What Troel’s says is true, but in this case the change is really fairly small acoustically.
460 Hz has about 19 cm.
The added tilt on the woofer is likely pretty much immaterial, it is pretty much omni at those. frequencies, but you are pushing the woofer’s average distance closer to the listener. How much? What is the mid-centre distance in the box as designed (in 3D)? Note that it will only be an approximation as the actual “centre” of the driver varies with frequency.
That will be the main consideration with how the XO functions. It that distance forward is less than that 19cm metric you should be fine.
If sonics are you biggest thing, build with quality plywood not MDF.
dave
460 Hz has about 19 cm.
The added tilt on the woofer is likely pretty much immaterial, it is pretty much omni at those. frequencies, but you are pushing the woofer’s average distance closer to the listener. How much? What is the mid-centre distance in the box as designed (in 3D)? Note that it will only be an approximation as the actual “centre” of the driver varies with frequency.
That will be the main consideration with how the XO functions. It that distance forward is less than that 19cm metric you should be fine.
If sonics are you biggest thing, build with quality plywood not MDF.
dave
Toole has shown, that to humans, F3 is meaningless. Look at F6, F10, and the shape of the rolloff.
dave
Yup, fair enough Dave. I could have stated that better. I was even thinking that depending on room size, the 29RNX would do extremely well in a sealed box because of the excellent F6 and F10 numbers which are also better than those for the MW19P.
But of course, F3, F6 and F10 numbers here are a little mute if a sub is also being employed.
But of course, F3, F6 and F10 numbers here are a little mute if a sub is also being employed.
That depends on whether the satilitte amplifier has a LP filter, otherwise you are interested in the independent LF response of the st.
Little is simple ;^)
dave
Little is simple ;^)
dave
Have you thought about doing what you wrote about in your first post. Do you think it work?
This is what I want to hear 👍😀
Since Troels said that 14° tilt is more then needed for acustical aligment of Pyramide, I thougt (as a amater) that 10° will be fine for whole front panel and in that case, woofer will be definetly forward less than 19cm. More like 10cm, as AllenB mentioned. So, if i understen you, in this case, changes to crossower will not be necessery?
I have corrected first picture for better understading:
What do you mean exactly? (so far, you and planet10 gave me a positive look that crossover adjustment will not be necessary)
Aesthetically, I just dont like them (Wilson audio design look)
I know that I am expecting too much, Troels project combined with Kharma exquisite classique 100k design.
Last edited:
I apologise, this is what I was trying to say at the start. It will be OK if you do nothing. If you do something it should be small.
45 degrees is a small part of 360 degrees 🙂
I am apologize too because I don't understand. It will be OK if I do nothing and stick to original construction?
The one issue is that the 14° slope of the top of the enclosure to get the tweeter physically behind the mid so as to get the right time response. That is a matter of millimetres.
So the change should not affect the woofer mid XO< but the change in slope might means the Mid to tweeter XO is out of line.
I would retain 14°.
dave
So the change should not affect the woofer mid XO< but the change in slope might means the Mid to tweeter XO is out of line.
I would retain 14°.
dave
Troels said that he tilt pyramid more than needed.
Whay do you think that he adjusted xo for 14°?
Whay do you think that he adjusted xo for 14°?
Why did he tilt it more than needed? It would still affect the XO. Remember, at these frequencies, here we are talking about much smaller distances, moving the tweeter mms forward is likely many wavelengths. What is the HF XO point?
dave
dave
That would work and makes a good point about the alignment at those frequencies is only over. small area.
dave
I think you are misinterpreting what Troels actually wrote. Here's the quote:
"A few words on mid-tweeter front panel tilt. 14 degrees seems an awful lot and more than needed for making an acoustically alignment of the midrange and tweeter."
Granted, I don't think English is his 1st language and so his prose sometimes confuses me a little too, but I think what he meant to say is that 14 degrees may seem like too much but happens to be what is required for these drivers and the xo he has designed for them. I could be wrong here, but Troels strikes me a very detail oriented man so if a 14 degree tilt was not optimal for this design, I don't think he would have used it. He would have used something else instead that was optimal. But if you look at the graph which shows the reverse null between the tweeter and the mid, you can very clearly see that the phase alignment (with the 14 degree tilt) is in fact excellent.
Good points above from the experts. And if not a shorter chair, I think making the speakers a little taller could work as well.
no phase data is shown, you cannot make that claim.
a reverse null can be achieved with minimal phase tracking.
Last edited: