Least Audible Midrange Crossover Type?

Most neutral/least audible crossover topology?

  • B3

    Votes: 8 6.6%

  • LR4

    Votes: 23 19.0%

  • B5

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • LR6

    Votes: 3 2.5%

  • B7

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • LR8

    Votes: 3 2.5%

  • LR2

    Votes: 25 20.7%

  • none of the above

    Votes: 61 50.4%
  • Total voters
    121
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#42
Key said:
I never got around to reading that study you keep referring to but I have serious doubts about your claim and I doubt that the paper should be interpreted as an across the board truth.
Click to expand...

Not my paper or my claim. Kunchur has had 3 papers, using 3 different techniques, published in peer reviewed journals. All with the same findings. A 4th paper by another scientist has further verified the result.

This is a solid scientific result. It is very significant to what we are doing.

dave
 
#43
Well I have to take a look. It's just the way you state it so simply (do you honestly think that people can notice time errors at any frequency and any amplitude in the 20-20k range?) without any conditions that makes it seem over simplified.
 
#44
planet10 said:
Not my paper or my claim. Kunchur has had 3 papers, using 3 different techniques, published in peer reviewed journals. All with the same findings. A 4th paper by another scientist has further verified the result.

This is a solid scientific result. It is very significant to what we are doing.

dave
Click to expand...

At which frequencies? We have very different sensitivity to different frequencies
 
#52
I assume you would like examples of active LR4s in speakers, yes?

Of course you are welcome to visit myself and listen to my speakers.
They are based on Tannoy 3148s complemented with Volt 12" radials in T/L cabs and Fountek ribbons.
Or, and that might be easier for you, you could try ATC active monitors, active PMCs or Quested Audio monitoring. Actually to the best of my knowledge most high-quality active monitors use LR4 crossovers.

In my experience the improvement available from active operation is quite a bit greater then any other tweaks possible to the extent that actives using dirt cheap amps tend to be superior to passives using the best amps available.
I recommend reading the technical papers available on ATCs website and elsewhere.
 
#53
I have no affiliation with it, but for this weekend Frequency Allocator and Allocator Light are on special offer. With full Allocator ($59 this weekend) you can listen to the various crossovers and phase correction in real-time.

Very relevant to this thread I thought =)
 
#54
Charles Darwin said:
I assume you would like examples of active LR4s in speakers, yes?

Of course you are welcome to visit myself and listen to my speakers.
They are based on Tannoy 3148s complemented with Volt 12" radials in T/L cabs and Fountek ribbons.
Or, and that might be easier for you, you could try ATC active monitors, active PMCs or Quested Audio monitoring. Actually to the best of my knowledge most high-quality active monitors use LR4 crossovers.

In my experience the improvement available from active operation is quite a bit greater then any other tweaks possible to the extent that actives using dirt cheap amps tend to be superior to passives using the best amps available.
I recommend reading the technical papers available on ATCs website and elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestions but I`ve been there and done it all years ago. Only unlike you I`ve never heard any active filter dissappear totally like my ultimate quality passive 1.orders do.
While I was developing my 4-way (1.order/asymetric/no absorbers/huge massive cables)-speakers a friend was challenging me using a lot more money on his big active system based on pro/studio drivers. Lets say this was a bit more open and dynamic than the ones you suggest, but even so he had to admit that my passive system beat him even on dynamics.
 
#55
Same here, been there done that years ago and I have never come across a passive speaker that comes close to the realism provided by actives. Especially the bass tends to be rather 'mushy' with passives, I tend to blame the almost inevitable series inductor (which also eats half the power fed to the speaker).
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
#56
PaleRider said:
Thanks for the suggestions but I`ve been there and done it all years ago. Only unlike you I`ve never heard any active filter dissappear totally like my ultimate quality passive 1.orders do.
While I was developing my 4-way (1.order/asymetric/no absorbers/huge massive cables)-speakers a friend was challenging me using a lot more money on his big active system based on pro/studio drivers. Lets say this was a bit more open and dynamic than the ones you suggest, but even so he had to admit that my passive system beat him even on dynamics.
Click to expand...

Are you saying passive crossovers can make speakers more dynamic then active ones?
 
#58
planet10 said:
Different thread, sorry. Also would have been easier to Google if i hadn't invented a new spelling for his name.

Information for prospective students

Start with the HiFi Critic overview, then the FAQ.

dave
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link Dave! Great stuff! I was researching time alignment back in '95 and came up with much the same thinking (Minus the math). I don't think you can do better than to start with properly time aligned speakers. I designed and published a paper or two on the subject of measuring time alignments in x-over regions. It is not all that difficult to do, even for a hobbyist.

Since that time I have always preffered 1st order time aligned systems. Of course very few tweeters can perform this feat properly.

Terry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom