The "Elsinore Project" Thread

Founder of XSA-Labs
Joined 2012
Paid Member
I did some reading on Joe’s website for the Elsinore. The XO plot does indeed look close to -6dB/octave around the XO frequency. Those are 3dB per division vertical scale.

attachment.php


With the waveguide for some setback, this might have a chance at being transient perfect.

But a Step Response would clarifying things right away.
 

Attachments

  • 41F261C5-AFA6-4286-8C77-7B7FDA9B4B6E.gif
    41F261C5-AFA6-4286-8C77-7B7FDA9B4B6E.gif
    12.2 KB · Views: 721
Last edited:
I did some reading on Joe’s website for the Elsinore. The XO plot does indeed look close to -6dB/octave around the XO frequency. Those are 3dB per division vertical scale.



attachment.php




With the waveguide for some setback, this might have a chance at being transient perfect.



But a Step Response would clarifying things right away.
What's that hump in the SPL curve at 150 Hz?
 
It's a well known fact that time gating is reliable for frequencies above 200 Hz.
Below 200 Hz floor bounce, room acoustics and speaker placement dominate as already stated.
I am pretty sure that Joe did not use an anechoic room for measurements.
This low frequency room/placement dependancy is not typical for Elsinore loudspeakers but equally valid for any loudspeaker.
 
Normally a nearfield or in-box measurement is used to measure the SPL curve at low frequencies. No need for gating or anechoic rooms. In fact, gating would not yield any data at all below 300 Hz or so, because the impulse response would be too short for that.

Developing an x-over based on echoic data from a specific room would hardly be useful, because the resulting x-over would reflect the acoustics of that specific room.

I therefore think (hope?) that the low-frequency part of the SPL curve shown in the above plots was determined from a nearfield or in-box measurement.