Took me quite some time wesayso over in Rephase create a precision reverse phase as seen below, think there's a chance VituixCad or REW could have output a IR wav file in few minuttes and saved me some hours its just that i feel most save using the tested IR format i get out of Rephase. Have sent few convoluted test tracks via PM so look forward feedback from critical ears and take your time. Know your ears are sharp so hints for test is not needed but can't stop say try listen for rhytm or beat between musicians in Robben Ford track Revelation, its mostly in start of track where bass and rhytmic section never is in 100% beat on most replay systems, where if one hear that band live man i tell they are musical swinging and 100% on beat with each other, seen them perform live in past myself a few times, one was a small arena and the best one in a small pub.
Finally had the time to listen to your prepared tracks. I'm sad to say they did not work for me. The original tracks were quite convincing, the altered tracks sounded wrong in comparison, they forced percussion to be more up front. They lacked depth and imaged wide only.
Even the Revelation track was more convincing to me in it's original shape. Quite a bit of room info in that track. That room did not come out as well with the phase altered track.
My guess is that the compensation you've made here is already covered by my FIR phase tweaks. The differences were clearly audible, their influence on imaging bigger than I expected.
The Phil Lynott track "Talk in '79" was a new one to me. That fact surprised me, as I was into Thin Lizzy in a big way but seemed to have missed/skipped Phil's solo tracks.
I was startled by the voice which often was coming from behind. Replay on headphones just now confirmed to me that it is supposed to happen like that
.Anyway, I've got to thank you for the work you've put in, as it made it clear to me that I can actually win something if I succeed to let the subs help out to get magnitude/phase left/right tracking even better between 100-200 Hz and below 100 Hz in general.
Right now there are a pair of tiny dips in the right channel that really should be fixed. One of them is around the impedance peak, the other a bit above 200 Hz. It makes me believe I should rewire the arrays!
The series-parallel wiring is showing (just) a (little) bit (of) restlessness at the impedance peak, I do expect parallel-series to perform a little better in that regard. I'm not that glad with this whole idea of rewiring the arrays, even if it was on my wish or to-do list, I was kinda letting go of that whole idea of rewiring. It is a time consuming job and the butyl rope between the alu baffles will probably make it a messy one to!
But if I want to remove any doubt (in my mind) that the impedance wiggle is/could be part of that dip in the right channel I'd have to try this whole rewiring plan too.
Last edited:
Great thanks feedback wesayso, think myself senced the other way around and after the speaker trials i added that reverse filter to my head phones where sence they now start to sound as good speaker setup although phase change there is less because of the higher 300 ohms impedance for a HD650 set. Its very good have your view and words because had fooled myself before in subjective domain that brain illusions can be way off and for this case can't measure myself out of it, where sometimes in past i had a laugh sence something subjective uniq falling totally apart when measured .
Sorry we rewoked towers rewire dream here because its a very big mouthfull of hard work not to speak of ensure sealing for a rather technically complicated build solution is as good as before dismantled, never the less will it be interesting mod as it will to see how subs works out
.Sorry we rewoked towers rewire dream here because its a very big mouthfull of hard work not to speak of ensure sealing for a rather technically complicated build solution is as good as before dismantled, never the less will it be interesting mod as it will to see how subs works out
I've had great fun during the listening session yesterday. It is amazing how little things can have such a big influence. I'm still running the cross talk "helper" but it is down by quite a lot (compared to mains) and bandpassed now. I've played with a positive spike (as seen on an IR) and a negative one. I've had the best results with a positive spike in one channel and negative in the other. It really brightens up the center channel, making small details more obvious. Two positive spikes seem to exaggerate these details while two negative spikes sound a little more dull in comparison. Together they do seem to be able to make voices sound more real to life.
It's still timed at 0.27 ms and down by about ~22 dB(!). I wouldn't even expect to be able to hear that!
This positive/negative combination is technically quite close to the original shuffler from: Fixing the Stereo Phantom Center with the exception that it's only applied to the phantom part, where I restore the sides (which is always a part of the L+R sum, presenting the phantom) to not be affected. That still leaves a small trace in the opposite channel (to keep in mind).
Within Home Theatre one can actually apply this tweak without affecting the sides. That's probably what the original shuffler paper/idea was about.
If it works, it works, right?
The late virtual room return is still at 25 ms. I need to play with that next as little tweaks there go a long way too. Basically one can tweak everything this way. Make these returns too loud and you get a mess, as said: a little goes a long way. It can really open up the stage/imaging, making it more believable. So far it works on all material I've tried. This last part does not come as a surprise. This has worked well for me with the virtual ambient channels, though getting the mains involved gives me another layer of freedom. I still need to figure out if I want to cut that part loose from the mains. I could always revert back to my prior ambient mix where everything room related came from the lateral angles only.
It isn't easy to mix these two concepts and judge. So more time will be involved to try each step separately.
It's still timed at 0.27 ms and down by about ~22 dB(!). I wouldn't even expect to be able to hear that!
This positive/negative combination is technically quite close to the original shuffler from: Fixing the Stereo Phantom Center with the exception that it's only applied to the phantom part, where I restore the sides (which is always a part of the L+R sum, presenting the phantom) to not be affected. That still leaves a small trace in the opposite channel (to keep in mind).
Within Home Theatre one can actually apply this tweak without affecting the sides. That's probably what the original shuffler paper/idea was about.
If it works, it works, right?
The late virtual room return is still at 25 ms. I need to play with that next as little tweaks there go a long way too. Basically one can tweak everything this way. Make these returns too loud and you get a mess, as said: a little goes a long way. It can really open up the stage/imaging, making it more believable. So far it works on all material I've tried. This last part does not come as a surprise. This has worked well for me with the virtual ambient channels, though getting the mains involved gives me another layer of freedom. I still need to figure out if I want to cut that part loose from the mains. I could always revert back to my prior ambient mix where everything room related came from the lateral angles only.
It isn't easy to mix these two concepts and judge. So more time will be involved to try each step separately.
Last edited:
Yes it is amazing that such low level things can have such a large effect. What does that say about the initial speaker design process (or room treatment), if anything? Does it mean one needs to be equally careful about design details (e.g. diffraction and radiation from cabinet surfaces) or that you don't because DSP effects can mask those effects
I'd say it's certainly true...
DSP certainly cannot fix everything, only that what's in common over the area of it's intended use. Diffraction isn't one of those. Bass performance is somewhat fixable up to a degree. I've used the DSP fo try and fix the direct sound, as much as that was possible. Damping panels were involved to fix the room. Well, and the virtually created substitute of what I stole from the room helps to hide the real room I have.
I have regarded every little detail as important, but... one cannot control everything. So I started with a good driver (non ringing impulse) and decent off axis plots from that driver (especially noting the 0 to 20 degree performance, as the plan was to absorb unwanted side radiation anyway).
Diffraction will change under different off axis angles, that's why everything is rounded on my cabinets. It may not null out the diffraction completely but it will limit it's consequences.
The back mounting I chose primarily was because I loved the looks of it, but ... I did spend quite a lot of time to search for TC9 driver measurements with a similar baffle cut out. Sadly, those measurements are no longer available online. Those measurements made it clear that the 3 to about 7 KHz off axis traces were actually better performing (showed a bundled output) compared to a flush mounted driver. The area above 7 kHz was better aligned on axis vs off axis too but only a hair better. Even the frequency response flatness improved compared to published IEC baffle measurements.
I researched impedance plots of the sealed driver in its enclosure to optimize my back wave damping. Every little wiggle in the impedance plot may cause dips/peaks in the frequency plot.
The enclosure is a well braced construction with uneven thickness side walls to randomise it's behaviour up to a degree. The baffle is a double construction with a damping layer in between and is bolted with a self damping construction to the enclosure. Trying to minimise the vibration traveling towards the bigger enclosure surface.
Without absorbing the early reflections I don't think I would have noticed these little tweaks. It's the lower level of those reflections that make things like cross talk audible in the first place. Further damping of the room is not in the cards for me. So this is the room level I have to deal with. Further hiding of that room works real well with the added ambient channels acting as a Haas kicker. Something I had been meaning to do from the start, hence the absorption of all early reflections (as far as I was allowed to).
From the start I have had my focus on the midrange performance with an acceptable top end and bottom end. Music lives in the midrange after all. Listening to all kind of speakers made it clear that it is by far the most important of all (to me at least). Speakers like the bigger Altecs and even some JBL's showed me that a lot of the magic I like lies in the tonal balance of the midrange.
Control what you can control, let go of the things you cannot control.
My biggest problem: to many things available I can control.
DSP certainly cannot fix everything, only that what's in common over the area of it's intended use. Diffraction isn't one of those. Bass performance is somewhat fixable up to a degree. I've used the DSP fo try and fix the direct sound, as much as that was possible. Damping panels were involved to fix the room. Well, and the virtually created substitute of what I stole from the room helps to hide the real room I have.
I have regarded every little detail as important, but... one cannot control everything. So I started with a good driver (non ringing impulse) and decent off axis plots from that driver (especially noting the 0 to 20 degree performance, as the plan was to absorb unwanted side radiation anyway).
Diffraction will change under different off axis angles, that's why everything is rounded on my cabinets. It may not null out the diffraction completely but it will limit it's consequences.
The back mounting I chose primarily was because I loved the looks of it, but ... I did spend quite a lot of time to search for TC9 driver measurements with a similar baffle cut out. Sadly, those measurements are no longer available online. Those measurements made it clear that the 3 to about 7 KHz off axis traces were actually better performing (showed a bundled output) compared to a flush mounted driver. The area above 7 kHz was better aligned on axis vs off axis too but only a hair better. Even the frequency response flatness improved compared to published IEC baffle measurements.
I researched impedance plots of the sealed driver in its enclosure to optimize my back wave damping. Every little wiggle in the impedance plot may cause dips/peaks in the frequency plot.
The enclosure is a well braced construction with uneven thickness side walls to randomise it's behaviour up to a degree. The baffle is a double construction with a damping layer in between and is bolted with a self damping construction to the enclosure. Trying to minimise the vibration traveling towards the bigger enclosure surface.
Without absorbing the early reflections I don't think I would have noticed these little tweaks. It's the lower level of those reflections that make things like cross talk audible in the first place. Further damping of the room is not in the cards for me. So this is the room level I have to deal with. Further hiding of that room works real well with the added ambient channels acting as a Haas kicker. Something I had been meaning to do from the start, hence the absorption of all early reflections (as far as I was allowed to).
From the start I have had my focus on the midrange performance with an acceptable top end and bottom end. Music lives in the midrange after all. Listening to all kind of speakers made it clear that it is by far the most important of all (to me at least). Speakers like the bigger Altecs and even some JBL's showed me that a lot of the magic I like lies in the tonal balance of the midrange.
Control what you can control, let go of the things you cannot control.
My biggest problem: to many things available I can control
.
Last edited:
I just checked within REW, a delayed signal (positive on one side, negative on the other) would create a 2 dB max difference between the left and right (on phantom steered sounds) if it's 20 dB down. It creates an alternating wiggle where the left and right channel don't play exactly the same. But also not deviate too much from each other to loose focus. You'd have to factor in the applied mid/side EQ (which actually is about that 2 dB variation in it's current shape. The biggest difference it creates is how the cross talk sums at the ear. It won't be the same signal at both ears anymore as in an idealised Stereo setup. And that, to me, is a good thing.
So it seems to fit, even though it's not much. It is working from about 700 Hz up to 7.5 KHz.
So it seems to fit, even though it's not much. It is working from about 700 Hz up to 7.5 KHz.
Yesterday another listening test, tried a couple of tweaks and it still worked very well. This setup gives me quite a bit of control over both imaging and tonal balance.
I still want/need to do much more testing, so much more to try.
In preparation for a movie weekend I've applied the same kind of processing to the HT setup. Here you don't get any 'side leak' of what's done to/with the phantom channel. After all, it starts with a pure center signal that I get to mix myself into a Stereo phantom result.
A few brief tests made me smile all over, goose bumps!
I'm still using the positive/negative cross talk pulse here. So one side gets a positive band passed pulse back into the main at 0.27 ms, while the other gets a negative one.
A simplified version of the phase shuffler as presented in the article Pano showed us in the Fixing the Stereo Phantom Center thread.
The suggested signal in that article was a series of pulses of diminishing level, I'm using just one pulse for each channel. Only applied to the (in this case) real center channel which gets mixed back into the (stereo) mains. As soon as I find out a proper way for it, I'll try to mimic the train of pulses too. I could do it with FIR filters, but don't have enough channels to play with to keep everything separated. (already reserving the soon to come subwoofer channels)
I still want/need to do much more testing, so much more to try.
In preparation for a movie weekend I've applied the same kind of processing to the HT setup. Here you don't get any 'side leak' of what's done to/with the phantom channel. After all, it starts with a pure center signal that I get to mix myself into a Stereo phantom result.
A few brief tests made me smile all over, goose bumps!
I'm still using the positive/negative cross talk pulse here. So one side gets a positive band passed pulse back into the main at 0.27 ms, while the other gets a negative one.
A simplified version of the phase shuffler as presented in the article Pano showed us in the Fixing the Stereo Phantom Center thread.
The suggested signal in that article was a series of pulses of diminishing level, I'm using just one pulse for each channel. Only applied to the (in this case) real center channel which gets mixed back into the (stereo) mains. As soon as I find out a proper way for it, I'll try to mimic the train of pulses too. I could do it with FIR filters, but don't have enough channels to play with to keep everything separated. (already reserving the soon to come subwoofer channels)
Last edited:
For me, the movie night was a succes! Though our TV is way too small to fit the sound we got! This new way where I mix my own phantom center did get me to new stage of enjoyment! Making me think I'm starting to grasp what is going on. I didn't even get to sit in the sweet spot (ever since my son found out what that can do, I'm banned to one of the cheaper seats.
However, this seat wasn't bad at all! We saw "A Star Is Born" and it was very convincing! I may need to work on some smaller tonal tweaks as Bradley Cooper's voice seemed to hit the low notes pretty hard. Even when speaking.
Edit: let me explain a bit further...
My HT mix used to be a copy of my Stereo mix, where the ambient channels got the straight mix of surround left and surround right, while I would do some tweaks to the mid/side EQ to balance it out. This time around I've actually spend the time to mix in the real center info into the left and right mains and focus on getting that to sound just right. I used to prefer my Stereo 2 channel mix for a lot of music material, as I had been working on that forever. I think I'm now very close of getting very similar results for Home Theatre. The difference being that Stereo songs are mixed that way, to perform with a phantom channel. A pure center channel really is a different animal as it is mixed to be played with an actual speaker. These little balance differences all come down to the differences the ears get from a real frontal source compared to a "faked" frontal source from the left and right speakers (arriving at an angle).
The problem is the same, trying to cope with 5.1 on 4 speakers compared to 2.0 on 4 speakers, however the mix isn't. At least not quite.
Do I make any sense at al?
However, this seat wasn't bad at all! We saw "A Star Is Born" and it was very convincing! I may need to work on some smaller tonal tweaks as Bradley Cooper's voice seemed to hit the low notes pretty hard. Even when speaking
.Edit: let me explain a bit further...
My HT mix used to be a copy of my Stereo mix, where the ambient channels got the straight mix of surround left and surround right, while I would do some tweaks to the mid/side EQ to balance it out. This time around I've actually spend the time to mix in the real center info into the left and right mains and focus on getting that to sound just right. I used to prefer my Stereo 2 channel mix for a lot of music material, as I had been working on that forever. I think I'm now very close of getting very similar results for Home Theatre. The difference being that Stereo songs are mixed that way, to perform with a phantom channel. A pure center channel really is a different animal as it is mixed to be played with an actual speaker. These little balance differences all come down to the differences the ears get from a real frontal source compared to a "faked" frontal source from the left and right speakers (arriving at an angle).
The problem is the same, trying to cope with 5.1 on 4 speakers compared to 2.0 on 4 speakers, however the mix isn't. At least not quite.
Do I make any sense at al?
Last edited:
One word.... projector!
I know I told you before, but it's the easiest sell to a wife/girlfriend who wouldn't like to have a big expensive black screen in the living room at all times.
A small projector hidden in the coffee table or on the ceiling (the white ones blend very well with houses with white ceilings), and the screen that is retractable (mine is by hand, I didn't go for the expensive motorized setup!). Those two make a very clean looking living room.
Could even add some more art / sound panel on that wall for audio duties and aesthetics. Something Zeppelin again?
On the audio side, it's quite funny. I was a surround-sound nutty (how many times did I watch the "WOW!" DVD???), but lately, I have been watching movies in 2.0 and having speakers that cover deep and high FR, and a wide coverage, I don't miss having to deal with surround channels, center, etc....
I know I told you before, but it's the easiest sell to a wife/girlfriend who wouldn't like to have a big expensive black screen in the living room at all times.
A small projector hidden in the coffee table or on the ceiling (the white ones blend very well with houses with white ceilings), and the screen that is retractable (mine is by hand, I didn't go for the expensive motorized setup!). Those two make a very clean looking living room.
Could even add some more art / sound panel on that wall for audio duties and aesthetics. Something Zeppelin again?
On the audio side, it's quite funny. I was a surround-sound nutty (how many times did I watch the "WOW!" DVD???), but lately, I have been watching movies in 2.0 and having speakers that cover deep and high FR, and a wide coverage, I don't miss having to deal with surround channels, center, etc....
I keep trying to convince her .
That's what I would love to try. I have the sound to back it up (and then some).
My son said he's looking forward to see Bohemian Rhapsody with real good sound at home.
Going to the movies is fun, but the sound at home has his preference. I see lots of smiles per minute on that face of his.
I must say, 4.0 works way above my own expectations here. I may post a lot, but am happy to say I actually do book progress sound wise!
Surround sound is not a mere gimmick, it really does work when properly adjusted.
Still wondering why on earth I'm building subwoofers though. Ever since the 350 watt/channel powerhouse build by koldby is backing up the mains it has become a much more impressive bottom end.
.That's what I would love to try. I have the sound to back it up (and then some).
My son said he's looking forward to see Bohemian Rhapsody with real good sound at home.
Going to the movies is fun, but the sound at home has his preference. I see lots of smiles per minute on that face of his
.I must say, 4.0 works way above my own expectations here. I may post a lot, but am happy to say I actually do book progress sound wise!
Surround sound is not a mere gimmick, it really does work when properly adjusted.
Still wondering why on earth I'm building subwoofers though
. Ever since the 350 watt/channel powerhouse build by koldby is backing up the mains it has become a much more impressive bottom end.
C'mon! Should be an easy sell!
A clean looking living room, versus a big black screen (when not in use).
Your 4.0 is ambiance, it's not the surround back channels from the movie's audio, right?
I liked Bohemian Rhapsody. Rami got the Golden Globe and Oscar for good reasons. Too bad it wasn't him singing!
I heard another good track lately, that should sound amazing on your arrays.
Free, by Primal Scream - Give Out But Don't Give Up - The Original Memphis Recordings.
Pretty cool!
YouTube
A clean looking living room, versus a big black screen (when not in use).
Your 4.0 is ambiance, it's not the surround back channels from the movie's audio, right?
I liked Bohemian Rhapsody. Rami got the Golden Globe and Oscar for good reasons. Too bad it wasn't him singing!
I heard another good track lately, that should sound amazing on your arrays.
Free, by Primal Scream - Give Out But Don't Give Up - The Original Memphis Recordings.
Pretty cool!
YouTube
It actually is the back channels from the movie audio (but delayed by 15 extra ms) that feeds my ambient speakers (and nothing else gets mixed in). The only 2 channels that get no other treatment from me (well aside from that delay I mentioned and the band pass I've set on them).
I'll see if I can get that track to try
I'll see if I can get that track to try
Listening to your youtube link right now trough headphones, yes! I'm going to have to try that one!
Current zones in JRiver:
As you see, only one Home Theatre setting and lots of experimental Stereo zones to play with. An on-going journey to discover the wonders of sound perception, or something like that. Oh, and one Headphone setting, courtesy of BYRTT, to suit my OB-1 Status Audio phones.
Current zones in JRiver:
As you see, only one Home Theatre setting and lots of experimental Stereo zones to play with. An on-going journey to discover the wonders of sound perception, or something like that
. Oh, and one Headphone setting, courtesy of BYRTT, to suit my OB-1 Status Audio phones.Attachments
Last edited:
Just a small update...
First few days/weeks of listening over the last few weeks were quite experimental. After my experiments on the HT side I rearranged everything in the processing chain to be able to do the same on the Stereo side. Only the cross talk section remained though.
I tried different reverb algorithms but ended up using the Random Room variant again, that remains my favorite.
I had to conclude that adding a sniff of reverb to the mains was a bad idea. It seemed to make everything sound more smooth, but it came at a cost. I lost a lot of detail that way. So reverb use is exclusive to the ambient channels again.
I still run that cross talk, a small positive spike at 0.27 ms in one channel, a negative one in the opposite channel. Applied to the phantom part only, with the left/right part of that signal subtracted again. This to prevent any change to the side balance.
This has been my favorite balance to listen to for a while now. I've had many listening sessions this way, sometimes making small adjustments. This seems to work quite well for everything I throw at it.
That small x-talk compensation combined with the mid/side EQ brightens the perceived phantom balance to be inline with the sides. Nothing much, we're talking nuances here.
The strange thing is that I even like the effect it has way off axis. It remains balanced and sounds real good even from a distance.
I've mentioned the cross talk being fatiguing in an earlier try, quite a while ago. Not this time. So I have to blame the EQ I was running at that time.
This time around I have been optimizing the left/right EQ as much as I can, using the waterfall plots and getting a nice clear ridge. After that I've opened up the correction by itself and dialed down the narrow peak corrections visible on the top end. (the 'over' compensation for the combing of the array)
Even though this was a correction based on a 3 measurement point average, they were taken at such similar distances that it didn't average out the comb effects. It would take a few more measurements at varying distances to achieve that.
When I started out with single point correction, I've always dialed down these narrow peaks. The 'over-correction' as I used to call it. It is easy to forget about it when trying to get the best looking waterfall graphs at that single point. However I do believe that was the part that created listeners fatigue when I ran my previous x-talk compensation. Well, that and I probably was using too aggressive cross talk feedback at about 0.27ms.
I varied the level of the cross-talk signal over the last couple of weeks. It definitely has it's influence on listening pleasure. It may sound captivating at first but when it's too much, it even sounds loud in an unpleasant way.
While I keep seeing the same levels on my dB meter, the current correction sounds balanced, pleasant but never loud. (at ~88 dB average it isn't exactly quiet)
Balance is a fine line, a little can go a long way.
First few days/weeks of listening over the last few weeks were quite experimental. After my experiments on the HT side I rearranged everything in the processing chain to be able to do the same on the Stereo side. Only the cross talk section remained though.
I tried different reverb algorithms but ended up using the Random Room variant again, that remains my favorite.
I had to conclude that adding a sniff of reverb to the mains was a bad idea. It seemed to make everything sound more smooth, but it came at a cost. I lost a lot of detail that way. So reverb use is exclusive to the ambient channels again.
I still run that cross talk, a small positive spike at 0.27 ms in one channel, a negative one in the opposite channel. Applied to the phantom part only, with the left/right part of that signal subtracted again. This to prevent any change to the side balance.
This has been my favorite balance to listen to for a while now. I've had many listening sessions this way, sometimes making small adjustments. This seems to work quite well for everything I throw at it.
That small x-talk compensation combined with the mid/side EQ brightens the perceived phantom balance to be inline with the sides. Nothing much, we're talking nuances here.
The strange thing is that I even like the effect it has way off axis. It remains balanced and sounds real good even from a distance.
I've mentioned the cross talk being fatiguing in an earlier try, quite a while ago. Not this time. So I have to blame the EQ I was running at that time.
This time around I have been optimizing the left/right EQ as much as I can, using the waterfall plots and getting a nice clear ridge. After that I've opened up the correction by itself and dialed down the narrow peak corrections visible on the top end. (the 'over' compensation for the combing of the array)
Even though this was a correction based on a 3 measurement point average, they were taken at such similar distances that it didn't average out the comb effects. It would take a few more measurements at varying distances to achieve that.
When I started out with single point correction, I've always dialed down these narrow peaks. The 'over-correction' as I used to call it. It is easy to forget about it when trying to get the best looking waterfall graphs at that single point. However I do believe that was the part that created listeners fatigue when I ran my previous x-talk compensation. Well, that and I probably was using too aggressive cross talk feedback at about 0.27ms.
I varied the level of the cross-talk signal over the last couple of weeks. It definitely has it's influence on listening pleasure. It may sound captivating at first but when it's too much, it even sounds loud in an unpleasant way.
While I keep seeing the same levels on my dB meter, the current correction sounds balanced, pleasant but never loud. (at ~88 dB average it isn't exactly quiet)
Balance is a fine line, a little can go a long way.
Last edited:
On another subject, I've been in my garage more often over the last couple of weeks. Each time I see those sub enclosures that seem to call out to me.
I still need to order a few parts, to be able to mount the amps to the back of the enclosure. Or rather, build them in. I really need to revisit my shopping lists and get off my butt to finish them.
I can't wait to start playing with them, trying to get an even better balance left/right down low into the double digits.
If all goes well (there's always the chance that it won't work out) it should help by limiting the excursion on the array drivers and may even improve the top end in the process. As said, I'd love to change out the wiring in the arrays as well, but no matter how much I think about it, I know that's a time consuming job to do right. Time is the one thing that isn't as freely available as I'd like. This isn't a job I want to spread out over an hour here or there.
I still need to order a few parts, to be able to mount the amps to the back of the enclosure. Or rather, build them in. I really need to revisit my shopping lists and get off my butt to finish them.
I can't wait to start playing with them, trying to get an even better balance left/right down low into the double digits.
If all goes well (there's always the chance that it won't work out) it should help by limiting the excursion on the array drivers and may even improve the top end in the process. As said, I'd love to change out the wiring in the arrays as well, but no matter how much I think about it, I know that's a time consuming job to do right. Time is the one thing that isn't as freely available as I'd like. This isn't a job I want to spread out over an hour here or there.
Attachments
Last edited: