Breakup is minimum phase for the most part and can be corrected with EQ. Very sharp spikes can be hard to match with EQ and generally vary slightly between drivers making a real world "fix" impractical.
Yes, we've pretty well concluded this and I knew it from the get-go that it wasn't technically correct, but I tend to use a lot of local 'slang' in my postings and this one just 'stirred up more feathers' than usual, but at least it was good for a learning experience, so not a complete waste of time.
Hi fluid,
My main issue was with your statement in post #8996 that: "Lowering the Q puts increasing strain and power requirements on the system so going below 0.5 doesn't make much sense", which did not and still does not appear to be correct.
But, this again appears to confirm my argument that the lower Qtc results in decreasing "the strain and power requirements on the system" to use your words.
Of, course, that is what equalization, e.g., Linkwitz transform does. But, the equalization has never been mentioned in your post.
Regardless, I think that we now have the same understanding of the power vs Qtc.
Kindest regards,
M
My main issue was with your statement in post #8996 that: "Lowering the Q puts increasing strain and power requirements on the system so going below 0.5 doesn't make much sense", which did not and still does not appear to be correct.
But, this again appears to confirm my argument that the lower Qtc results in decreasing "the strain and power requirements on the system" to use your words.
Of, course, that is what equalization, e.g., Linkwitz transform does. But, the equalization has never been mentioned in your post.
Regardless, I think that we now have the same understanding of the power vs Qtc.
Kindest regards,
M
So you can change damping character with Eq but you can't change the mechanical filter point.....I think that fly's.
What I would do for a 15" mid in my situation....Look for the highest efficiency woofer with the lowest Fs, Qes, Le....mass on the lean side...put it in largest box or in my case, my existing 230L and then fix over damping with a filter
What I would do for a 15" mid in my situation....Look for the highest efficiency woofer with the lowest Fs, Qes, Le....mass on the lean side...put it in largest box or in my case, my existing 230L and then fix over damping with a filter
Last edited:
Hi krivium,
Thank you for the qualification. My misunderstanding may stem from my poor English.
Kindest regards,
M
Hi,
I was a pro studio sound engineer, involved in technical side of things too ( maintenance and i set up some studios including acoustics and all the nerd thingy...) and was into education of all this too.
Thanks to this i met professionals into loudspeakers design and was lucky to share with them but in no way i was involved into loudspeaker production. And the reason i'm here to learn.
Fluid gave a good explanation of what i meant and how i see things: as diyers we can make choices which follow our listening space/habits/preference rather than have to adapt to a 'medium' path choosen from practical or economical reason ( commercial offers have to made assumptions upon some design target).
Tbh, i don't claims otherwise than what you understood from Earl, rather the opposite.
Thank you for the qualification. My misunderstanding may stem from my poor English.
Kindest regards,
M
My point was in relation to electronically changing the Q from higher to lower and keeping the box the same. This increases the power requirements. That was the context of the discussion.
What you did is change the box to lower the Q so the box did the work, less power required. Electronically change your 0.5 box to go to 0.4, more power.
Off Topic:
Paul7052,
Euphonics i liked them. I never understood why the principle didn't catch up more customers in EU. There was one thing i was bothered with though: it was the rise of 'mixing with your eyes'... Which one have you used? 2000, 3000? System5 maybe? I've seen the 3 and really liked the 3000 ( never used the System5 but bought a 02r which was replaced by it. The engineer told me they had zero difference in sound between the 2 but he couldn't withstand to have the artist explaining him how to use the desk!
Neve or Ams/Neve? You American seemed to dislike the Ams/Neve. In the studios i worked in the standard setup was Ams/Neve in A, SSL in B. The wealthy one had a vintage Neve for tracking... the others sidecars.
Good memories.
OT Reply:
I don't remember which Euphonics model. IIRC it was the 3000. It was a very intuitive board. Also nice for saving complete setups. My use was in a remote trailer, setup and did audio for remotes-parades.
We specked 3 boards when I built the audio suite and integrated it with 4 studio locations. The Euphonics came in second. Their software wasn't ready for prime time...early in their evolution. The Neve won. A BTC console. Neve or Ams/Neve? I don't remember there was a difference. Nice board. Big redundant linear supplies. Analog, with SAS routing and Mix-minus setups. Grass Valley DAs. Bunch more toys. Pure 4x4 matrix for combination mute-light control of 4 studio locations. Neve regretted agreeing to the custom mute-light matrix. Hehe. It took them 2 tries to commission the board because they didn't get it right the first time.
I don't remember any of the engineers I taught and worked with disliking the Neve. A few wanted the Euphonics to win. Me too. It just didn't make the final cut.
Yes. Good Memories.
Some artists really know their audio. The best are fun and easy to work with. Make an engineer want to do their best for them.
Some engineers play better than some artists. :-D
Last edited:
Oh yes the Euphonix were great for total recall. Nothing like the Vr legend/Vx i took care of and used: i always took pictures of the whole board to be sure to have a 'true' recall! They had so much heat in them ( and the 'sandwich' built of audio chanel's cards didn't help too) and the triple deck pot used had too much tolerance on the recall dedicated deck to be trusted for a total recall... but they sounded very nice to me. More low end and less metalic sounding mid than SSL 4000 E, cleaner sound overall. The eq is incredible on this desks. And the routing capability was insane ( but sometime confusing to say the least). The Vx was a step up in reliability (all electrolytics within the console were 105*c and didn't needed recaping every 5 years) but sound was the same, sadly the automation wasn't this great ( i never liked Encore and prefered FF or the one from SSL).
There was difference between Ams/Neve and Neve: Ams bought the brand Name and used it beside Rupert wasn't involved in anything related to the design... The 'real' Neve's last consoles from 80's/90's were Focusrite and Amek (9098).
But these are nerdy things...
all those analog consoles sounded great imo.The engineer i talked about is one of the greatest and most respected you could find in my country and a very nice guy ( eg: he was responsible of the drum sound on 'Saturday Night Fever' album, and the father of two great artists one being half of famous french touch duo Cassius, the other a mainstream ( funk inspired) singer/ multi instrumentist). I understand he could have been bothered by some 'kids' trying to teach him how to use a 02r.
Ok sorry for the OT, back to more interesting things.
Last edited:
As we haven't said anything different I'm not sure where you think there is lack of agreement.
How does anything have an effect when there is no signal?
You can't change the physical mechanical parameters but by changing the system input you affect the system output.
You are thinking that level and decay are interdependent properties, they are not. Look at a drivers CSD, the ringing will be associated with resonances. Equalise the resonance and the ringing is gone.
So lets say I get this woofer I like that results in a Qtc of 0.29 fs42hz Fc54hz.....
I want to high pass this woofer to control excursion.....How do I tweak the effective fs/roll off to get it where I want it? 0.5 critical damping and a knee where I choose somewhere between 100-80hz maybe.
I want to high pass this woofer to control excursion.....How do I tweak the effective fs/roll off to get it where I want it? 0.5 critical damping and a knee where I choose somewhere between 100-80hz maybe.
Hi fluid,
Well, I missed the context. And yes, in that context I agree, as per my previous post.
Kindest regards,
M
Well, I missed the context. And yes, in that context I agree, as per my previous post.
Kindest regards,
M
OK so my Le is super low for Re of 12.5....I figured sorta like Tm has to be higher for a driver of higher resistance in order to achieve the same effective motor strength of a lower impedance driver.....Le is higher for the same effective inductance in a higher ohm driver....so as long as thats true....the driver that I have probably has a resistor in its construction, and the lack of turns in the gap lead to an even lower inductance....which at sub 1mm excursion as we said before, Le is dominate....but how dominate? Whos number 2 in charge? I keep leaning towards Qes. Anyone have an opinion on this?
Meant to say independent
It is only the Q of the lowest low frequency rolloff that determines the system Q. The crossovers for other drivers do not need to maintain that slope. They need to be designed to give the best blend and smoothest directivity between the drivers.
By either using a closed box of appropriate volume or by EQing that way. But IIRC you are talking about the 15" low mid that will be crossed over to your 18" woofers (making it actually a three-way). Right ? Don't forget that in this case the Qtc of this driver is no longer dominating the low-end temporal response. Your crossover to the subs and the subs themselves will also play an important role.
This is depending on the amp. But you will loose a lot of dynamic headroom this way. And it is sometimes not so ideal to series connect two woofers due to the manufacturing tolerances of their TSPs.
Regards
Charles
Last edited: