Thanks Sreten,
for your L18 graphs, would the resultant combined SPL graph be a tad lowish? From memory Zaphs design is not particularly sensitive?
Also for the TangBand W4-1337SA's , it seems that they really ARE a great full range driver :
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=26864
Zaph really likes them, so unless there are other issues unknown to me yet, they'll be my choice! And they're as good as the ScanSpeak mid and one quarter the price! And, I wont have to buy any tweeters (!), or I could even use my good old D25TG-55-06's crossed high at 8kHz - if needed. ,grant
for your L18 graphs, would the resultant combined SPL graph be a tad lowish? From memory Zaphs design is not particularly sensitive?
Also for the TangBand W4-1337SA's , it seems that they really ARE a great full range driver :
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=26864
Zaph really likes them, so unless there are other issues unknown to me yet, they'll be my choice! And they're as good as the ScanSpeak mid and one quarter the price! And, I wont have to buy any tweeters (!), or I could even use my good old D25TG-55-06's crossed high at 8kHz - if needed. ,grant
Omni,
Just for a laugh! Now I need four of these for my MTMWW (with the TBands) OB project in 2020...haha
http://www.shredmuzic.com/product_p/813-008.htm
Just for a laugh! Now I need four of these for my MTMWW (with the TBands) OB project in 2020...haha
http://www.shredmuzic.com/product_p/813-008.htm
grantnsw said:
Hi,
Yes real world 8 ohm speakers with good bass in compact cabinets are not efficient.
🙂/sreten.
http://www.libinst.com/SynRTA.htm
Might be a good idea for an inveterate c/o fiddler .....
🙂/sreten.
Might be a good idea for an inveterate c/o fiddler .....
🙂/sreten.
Hi all,
Zaph's latest blog update Aug 1 , is enlightening to me! http://www.zaphaudio.com/blog.html A great description.
Zaph's latest blog update Aug 1 , is enlightening to me! http://www.zaphaudio.com/blog.html A great description.
I doubt very much that lowest possible distortion is the key to better sound
In the amp camp this has been a lost debate fore a long time now
I find it quite funny that the same debate is beginning to take place in speaker building
I dont think its a matter of how much distortion, but more the nature of it
Though its interesting that some tube fanatics seem to prefer metal cones, maybe a symbiotic thing
In the amp camp this has been a lost debate fore a long time now
I find it quite funny that the same debate is beginning to take place in speaker building
I dont think its a matter of how much distortion, but more the nature of it
Though its interesting that some tube fanatics seem to prefer metal cones, maybe a symbiotic thing
Hi Omni,
G'Day mate! Cheers ... Re: "I will definitely need schooling on phase issues.." ( # 777)
Well, I'm definitely not qualified in this! , but I kinda remember what Sreten said and also Vance D's book.
Evidently, some very high-end amps might go down to 1 Ohm !, ..but 'normal' hifi amps ,presumably, IF, the overall speakers' Z is 'not too low' at the same pont if its electrical -phase is less than 35 degrees..might go to 4 Ohms?
If I remember correctly from Sreten, thanks! Overall 'system' Z, impedance, ie, the Electrical Z is a ' complex ' number....the real Z AND the ' imaginary ' electrical phase. So, say for the composite graph of all 3 drivers in your case...your woofers have a huge Z peak at resonance with a very low E-phase..thats ok.
But , if ..say, on your graph at 2kHz the electrical Z drops to 4 Ohms and the E-phase goes way beyond 35 degrees, then maybe its a tough load for your amp? This could be why I have blown up amps in the past! ,
Anyway,... I had a listen to Andy Graddon's awesome creations, and I especially liked his Gumby line-arrays and 'the Jukes' , I already bought (years ago) four of the same 8 " poly woofer drivers he used in the 'Juke's'. Andy , imho, does things with almost 'clinical precision' with well behaved paper or poly cones and series crossovers. The results I heard were outstanding ..and get this.. his Jukes were not even finally 'voiced' when I heard them!
Another change in my direction....(yet again....yeah I know...lol)
Ok, what I'm now considering is this...I already have 4 nice 8" poly drivers, which should go ok to maybe 600Hz 2nd order
acoustic or maybe even 220Hz 1st order series electrical? I have 2 nice, but old, D25TG-55-06 tweeters which will definately be ok crossed at 8kHz first order. No problem there I think, they still sound good. So far so good, I hope pertaining to Andy G's driver selection criteria. Thanks Andy! Now what will be the vital 'fill-in' midrange? My first choice (thanks Sreten) was the SeAs MCA15RCY...looks great, no doubt about it at all. But pricey. The TangBand W4-1337SA looks great on spec, might be cheaper and might even sound better?
The problem I can see is a power mismatch, so maybe it needs to be crossed over higher, like say 600Hz? (thanks Tinitus)
But I can't seem to find the driver power response curves for 3-ways anywhere! Arrgh.
With the above drivers (if the TangBand treble can be contolled) I'm possibly looking at a (M/T) WW or with the D25's, TMWW
or if I buy 4 TB's (very unlikely) a WMTMW ? I'm getting silly now!....grant
G'Day mate! Cheers ... Re: "I will definitely need schooling on phase issues.." ( # 777)
Well, I'm definitely not qualified in this! , but I kinda remember what Sreten said and also Vance D's book.
Evidently, some very high-end amps might go down to 1 Ohm !, ..but 'normal' hifi amps ,presumably, IF, the overall speakers' Z is 'not too low' at the same pont if its electrical -phase is less than 35 degrees..might go to 4 Ohms?
If I remember correctly from Sreten, thanks! Overall 'system' Z, impedance, ie, the Electrical Z is a ' complex ' number....the real Z AND the ' imaginary ' electrical phase. So, say for the composite graph of all 3 drivers in your case...your woofers have a huge Z peak at resonance with a very low E-phase..thats ok.
But , if ..say, on your graph at 2kHz the electrical Z drops to 4 Ohms and the E-phase goes way beyond 35 degrees, then maybe its a tough load for your amp? This could be why I have blown up amps in the past! ,
Anyway,... I had a listen to Andy Graddon's awesome creations, and I especially liked his Gumby line-arrays and 'the Jukes' , I already bought (years ago) four of the same 8 " poly woofer drivers he used in the 'Juke's'. Andy , imho, does things with almost 'clinical precision' with well behaved paper or poly cones and series crossovers. The results I heard were outstanding ..and get this.. his Jukes were not even finally 'voiced' when I heard them!
Another change in my direction....(yet again....yeah I know...lol)
Ok, what I'm now considering is this...I already have 4 nice 8" poly drivers, which should go ok to maybe 600Hz 2nd order
acoustic or maybe even 220Hz 1st order series electrical? I have 2 nice, but old, D25TG-55-06 tweeters which will definately be ok crossed at 8kHz first order. No problem there I think, they still sound good. So far so good, I hope pertaining to Andy G's driver selection criteria. Thanks Andy! Now what will be the vital 'fill-in' midrange? My first choice (thanks Sreten) was the SeAs MCA15RCY...looks great, no doubt about it at all. But pricey. The TangBand W4-1337SA looks great on spec, might be cheaper and might even sound better?
The problem I can see is a power mismatch, so maybe it needs to be crossed over higher, like say 600Hz? (thanks Tinitus)
But I can't seem to find the driver power response curves for 3-ways anywhere! Arrgh.
With the above drivers (if the TangBand treble can be contolled) I'm possibly looking at a (M/T) WW or with the D25's, TMWW
or if I buy 4 TB's (very unlikely) a WMTMW ? I'm getting silly now!....grant
Thank you, kind sir !
IMO, you don't want to take the Jaycar 8" Poly's much higher than about 300Hz. They do bass very nicely, but can get a bit muddy in the low mids. And crossing to the D25 at 8k is a waste, aim more at 3-4k with a good 4" or 5" mid. Peerless and Vifa make (made) some very good mid drivers suitable for the purpose .
As you know, I rather like the M11WH, which is currently on sale at Madisound. So is the P13WG, which is also a very nice driver, 4 ohm version so good for and MTM (wired in series).
A nice WW+MTM. not that difficult with the right drivers y'know 😉
Waiting for tax refund, probably do some spending myself 😎
Omni,
I just re-read my last post to you on impedance issues etc..lol, hey, it seems kinda confused! But I know what I meant! How is your tweaking going? Cheers mate! ( many things happening here , so sorry for the delay)
Andy,
Many thanks for your kind advice on driver selection. I've been wondering about this for a VERY long time now!
The yellow-glass Vifas seem really good. Indeed, your Juke mids sounded great. Thanks for the info on the M11WH - it looks good too. For me the MG10SD's might even be better? ..see the attached, x-axis not aligned
So, after all this time, lol, what I'm thinking is this ..TMWW , ie, D25TG, Vifa MG10 and 2X Jaycar8" '2136'
in a tower. Series 1st order, Thanks! grant
I just re-read my last post to you on impedance issues etc..lol, hey, it seems kinda confused! But I know what I meant! How is your tweaking going? Cheers mate! ( many things happening here , so sorry for the delay)
Andy,
Many thanks for your kind advice on driver selection. I've been wondering about this for a VERY long time now!
The yellow-glass Vifas seem really good. Indeed, your Juke mids sounded great. Thanks for the info on the M11WH - it looks good too. For me the MG10SD's might even be better? ..see the attached, x-axis not aligned
So, after all this time, lol, what I'm thinking is this ..TMWW , ie, D25TG, Vifa MG10 and 2X Jaycar8" '2136'
in a tower. Series 1st order, Thanks! grant
Attachments
Serendipity! The Vifa 'MG10' at about 1700-1900Hz has a small peak to counteract the 'box losses' due to diffraction, etc in my enclosures.
DUELUND 3-WAY ACTIVE FILTER SCHEMATIC
Does anyone know where i can find a manufacturer or schematic which fully implements Steen Duelunds 3-way phase-coherent design for filter co-effiecient a = 2sqrt2 ?:
http://www.meta-gizmo.com/Tri/speak/STEEN.html
I'm attempting a 3-way active system with a filter co-effiecient of a = 2sqrt2 = 1.41 as described and graphed in Steen's Theory, yet haven't found any schematic or guide for the implemtation of this passive filter theory to construct this as an active filter from start to finish.
If anyone knows where i can commission or buy such a filter please contact me!
Cheers
Ben
Does anyone know where i can find a manufacturer or schematic which fully implements Steen Duelunds 3-way phase-coherent design for filter co-effiecient a = 2sqrt2 ?:
http://www.meta-gizmo.com/Tri/speak/STEEN.html
I'm attempting a 3-way active system with a filter co-effiecient of a = 2sqrt2 = 1.41 as described and graphed in Steen's Theory, yet haven't found any schematic or guide for the implemtation of this passive filter theory to construct this as an active filter from start to finish.
If anyone knows where i can commission or buy such a filter please contact me!
Cheers
Ben
Re: DUELUND 3-WAY ACTIVE FILTER SCHEMATIC
Hi,
You may need to commission it. You cannot buy it.
For said 3-way the dueland principle gives you the acoustic targets.
For an active speaker the filter function is the (target - raw) response
of each driver in its acoustic environment. The raw response cannot be
assumed to be flat / perfect - a common active c/o error.
The lower order bandpass is the most problematic.
You do not understand the theory, a = 1.414 gives a two way.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/crossovers.htm
You could go for 10) in the above or a = 2*1.414 in the article.
(edit : 2sqrt2 = 2.828 so some confusion above)
🙂/sreten.
also see : http://www.linkwitzlab.com/filters.htm
Volvo_Victim said:
Hi,
You may need to commission it. You cannot buy it.
For said 3-way the dueland principle gives you the acoustic targets.
For an active speaker the filter function is the (target - raw) response
of each driver in its acoustic environment. The raw response cannot be
assumed to be flat / perfect - a common active c/o error.
The lower order bandpass is the most problematic.
You do not understand the theory, a = 1.414 gives a two way.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/crossovers.htm
You could go for 10) in the above or a = 2*1.414 in the article.
(edit : 2sqrt2 = 2.828 so some confusion above)
🙂/sreten.
also see : http://www.linkwitzlab.com/filters.htm
Thanks Sreten- quite correct- i forgot to multiply the sqrt2 * 2 = 2.828.
I certainly understand what you are saying about actual acoustic response of drivers in a system.
Why is the lower order bandpass the most problematic?
I certainly understand what you are saying about actual acoustic response of drivers in a system.
Why is the lower order bandpass the most problematic?
I noticed #10 from Linkwitzlabs shows the function for a = 4, where crossover points are -6db.
I am looking for a way to express in an active filter the function of a=2.828427 (2*square root of 2)
To quote Steen directly:
"With that value of "a" you get a rather straight lined phase turn What that means exactly has been subject to discussions, where we couldn't agree. By experiments it seems as this steady curvature of phase also means a steady sound picture.
Common point for bass and treble at -18 dB and mid is dampened -2.5 dB."
I am looking for a way to express in an active filter the function of a=2.828427 (2*square root of 2)
To quote Steen directly:
"With that value of "a" you get a rather straight lined phase turn What that means exactly has been subject to discussions, where we couldn't agree. By experiments it seems as this steady curvature of phase also means a steady sound picture.
Common point for bass and treble at -18 dB and mid is dampened -2.5 dB."
Hi,
For 10) SL has squared the function again (H3^4) and used a=3.
(note mid is 0dB db down, bass / treble -36dB)
for 7) H3^2 and a=4. (note mid is 1.2db down, bass / treble -24dB)
So you are after H3^2 and a=2.828:
http://www.meta-gizmo.com/Tri/speak/Image9.gif
As suggested by SL this could be approximated with 2nd order
functions for the low and high pass, thse are easy to fiddle with
in a circuit simulator - you only have Q and F to worry about.
🙂/sreten.
For 10) SL has squared the function again (H3^4) and used a=3.
(note mid is 0dB db down, bass / treble -36dB)
for 7) H3^2 and a=4. (note mid is 1.2db down, bass / treble -24dB)
So you are after H3^2 and a=2.828:
http://www.meta-gizmo.com/Tri/speak/Image9.gif
As suggested by SL this could be approximated with 2nd order
functions for the low and high pass, thse are easy to fiddle with
in a circuit simulator - you only have Q and F to worry about.
🙂/sreten.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.