I'm at a loss here, and other than repeating myself (this crossover works, I've listened to it for months and months and haven't blown my drivers), I don't know what to tell you.
well, a guy i trust told me the version you use is not what he recommends to me
cannot help more then this either
cannot help more then this either
I use in my big 3 way system, for a year now, sometime at high spl, the planar tweeter with a 1.2khz 6db xo. NO ISSUE
i dont it will ever melt
Yny, have you measured your average listening level and peaks with a smartphone app ?
This tweeter is advised at 3k hz cut off by the datasheet. It also drops below that ...well migth be what is needed or not according the designer.
Is the impedance of a serie reacts the same when increasing voltage VS a parallel?
This tweeter is advised at 3k hz cut off by the datasheet. It also drops below that ...well migth be what is needed or not according the designer.
Is the impedance of a serie reacts the same when increasing voltage VS a parallel?
I know the hivi specs indicate the driver is more fragile then reality. is it possible?
cause its been half a year with 1.2khz first oder xo on the rt2ha and it sounds nothing but pure amazing
cause its been half a year with 1.2khz first oder xo on the rt2ha and it sounds nothing but pure amazing
I use Arta and a mic
ill post measruements soon of both my 2 way with rt2ha and 2 way with fe108ez!
ill post measruements soon of both my 2 way with rt2ha and 2 way with fe108ez!
For the 6db times phase crowd, I'd always thought of using a full range driver with a flat impedance curve (copper cap or I think underhung sometimes) makes life easier for a crossover.
I think dunlavy was right. You have good sounding loudspeakers, bad sounding loudspeakers, and you have correct sounding loudspeakers. I saw a video where vandersteen said a non time aligned will not sound terrible.
I think we hear it as "different". I think we more easily hear frequency problems, resonances, intermod and modulation distortion.
I remember on the xrk thread, the 8" + seas 10f, sliding back the mid tweet, alignment was more audible outside than indoors, so room reflections cover "accuracy".
The question is, what do we equate as better.........
I've found 6db to be a squeak more intelligible, like sing talking "mug of herbal tea"
I'd read that someone with a wife whose 1st language was not english, had an easier time translating using full range drivers.
Could that be less low end ? Point source ? Less room reflections as frequency goes up ? I think 6db tracks phase better than whizzed full rangers.
I have no experience with the newer fir time phase crossovers, nor mixed slopes passing square waves, but am fascinated.
Youknowyou, love to see pics. Can't see your older pictures.....
I think dunlavy was right. You have good sounding loudspeakers, bad sounding loudspeakers, and you have correct sounding loudspeakers. I saw a video where vandersteen said a non time aligned will not sound terrible.
I think we hear it as "different". I think we more easily hear frequency problems, resonances, intermod and modulation distortion.
I remember on the xrk thread, the 8" + seas 10f, sliding back the mid tweet, alignment was more audible outside than indoors, so room reflections cover "accuracy".
The question is, what do we equate as better.........
I've found 6db to be a squeak more intelligible, like sing talking "mug of herbal tea"
I'd read that someone with a wife whose 1st language was not english, had an easier time translating using full range drivers.
Could that be less low end ? Point source ? Less room reflections as frequency goes up ? I think 6db tracks phase better than whizzed full rangers.
I have no experience with the newer fir time phase crossovers, nor mixed slopes passing square waves, but am fascinated.
Youknowyou, love to see pics. Can't see your older pictures.....
Last edited:
At the end it seemss there are several ways to make a good step response... at least from my popcorn seat lurker !
Metrology seems to be handy, while measuremement is not an easy thing! Begs for even more sticky(ies)
Metrology seems to be handy, while measuremement is not an easy thing! Begs for even more sticky(ies)
https://www.stereophile.com/content/loudspeaker-designer-john-dunlavy-numbers-page-2
Dunlavy: "I think a lot of people, especially those who don't listen to live music a great deal of the time, are not really concerned with whether the music they're reproducing matches the live performance. They're after more of an effect. And so the accuracy of their systems doesn't need to meet the same criteria that would have to be met if one wanted to make a loudspeaker where you couldn't hear the difference between it and the original performance. And that's what we're into. Certainly there's plenty of room in the marketplace for what might be called "good-sounding" speakers, "sweet-sounding" speakers, "nice-sounding" speakers, "pretty-sounding" speakers—everybody hears differently. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who regularly attend live concerts who want accurate reproduction.
Designing with higher-order crossover networks greatly simplifies the blending task between drivers. But what most people don't realize is that one of the really great difficulties in designing with higher-order crossovers is that they store energy. That's very visible when you look at the impulse response of a speaker that has a second-, third-, or fourth-order network. And the step response also looks terrible.
Of all of the measurements that we take that come more close to predicting, or most close to predicting how a speaker is going to emulate a properly recorded live performance, it's step response. Everything is implicit if you know how to interpret a step response...if my life depended upon my describing what I thought a speaker was going to sound like, all other factors being equal, I would choose step response. And feel very confident that I would be spot-on."
I do not design speakers nor play with crossovers. If I remember, Dunlavy would have someone play an instrument, say a violin in an anechoic chamber, then adjust the speaker so it could reproduce it, settling on 6db time/phase/acoustic centers lined up...... I think the centers are shifted a bit by the caps/inductors, but I am unsure.
Dunlavy: "I think a lot of people, especially those who don't listen to live music a great deal of the time, are not really concerned with whether the music they're reproducing matches the live performance. They're after more of an effect. And so the accuracy of their systems doesn't need to meet the same criteria that would have to be met if one wanted to make a loudspeaker where you couldn't hear the difference between it and the original performance. And that's what we're into. Certainly there's plenty of room in the marketplace for what might be called "good-sounding" speakers, "sweet-sounding" speakers, "nice-sounding" speakers, "pretty-sounding" speakers—everybody hears differently. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who regularly attend live concerts who want accurate reproduction.
Designing with higher-order crossover networks greatly simplifies the blending task between drivers. But what most people don't realize is that one of the really great difficulties in designing with higher-order crossovers is that they store energy. That's very visible when you look at the impulse response of a speaker that has a second-, third-, or fourth-order network. And the step response also looks terrible.
Of all of the measurements that we take that come more close to predicting, or most close to predicting how a speaker is going to emulate a properly recorded live performance, it's step response. Everything is implicit if you know how to interpret a step response...if my life depended upon my describing what I thought a speaker was going to sound like, all other factors being equal, I would choose step response. And feel very confident that I would be spot-on."
I do not design speakers nor play with crossovers. If I remember, Dunlavy would have someone play an instrument, say a violin in an anechoic chamber, then adjust the speaker so it could reproduce it, settling on 6db time/phase/acoustic centers lined up...... I think the centers are shifted a bit by the caps/inductors, but I am unsure.
I cant answer every questions as im pretty much a dummy with interesting exposure to good hifi systems. What i call real hifi not what they try to sell as hifi in the mags costing 20k for a fancy cab and a 7” two way lol.
btw im listening as we speak all day at a friend house to a pair of amphion 2 way system. It sounds lovely but its not hifi to me
one thing for sure is that by treating the room first reflection points, it greatly improves speaker imaging and soundtage along pin point accuracy and details.
a untreaed room ruins the intelligibility a big deal.
then when it comes to speakers. ever since i use first order xo, any notion of driver timing seem inexistant. Its as if it magically integrated drivers without much effort.
true true.
I can say, I barely prefer a 6db over a full range driver.
Better dispersion, better distortion, better detail, and can be cheaper for a flatter response.
pics ?
I can say, I barely prefer a 6db over a full range driver.
Better dispersion, better distortion, better detail, and can be cheaper for a flatter response.
pics ?
Last edited:
This is often interpreted to be more than it is, and here the properties haven't been specified. It's just a resonance with a group delay component which is not necessarily audible.
What we see and what we hear are not the same, so again perhaps not a fair assessment. This method could be used to describe audible issues, but in this case it hasn't been.
Last edited: