[Claude 3.7] Design a filter to flatten the peak between 8 and 13 kHz of the MarkAudio CHR-90 driver https://www.markaudio.com/online_shop/ch/chr-90/ to lower it by about 3 dB. Revc 7.80 Ohm F0 44.34 Hz Sd 0.0085 m² Vas 26.1403 Ltr CMS 2.5942 mm/N MMD 4.5230 g MMS 4.9661 g Xmax 7 mm one way QMS 2.4647 QES 0.4212 QTS 0.3598 LeVc 0.0912 mH No 0.52% SPL0 89.3548 dB
https://claude.ai/share/c32b61a3-7ab5-4b7f-9962-bd82aceaed17
"For a passive implementation with the given driver impedance (Revc = 7.80 Ohm), the component values would be:
https://claude.ai/share/c32b61a3-7ab5-4b7f-9962-bd82aceaed17
"For a passive implementation with the given driver impedance (Revc = 7.80 Ohm), the component values would be:
- Resistor (R): 7.8 Ohm (matching driver impedance)
- Capacitor (C): 1.5 μF
- Inductor (L): 0.15 mH
Attachments
Last edited:
I liked the folded Voigt as the taper does double duty as a brace for the wide side walls.
Is a Sibelius getting its superior sound from the thick heavy cabinet and not the Voigt design?
Is a Sibelius getting its superior sound from the thick heavy cabinet and not the Voigt design?
"Claude -what consideration has been made for the power-response and the significant narrowing of the usable axis if you attempt to flatten the axial [with remarkably pat values]?"
[Claude 3.7] Scottmoose https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/pearl-acoustic-sibelius.378803/post-7995830 asks: "Claude -what consideration has been made for the power-response and the significant narrowing of the usable axis if you attempt to flatten the axial [with remarkably pat values]?
Allow me a little off-topic to explain how I would do it. 🙏
[Claude 3.7] What do you think of what I did with my modified KEF Q100 5.25" coaxial speakers with the frequency response that I usually listen to in near field in my second system with a PC as the sound source? Let me explain: knowing the response at the listening point, at about 30º-45º, I used rePhase to linearize the frequency response with a few not very aggressive filters, minimizing the inevitable phase change when equalizing and which is audible from 300-400 Hz. Once the convolution filter was created, I applied it via the JRiver MC 64-bit DSP. I attached images of them in rePhase and Zvu measurements.
[Claude 3.7] What do you think of what I did with my modified KEF Q100 5.25" coaxial speakers with the frequency response that I usually listen to in near field in my second system with a PC as the sound source? Let me explain: knowing the response at the listening point, at about 30º-45º, I used rePhase to linearize the frequency response with a few not very aggressive filters, minimizing the inevitable phase change when equalizing and which is audible from 300-400 Hz. Once the convolution filter was created, I applied it via the JRiver MC 64-bit DSP. I attached images of them in rePhase and Zvu measurements.
Attachments
I can not edit the old post.
Two images of my JRiver MC 64 bits, with Convolution and Room Correction. With PEQ -> one filter to low frequencies correction (the phase change here does not matter).
- Greetings from Tarragona (Spain, EU), electricity is now available throughout the country -
Two images of my JRiver MC 64 bits, with Convolution and Room Correction. With PEQ -> one filter to low frequencies correction (the phase change here does not matter).
- Greetings from Tarragona (Spain, EU), electricity is now available throughout the country -
Attachments
I should have said [as I have many times on this forum -no complaint though, I don't expect everybody to automatically see / know that!] that I strongly object to anything that I say being fed into one of those things, and request that people do not do so. I do not wish to be involved in any way, shape or form in having my words used for the machine to provide yet more misleading statements -as it has done above. I understand I have no real choice in the matter as I have no control over whether people respect my wishes: all I can do is make them as clear as possible.
Last edited:
No apologies necessary -as I say, I certainly don't expect everybody to simply know my views on the matter [or go looking for them]. It's my responsibility to make them clear, especially if LLMs are raised, so mea culpa on that.
I have done measurements at short distance of the original Sibelius driver (ed) versus the Alpair 10.2. At short distance the original driver does a bit better and the differences disappear as the distance of the measurement increases. No idea if the differences are audible. It is clear that the Pearl Acoustics driver is similar to the 10.2.
Under what conditions were these measurements made?
In box, free air, with filter, etc.
I would like to see a full sweep of the complete Sibelius speaker at 1m on axis, then off axis in 10º increments.
Cannot seem to find such measurements on the net yet.
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Full Range
- Pearl Acoustic Sibelius