I better clarify - I mean each speaker, including crossover weighs approx 100kg. Crossover is 1st/2nd order linear phase design .
Been doing a little more listening last night - bass level seems about right & has nice punch. It seems Delta will handle home theatre (in my flat) without any need for a subwoofer, which was one of my original goals. I watched Nemo & U-571, plus the Eagles at high levels, and dynamics were handled without strain, though I'm sure the crossover needs some fine tuning.
Cheers
David
www.gattiweb.com/delta_design
Been doing a little more listening last night - bass level seems about right & has nice punch. It seems Delta will handle home theatre (in my flat) without any need for a subwoofer, which was one of my original goals. I watched Nemo & U-571, plus the Eagles at high levels, and dynamics were handled without strain, though I'm sure the crossover needs some fine tuning.
Cheers
David
www.gattiweb.com/delta_design
I did consider the SS 7000, but I don't think it 's as good in the lower frequency range as the Supreme 110. Xmax for Supreme is 1.5mm p-p, whereas the SS is 0.5mm, which is important if you're using a 1st order highpass. The SS is also VERY expensive which I find hard to justify.
The Supreme is incredibly detailed, natural and dynamic.
Yes, I only used contact adhesive for the constrained layer. I don't think screws are necessary and the rigid coupling of screws will probably reduce the effectiveness of the damping layer.
With the crossover, it's still in development but at this stage I have 2nd order on the mid's highpass (it controls it's impedance resonance hump better) and 2nd order lowpass on the woofer & midbass - with the baffle-step rise you get close to a 1st order acoustic lowpass.
The Supreme is incredibly detailed, natural and dynamic.
Yes, I only used contact adhesive for the constrained layer. I don't think screws are necessary and the rigid coupling of screws will probably reduce the effectiveness of the damping layer.
With the crossover, it's still in development but at this stage I have 2nd order on the mid's highpass (it controls it's impedance resonance hump better) and 2nd order lowpass on the woofer & midbass - with the baffle-step rise you get close to a 1st order acoustic lowpass.
Attachments
I've never heard that driver diysmartdeep, so can't comment on it's sound. At this level, the law of diminishing returns is in effect so the differences are subtle and it's more a matter of personal taste. Sure, with 2rd order or greater, Xmax is irrelevant.
If it will make you sleep better at night, then it's worth buying
If it will make you sleep better at night, then it's worth buying
yeah but a passive becoz of its size im expecting the external placement of the crossover...
well I want to use the scanspeak 7xxxxxxx with the 7 inch Revelator with 3rd order or 6th order linkz witz raliy crossover for the satellites ( 7.1 speaker setup ) with the velodyne dd18? with the Rotel RMB 1048 to powerup the satellites ....
how is the setup?...
Does it sounds good?
well I want to use the scanspeak 7xxxxxxx with the 7 inch Revelator with 3rd order or 6th order linkz witz raliy crossover for the satellites ( 7.1 speaker setup ) with the velodyne dd18? with the Rotel RMB 1048 to powerup the satellites ....
how is the setup?...
Does it sounds good?
David:
I was hoping you could explain your logic behind choosing a passive crossover. It would seem that with a very complicated 4-way system an active digital crossover would make your crossover prototyping much faster. Also, it's my understanding at least, that an active crossover setup gives the amplifiers much more control over each individual driver (higher damping due to lack of crossover components in between the amp and the driver) and also allows each individual driver to be more sensitive (due to the lack of resistance from crossover components in between the amps and the drivers). The only downside I can see is that it would require 8 channels of amplification for the stereo pair. I think that with the amount of time and money you've invested in creating these truly beautiful speakers (both visually and technically) you should really take a look into having an active crossover if you haven't already. Again, wonderful job, I'm extremely impressed.
I was hoping you could explain your logic behind choosing a passive crossover. It would seem that with a very complicated 4-way system an active digital crossover would make your crossover prototyping much faster. Also, it's my understanding at least, that an active crossover setup gives the amplifiers much more control over each individual driver (higher damping due to lack of crossover components in between the amp and the driver) and also allows each individual driver to be more sensitive (due to the lack of resistance from crossover components in between the amps and the drivers). The only downside I can see is that it would require 8 channels of amplification for the stereo pair. I think that with the amount of time and money you've invested in creating these truly beautiful speakers (both visually and technically) you should really take a look into having an active crossover if you haven't already. Again, wonderful job, I'm extremely impressed.
Hi Motion
I guess you could call these a more "classic" speaker design. You know my best experiences and memories have always been with large floor standing passive design. Maybe I'm more of a traditionalist.
People say 4-way is complicated. In some ways it is, but in other ways, it simplifies the crossover design because you are not operating the drivers on the edge of their pass band and pushing them to their limits. Also, all of these drivers are very well behaved, and thus minimalist 1st/2nd order crossovers can be used, which in my experience gives are more natural and dynamic sound. I think digital x-overs and multi-amping is unnecessary and probably does more harm than good for this type of linear phase design.
I have always found the sound of opamps disapponting in terms of dynamics, depth and warmth, and I prefer the relative simplicity of a passive design rather than a complex 8 channel setup. You also have heat, reliability & power consumption issues. Having said that one day I may bi-amplify to try to get the best of both worlds, but I think that's as far as I'd take it.
Sensiitvity isn't an issue as these are a very health 89dB/2.83V. The sound is already extremely good with my first crossover, and I can now take my time to listen/measure and test various options. They will always be a work in progress.
I guess you could call these a more "classic" speaker design. You know my best experiences and memories have always been with large floor standing passive design. Maybe I'm more of a traditionalist.
People say 4-way is complicated. In some ways it is, but in other ways, it simplifies the crossover design because you are not operating the drivers on the edge of their pass band and pushing them to their limits. Also, all of these drivers are very well behaved, and thus minimalist 1st/2nd order crossovers can be used, which in my experience gives are more natural and dynamic sound. I think digital x-overs and multi-amping is unnecessary and probably does more harm than good for this type of linear phase design.
I have always found the sound of opamps disapponting in terms of dynamics, depth and warmth, and I prefer the relative simplicity of a passive design rather than a complex 8 channel setup. You also have heat, reliability & power consumption issues. Having said that one day I may bi-amplify to try to get the best of both worlds, but I think that's as far as I'd take it.
Sensiitvity isn't an issue as these are a very health 89dB/2.83V. The sound is already extremely good with my first crossover, and I can now take my time to listen/measure and test various options. They will always be a work in progress.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.