Are you saying the depth of the waveguide provides the time delay and the waveguide itself helps to smooth and match polar dispersion between mid and tweeter?
Time aligning (physically or electronically) is a STANDARD practice that has always been followed in common speakers design because it is compulsory.
It is in horn speaker implementation where it is often disobeyed.
Crossovers in horns often require physical alignment but the size of the speaker is BIG already so we know why it is often forgotten.
I went off topic enough last night so ill be brief.
It isn't if you use DATS or WT3. Is there a datasheet accuracy specs provided pre-purchase?
(but the DMM is free, and anything Dayton isn't cheap if you count shipping to the UK)
Last edited:
I think Troel Gravesen had used waveguide only in the Quattro (it is one of his vaforite, and resembles my own favorite 2-way as well). Knowing that he was satisfied with the waveguide in the Quattro, it will be interesting to know why he didn't go with waveguide in his LR2 designs...
The original reason why I'm using waveguides is: to time align the tweeter with midwoofer. Why I need to time align is because I like to put the midrange from the back a-la LS3/5A, Harbeth, and the like, which is VERY CRITICAL for good midrange (and I don't have proper tool for chamfering).
What do you think of straight versus curved and exponential waveguides?
Despite it's benefit, I hate waveguides for it's tendency to expose it's location. Only with straight waveguide I can make the waveguide "disappears". Though for better match, some tweeters often need an exponential one.
And it is interesting to see that in high end speakers (as you showed), straight waveguides are used instead of the exponential one in the DIY Satori on the right.
The DATS accuracy is described here:
http://www.daytonaudio.com/media/re...audio-dats-dats- measurement-and-accuracy.pdf
It uses a 0.1% 1k resistor for a calibration standard. Measured accuracy is +/-0.5% or 0.025ohms whichever is greater.
In the US it is very cost-effective with free shipping. Having it serve as an RLC meter is a great bonus.
wesayso, I think that your measurement of step response shows the smearing of impulse/phase OF YOUR LINE ARRAY. The distance to the point of mic's head varies from each driver in the line, that's it.
A concave line (or electric shaded delay) would correct that, but introduce some other issues (too focused sweet spot). Step response of a convex line ala CBT should be interesting to see too.
A concave line (or electric shaded delay) would correct that, but introduce some other issues (too focused sweet spot). Step response of a convex line ala CBT should be interesting to see too.
Look at the last link 'Tad' loudspeake review. See how midrange is built together with tweeter and what quality it is made of.
Do you Think is possible to buy a coax driver with same quality?
I agree (spoke before I googled)couldn't edit and was trying to refrain from polluting the thread even more than I die already
🙂
Unfortunately the only UK seller seems to be out of stock indefinitely, which iw a shame as its not as costly as I thought (last time I looked, it was for a WT3, and had a similar problem)
SEAS C18 is close but obviously out of production now. Some retail sellers have it though. Buy a second hand KEF UniQ (Q100 or any other of it's siblings), that driver is very good too, dismantle the thing and make your dreams come true in 3-way!
If you mean the wiggles, yes that's true... The somewhat soft start of the impulse isn't. I can get rid of that with either a flat target curve or setting a variable in DRC a bit different.
I've never seen a STEP from the CBT yet, but I'd like to see it. Too bad that one has crossovers making it harder to reach the goal I have.
I think a CBT shape with fullfanges is doable, just as any straight line.
Hu-huu, anybody been there, done that?
Hu-huu, anybody been there, done that?
It has been done, of that I'm sure... I've seen pictures on a Dutch forum.
I just never saw an impulse or Step response from it.
But let's stick to the time aligned 3 way discussed here 😉.
I just never saw an impulse or Step response from it.
But let's stick to the time aligned 3 way discussed here 😉.
Why is an LR2 XO in a KaZBa dipole able to approximate a transient perfect step response?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...-aperture-z-baffle-dipole-19.html#post4377787
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...-aperture-z-baffle-dipole-19.html#post4377787
Its a mystery to me 🙂
I would assume that a higher order alignment (reflex or Karlson) would have poorer response in this regard due to phase shifts at tuning frequency/ies.
Perhaps the bandpass function has something to do with it?
Or gating frequency losing relevant data?
Must say I'm surprised especially with the K slot phase influences at the LP end if the bandwidth.
EDIT: Is this just the dipole? If not is the XO point below gating cutoff? Id guess a dipole is good in this regard, but that is just a guess. But conversely id think the time aberration from rear radiation would swamp any coherance in real listening I.e.ungated
I would assume that a higher order alignment (reflex or Karlson) would have poorer response in this regard due to phase shifts at tuning frequency/ies.
Perhaps the bandpass function has something to do with it?
Or gating frequency losing relevant data?
Must say I'm surprised especially with the K slot phase influences at the LP end if the bandwidth.
EDIT: Is this just the dipole? If not is the XO point below gating cutoff? Id guess a dipole is good in this regard, but that is just a guess. But conversely id think the time aberration from rear radiation would swamp any coherance in real listening I.e.ungated
Last edited:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
my dipole step looked like this
I think the.time base is a little large to see much, except reflection. But I'm not expert 😉
It looks pretty horrible,but again, I'm not an expert at interpreting these things
It looks pretty horrible,but again, I'm not an expert at interpreting these things
too large? i had difficulties to make it any smaller
just better to give a file cause im not expert using the rew
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33080121/hifi/steelisreal/3way.mdat
early reflection yes, listening chair. too lazy to move it
just better to give a file cause im not expert using the rew
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33080121/hifi/steelisreal/3way.mdat
early reflection yes, listening chair. too lazy to move it
Haha. I meant time base is too large, plot is too small to judge the wavefront, but I guessed that there may be some reflection there.
From what I can see, it looks like the wavefront is ramped. Perhaps there is a large downward tilt in frequency response? Or the mic os missing on axis output?
The experts here may know more about what is happening?
What is the mic distance? Back wall distance? I am guessing but the dip after initial peak could be breakup, next dip rear wall reflection.
From what I can see, it looks like the wavefront is ramped. Perhaps there is a large downward tilt in frequency response? Or the mic os missing on axis output?
The experts here may know more about what is happening?
What is the mic distance? Back wall distance? I am guessing but the dip after initial peak could be breakup, next dip rear wall reflection.
Look at the steps taken from the drivers separately to find out what's happening and how they sum?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.