once I'd included the tweeter FR crossing at 3.5kHz the dip was lost even at high resolution.
Cheers,
Ralph
That's really weird that the 4.3kHz dip should be different between the SM75-150 and the S version. I can't imagine how it could be anything other than a resonance in the dome or suspension.
You're right about not seeing the notch in the Concept 7 frequency response charts. But it's probably just that the smoothing has glossed over the anomaly and it is outside the upper passband. I found that if I used 1/3 octave smoothing on my FR plots of just the ATC that the dip was no longer visible. Once I'd included the tweeter FR crossing at 3.5kHz the dip was lost even at high resolution.
Cheers,
Ralph
ralphs99 said:
The plots don't look like they have anything as drastic as 1/3 octave smoothing:
SCM70 ASL
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
SCM70 Center
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I'd expect that the smoothing used is the same for each measurement. They also clearly highlight that the center channel does not infact have any such dip:
Which leads me to believe there's either EQ involved or, more likely, the standard version is used in the center.
mission impossible
(sorry for my english)
I was thinking a possible CHEAP-Version of the interesting Ralph's project.
Unfortunately I have seen No-soubstitute for the ATC mid.
Morel MDM 85 and Dynaudio D76 are out of production. '
'
Vifa 3" can't go lower enough , I believe.
It is a pity because with a NEO3PDR and 2x Dayton RS270 ( o something other) ..................
Just my crazy idea.
Cheers,
(sorry for my english)
I was thinking a possible CHEAP-Version of the interesting Ralph's project.
Unfortunately I have seen No-soubstitute for the ATC mid.
Morel MDM 85 and Dynaudio D76 are out of production. '
'Vifa 3" can't go lower enough , I believe.
It is a pity because with a NEO3PDR and 2x Dayton RS270 ( o something other) ..................
Just my crazy idea.
Cheers,
Hi Shin,
The principal reason that a 4.3kHz dip cannot be seen on the Concept 7 speakers, or even in my own speakers, is that with a 3.5kHz steeply sloped upper crossover point, the dip is already down by 10dB or so.
EQ isn't necessary is the dip's contribution to the overall sound field is subordinate to the tweeter output at that frequency.
Cheers,
Ralph.
The principal reason that a 4.3kHz dip cannot be seen on the Concept 7 speakers, or even in my own speakers, is that with a 3.5kHz steeply sloped upper crossover point, the dip is already down by 10dB or so.
EQ isn't necessary is the dip's contribution to the overall sound field is subordinate to the tweeter output at that frequency.
Cheers,
Ralph.
Hi Inertial,
The ATC SM75-150(S) really is a unique driver. There are other 3" domes around but none with the incredible motor, and none with 3mm Xmax! That's why it goes down to 400Hz or so.
The other domes won't go nearly as low and so it kind of defeats the purpose of having a midrange driver if you're crossing over at 800Hz or higher.
A better bet is to go for a regular midrange cone in that case.
Cheers,
Ralph
The ATC SM75-150(S) really is a unique driver. There are other 3" domes around but none with the incredible motor, and none with 3mm Xmax! That's why it goes down to 400Hz or so.
The other domes won't go nearly as low and so it kind of defeats the purpose of having a midrange driver if you're crossing over at 800Hz or higher.
A better bet is to go for a regular midrange cone in that case.
Cheers,
Ralph
Hi Ralph,
To answer you question about my project I will explain the technical concepts because I am still in an early stage.
1.Cabinet
The shape:
During my different degrees, it happened that I made a small study about sound scattering and inner phenomenon in cavities. I measured and modelled on different speaker cabinets ;-) using an advanced BEM & FEM soft. Inner resonances are the main source of coloration due to the cabinet itself. Therefore the shape of the cabinet will have to make them unlikely to occur in the range under 500Hz (the higher the better), or at least in a very predictable way, easier to cope with.
The same for diffraction, the external shape of the cabinet will have to minimise scattering effects.
Material:
Again during my studies , I experienced a lot with vibration theory and measurements, including some laser measurements on actual commercial speakers. The result is that only very few of the constructors had understood only basic structure mechanics....
I will use modern stuff like honey comb and resilient resins and more features…
The shape of the cabinet will respect some geometry constrains to help in managing inevitable phenomenon:
- Inner acoustical resonance
- Vibrations
- Diffraction
2. Acoustic load
It is dependant to the range and the directivity i want.
Anyway, if I need, I'll implement nozzle ports like those:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=732431#post732431
post #33 in "Flared ports and turbulence"
3. Drivers :
Controlled directivity: not settle up to now but certainly a mix between dipole and increasing directivity with frequency. The horizontal dispersion is the main goal insure got soundstage.
Number of way 3 or 4 depending on the capacity of the available drivers to meet my demands in terms of THD, IMD (and more), dispersion and cone break-up damping.
Crossover; K&H FIR, able of nearly any desired possibilities in terme of XO equalisation etc..., until I can find a reliable and normal household solution based on high resolution sound cards.
To put it in a nut shell, I’ll try to design the optimised-up-to-date speaker. I mean I don’t want to be narrow minded but as a scientist “For me the Earth is flat until I am demonstrated other thing”….
I also look at the Morel MDM 55 witch could be a serious candidate in terms of power handling, dispersion and other figures. It could be cross really low (4-500Hz) with a FIR. I heard from one of my professor who used it in a sonic bang simulator that it is a "monster" too.
@+
Maiky
To answer you question about my project I will explain the technical concepts because I am still in an early stage.
1.Cabinet
The shape:
During my different degrees, it happened that I made a small study about sound scattering and inner phenomenon in cavities. I measured and modelled on different speaker cabinets ;-) using an advanced BEM & FEM soft. Inner resonances are the main source of coloration due to the cabinet itself. Therefore the shape of the cabinet will have to make them unlikely to occur in the range under 500Hz (the higher the better), or at least in a very predictable way, easier to cope with.
The same for diffraction, the external shape of the cabinet will have to minimise scattering effects.
Material:
Again during my studies , I experienced a lot with vibration theory and measurements, including some laser measurements on actual commercial speakers. The result is that only very few of the constructors had understood only basic structure mechanics....
I will use modern stuff like honey comb and resilient resins and more features…
The shape of the cabinet will respect some geometry constrains to help in managing inevitable phenomenon:
- Inner acoustical resonance
- Vibrations
- Diffraction
2. Acoustic load
It is dependant to the range and the directivity i want.
Anyway, if I need, I'll implement nozzle ports like those:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=732431#post732431
post #33 in "Flared ports and turbulence"
3. Drivers :
Controlled directivity: not settle up to now but certainly a mix between dipole and increasing directivity with frequency. The horizontal dispersion is the main goal insure got soundstage.
Number of way 3 or 4 depending on the capacity of the available drivers to meet my demands in terms of THD, IMD (and more), dispersion and cone break-up damping.
Crossover; K&H FIR, able of nearly any desired possibilities in terme of XO equalisation etc..., until I can find a reliable and normal household solution based on high resolution sound cards.
To put it in a nut shell, I’ll try to design the optimised-up-to-date speaker. I mean I don’t want to be narrow minded but as a scientist “For me the Earth is flat until I am demonstrated other thing”….
I also look at the Morel MDM 55 witch could be a serious candidate in terms of power handling, dispersion and other figures. It could be cross really low (4-500Hz) with a FIR. I heard from one of my professor who used it in a sonic bang simulator that it is a "monster" too.
@+
Maiky
Sorry I forgot to link the speaker dealt with the Flared ports...
http://www.haliaetus.com/va/haliaetus.html
@+
Maiky
http://www.haliaetus.com/va/haliaetus.html
@+
Maiky
ralphs99 said:
Hi again Ralph,
The point I was trying to highlight is that they actually tested both the main floorstanding left and right pair and also the center channel. And that there was definite differences in the FR which could have been related to a number of things including my theory that they used the 'standard' version in the center channel.
If you look at the graphs I posted earlier on this page, the first is the mains and the second one is the center. Notice how the first highlights the dip starting at around 3Khz and the second one shows no such dip. Both test look like they were taken with the same testing mechanism in place, so the results should be directly comparable.
So its clear that the 'standard' version and the 'super' version have differing FR and namely the standard is absent of the lower treble dip. Which is just affirmation for me that my own tests between these two were correct.
I understand that it isn't a problem for you or me with the 'super' but on the ATC SCM70 mains and not center, its clearly visable with the XO in place and more importantly its audible as they highlighted in the review.
Its more of an observation than a criticism and just helps to prove my point that there's no such dip with the standard version. In the end it can be worked out as you've highlighted and its nothing at all but ATC clearly felt the need to leave it.
maiky76 said:
Hi Maiky,
The K&H looks OK but less able than DEQX and certainly less able than the best PC XO solutions.
I think you'd quickly out grow its limited functionality and expandability.
Usually folks considering FIR and don't agree that PC XO solution is the best in terms of SQ, flexibilty and expansion either don't fully understand the capabilities or they don't like the inherent pitfalls such as noise, cost, learning curve, latency(which can be almost completely negated using things like ProTools HD and also only applicable with AV material, another options is video delays which a few PC based players have like TheaterTek2)
When you weigh up each system purely on SQ the PC solution is the best by some way. Its difficult to visualise what's possible until you've seen one running a 5.1 speaker setup with each individual speaker time/phase aligned and a seperate DRC contour on for each channel. Then add in the FIR filters and the EQ. Compare it to something running plain old vanilla passive or active electronics and the difference isn't even funny.
I've just upgraded to external DAC's and clocking with the Apogee DA16X:
http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/da16x.php
Before this I used an Isochrone OCX and the internal DAC's on my RME card and draughter cards. I've noticed improvements again on an already fantastic sounding front end.
This type of system will become much cheaper and more user friendly in the future but for those with the patience and funds the future can be had right now.
Hi, shin
You're right, PC Xo is the futur. I don't doubt about sound quality of such a solution, but unless you can have access to many cards and a good measurement set up it is difficult to find a honest card on the paper. I mean many cards have their own sound, and as far as I have experienced, the best they sound to a pro the worst they are refering to neutrality.... K&H are said to produce ice sounding products, that sounds good to me... I don't think it is limited unless I want to switch to a HT system, something I don't plan before I can have my dedicated autitorium... Until now I already made some treatments in my part time listening room and it was the major breakthrough in the past 2 years. I think that many points could be improved befor switch to a kind of Terminator PC (I know I am exagerating).
Btw, I was planning to start something with an E-Mu 1820M for the up to date Fs or an Echo wich are less appealing but maybe a bit more serious. and I do need a linear phantom powered in for measurments because I will lose my acces to a decent portative measument tool soon. If you have any advices... Maybe Lynx Audio? but then the price is equivalent to a plug and play device and I paid the K&H "une poignée de figues" as we say in Marseille, In addition, I am familiar with Unix (why not BruFIR) environements and not reluctant to folow a slow learning curve... Do you kwnow that, I guess something compliled from Matlab:
http://www.aedio.co.jp/download/
With Foobar I have been said it is a good starting point for Xo, unfortunately I still wait for a kind of "eq.exe" and then I'll give a try to PC XO with out loosing to much time/energy.
The fact is simply that it's been nearly 10 years (I am only 26, for me it's a long time) I've been tweaking, now it's my job, and I feel that "fine tuning" and "voicing", as you say in English, a speaker is more important than switching from 96kHz to 192 kHz in order to reach the 110% of the potential of a system. My own degree in phyco-acoustics learn me that, theory and objective figures cannot account for the ultimate performances.... I start to want something userfriendly that is more prone to reach its ultimate performance with out the need of Earth, Sun, Mars and Venus are aligned to enjoy music. But if tmw you find me the ultimate consistant PC solution, I'll resell all my stuff...
@+
Maiky
You're right, PC Xo is the futur. I don't doubt about sound quality of such a solution, but unless you can have access to many cards and a good measurement set up it is difficult to find a honest card on the paper. I mean many cards have their own sound, and as far as I have experienced, the best they sound to a pro the worst they are refering to neutrality.... K&H are said to produce ice sounding products, that sounds good to me... I don't think it is limited unless I want to switch to a HT system, something I don't plan before I can have my dedicated autitorium... Until now I already made some treatments in my part time listening room and it was the major breakthrough in the past 2 years. I think that many points could be improved befor switch to a kind of Terminator PC (I know I am exagerating).
Btw, I was planning to start something with an E-Mu 1820M for the up to date Fs or an Echo wich are less appealing but maybe a bit more serious. and I do need a linear phantom powered in for measurments because I will lose my acces to a decent portative measument tool soon. If you have any advices... Maybe Lynx Audio? but then the price is equivalent to a plug and play device and I paid the K&H "une poignée de figues" as we say in Marseille, In addition, I am familiar with Unix (why not BruFIR) environements and not reluctant to folow a slow learning curve... Do you kwnow that, I guess something compliled from Matlab:
http://www.aedio.co.jp/download/
With Foobar I have been said it is a good starting point for Xo, unfortunately I still wait for a kind of "eq.exe" and then I'll give a try to PC XO with out loosing to much time/energy.
The fact is simply that it's been nearly 10 years (I am only 26, for me it's a long time) I've been tweaking, now it's my job, and I feel that "fine tuning" and "voicing", as you say in English, a speaker is more important than switching from 96kHz to 192 kHz in order to reach the 110% of the potential of a system. My own degree in phyco-acoustics learn me that, theory and objective figures cannot account for the ultimate performances.... I start to want something userfriendly that is more prone to reach its ultimate performance with out the need of Earth, Sun, Mars and Venus are aligned to enjoy music. But if tmw you find me the ultimate consistant PC solution, I'll resell all my stuff...
@+
Maiky
maiky76 said:
The choice is very simple if done correctly. The upper range Lynx, RME or ProTool HD cards. What you have there is a complete absence of any character or voicing, once setup expect a bit perfect front end right up to the FIR filter - just the way it should be, doesn't get any better than that for digital.
Then if needs be upgrade the clocking and DACs as I've done and you'll see performance increase during the digital to analogue conversion just before the signal reaches the amps. There's no resampling where it shouldn't be, if its 24bit 96Khz audio its a 24bit 96Khz sampling rate throughout the frontend, FIR filters and other bits, right through to the DAC's - this is how it should be again.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with a decent PC setup but it doesn't involve the 'toy' plugins used with winamp and foobar. The really decent stuff is the same kind found in mastering studios across the world and that's the Wave range of plugins. These software plugins actually cost more than K&H hardware does! Expensive doesn't mean great but when you highlight the fact that the studio-industry doesn't suffer high prices without performance delivery, its testament to the fact that the Waves stuff is so popular.
And this is the problem a PC XO can be anything from terrible to sublime and everything inbetween. There's only a handful of folks on this forum who've implemented a similar XO scheme to me and the rest have tried winamp plugins etc. then dismissed the entire thing because they were using less than great software and a consumer level soundcard such as the Creative ones.
I tried to raise awareness of this method I use in a post awhile ago but it seems either technophobia sets in or folks won't justify the risk of spending all that money on something they already have dismissed simply because of the words PC and the associated rubbish consumer quality sound cards like Audigy etc.
A sad fact because its the best method I've heard and likely will hear for sometime since my previous references have all been shattered.
Whatever you chose enjoy it.
Hi Shin,
You are still confusing the two seperate phenomena that I have been trying to describe.
Firstly the natural increase in directivity with frequency of every pistonic radiator. In other words the reduction in the power response.
This effect is evident in the frequency response plot of the SCM70 side. This plot is an average taken over a 30 degree horizontal window. It is an attempt to show something between the axial response and the power response likely to heard by a typical listener.
The fact that the response is average over a large number of measurements has the same effect as smoothing performed on a single frequency response plot by typical software measurement packages.
The fall in amplitude of a power response measurement of the SCM70 side speaker between 3 to 5kHz is normal for an unequalised 90mm piston radiator crossing to a smaller diapragm diameter tweeter at about 3.5kHz. This effect has nothing to do with the performance of the driver itself.
Why the same effect is not present in the the centre channel is not clear. Possibly because the orientation of the drivers is horizontal. But without knowing more about the speaker this can only be conjecture.
The effect cannot be corrected with equalisation as any correction to the axial response will upset the power response and visa-versa.
The second effect is the sharp dip in the axial frequency response seen at about 4.3kHz in the plot of the SM75-150S. This dip is most likely due to some resonance or breakup mode of the diapragm or surround. The dip cannot be seen in the frequency response polts of speaker systems that use this driver because it lies outside of the used passband. This phenomenom is unique to this driver. It may be that, as you say, it is not apparent in the non-S version of the driver. But I struggle to see a mechanism for this claim knowing that the only difference between the two types the strength of the motor.
The dip can be corrected with equalisation but it would be a futile effort to do so because it has such a high Q, and you would not include frequencies this high within the midrange passband of a system using this driver anyway.
Cheers,
Ralph.
You are still confusing the two seperate phenomena that I have been trying to describe.
Firstly the natural increase in directivity with frequency of every pistonic radiator. In other words the reduction in the power response.
This effect is evident in the frequency response plot of the SCM70 side. This plot is an average taken over a 30 degree horizontal window. It is an attempt to show something between the axial response and the power response likely to heard by a typical listener.
The fact that the response is average over a large number of measurements has the same effect as smoothing performed on a single frequency response plot by typical software measurement packages.
The fall in amplitude of a power response measurement of the SCM70 side speaker between 3 to 5kHz is normal for an unequalised 90mm piston radiator crossing to a smaller diapragm diameter tweeter at about 3.5kHz. This effect has nothing to do with the performance of the driver itself.
Why the same effect is not present in the the centre channel is not clear. Possibly because the orientation of the drivers is horizontal. But without knowing more about the speaker this can only be conjecture.
The effect cannot be corrected with equalisation as any correction to the axial response will upset the power response and visa-versa.
The second effect is the sharp dip in the axial frequency response seen at about 4.3kHz in the plot of the SM75-150S. This dip is most likely due to some resonance or breakup mode of the diapragm or surround. The dip cannot be seen in the frequency response polts of speaker systems that use this driver because it lies outside of the used passband. This phenomenom is unique to this driver. It may be that, as you say, it is not apparent in the non-S version of the driver. But I struggle to see a mechanism for this claim knowing that the only difference between the two types the strength of the motor.
The dip can be corrected with equalisation but it would be a futile effort to do so because it has such a high Q, and you would not include frequencies this high within the midrange passband of a system using this driver anyway.
Cheers,
Ralph.
Hi Maiky,
Cabinet panel colourations are an interesting topic because it's still an area that is more art than science. I haven't seen any text that adequately shows a method for tying theory and reality together. I'd be very interested in any studies you have done that show the results of actual measurements on speaker panels. My current strategy is to simply eliminate the enclosure's sound by eliminating the enclosure. I figure that a dipole will get me closer to that end. On the other hand if I had laser interference measurement equipment...
A PC based crossover/eq/speaker management system could be a great solution. But with all the present vaguarities of non-real time operating systems, mechanical noise and unreliability, I prefer to stick with an embedded solution for the time being. I don't think much of the Behringer, the dbx is better and if I could justify the cost I would be happier with the K&H.
I think you're exactly right about minor improvements in speakers overshadowing the performance of other pieces of equipment in the audio chain. Speakers are by far the weakest link. Room acoustics is another area that should receive far more attention. It amazes me that people spend so much effort and money on their systems without giving a thought to acoustics.
The area of room acoustics correction is probably the place where PC based speaker management systems will come into their own. There is a lot of development work going on here and I expect to see some revolutionary products in the next few years.
Cheers,
Ralph.
Cabinet panel colourations are an interesting topic because it's still an area that is more art than science. I haven't seen any text that adequately shows a method for tying theory and reality together. I'd be very interested in any studies you have done that show the results of actual measurements on speaker panels. My current strategy is to simply eliminate the enclosure's sound by eliminating the enclosure. I figure that a dipole will get me closer to that end. On the other hand if I had laser interference measurement equipment...
A PC based crossover/eq/speaker management system could be a great solution. But with all the present vaguarities of non-real time operating systems, mechanical noise and unreliability, I prefer to stick with an embedded solution for the time being. I don't think much of the Behringer, the dbx is better and if I could justify the cost I would be happier with the K&H.
I think you're exactly right about minor improvements in speakers overshadowing the performance of other pieces of equipment in the audio chain. Speakers are by far the weakest link. Room acoustics is another area that should receive far more attention. It amazes me that people spend so much effort and money on their systems without giving a thought to acoustics.
The area of room acoustics correction is probably the place where PC based speaker management systems will come into their own. There is a lot of development work going on here and I expect to see some revolutionary products in the next few years.
Cheers,
Ralph.
I'm not confusing anything since I haven't actually aluded to anything other than I've noticed a difference between the FR for the center and mains despite all things being equal. You yourself said its unclear why the center exhibits no FR irregularaties. I hinted at the standard being used in the center and nothing more/nothing less.
I've got an oldish ATC catalogue from around 2001 and which details the driver layout in a photograph. I'm kinda offended for ATC that you thought it could be an horizontal driver array for the center
, especially knowing how terrible these generally perform in horizontal dispertion, power response and generally mismatched polar patterns in comparison to the mains.The driver array is in fact a vertically aligned tweeter and mid, flanked by twin 9" bass drivers.
A good choice all in all, since the almost omni directional polar response of the the bass drivers isn't a problem at the 380hz XO point and where it is a problem they've aligned the drivers vertically.
The talk about natural rolloff, polar response, cone break up are of course applicable here and any other loudspeaker discussion but the real juice of my posts were simply the fact that there's an equal playing ground where two ATC speaker exhibit different behaviours through the upper midband which correlated well with my experience of the ATC super vs. standard. The simple conclusion was the standard might be used in the speaker showing no irregularity in the upper midband. I understand that your now saying there shouldn't be difference but there is. Look at the evidence: you've got FR plots from the review, you've got the word of someone who's tested and spent many hours working with each. As far as I'm concerned there is diferences between the two what actually causes this is unclear without more indepth analysis.
I thought maybe my measurements were off but I really doubt it now that I've seen your plots and the Concept 7 review. I also fully agree that its a non issue within a loudspeaker system as a whole provided your sensible with the XO points.
I'm not bashing the ATC super, I own a pair too
But like everything else in this world its imperfect, so what? The real interest to me is the fact that there's differences between the super and standard despite a nearly identical design with the exception of motor stength.
Hi Shin,
I didn't realise the Concept 7 was so old. I fully thought it was a new design! I'm glad ATC had the sense to use a vertical arrangement for mid and tweeter.
Well look, I really don't care if the STD has the 4.3kHz notch or not. It's just my nature to want to know the explanation for everything. I'm trying to figure it out, but without a driver in my hand it's a bit of a guessing game.
BTW If you ever feel like posting some of your measurements, I'm sure many people including myself would be very interested.
Cheers,
Ralph.
I didn't realise the Concept 7 was so old. I fully thought it was a new design! I'm glad ATC had the sense to use a vertical arrangement for mid and tweeter.
Well look, I really don't care if the STD has the 4.3kHz notch or not. It's just my nature to want to know the explanation for everything. I'm trying to figure it out, but without a driver in my hand it's a bit of a guessing game.
BTW If you ever feel like posting some of your measurements, I'm sure many people including myself would be very interested.
Cheers,
Ralph.
ralphs99 said:
Both the standard and the super have the cone break up at 4.5Khz, what I was referring to was the 3-4dB dip at ~3.3Khz when measured on axis and naturally it only gets worse off axis. The standard doesn't exhibit this behaviour.
I'm planning on posting some detailed measurements in my construction thread. At the moment I've got a few packages such as Audiotester, WinMLS, SW, lspCAD, SIA Smaart, EFT and LEAP 5. Out of those only a few offer the kind of measurements needed and the problem is I'm checking out to see which ones offer the most accuracy and features but once that's sorted what I'm going to do is re-run a complete set and test for THD, CSD, FR, impulse and impedance.
Unfortunately I don't have my standards anymore since the deal I did was a swap out to a pair of supers. But after I've run more detailed analysis on the supers at least we can see a little deeper into the design and maybe figure out more of the 'why's?'.
Hi guys
Ralph
Regarding my laser interferometry studies I must say that the results have intelectual properties options reserved by some pro's, so I cannot give you the figures and the actual results. However I could explain several principles... Some are absolutly in contradiction with established methods.
Dipole patern directivity is advisable, but I think only up to a certain range. It helps with speaker/room coupling in the lower range but is not the best, IMHO, for higer ones. Actually is is not trivial to achieve perfect dipole polar patern in medium & high frequencies and I not sure that is is good in itself... That's why I certainly use wave guides to match polar behaviours of the diferent ways of my futur system.
In my project, constrains will be engineered so that cabinet borned issues will occure in a range where they are far more easely manageable than in f<500Hz.
Shin,
You're of course rigth, I play with toys as far as PC based FIR are concerned. My point was just that top quality PC XO is a bit involved up to now.
As I already said as soon as a consistant solution exists I test it.
It seems that you use to class solutions both in terms of soft and hardware and you've listened to seral products , may I ask you any feedback regarding the Echo products?
I aslos use LspCad and LEAP 5. Complementaty softs, but Leap simply speaking is wrong when it come to diffraction....
@+
Maiky
Ralph
Regarding my laser interferometry studies I must say that the results have intelectual properties options reserved by some pro's, so I cannot give you the figures and the actual results. However I could explain several principles... Some are absolutly in contradiction with established methods.
Dipole patern directivity is advisable, but I think only up to a certain range. It helps with speaker/room coupling in the lower range but is not the best, IMHO, for higer ones. Actually is is not trivial to achieve perfect dipole polar patern in medium & high frequencies and I not sure that is is good in itself... That's why I certainly use wave guides to match polar behaviours of the diferent ways of my futur system.
In my project, constrains will be engineered so that cabinet borned issues will occure in a range where they are far more easely manageable than in f<500Hz.
Shin,
You're of course rigth, I play with toys as far as PC based FIR are concerned. My point was just that top quality PC XO is a bit involved up to now.
As I already said as soon as a consistant solution exists I test it.
It seems that you use to class solutions both in terms of soft and hardware and you've listened to seral products , may I ask you any feedback regarding the Echo products?
I aslos use LspCad and LEAP 5. Complementaty softs, but Leap simply speaking is wrong when it come to diffraction....
@+
Maiky
maiky76 said:
Sorry never heard any of the Echo range, cards I have heard or own(ed) are RME HDSP 9632 & HDSP 9652, Lynx TWO B and an Audiotrak Prodigy 7.1. Oh and a truly awefuly Audigy 2 ZS that I'd rather you kept quite
Thanks for the headsup, I've only just got it so I haven't used it for any modelling at all yet. It was the FIR filter sections of crossover shop that interested me the most, its the only package that covers literally 10's of different window functions(including some very obscure functions), frequency sampling parameters and the icing on the cake is the auto optimisation which can be tweaked for flat amplitude, linear phase, min phase etc. The FIR filters and digital XO's in general interest me more than the speakers themselves.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.