The LX521's crossover involves a 1st order crossover between the lower and upper midrange.
How is dipole EQ applied to the dipole rolloff of the upper midrange when the passive crossover is 'in the way'?
(Dipole rolloff for the upper midrange starts sooner than the lower midrange due to the narrowing of the baffle between upper and lower midrange.)
Does SL just arbitrarily EQ the resultant dip flat instead of precisely applying a 6Db/octave EQ to the upper midrange?
I read SL's commentary on his web page but dont seem to find the explanation.
Trying to do a similar design using a 'filler driver'.
How is dipole EQ applied to the dipole rolloff of the upper midrange when the passive crossover is 'in the way'?
(Dipole rolloff for the upper midrange starts sooner than the lower midrange due to the narrowing of the baffle between upper and lower midrange.)
Does SL just arbitrarily EQ the resultant dip flat instead of precisely applying a 6Db/octave EQ to the upper midrange?
I read SL's commentary on his web page but dont seem to find the explanation.
Trying to do a similar design using a 'filler driver'.
Acoustic response is what makes the day. SL knew that very well, and in a 4-way speaker with carefully chosen drivers and baffle width, crossover can be simple.
Making a clone requires lots of test measurements and basic knowledge about dipole behaviour.
Please check these pages as well, for more info and ideas
Tech
Dipolplus - Alles über offene Schallwände
Making a clone requires lots of test measurements and basic knowledge about dipole behaviour.
Please check these pages as well, for more info and ideas
Tech
Dipolplus - Alles über offene Schallwände
I think that was only the first iteration of the LX521 that used a passive 1st order filter between the 2 mids, he later went to 4 way active using the minidsp.
Im not making a clone at all. But i want to apply the same 'filler driver' concept, its a great concept.
Of course that will always be sonically better - but I rather get rid of an expensive set of amps/dacs