tinitus said:
I was surprised to see him say that too, but it really points out that they are by far the weakest part of a multi-way and the hardest to design.
What the statement implies is that if you are going to have cross-overs they need to be approached with caution & care... Geddes beleives they need to be <1kHz, i think they need to be outside the ctitical midband (300-5k at least),
My current system is 3-way, with active XO at 100, and passive 1st order at ~90 K (so high to effectively level match at the 15k XO). The tweeter is new, not dialed in yet and i don't know how much they'll be missed when they fo away.
dave
planet10 said:
Weakest ?....I am not so sure about that, XOs do what they are told to do
The hardest ?....maybe so, they dont always do what we want them to
Today we have powerfull tools to help, but it has not always been so, and I believe some of the fear and "thumb-rules" are "leftovers" from the old days
But sure, those tools are also difficult to use, and I suppose many still fail
About where to xo
I am not convinced about those old and well known "thumb-rules"
but no doubt, some areas are easier to handle
but done right I dont think it matters
I believe the key-words are knowledge and experience which are essential to succeed
Not many of those peole around, but unfortunately I think the "fear" about XOs are based on the failure of those who havent had the skills and have failed
We seem to have reached a stage where we think we know it all, but we really dont and still much to learn
tinitus said:
Interestingly enough, a large part of this conversation has been about "going back" and doing things that were done many years ago etc. The "thumb rules" were implemented many years ago for speaker cabinet design as well as XO design. We have new tools for doing both now. Neither are "easy" to use when compared to using a rule of thumb, but they have made significant differences for both types of builds. Designing a cross over takes a certain amount of art and knowledge. Knowing how to read the probabilities and knowing what to expect are keys. The same could be said for the various software tools used to design enclosures. One is electrical while the other is mechanical, but in the end, the designer has to interpret the results into something useable.
Interpretation has killed no few over the years, lol,
Robert
Yes, on both these points.planet10 said:
A very good source said they were colorless, lifeless, a huge dissapointment. Probably did measure very well, all the notes were there, but the "music" was missing.
He said he really wanted to try them with his front end & amps, & tweak for a while, "they must be able to sound good, they're supposed to sound good."
But what Geddes is after may be different from what I value...
It's this "life" in the "music" that I find to have value.
Not how well anything measures...
And my latest single driver speaker seems to be a failure...
Doesn't have the "life" of the last one, which cost a fraction of much...
Amoung other problems...
rdf said:
Indeed it is!
How are you liking Audiolense? Might have to try it myself.
FWIW, the absolute best systems I've ever heard used crossovers, sometimes 4-way. So it can be done right, but it's never easy. Fullrange drivers have a purity and simplicity that is hard to deny.
Different things are important to different folks....
I would surely like to own a pair of those Feastrex, as I have spent half my life with fullrange drivers
But their "affordable" driver are their "budget" drivers and may not be "the real thing", like their more costly drivers, which are insanely expencive...so I am reluctant as I really dont like "secondbest"
anyone knows how much better their expencive stuff are
btw, I have spent most of 6 to 7 years on the very same speaker, doing hundreds and hundres of crossover experiments and adjustments
Only a year ago I was close to give in, and admit that crossovers are the worst and most impossible
But now everything has found its right place and all is well, and surely not impossible
I dont get any younger and not sure I can afford to spend another 5 years to make my next project work, but I probably will
Well, I hope I have learned enough to make things easier
As said, I am an old "fullrange-guy" and know a bit about whats possible and not
So I am definately not speaking against fullrange
But I may be concerned about whether people are in it fore the right reasons
People like the good man Dave and others have a status and their words have a certain "weight", and when they say crossovers doesnt work, well many people will follow that "gospel", and not question whether its right or wrong
I am quite certain that there is a number of people who would be better of with a mulitiway
But sure, I really really like the idea of tube "flea-amps", and would be my only reason fore going fullrange once again
But their "affordable" driver are their "budget" drivers and may not be "the real thing", like their more costly drivers, which are insanely expencive...so I am reluctant as I really dont like "secondbest"
anyone knows how much better their expencive stuff are
btw, I have spent most of 6 to 7 years on the very same speaker, doing hundreds and hundres of crossover experiments and adjustments
Only a year ago I was close to give in, and admit that crossovers are the worst and most impossible
But now everything has found its right place and all is well, and surely not impossible
I dont get any younger and not sure I can afford to spend another 5 years to make my next project work, but I probably will
Well, I hope I have learned enough to make things easier
As said, I am an old "fullrange-guy" and know a bit about whats possible and not
So I am definately not speaking against fullrange
But I may be concerned about whether people are in it fore the right reasons
People like the good man Dave and others have a status and their words have a certain "weight", and when they say crossovers doesnt work, well many people will follow that "gospel", and not question whether its right or wrong
I am quite certain that there is a number of people who would be better of with a mulitiway
But sure, I really really like the idea of tube "flea-amps", and would be my only reason fore going fullrange once again
tinitus said:
I didn't say they wouldn't work, just that they are the weakest point of any multiway. There are ways to greatly minimize their impact. One of the easiest is to ensure that you can enjoy listening to just the midrange.
And certainly when it comes to a frugal-phile speaker, i feel a single full-range driver can offer the most bang for the buck.
Note that the drivers alone to support the very bottom and the very top cost close to 3 x as much as the "midrange". And then there are the amps & XO.
dave
But you are using subs, tweeters and others tricks
I admit there could be some difference with the fact of using a fullrange or widerange as a mid, but thats still a multiway
I do akcknowledge the possible "cost benefit" of a fullrange system, but thats a whole different thing
Though I do admit that going multiway can be like you say, "opening a can full of worms"
As I see it there is one major problem when people are using advanced tools fore designing speakers, and XOs in particular
When everything LOOKS perfect, most will stop at that thinking its as good as it gets
And it really not easy to see how one can make it better when everything seems to be fine
My point is that its still possible to improve further, it always is, the task is to find out how
And I believe its exactly then the last and most important sound performance is achieved, which makes the night and day
Problem is that I dont have any easy answer to that
I admit there could be some difference with the fact of using a fullrange or widerange as a mid, but thats still a multiway
I do akcknowledge the possible "cost benefit" of a fullrange system, but thats a whole different thing
Though I do admit that going multiway can be like you say, "opening a can full of worms"
As I see it there is one major problem when people are using advanced tools fore designing speakers, and XOs in particular
When everything LOOKS perfect, most will stop at that thinking its as good as it gets
And it really not easy to see how one can make it better when everything seems to be fine
My point is that its still possible to improve further, it always is, the task is to find out how
And I believe its exactly then the last and most important sound performance is achieved, which makes the night and day
Problem is that I dont have any easy answer to that
planet10 said:
Yup, the 138s.
I thought Clark liked the FE208eSRs?
Called them "Death Stars" or some such?
I had the 138s in TLs designed for 206s w/ an "adaptor baffle."
Not bad, but didn't expect much in a totally wrong box.
Built a sealed box to size, "golden ratio," mostly to listen more accurately to the driver & break them in some more.
Decent sounding, but definetly not "magic."
Not even close to 108es-rIIs in Swans.
Close, closed-in sound. Piano & brushes on drums very nice, but can't really tell metal drum from wood.
Violin & Cello sound too much like horns for some reason?
Something wrong w/ very top, harmonics.
Pretty sure it's the 10dB harmonic peaks @ 5k, 10k, 20k.
Hurts my head, but not as bad as a Lowther.
Might need to roll it off & use a tweeter
Plan to build a couple more boxes to test, the one you drew up in 138 thread, & the Nessie design that came with the driver.
Haven't heard a BVR & Feastrex 5" in Nessie sure did sound nice.
Maybe decent size box will open up mids...
or paint dots...
tinitus said:
Sometimes. My brother tortured himself with a highly developed two-way for years. Near perfect MLSSA plot followed plot of different x-over configs with wonderfully linear FR on and off axis, only to be stripped and replaced with the next wonderful and complex design that didn't quite sound right either. Eventually his methodology evolved to using the MLSSA to avoid obvious gaffs, keeping the X-over as simple as possible by not sweating a dB here or there, and enjoying music again.
cirrus18 said:
Yes.
I have a pair of FE167e drivers in Brines-design (1600?) enclosures and they sound very nice....especially if you have never been near a jazz bass player in a live situation.
It is a bit much expecting a small driver to do decent bass, I guess.
Most of the larger (8-10-12) FR drivers in 'reasonable' size enclosures (ie less than 4 ft tall) get slagged quite regularly on line, so what is one to do?
I really don't want to mess with crossovers and subwoofers, etc....since the point of building tube (or chip) equipment with a simple audio path seems contrary to adding a bunch of outboard stuff.
Right now, I'm taking an 'ignorance is bliss' stance and enjoying my AudioNirvana 10" speakers- they were a heck of an improvement over the Bose units they replaced.
Cheers
John
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.