How do you assess & test the result for your DIY passive filters on the speaker?

[jawen]

Yes. But how it sounds to you is the important thing. Do you feel your process now is making things sound better? Are you getting more confident about what you're measuring and what that means for the sound?

Not yet mattstat, but learning and try to observate all the time.
Will try to make 2 of this xovers and give it a listening.

Thanks

Regards John

 

[jawen]

Yes. But how it sounds to you is the important thing. Do you feel your process now is making things sound better? Are you getting more confident about what you're measuring and what that means for the sound?

Buy the way!

Some people think you should keep between 1-2 K straight or in any case not + 1-3 dB, & some seems to prefer a small reduction at 3-4 K. Is your opinion similar?

Regards John

 

[mattstat]

Even in some of the audiophile magazines, a hotter presentation seems to have become more acceptable in recent times. But historically a gradual downward slope with increasing frequency for in-room response was the norm. A flatter (brighter) curve tends to sound revealing, exciting, etc. on first listen, so people that prefer that sound would be more inclined to like those speakers. Modern Focal and B&W designs tend toward a more forward presentation like this.

Any tendency toward brightness tends to grate on me over time, so I typically prefer a more mellow presentation with the downward slope with increasing frequency. Sometimes flatter in the midrange is OK, but for louder playback I normally prefer a dip in the 2-5 kHz region also. Exactly how that looks on a meter can be different depending on the speaker directivity, room, driver type, etc. Because of all the variables, it's hard to put an ironclad rule on exactly how frequency response should look. As an example, some full-range drivers seem to lack air/detail even when they have flat frequency response. That's often counteracted by boosting the top 1.5 octaves. If they're just poor at detail retrieval, you really can't fix that with frequency response manipulation, but you can make it sound better.

 

[jawen]

Even in some of the audiophile magazines, a hotter presentation seems to have become more acceptable in recent times. But historically a gradual downward slope with increasing frequency for in-room response was the norm. A flatter (brighter) curve tends to sound revealing, exciting, etc. on first listen, so people that prefer that sound would be more inclined to like those speakers. Modern Focal and B&W designs tend toward a more forward presentation like this.

Any tendency toward brightness tends to grate on me over time, so I typically prefer a more mellow presentation with the downward slope with increasing frequency. Sometimes flatter in the midrange is OK, but for louder playback I normally prefer a dip in the 2-5 kHz region also. Exactly how that looks on a meter can be different depending on the speaker directivity, room, driver type, etc. Because of all the variables, it's hard to put an ironclad rule on exactly how frequency response should look. As an example, some full-range drivers seem to lack air/detail even when they have flat frequency response. That's often counteracted by boosting the top 1.5 octaves. If they're just poor at detail retrieval, you really can't fix that with frequency response manipulation, but you can make it sound better.

So agre with you about " A flatter (brighter) curve tends to sound revealing, exciting, etc. on first listen, so people that prefer that sound would be more inclined to like those speakers. Modern Focal and B&W designs tend toward a more forward presentation like this."

I listen very loudly and also sometimes 5-6 hour´s...I will go mad in 3 songs with "to hot" filter.
Focals Sopra-serie is i my ears to "nasal/bright/in your face, and B&W has not been my cup of tee the last 15 years.

Thanks for a good input in general mattstat 👍

Regards John

 

[profiguy]

What means "gate your mesaurements"?

Is like the pic show okey for "reflection free area" ? ( from my first day´s with the mic and REW last year, when i modified a pair of Jamo)

Regards John

Those mattresses are too close to the speaker's sides. While they're effective at deadening most of the lower mids on up, they won't allow for the baffle interaction to fully reveal itself. As a result, you'll end up with a thin sounding low end and exaggerated treble. Its better to place the mattresses in a wide V shape and keep the edges at least 2 feet away from the speaker sides. Placing something absorbent behind the measurement mic is much more important.

 

[jawen]

Those mattresses are too close to the speaker's sides. While they're effective at deadening most of the lower mids on up, they won't allow for the baffle interaction to fully reveal itself. As a result, you'll end up with a thin sounding low end and exaggerated treble. Its better to place the mattresses in a wide V shape and keep the edges at least 2 feet away from the speaker sides. Placing something absorbent behind the measurement mic is much more important.

Thnks for your input profiguy 👍

Real good information and i will follow your rekomendations as good i can in the room.
Regards John

 

[pliedtka]

I usually put pile of dacron on the floor between spkr and the mic, and place the spkr as far as possible from the side walls, paying attention not to have similar distance from them as to the ceiling. With some smoothing and gating you could get somewhat meaning full measurements. For anything below 500Hz they 'go out on the the field' - either on top of a ladder or ground plane.
I also prefer warmer presentation rather than analytical, so my tweeters are lower in level past the xover point than the mids.