I'm using JRiver for the convolution engine.
I am using either the miniDSP HD's own XO, or using FIR filters loaded into the miniDSP HD. I have played from 150Hz to 350Hz... I believe I have settled on 250Hz, using a Harsch XO.
Very Christmas season!
I doubt my wife would let me have big red horns in the living room!
It seems you have settled on the exact same crossover frequency that I have.
And, Merry Christmas to you, also
Thanks for suggestion, but usually when I comes to hear loudpspeakers with DSP it never sounds good as descripted, then I invite people to my home and they changes their minds.
But I use mechanical crossovers for my 1772 and special designed tube amps for w8-1772 just with 0,9 Ohm output.
If you ever will be in Moscow - come in
It self-evident things, but thanks for your input
selwe, If you will choose w8-1808 instead 1772 with alpha's, it wiil easier to go passive, cause you lose sensitivity by active resistance of coils.
Regards, Dima Kohan
Last edited:
Thanks for suggestion, but usually when I comes to hear loudpspeakers with DSP it never sounds good as descripted, then I invite people to my home and they changes their minds.
But I use mechanical crossovers for my 1772 and special designed tube amps for w8-1772 just with 0,9 Ohm output.
If you ever will be in Moscow - come in
Regards, Dima Kohan
Well, in the mean time, maybe you could share some measurements to back your claim?
I would love to see a good passive network working well, as you say it does. I have never been happy with any of my passive attempts.
More ore less this will happen every time in a passive xo. Also phase shifts may occur. I've searched more about minidsp and now I'm shure you can never match its features with a passive network.
I already bought 1772, they're on their way. We shall see. I'm confindent beacause I'm one of the guys who can enjoy music on some 20 USD cheap speakers...
Do you feel the 1772 lacking in the upper end?
The Audax are really a wide range tweeter, and it seemed they would be better used on another build, since the 1772 can reach that high anyway.
But ultimately, it is your ears.
If you feel the 1772 is lacking in the upper range, than sure, a tweeter will have a higher reach and wider dispersion.
How are the 1772 mounted? What kind of enclosure are you using? or was it an OB? Yes, they were going OB, right?
The Audax are really a wide range tweeter, and it seemed they would be better used on another build, since the 1772 can reach that high anyway.
But ultimately, it is your ears.
If you feel the 1772 is lacking in the upper range, than sure, a tweeter will have a higher reach and wider dispersion.
How are the 1772 mounted? What kind of enclosure are you using? or was it an OB? Yes, they were going OB, right?
I've been handed a pair of w8-1772's in the later ported cabinets to 'make sound better'.
With no filter the driver is unlistenable, 'Honky', recessed vocals, and way too much top end.
The previously suggested filter (2mh/parallel 15ohm, 2uf 5ohm) absolutely murders the sound.
After a few measurements and a bit of parts swapping I've come up with what I think is a step foward in sound.
Perfect, no probably not. But it gives a result I can enjoy and not worry about the faults.
2.2mh with 6.8ohm parallel - in line with the driver.
5.6uf with 3.3ohm series - across the driver.
I'll post photos and sweeps in a week or two when time permits.
With no filter the driver is unlistenable, 'Honky', recessed vocals, and way too much top end.
The previously suggested filter (2mh/parallel 15ohm, 2uf 5ohm) absolutely murders the sound.
After a few measurements and a bit of parts swapping I've come up with what I think is a step foward in sound.
Perfect, no probably not. But it gives a result I can enjoy and not worry about the faults.
2.2mh with 6.8ohm parallel - in line with the driver.
5.6uf with 3.3ohm series - across the driver.
I'll post photos and sweeps in a week or two when time permits.
I think it's all about which compromise your willing to accept.
But I will say really good parts help it along very nicely.
I will post the sweeps I took (imp and freq) when I can.
But even gated you'll have to allow for my room resonances etc.
No compromise here!
I did before, but not anymore, and it suits my ears a lot more.
Tang Band W8-1772 Fullrange Loudspeaker Measurements Data and Information Full Range
Here's my sweep, but that is on an Open Baffle.
I did before, but not anymore, and it suits my ears a lot more.
There's Rutcho's review on the net:
Tang Band W8-1772 Fullrange Loudspeaker Measurements Data and Information Full Range
Here's my sweep, but that is on an Open Baffle.
Here's the sweeps I did of the W8-1772 in Mr Brines MLTL.
The filter I've used is very close to 'Filter D Potential'.
I lowered the parallel resistor in the final version which lets a bit more detail and clarity into the sound and drops the bass power a touch.
As I say, remember these were taken in my room, 3.5mtr square, so various artefacts etc must be allowed for.
EDIT, Mic distance 1 meter, on axis. I didn't bother with any off axis at all.
The filter I've used is very close to 'Filter D Potential'.
I lowered the parallel resistor in the final version which lets a bit more detail and clarity into the sound and drops the bass power a touch.
As I say, remember these were taken in my room, 3.5mtr square, so various artefacts etc must be allowed for.
EDIT, Mic distance 1 meter, on axis. I didn't bother with any off axis at all.
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks for that.There's Rutcho's review on the net:
Tang Band W8-1772 Fullrange Loudspeaker Measurements Data and Information Full Range
Here's my sweep, but that is on an Open Baffle.
I'm trying to find a driver to replace my Coral Flat 8 II (8" full range whizzer cone) and the Tangband drivers seem to be the closest modern driver match that I can find in design and performance. (Have tried Fostex FE206 etc before - no good)
When I say replace, I mean I want to build a new project with similar drivers and my Coral drivers are now in a finished speaker design that I don't want to take apart...
Your frequency response looks quite promising, although you have the vertical axis stretched a lot which tends to make the response look flatter than it really is.
For comparison here is a measurement of one of my Coral drivers, with the vertical axis stretched to the same amount to get a rough comparison. Measured at 1 metre on a 39cm wide closed box baffle with a 4ms gate time. (Measurement only valid down to about 400Hz)
The Tangband compares well, and is impressively flat at 2Khz where many 8" drivers (Fostex especially) have severe resonances. I do see the typical 8" cone breakup resonance between 3-5Khz though, so it looks like it could benefit from the same foam damping strip arrangement on the outer rear edge of the main cone that I used on the Coral drivers.
Any thoughts on why Rutcho's measurement shows a much larger peak at about 3.5Khz than yours ? I wonder if that peak is a measurement artefact caused by not flush mounting the driver on the baffle ?
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks for posting your measurements, however there is something severely wrong with the measurement technique used which is giving a spurious result.
Those large ripples on the order of 5dB between 700hz and 4Khz are some sort of measurement artefact, possibly caused by not gating the measurement correctly.
Another possibility would be your sound card mixer may be set in a way that it is recording some of the direct line out signal mixed together with the microphone input - the time delay of a couple of milliseconds between the loopback and the audio coming back from the microphone would cause these kind of periodic ripples in the measured response due to comb filtering.
So that measurement can't be trusted at all. I'd go back to basics and check your sound card configuration, microphone setup, arta configuration etc to find what is wrong.
Last edited:
No worries.
Yeah I've had (got) a few issues.
I'm still very much learning (HA, aren't we all )
Optical to dac to amp, Umik usb mic.
I only use sweeps as a rough guide.
There are days it gives what I believe to be accurate, then days like these where it makes lovely sawtooth patterns.
All without changing a thing :\
anyway.
I'll get the filters built then see what I get and worry about it then.
They sound pretty good, thats priority to me.
Yeah I've had (got) a few issues.
I'm still very much learning (HA, aren't we all
)Optical to dac to amp, Umik usb mic.
I only use sweeps as a rough guide.
There are days it gives what I believe to be accurate, then days like these where it makes lovely sawtooth patterns.
All without changing a thing :\
anyway.
I'll get the filters built then see what I get and worry about it then.
They sound pretty good, thats priority to me.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.