The site has been amended to clear things up but no changes to the design or anything. In particular, the FAQ section for beginners and crossover section (repetitive comments). Any other suggestions will be welcomed. Thanks to all those involved in the history of the site.
enjoy
enjoy
I have a update for the clone of proac 2.5, I optimised a filter series which is much better than the original proac 😉
if that interests you, it is here:
http://audioclone.free.fr/PROAC 2.5 SERIE.gif
mezzo
if that interests you, it is here:
http://audioclone.free.fr/PROAC 2.5 SERIE.gif
mezzo
Yes, I am aware of the series crossover from audioclone but have not tried it yet and nobody has mentioned how good it is. In what way is it better than the other crossover?.
I have no complaints and the diyproac25 site is for public information, but it was a surprise to suddenly notice 6 months? ago the audioclone site had used the original information without reference to the original. There are about 7-8 other personal sites on the 2.5 clone and they all politely communicated their intention to us before linking or using the information.
I will try the series crossover later and if it is good we can mention it on the site as an alternative, with your permission of course.
I have no complaints and the diyproac25 site is for public information, but it was a surprise to suddenly notice 6 months? ago the audioclone site had used the original information without reference to the original. There are about 7-8 other personal sites on the 2.5 clone and they all politely communicated their intention to us before linking or using the information.
I will try the series crossover later and if it is good we can mention it on the site as an alternative, with your permission of course.
I do not understand your text: (I made(did) a demand in meadows of:
http: // www.geocities.com / diyproac25
to have the license to put the clone of the proac 2.5 with their site in link.
A person of your country, in used my filter puts into series (I I am in FRANCE🙂) and this person would not change this filter so it(he) is better😉 it was the project which I had put of quoted(esteemed) for a long time by hoping to make(do) better than 2.5 original and it is now made(done) thing(matter)😉
I would contact this person for you leave an account returned, it(him) will can better you, please, explain that I because he speaks about your language while I I use an on-line translator😉 maintaining , if that disturbs(disorders) somebody that clones him(it) proac 2.5 is is my site, me can the removed at once if you want😉 my filter puts into series is already formidable and I later use only that to have used the original during months😉
Mezzo
http: // www.geocities.com / diyproac25
to have the license to put the clone of the proac 2.5 with their site in link.
A person of your country, in used my filter puts into series (I I am in FRANCE🙂) and this person would not change this filter so it(he) is better😉 it was the project which I had put of quoted(esteemed) for a long time by hoping to make(do) better than 2.5 original and it is now made(done) thing(matter)😉
I would contact this person for you leave an account returned, it(him) will can better you, please, explain that I because he speaks about your language while I I use an on-line translator😉 maintaining , if that disturbs(disorders) somebody that clones him(it) proac 2.5 is is my site, me can the removed at once if you want😉 my filter puts into series is already formidable and I later use only that to have used the original during months😉
Mezzo
too much late 😉
there remains only me one filters series and the link
of the clone of proac 2.5, as that it will have there no more no
confusion 😉
mezzo
there remains only me one filters series and the link
of the clone of proac 2.5, as that it will have there no more no
confusion 😉
mezzo
Hope this is of interest, Al.M:
Having completed the Proac 2.5 clone back in August (using Jacq's crossover mods), I found myself somewhat disappointed. Yes, it did sound wonderful after the break-in period, but only with first-class recordings. The bass is everything that has been claimed and the treble does have that "special something".
What distresses me about the speaker, though, is that the upper midrange is prone to glare and confusion with any recording (or FM broadcast) having excess energy in what I would guess to be the 2 KHz region (where the clone does have a severe peak, followed by a dip). Dennis Murphy has made comment on this in the Madisound forums and I would agree. He makes mention of brass instrument recordings, but I find the effect is often audible on vocals (both CD and vinyl). I have found this to be true with both SS and valve amplification, though the latter hides it better. Perhaps I am over-sensitive in this area, but that's what I hear.
Given the above, I was keen to experiment with other crossover options, and when I came across the audioclone series filter, I was happy to try it. When asked to participate in its development with listening tests, I was also happy to oblige.
In its final form, this crossover is (IMHO) superior to both the Chinese and the Jacq-modified parallel options. The midrange now sounds seamless, and I find I can play those difficult recordings without wincing.
More than that though, the overall sound is more dynamic, particularly in the midrange. There is more space around instruments and much better layering in the depth plane. It is much easier to hear what background vocalists and instruments are up to. The whole sound is better integrated and more natural.
I have now swapped back several times to the parallel crossover thinking it may have "broken in" better, but each time I have returned to the series option.
Having read everything I could on both the commercial and clone versions of this speaker, I am aware that it is very system-sensitive and others may not have my experience of it . . . but I would urge anyone who has built or is thinking of building the clone to try the audioclone series crossover.
Having completed the Proac 2.5 clone back in August (using Jacq's crossover mods), I found myself somewhat disappointed. Yes, it did sound wonderful after the break-in period, but only with first-class recordings. The bass is everything that has been claimed and the treble does have that "special something".
What distresses me about the speaker, though, is that the upper midrange is prone to glare and confusion with any recording (or FM broadcast) having excess energy in what I would guess to be the 2 KHz region (where the clone does have a severe peak, followed by a dip). Dennis Murphy has made comment on this in the Madisound forums and I would agree. He makes mention of brass instrument recordings, but I find the effect is often audible on vocals (both CD and vinyl). I have found this to be true with both SS and valve amplification, though the latter hides it better. Perhaps I am over-sensitive in this area, but that's what I hear.
Given the above, I was keen to experiment with other crossover options, and when I came across the audioclone series filter, I was happy to try it. When asked to participate in its development with listening tests, I was also happy to oblige.
In its final form, this crossover is (IMHO) superior to both the Chinese and the Jacq-modified parallel options. The midrange now sounds seamless, and I find I can play those difficult recordings without wincing.
More than that though, the overall sound is more dynamic, particularly in the midrange. There is more space around instruments and much better layering in the depth plane. It is much easier to hear what background vocalists and instruments are up to. The whole sound is better integrated and more natural.
I have now swapped back several times to the parallel crossover thinking it may have "broken in" better, but each time I have returned to the series option.
Having read everything I could on both the commercial and clone versions of this speaker, I am aware that it is very system-sensitive and others may not have my experience of it . . . but I would urge anyone who has built or is thinking of building the clone to try the audioclone series crossover.
Thanks for the comments. No speaker is perfect and I agree the 2.5's weakness is the midrange, but IMO not major and other aspects make up for this. Infact years ago when I had original Proac 2.5s I remember selling them for the same reason you point out. Some others have commented that they don't like the bass or treble because they are used to closed box speakers or other types of tweeters, or the bass colours the midrange, so you can't please everyone 🙂. The speaker needs to be enjoyed within its capability, cost and class range, which the site introduction does mention. I am in the process of trying the series xo and will try and report on this later. There are not many 2 way speakers that can do fullrange sound like the 2.5 so its always a compromise.
Perhaps for those like yourself (and me) with "golden ears" and equipment to match I can understand the midrange may not be good enough, but for a great majority of others who are using low to mid quality hifi equipment this may not be so apparent.
Dennis Murphy's comments on Madisound are valid but remember that John Welcher's 2.5 copy was over stuffed and revealed a very different frequency response to Jacq's measurements. However, the midrange would probably have been unchanged and DM picked this up in his comments. If it was'nt for the fact that DM assessed a "non-standard" clone his comments would have been more valid and we were prepared to include his comments on the site.
I will always have a 2.5 clone parked in my house to be enjoyed as a classic with its weaknesses, like almost all other speakers, but at present I am working on a 3 way speaker using very high quality drivers (Raven tweeter, berylium mid & 2 x 8535s) but its not easy. Many of the 2.5 clone attributes are very hard or impossible to replicate in other designs despite more $ and technology, which makes me appreciate the clones more.
Perhaps for those like yourself (and me) with "golden ears" and equipment to match I can understand the midrange may not be good enough, but for a great majority of others who are using low to mid quality hifi equipment this may not be so apparent.
Dennis Murphy's comments on Madisound are valid but remember that John Welcher's 2.5 copy was over stuffed and revealed a very different frequency response to Jacq's measurements. However, the midrange would probably have been unchanged and DM picked this up in his comments. If it was'nt for the fact that DM assessed a "non-standard" clone his comments would have been more valid and we were prepared to include his comments on the site.
I will always have a 2.5 clone parked in my house to be enjoyed as a classic with its weaknesses, like almost all other speakers, but at present I am working on a 3 way speaker using very high quality drivers (Raven tweeter, berylium mid & 2 x 8535s) but its not easy. Many of the 2.5 clone attributes are very hard or impossible to replicate in other designs despite more $ and technology, which makes me appreciate the clones more.
I was interested to read your comments on the 2.5 clone's midrange weaknesses, Al.M. I had noted your recommended recordings list, and suspected from it that you would know what I was talking about re the mid problems. I have quite a few of the named recordings in my collection, and they are amongst those I referred to as "first-class". I have never heard Mary Black or Chris Isaak sounding so fine!
If you get a chance, pick up a copy of the Indigo Girls' "1200 Curfews". Their live recording of "Down by the River" on this album is jaw-dropping, especially in its bass resolution and power on the clones.
The midrange faults in the clone (while not major) will, of course, be tolerated to different degrees by different listeners. Audio is, by its very nature, a subjective experience. Looking at the response curves of the drivers, it is surprising that they work so well together. I believe that the parallel crossover could be improved by the addition of a notch filter around 2KHz. I know that this is difficult to achieve so close to the crossover point, but it would be interesting to hear the result.
Other solutions would be the addition of a mid driver or replacement of the tweeter with one that reached lower, enabling the crossover point to be dropped. Of course, we'd be moving even further away from the 2.5 clone concept!
On the question of the audioclone series crossover, however, I do feel it goes a long way towards addressing the midrange problem and makes the speaker much more tolerant in this area . . . and I think it does produce other significant improvements as outlined in my previous comments. I'll be interested to see if you agree.
Now, a question:
A number of builders have commented on the lack of upper bass/lower mid energy in the clone, and I agree. Positioning further back towards the rear wall does help a little, but at the cost of imaging and excessive lower bass. I have seen your comments on the polyester lining, and I suspect that is where my own problem might lie. I was unable to source 50mm 200g/m2 Dacron. The only polyester of this density I could find (from fabric shops) was about 12mm thick! In the end, I bought Jaycar's standard BAF (supposedly 350g/m2), split it at two-thirds its thickness and teased it out as far as I could. I somehow suspect this stuff is denser than they say, though, given the results.
Where did you get the 50mm 200g/m2 Dacron? I've tried local (Brisbane) furniture builders who either pleed ignorance or don't want to sell me their stock, and also their suppliers who will only sell a (massive) roll of 50mm polyester, but of unknown density. As the secret seems to be in the correct lining, I would be happy to source the material interstate if it's going to make the difference. It's the only area of the clone I now feel a need to improve.
If you get a chance, pick up a copy of the Indigo Girls' "1200 Curfews". Their live recording of "Down by the River" on this album is jaw-dropping, especially in its bass resolution and power on the clones.
The midrange faults in the clone (while not major) will, of course, be tolerated to different degrees by different listeners. Audio is, by its very nature, a subjective experience. Looking at the response curves of the drivers, it is surprising that they work so well together. I believe that the parallel crossover could be improved by the addition of a notch filter around 2KHz. I know that this is difficult to achieve so close to the crossover point, but it would be interesting to hear the result.
Other solutions would be the addition of a mid driver or replacement of the tweeter with one that reached lower, enabling the crossover point to be dropped. Of course, we'd be moving even further away from the 2.5 clone concept!
On the question of the audioclone series crossover, however, I do feel it goes a long way towards addressing the midrange problem and makes the speaker much more tolerant in this area . . . and I think it does produce other significant improvements as outlined in my previous comments. I'll be interested to see if you agree.
Now, a question:
A number of builders have commented on the lack of upper bass/lower mid energy in the clone, and I agree. Positioning further back towards the rear wall does help a little, but at the cost of imaging and excessive lower bass. I have seen your comments on the polyester lining, and I suspect that is where my own problem might lie. I was unable to source 50mm 200g/m2 Dacron. The only polyester of this density I could find (from fabric shops) was about 12mm thick! In the end, I bought Jaycar's standard BAF (supposedly 350g/m2), split it at two-thirds its thickness and teased it out as far as I could. I somehow suspect this stuff is denser than they say, though, given the results.
Where did you get the 50mm 200g/m2 Dacron? I've tried local (Brisbane) furniture builders who either pleed ignorance or don't want to sell me their stock, and also their suppliers who will only sell a (massive) roll of 50mm polyester, but of unknown density. As the secret seems to be in the correct lining, I would be happy to source the material interstate if it's going to make the difference. It's the only area of the clone I now feel a need to improve.
Nadir
I spend tonight rummaging around in my spare parts junk box to see if I have enough parts for the series xo. Looks like I have, but will use substandard 0.8mm dia inductors (1.5 ohm DCR?) wound deftly with a philips screwdriver and bluetack attached to bobbin, held between my toes with a drill attached to one end (instant human cyborg unductor winder but back suffers a little). So I'll do a makeshift test xo and go from there.
On your other comments:
Others have talked about the 2k notch filter but so far no suggestions from anyone. I'm sure Proac would have thought about this but they did'nt use one either.
The mid driver addition - basically what I've done with my current 3 way project, retaining the fabulous bass units. With parrallel 2 x 8535s you get twice power handling and reduced distortion, plus 3 dB SPL and more impact.
Lack of upper bass is no different to the the real Proacs, they suffer the same issue. Its still impressive for a 7" 2 way speaker.
Correct stuffing will assist better bass but not totally. What you have done by peeling away Jaycar insul pads should be OK. They have 350 & 700 gm/m2 products which I tried and totally kills the voicing and bass on the clones.
I was lucky to stumble across my 200gm/m2 dacron at a local fabric supplier. The gracious old lady running the place knew her stuffing as she said to me "do yer want the 200gm one or the other". I will keep you in mind next time I go there and get some more (keep reminding me if I forget) and send it over with postage and material costs (under Aud$20?).
I'll check out the CD recommendation as well.
I spend tonight rummaging around in my spare parts junk box to see if I have enough parts for the series xo. Looks like I have, but will use substandard 0.8mm dia inductors (1.5 ohm DCR?) wound deftly with a philips screwdriver and bluetack attached to bobbin, held between my toes with a drill attached to one end (instant human cyborg unductor winder but back suffers a little). So I'll do a makeshift test xo and go from there.
On your other comments:
Others have talked about the 2k notch filter but so far no suggestions from anyone. I'm sure Proac would have thought about this but they did'nt use one either.
The mid driver addition - basically what I've done with my current 3 way project, retaining the fabulous bass units. With parrallel 2 x 8535s you get twice power handling and reduced distortion, plus 3 dB SPL and more impact.
Lack of upper bass is no different to the the real Proacs, they suffer the same issue. Its still impressive for a 7" 2 way speaker.
Correct stuffing will assist better bass but not totally. What you have done by peeling away Jaycar insul pads should be OK. They have 350 & 700 gm/m2 products which I tried and totally kills the voicing and bass on the clones.
I was lucky to stumble across my 200gm/m2 dacron at a local fabric supplier. The gracious old lady running the place knew her stuffing as she said to me "do yer want the 200gm one or the other". I will keep you in mind next time I go there and get some more (keep reminding me if I forget) and send it over with postage and material costs (under Aud$20?).
I'll check out the CD recommendation as well.
Hmmmm . . . Be careful about the DCR, particularly with the 0.68 mH inductor. If it doesn't present a low impedance at low frequencies, they can end up going through the tweeter rather than the inductor. Not a good thing! That's the nature of series crossovers, at least with simple ones. (In this case, of course, the additional capacitor and inductor will offer more protection). Still, not ideal. Woofer Q may well suffer, too. Sorry, I'm probably trying to teach you to "suck eggs".
I found the resistor on the tweeter to be best at 8.2 ohms with solid state and 7.5 ohms with valve amplifiers, though with different DCRs in the circuit, that may change for you.
Your new project sounds interesting. If you can optimise a crossover for it, I'm sure many of us will be looking carefully at it.
Thanks for the offer on the Dacron. I'll certainly take you up on it. Let me know the details when you have it - no hurry. It probably won't change things (at heart, the upper-bass/lower-mid dryness seems to be a room boundary problem), but I would like to make this part of my clone "standard".
I found the resistor on the tweeter to be best at 8.2 ohms with solid state and 7.5 ohms with valve amplifiers, though with different DCRs in the circuit, that may change for you.
Your new project sounds interesting. If you can optimise a crossover for it, I'm sure many of us will be looking carefully at it.
Thanks for the offer on the Dacron. I'll certainly take you up on it. Let me know the details when you have it - no hurry. It probably won't change things (at heart, the upper-bass/lower-mid dryness seems to be a room boundary problem), but I would like to make this part of my clone "standard".
I tried the series crossover with the 0.8mm diameter inductor wiring with DCR ranging between 0.6-1.0 ohm. My knowledge on series xo is very limited so my comments should probably be taken with a grain of salt. I've setup the test xo with good polyprop. Axon caps parralleled with Bennic bi-polar electrolytics at every point, which I know is'nt optimum either.
Given the less than optimum conditions, the sound is quite good but IMO nowhere near parralel clone xo in terms of sound. Over-all it is smooth but lacks imaging, flow, attack and bite that characterises an orignal Proac 2.5 and not detecting an improvement in the 2k peak area either. I had to use about 4.7 ohm on the tweeter to get the detail zing I'm used to and reversed the speaker cable +ve & -ve leads entering the xo to get it sounding better.
I admit its not a proper test but the initial results are not looking encouraging at the moment. I probably won't be getting better inductors for a few weeks to do a more optimum xo.
I can see however, some may prefer this sound if room conditions and equipment do not suit the speaker or require this.
Keep watching this space as I may do a backflip on these comments if I can get the series xo to work better for me .... 🙂
Given the less than optimum conditions, the sound is quite good but IMO nowhere near parralel clone xo in terms of sound. Over-all it is smooth but lacks imaging, flow, attack and bite that characterises an orignal Proac 2.5 and not detecting an improvement in the 2k peak area either. I had to use about 4.7 ohm on the tweeter to get the detail zing I'm used to and reversed the speaker cable +ve & -ve leads entering the xo to get it sounding better.
I admit its not a proper test but the initial results are not looking encouraging at the moment. I probably won't be getting better inductors for a few weeks to do a more optimum xo.
I can see however, some may prefer this sound if room conditions and equipment do not suit the speaker or require this.
Keep watching this space as I may do a backflip on these comments if I can get the series xo to work better for me .... 🙂
There is an article on this notch thing for the 2.5 clone .Go to JPO site on http://members.chello.se/jpo/
Your impressions are certainly at variance with my own (and Mezzo's), Al.M, but I suspect that the higher DCRs may have quite a bit to do with it. We'll wait and see what you think with recommended inductors.
Meanwhile . . .
Thanks for the link, peterpan. (I take it you are referring to the Troels Gravesen measurements and notch filter.)
I've had a look, and it's verrrry interesting. (Have you seen this, Al.M?) At last . . . a comprehensive set of measurements! The notch filter TG suggests certainly flattens the 2 KHz peak (as shown in his graphs), and he reports corresponding audible improvements. This is not a standard clone (he has the drivers temporarily in a transmission line enclosure, but that wouldn't affect the response in the problem area).
OK, back to the original crossover and out with the soldering iron and assorted bits and pieces. I'll report back soon.
Meanwhile . . .
Thanks for the link, peterpan. (I take it you are referring to the Troels Gravesen measurements and notch filter.)
I've had a look, and it's verrrry interesting. (Have you seen this, Al.M?) At last . . . a comprehensive set of measurements! The notch filter TG suggests certainly flattens the 2 KHz peak (as shown in his graphs), and he reports corresponding audible improvements. This is not a standard clone (he has the drivers temporarily in a transmission line enclosure, but that wouldn't affect the response in the problem area).
OK, back to the original crossover and out with the soldering iron and assorted bits and pieces. I'll report back soon.
Sooner than I thought! I found I had everything I needed except the capacitors, so rushed out and bought some over-the-counter polyprops. (I doubt that premium caps would contribute much extra in a notch filter, anyway.)
Well, all I can say is: "May the Scandinavian gods smile upon you, TG." I've spent the last hour and a-half listening to my favourite test tracks, and this is one heck of an addition to the original (Jacq-modified) crossover. TG measures an extraordinary ± 1 dB from 300 to 4000 Hz, and it sounds like it! The peak at 2 KHz is eliminated, and the resulting glare with it.
There do not appear to be any detrimental side-effects from what I've heard so far, but voices are now soooo smooth it's a delight . . . and I'm hearing instrumental detail that was hidden in a coarse haze before. Despite the additional components, the clone still retains all its best features and overall character. This has made a great (but IMO flawed) speaker simply great!
So, do I still prefer the audioclone series crossover? Is this a backflip? That's now a tough call: I can appreciate the original much more now that damned peak is gone. I'll do my best to describe the current differences as far as my memory allows (though I shall have to do some single-speaker mono listening to be sure - pity I don't have two stereo pairs!):
With the notch filter, the parallel xover definitely gives more depth to the image than without (a result, I guess, of the flatter midrange). The better depth layering is one thing I like about the audioclone xover, but this may no longer be an issue - and it is true that the parallel xover has slightly better lateral image placement.
In terms of dynamics, the two circuits have a quite different approach. The parallel does give an excellent cohesive dynamic impact, but the series seems to give the separate instruments and voices their own individual dynamic. It's a very nice, airy effect that I do think is superior in many ways.
On the question of comparative detail, I'll have to check it out, but I am hearing things with the notch filter in place in the parallel Xover that I didn't hear before.
One thing is very important to me, though: as far as the critical midrange goes, the parallel xover with notch filter is now clearly the winner. It is definitely the more natural and cleaner of the two. The series xover improved greatly on the original in this area (IMO), but the notch-filtered parallel xover is undoubtedly the more accurate, and so very pleasing to listen to. The integration of the drivers is now close to perfect. That may well decide the issue.
For the moment, that's it. I'm going back to explore more discs.
Well, all I can say is: "May the Scandinavian gods smile upon you, TG." I've spent the last hour and a-half listening to my favourite test tracks, and this is one heck of an addition to the original (Jacq-modified) crossover. TG measures an extraordinary ± 1 dB from 300 to 4000 Hz, and it sounds like it! The peak at 2 KHz is eliminated, and the resulting glare with it.
There do not appear to be any detrimental side-effects from what I've heard so far, but voices are now soooo smooth it's a delight . . . and I'm hearing instrumental detail that was hidden in a coarse haze before. Despite the additional components, the clone still retains all its best features and overall character. This has made a great (but IMO flawed) speaker simply great!
So, do I still prefer the audioclone series crossover? Is this a backflip? That's now a tough call: I can appreciate the original much more now that damned peak is gone. I'll do my best to describe the current differences as far as my memory allows (though I shall have to do some single-speaker mono listening to be sure - pity I don't have two stereo pairs!):
With the notch filter, the parallel xover definitely gives more depth to the image than without (a result, I guess, of the flatter midrange). The better depth layering is one thing I like about the audioclone xover, but this may no longer be an issue - and it is true that the parallel xover has slightly better lateral image placement.
In terms of dynamics, the two circuits have a quite different approach. The parallel does give an excellent cohesive dynamic impact, but the series seems to give the separate instruments and voices their own individual dynamic. It's a very nice, airy effect that I do think is superior in many ways.
On the question of comparative detail, I'll have to check it out, but I am hearing things with the notch filter in place in the parallel Xover that I didn't hear before.
One thing is very important to me, though: as far as the critical midrange goes, the parallel xover with notch filter is now clearly the winner. It is definitely the more natural and cleaner of the two. The series xover improved greatly on the original in this area (IMO), but the notch-filtered parallel xover is undoubtedly the more accurate, and so very pleasing to listen to. The integration of the drivers is now close to perfect. That may well decide the issue.
For the moment, that's it. I'm going back to explore more discs.
Can you show me the exact article link on JPO?.
Troels sent me a very long and comprehensive description of his findings some weeks ago, verifying a number of polarity and null issues etc and the use of the 2k notch filter. He was going to trial it and get back us. I wonder if his latest article has progessed the notch filter issue. What notch values and components is he recommending and where?.
Troels sent me a very long and comprehensive description of his findings some weeks ago, verifying a number of polarity and null issues etc and the use of the 2k notch filter. He was going to trial it and get back us. I wonder if his latest article has progessed the notch filter issue. What notch values and components is he recommending and where?.
Al.M:
Go to: http://members.chello.se/jpo/2_5_clone_measurements_v2.pdf
The PDF is very comprehensive. Try this; it's great!
Go to: http://members.chello.se/jpo/2_5_clone_measurements_v2.pdf
The PDF is very comprehensive. Try this; it's great!
Just a few extra details, Al.M (hopefully by now you've downloaded the PDF):
I used Jaycar polyprops, wirewound resistors I had to hand, and 18-gauge inductors (around 0.5 ohm DCR, whereas TG specified 0.35 ohm). The greater DCR might affect the filter Q, but because of space considerations I couldn't use the multitapped 12-gauge coils I used in the series xover. I will probably replace all components with better quality ones later. For the moment, the filter as it stands certainly does the trick!
I used Jaycar polyprops, wirewound resistors I had to hand, and 18-gauge inductors (around 0.5 ohm DCR, whereas TG specified 0.35 ohm). The greater DCR might affect the filter Q, but because of space considerations I couldn't use the multitapped 12-gauge coils I used in the series xover. I will probably replace all components with better quality ones later. For the moment, the filter as it stands certainly does the trick!
Nadir,
Before making assessment too much, should test to you the two
filters in mono mode on line with switcher by-pass and then in
stereophony 😉
The filter// lack of information compared to the series
and it is the same case on the proac 2.5 original.
On different forum
certain person complains about acute slightly cold and a medium in withdrawal with reserve.
the 2.5 with an answer one can curved to have a softer listening with much of low register then undoubtedly than one
too is not accustomed to listened to this but in terms of sound truth
and detachment of instrument in space, the filter series with a length
in advance. Admittedly, it east cannot be optimized at 100%, but with a study more deepened, I believe that it can be the best 🙂
I would take along my clone 2.5 personally series at FOCAL JMLAB because I live in the vicinity😉
for a measurement in true acoustic room😉
Mezzo
Before making assessment too much, should test to you the two
filters in mono mode on line with switcher by-pass and then in
stereophony 😉
The filter// lack of information compared to the series
and it is the same case on the proac 2.5 original.
On different forum
certain person complains about acute slightly cold and a medium in withdrawal with reserve.
the 2.5 with an answer one can curved to have a softer listening with much of low register then undoubtedly than one
too is not accustomed to listened to this but in terms of sound truth
and detachment of instrument in space, the filter series with a length
in advance. Admittedly, it east cannot be optimized at 100%, but with a study more deepened, I believe that it can be the best 🙂
I would take along my clone 2.5 personally series at FOCAL JMLAB because I live in the vicinity😉
for a measurement in true acoustic room😉
Mezzo
Nadir,
I tried the notch filter and agree with your positive comments. It does seem to shave that excess 2k peak and associated stray energy without significant loss of dynamics. The over-all difference is like going from the Chinese xo to Jacq's mods. I used less than ideal parts again for expediency: 0.8mm dia inductor wire probably around 1.0 ohm but reduced 10R to 9R which helped alot, and Bennic bi-pola electrolytics). I'm not sure if ultimate quality parts is needed in notch filters. Fitting a 12 gauge L might be achieved with a more compact ferrite core L with less DCR properties.
I will road test the notch filter/ parralel xo over the next few days and weeks. Hopefully others will try it as well and try and reach some kinda consensus later on.
But its definately promising at this stage.
I think my 3 way could use this as well with an LCR on each 8535 driver as I'm detecting similar resonance, if thats the correct way to apply it?
I tried the notch filter and agree with your positive comments. It does seem to shave that excess 2k peak and associated stray energy without significant loss of dynamics. The over-all difference is like going from the Chinese xo to Jacq's mods. I used less than ideal parts again for expediency: 0.8mm dia inductor wire probably around 1.0 ohm but reduced 10R to 9R which helped alot, and Bennic bi-pola electrolytics). I'm not sure if ultimate quality parts is needed in notch filters. Fitting a 12 gauge L might be achieved with a more compact ferrite core L with less DCR properties.
I will road test the notch filter/ parralel xo over the next few days and weeks. Hopefully others will try it as well and try and reach some kinda consensus later on.
But its definately promising at this stage.
I think my 3 way could use this as well with an LCR on each 8535 driver as I'm detecting similar resonance, if thats the correct way to apply it?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.