Modifying Diamond 9.6 crossovers

Jump to Latest
#21
o, sorry. once again
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
it is default cross (3,5 way).
Better cross (4 way, it better, because in default 12uH coil, that doing bass slow and drone) :
twiter
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

mid
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

mid bass
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

bass
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
 
#23
I'm not sure where you are going on that Astaro. 🙂

Looking at it another time, I see the reflex subwoofer rolls off quite fast around 150Hz due to the simple huge coil. So it's basically just adding some bass and bafflestep to what is really a 3 way closed box design.

A kevlar woofer, and fabric dome midrange and tweeter crossing over at 1kHz and 6kHz is a very nice combination with potentially very good phase alignment and imaging and lack of woofer cone breakup. I'd simply disconnect the sub woofer and put it against a wall and have a listen.

I'd assume Wharfedale have done a good job on the crossover and consider just some better polypropylene capacitors. Upgrading coils is a bit trickier, since you want to match overall resistance too. Care is needed because phase alignment is one of this design's strengths.
 
#28
I have just upgraded the capacitors to Clarity Cap SA.
I measured the old electrolytics and they all tested higher than marked.
4.7uF was 5.3uF averaged accross both caps
6.8uF was 7.2uF averaged
22uF was 24uF averaged
Would .6uf and .4uF make a large enough difference to the crossover points to be a problem?
At the moment the speakers sound better than before the upgrade.
Am I being to exact and worrying about nothing.
 
#29
ekidnah09 said:
I have just upgraded the capacitors to Clarity Cap SA.
I measured the old electrolytics and they all tested higher than marked.
4.7uF was 5.3uF averaged accross both caps
6.8uF was 7.2uF averaged
22uF was 24uF averaged
Would .6uf and .4uF make a large enough difference to the crossover points to be a problem?
At the moment the speakers sound better than before the upgrade.
Am I being to exact and worrying about nothing.
Click to expand...

Hi there e: All manufactured products have a toleance. I'd expect to see a plus-minus situation from mesuring a batch of parts. All of the readings being high is suspecious of the measuring device calibration. On several occasions on this site, someone posted a measured perameter for a specific product at variance with the manufacturers published data and then someone else posted a diferent value, leadng to the question of which of the three is correct. I do not have calibrated equipment, traceable to the national standards office, so I have to use my judgement when selecting values for simulations. ...regards, Michael
 
#30
I should add that the old 3uF polyprop tested 3.01uF averaged across both caps and all the replacement caps tested on average 3.02uF, 4.89uF, 6,88uF and 22.8uf so much closer to the marked values. So even if my meter was unclaibrated there is a difference between the electrolytics and polyprop caps.

I also found a fault with one speaker cabinate. The internal sealed box had not been glued properly and the hole for the wires was also unsealed so the mid was in a not very well sealed box.
Fixing this would of helped the sound also.
 
#32
drjammydodger said:
Does anyone happen to have the original freq response chart for this speaker design? Can't find it on the wharfedale site.
Click to expand...
From one russian magazine "Consumer":
http://bt-test.ru/tests/test_akusticheskoj_sistemy_wharfedale_diamond_96/
kachestvo_zvuchaniya_wharfedale-diamond-9_6.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom