Instead of using a six channel volume control, a device as rare as expensive, isnt it possible to use a Audio/Video amplifier with six channels and six analog audio inputs and ONE volume controll like the Yamaha RX-V365? Thats cutting the cost of the amplifiers to a third and should be a much more convenient solution.
That is certainly a solution. Let me see if I understood correctly. Insted of using three A 500 plus a 6ch volume control, I could use one receiver just like the one you mentioned, using the 6ch analog input and using the built in amplification, right? This seems a reasonable option. The big drawback here is the available power, and that might be an issue. A can also move to a more powerful receiver.
I would like to "hear" more opinions and comments about this.😕
I would like to "hear" more opinions and comments about this.😕
Yes. It's a nice idea too.
This seems a reasonable option. The big drawback here is the available power, and that might be an issue. I can also move to a more powerful receiver.
I can't see power being a huge issue, unless one part of the design has a lot of gain, such as open baffle compensation.
If you were to buy a receiver with a load of pre outs, you could add a power amp to one section that requires more.
http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/specifications.php?PID=139&Title=Specifications
For example, appears to have individual analogue inputs and outputs for all of its 7.1 channels.
The only thing I would be concerned about, is if the receiver converts all the analogue inputs into digital, throws it though a DSP, then converts it back to analogue. Obviously this isn't what you're after - maybe an email to the right company would be a good idea. (I can't really see them doing this, but it's better to be safe then sorry 🙂 )
The DCX2496 will accept a digital input is there any way you could take advantage of this?
The SB29 is a decent performer, based on the measurements I've seen. My only comment would be that its distortion isn't great down low, just like the XT25. The previous SEAS tweeter you were considering has more flexibility, if it's required.
If you can stretch to it the Peerless 810921 would be worth considering.
The 18 sound I know very little about. I remember seeing a bunch of tests on a handful of pro drivers at HTguide, maybe I saw it there? If you've got any links (besides the manufactures website) they'd be appreciated.
>.< I feel so stupid I probably go to John's site at least a couple of times a day. Thanks
Do those match either other? The 18sound has a higher sensitivity.
Why not something like the B&C 6MD38 and SB29?
Wow that 6ND is rather nice isn't it? 😀
I'd cross it at about 300hz and as low as the tweeter will permit to help maintain good off-axis behaviour.
Going MT instead of MTM (I assume you'll only be using one mid now) means you can somewhat relax on the mid/tweeter xover requirements.
Don't forget about the RS225 for bass however.
It maintains its performance well up to 1khz giving you lots of options for the bass-mid crossover.
You reach a Qt of 0.5 for a pair in a sealed enclosure of just over 120 litres. With that sub at 60hz you're never excursion limited by the 225s anyway, especially if you throw in a highpass.
First picture measurement taken at just over 1 watt mic about 20 cm from the woofer on an open baffle, where it obviously reaches far higher excursion at low frequencies then it would do in a box.
The second picture shows what happens when you pop a high pass on it.
I'd cross it at about 300hz and as low as the tweeter will permit to help maintain good off-axis behaviour.
Going MT instead of MTM (I assume you'll only be using one mid now) means you can somewhat relax on the mid/tweeter xover requirements.
Don't forget about the RS225 for bass however.
It maintains its performance well up to 1khz giving you lots of options for the bass-mid crossover.
You reach a Qt of 0.5 for a pair in a sealed enclosure of just over 120 litres. With that sub at 60hz you're never excursion limited by the 225s anyway, especially if you throw in a highpass.
First picture measurement taken at just over 1 watt mic about 20 cm from the woofer on an open baffle, where it obviously reaches far higher excursion at low frequencies then it would do in a box.
The second picture shows what happens when you pop a high pass on it.
Attachments
Right, Forgot that small point 😉
I have the 6MD38 and the 6ND410 but not that 6ND430.
oh and I have the SB29...it matched better with the 6MD38 and I also like active designs since I can not build a crossover very well.
Hi again, so many updates! 🙂
First things first. Certainly I will explore the possibilities offered by the solution presented by MaVo.
5th element, I don't think that I will be able to take advantage of the digital input in the DCX2496. Also for 5th element, I was thinking in keeping the MTM design. Should I avoid it?😕
The issue here is that 2 6ND430 are capable of very high playback levels, not matched by the tweeter. But we are talking in numbers above 110 db @ 1 m, this is loud, at least it is going to damage my hearing.
What I love about the 6ND430 are the low distortion numbers.
5th element, one correction, I'm going to use the RS270, not the RS225, and this can't be crossed so high as the RS225. I'm thinking in the 300 Hz. This is my starting number, after measurements I can adjust it (digital crossover rulez here). I'm shooting for sealed encloures with 150 litres.
First things first. Certainly I will explore the possibilities offered by the solution presented by MaVo.
5th element, I don't think that I will be able to take advantage of the digital input in the DCX2496. Also for 5th element, I was thinking in keeping the MTM design. Should I avoid it?😕
😎 5th element is right.
The issue here is that 2 6ND430 are capable of very high playback levels, not matched by the tweeter. But we are talking in numbers above 110 db @ 1 m, this is loud, at least it is going to damage my hearing.
What I love about the 6ND430 are the low distortion numbers.
5th element, one correction, I'm going to use the RS270, not the RS225, and this can't be crossed so high as the RS225. I'm thinking in the 300 Hz. This is my starting number, after measurements I can adjust it (digital crossover rulez here
). I'm shooting for sealed encloures with 150 litres.Here you can see the last draft I have, with the RS150 as mid drivers, not updated yet. Some changes are going to take place, than I will update the 3D model again, including other views.
I hope that you like.
I'm aware of diffraction problems with a so width baffle.
Please make some comments.
3D modeling credits to Suriv
I hope that you like.
I'm aware of diffraction problems with a so width baffle.
Please make some comments.
3D modeling credits to Suriv
It depends, an MTM arrangement can minimise/control radiation in the vertical plane. So if you know your ceiling and floor (say its hardwood) are very reflective you may like the lobing an MTM creates. On the other hand they do require very close C-C spacing and low crossover frequencies to minimise their inherent problems.
An MTM does offer lower distortion as a result of using the two drivers. But I'd generally say if you don't need the extra SPL capability, then why add in the extra complication? One 6ND gives you the same voltage sensitivity as two RS180s and presents a much easier load to the amplifier. Although they are 16 ohm, so I can certainly see the attraction of using two.
Yes those numbers are very very attractive. They should sound very clean.
5th element, one correction, I'm going to use the RS270, not the RS225, and this can't be crossed so high as the RS225. I'm thinking in the 300 Hz. This is my starting number, after measurements I can adjust it (digital crossover rulez here
Yes I was saying you could perhaps consider the RS225 over the RS270, it depends on what your goal is. With a pair of 225s you're not going to run into excursion problems when used with the sub (and a high pass, but that's easy with the DCX). They offer far more flexibility with the bass to mid crossover, so could possibly be a better choice then the 270s. But if you're looking for these to play well without the sub too, then the 270s might be better.
Just throwing around some more ideas.
I almost forgot the cabinet.
It looks great except you're going to want to place the mids and tweeter as close together as you can.
Also have you run your driver placement through The Edge? It's worth having a play around, because you can often come up with some very minor adjustments that can significantly smooth out the response.
It looks great except you're going to want to place the mids and tweeter as close together as you can.
Also have you run your driver placement through The Edge? It's worth having a play around, because you can often come up with some very minor adjustments that can significantly smooth out the response.
Hi. Sorry for being away so long. The last few weeks were very busy, as will be the next one. I will take a look into that website.
The 6ND430 driver have a nice xmax (5 mm), that leaves enough flexibility with the bass to mid crossover. And I want the loudspeakers to play as low as possible. I think that I'm going to stay with the RS270. More updates will follow soon.
The 6ND430 driver have a nice xmax (5 mm), that leaves enough flexibility with the bass to mid crossover. And I want the loudspeakers to play as low as possible. I think that I'm going to stay with the RS270. More updates will follow soon.
Construction thread here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...y-active-loudspeakers-construction-diary.html
Please take a look.
Please take a look.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.