Hi Satx,
Totaly agree with your previous post, my only advice was to try a serie RLC network and no other changes.
0.1 mH - 1 mF -> minimum impedance (R value) ~15 Khz
0.1 mH - 1.5 mF > minimum impedance(R value) ~13 Khz
Strassaker has a calculator in the Tools section :
Strassacker: Speaker Building, Components
Clic on Tools -> crossover calculations -> RLC Calculator
SpeakerWorkshop does not give the same values , don't no why 😕
Totaly agree with your previous post, my only advice was to try a serie RLC network and no other changes.
0.1 mH - 1 mF -> minimum impedance (R value) ~15 Khz
0.1 mH - 1.5 mF > minimum impedance(R value) ~13 Khz
Strassaker has a calculator in the Tools section :
Strassacker: Speaker Building, Components
Clic on Tools -> crossover calculations -> RLC Calculator
SpeakerWorkshop does not give the same values , don't no why 😕
Last edited:
Hey Pascal, how have you been?
I think we are in agreement overall in this thread. We both like the Nomex164 a lot and think it's a pretty nice design in this price range. But, there's no argument from me if Clausen is unhappy with his speakers and wants to change them. We all hear differently and his room may be playing a bigger role than he thinks.
I didn't look too closely at the LCR, in fact I didn't realize it was you who recommended it. I just guessed around 12K based on the values. So you're saying it's centered around 15k? I can't imagine that this is the problem. Troels did a good job of addressing the HDS's rising response with the LR circuit, as his and yours and my measurements have shown. On the two way I built, I used a similar circuit, but .5mh and 12.5 ohm. Of course the two way is only 84db necessitating the higher values. I didn't address the top octave peak at all with no problems to my ears.
Thanks Evan I really appreciate the input. I returned to the original mid coil and added the LCR ...I'm actually very happy with the LCR circuit. I'm pretty sure I hear that 12k because they are night and day now.
Please understand I have huge respect for Troels, I would love to advertise for him and somehow make him some money for what he has done for the DUY community. His website is second to none as far as I know!
That said, even Troels says "I don't hear what you hear." My old speakers had dual VC mids wired at two different frequencies. One of the VC went out on one of the drivers and I could hear it. No one else noticed it, but it drove me crazy. I kept saying, "Why does that one speaker sound quieter than the other?" I finally figured it out.
And this is how I ended up building my own speakers. Also, understand after I built these I really liked them, but they always sounded too bright...and as I have read, once you begin to notice listening fatigue, it doesn't even have to be loud for it to bother you, and that's where I am.
However, after adding the LCR it is a game changer.
I appreciate what you said also about the 3rd order, I tried that and it is still in place and I was considering removing it and going back to the original xover except for the LCR! The L-Pad is currently at 2.2 ohms and 15 ohms if I remember right. I am going to return all original values and just play with the LCR.
As stated above, even my wife says it sounds better. (Granted she's probably jut saying that to appease me and get me to shut up... 😉 )
Again thanks for all the replies.
BTW, I live in Jacksonville...I guess that's what, 12 hour drive if I wanted to hear your speakers...lol?
Evan check your PM!!!
Please understand I have huge respect for Troels, I would love to advertise for him and somehow make him some money for what he has done for the DUY community. His website is second to none as far as I know!
That said, even Troels says "I don't hear what you hear." My old speakers had dual VC mids wired at two different frequencies. One of the VC went out on one of the drivers and I could hear it. No one else noticed it, but it drove me crazy. I kept saying, "Why does that one speaker sound quieter than the other?" I finally figured it out.
And this is how I ended up building my own speakers. Also, understand after I built these I really liked them, but they always sounded too bright...and as I have read, once you begin to notice listening fatigue, it doesn't even have to be loud for it to bother you, and that's where I am.
However, after adding the LCR it is a game changer.
I appreciate what you said also about the 3rd order, I tried that and it is still in place and I was considering removing it and going back to the original xover except for the LCR! The L-Pad is currently at 2.2 ohms and 15 ohms if I remember right. I am going to return all original values and just play with the LCR.
As stated above, even my wife says it sounds better. (Granted she's probably jut saying that to appease me and get me to shut up... 😉 )
Again thanks for all the replies.
BTW, I live in Jacksonville...I guess that's what, 12 hour drive if I wanted to hear your speakers...lol?
Evan check your PM!!!
Very succinct...but doesn't explain why my ACI's sounded great, and why the LCR circuit has transformed these speakers!
No problem. If you're happy, great!
If it were me I would probably remove the additional coil for the 3rd order xo as that is more than likely significantly changing the sound and presentation away from what was intended with the design. it's probably creating a phase shift and suckout in the FR. It may even create a peak or two around the xo due to phase issues, but that would probably bother your ears so maybe not. On the other hand, if you're happy with the balance, then leave the l pad as is and the lcr. That's just my two cents of course.
I think that drive's more like 18-20 hours! I drove to Longboat key (near Tampa) from here and it took almost 24 hrs. Of course, i did stop for a couple hours in New Orleans. Anyways, my speakers should sound just like yours with the original xo, more or less.
If it were me I would probably remove the additional coil for the 3rd order xo as that is more than likely significantly changing the sound and presentation away from what was intended with the design. it's probably creating a phase shift and suckout in the FR. It may even create a peak or two around the xo due to phase issues, but that would probably bother your ears so maybe not. On the other hand, if you're happy with the balance, then leave the l pad as is and the lcr. That's just my two cents of course.
I think that drive's more like 18-20 hours! I drove to Longboat key (near Tampa) from here and it took almost 24 hrs. Of course, i did stop for a couple hours in New Orleans. Anyways, my speakers should sound just like yours with the original xo, more or less.
Like I said I am going to go back to the original xo with just the LCR and try that. From what they sound like now I think it will do the trick. I don't need them to change much!!!
The LCR made the biggest change as far as what I hear. Changing the L-Pad didn't really addressed my issue. They sound so good now I CANNOT believe it! So I am going to go back to the original L-Pad and 2nd order and play with the LCR.
The LCR made the biggest change as far as what I hear. Changing the L-Pad didn't really addressed my issue. They sound so good now I CANNOT believe it! So I am going to go back to the original L-Pad and 2nd order and play with the LCR.
I just hope it's not a giant suck out in the 3300 range from the 3rd order xo that you are actually liking so much. I just can't seem to get my head around a minor adjustment at 15k making much, if any difference.
Not doubting what you hear and if it is a suck out in the upper mid that you like, there's nothing really wrong with this in my opinion.
Not doubting what you hear and if it is a suck out in the upper mid that you like, there's nothing really wrong with this in my opinion.
It's not the 3rd order...I didn't notice any change after implementation of the 3rd order. IMO, it is definitely that upper range I have been hearing. As soon as I added the LCR, and only after that, the sound turned to heaven! I know the difference in sound between a 2nd and 3rd order, and the 2nd IMO sounds clearly better as long as there is no added distortion. And distortion is not what I was hearing.
Okay, that's good. It's always a good idea to make one change at a time and listen for a bit. Sounds like that's what you did. You can also try adjusting the resistor in the tweeters LR circuit to a larger value. This will tilt the top octave or two down, but too much and it may start to lift the region right before where it's operating.
I'm not sure that notching out the entire tweeter output above 10kHz is a very ideal solution at all. 😀
What you are hearing is undoubtedly the horrid mush that a soft dome produces above 7kHz. I've been telling you this for years, but no-one is listening. 🙄
I had a look at a better R2604 or XT25 ring radiator, as opposed to the D2608 or equivalent Visaton SC10N.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
It just scrapes it on output level and works nicely on third order filter. The exact match on the slopes is less of an issue, because I could time align it better, but it's the smooth phase response that is the revelation. Look and understand, folks! 😎
Attachments
At the risk of interrupting the lecture, what's with this sweeping generalisation that soft dome tweeters are no good ('mush'), sans any kind of qualification whatsoever? Some are indeed poor, no question. Many are not. In the same way that there are plenty of hard-dome tweeters that are also poor, while others are not. Personally, I'd rather not rule out an entire type (many of which are excellent technical performers) on such a basis.
Last edited:
I've just given you the justification more clearly than in any other post I've ever seen on the subject. It's all in the phase plot. You do know what a phase plot represents, don't you? 🙂
Perhaps not. You'd rather flame than think it seems.
Yes, I do know what a phase plot is thank you. And no, it's not a flame, but the lecturing tone you have adopted in many of your posts does get somewhat irritating after a while, especially when you are presenting opinion / preference as fact.
Here is a fact: many soft-dome tweeters provide superior objective performance to many hard-dome tweeters. In the same way that many hard-dome tweeters provide superior objective performance to many soft-dome tweeters. Writing off every single soft-dome tweeter does nobody any favours. Especially on the basis of -well, a plot from Boxsim. You honestly feel that this is universally applicable and that superior performance is to be gained by, say, junking an SS D2904/71002 in favour of a cheap titanium / whatever job from TB or similar? Methinks some perspective would be nice.
Here is a fact: many soft-dome tweeters provide superior objective performance to many hard-dome tweeters. In the same way that many hard-dome tweeters provide superior objective performance to many soft-dome tweeters. Writing off every single soft-dome tweeter does nobody any favours. Especially on the basis of -well, a plot from Boxsim. You honestly feel that this is universally applicable and that superior performance is to be gained by, say, junking an SS D2904/71002 in favour of a cheap titanium / whatever job from TB or similar? Methinks some perspective would be nice.
Last edited:
I really don't care what you think of my tone, it's all in the science, which will win. 🙂
Let's reiterate. I have just given you a remarkable demonstration of a ring radiator's strength versus a soft dome. Not a cone tweeter, or a metal dome or a waveguide, interesting though they are.
Whether you want to read the theory behind this is up to you. But here is why soft domes are broken: Robin Marshall: A Modicum of Genius | Stereophile.com
Now if you can spot what is remarkable about the XT25 phase response will tell me whether we are on the same page here. No more waffle please. If you don't know, say so. 🙂
Let's reiterate. I have just given you a remarkable demonstration of a ring radiator's strength versus a soft dome. Not a cone tweeter, or a metal dome or a waveguide, interesting though they are.
Whether you want to read the theory behind this is up to you. But here is why soft domes are broken: Robin Marshall: A Modicum of Genius | Stereophile.com
Now if you can spot what is remarkable about the XT25 phase response will tell me whether we are on the same page here. No more waffle please. If you don't know, say so. 🙂
Attachments
Frankly I'm not particularly bothered about the Boxsim phase model of the XT25 under unspecified conditions. Interesting, and apparently quite clean in the higher registers, but alas, not what I was concerned about. What I was concerned about was the arbitrary writing off of all soft-dome tweeters, sans qualification (aside from a single pair of simulated phase plots) but presented as universal fact.
Rather than casually dismissing all of said as 'broken' on the basis of a pair of Boxsim plots & a link to Stereophile, I, and I think many others, prefer to primarily work on the basis of a drive unit's frequency response on & off axis, impedance behaviour, distortion performance &c. Do soft-dome tweeters have limitations? Of course. Do hard dome types? Yes. Do ring-radiators? Also yes. The XT25 you refer to for instance. Lovely on axis FR. But distortion rockets < c.2.5KHz, it has a rather small radiating area due to its construction and somewhat mediocre off-axis performance due to the same. These are extremely important design considerations which cannot be written off as 'waffle', or having no engineering / scientific relevance. Therefore, I for one do not accept the above simulation as sufficient justification for claiming that all soft-dome tweeters are incapable of reproducing anything more than 'horrid mush' >7KHz.
Rather than casually dismissing all of said as 'broken' on the basis of a pair of Boxsim plots & a link to Stereophile, I, and I think many others, prefer to primarily work on the basis of a drive unit's frequency response on & off axis, impedance behaviour, distortion performance &c. Do soft-dome tweeters have limitations? Of course. Do hard dome types? Yes. Do ring-radiators? Also yes. The XT25 you refer to for instance. Lovely on axis FR. But distortion rockets < c.2.5KHz, it has a rather small radiating area due to its construction and somewhat mediocre off-axis performance due to the same. These are extremely important design considerations which cannot be written off as 'waffle', or having no engineering / scientific relevance. Therefore, I for one do not accept the above simulation as sufficient justification for claiming that all soft-dome tweeters are incapable of reproducing anything more than 'horrid mush' >7KHz.
Last edited:
Pure sales talk. I could make a huge list of very popular speakers that use soft domes and none of them "spit or sizzle"
Yes, ALL soft domes are broken! That's what Clausen has discovered by LISTENING! Have you read this thread at all? 😕
So what are we seeing here with my comparison of an XT25, using imported FRD and ZMA files in Boxsim, and a soft dome? EXACTLY what Robin Marshall is talking about. Game, Set and Match to Robin Marshall I'd say.
But hey, you stick to your frequency plots. But maybe you have now learned what to really look for. 😛
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
So what are we seeing here with my comparison of an XT25, using imported FRD and ZMA files in Boxsim, and a soft dome? EXACTLY what Robin Marshall is talking about. Game, Set and Match to Robin Marshall I'd say.
But hey, you stick to your frequency plots. But maybe you have now learned what to really look for. 😛
