Right on zmyrna. I actually was using the neo 8 with just passive components and was not even measuring my projects back then (about 10 years ago). Sounds like you've got the response under control.
i tried the Harsch XO as proposed by xrk971
S. Harsch XO
BW4 - bessel2 - bessel2 - BW4
XO points 200 and 700hz, delay 2.5 and 3.7
sounded good, but then i thought because of the small top baffle i have rolling off tweeter response at XO.
so i tried
BW4 - bessel2 - BW4 - bessel2
slightly better.
then i decided to compare it to a similar all LR set up.
to make it apples to apples i chose
LR4 - LR2 - LR4 - L2
and also applied the same delays as in Harsch.
Both config. are better in imaging/soundstage compared to my prior efforts. Between the two I prefer the comparable LR config. Harsch is sharper and rougher around the edges and also more forward. LR is more natural and musical.
LR4/2 with delay is also much better in imaging compared to without delay: better separation and vocals have an amazing immediacy.... very very good indeed. I am sticking with this for now. I am hoping to start measuring soon.
S. Harsch XO
BW4 - bessel2 - bessel2 - BW4
XO points 200 and 700hz, delay 2.5 and 3.7
sounded good, but then i thought because of the small top baffle i have rolling off tweeter response at XO.
so i tried
BW4 - bessel2 - BW4 - bessel2
slightly better.
then i decided to compare it to a similar all LR set up.
to make it apples to apples i chose
LR4 - LR2 - LR4 - L2
and also applied the same delays as in Harsch.
Both config. are better in imaging/soundstage compared to my prior efforts. Between the two I prefer the comparable LR config. Harsch is sharper and rougher around the edges and also more forward. LR is more natural and musical.
LR4/2 with delay is also much better in imaging compared to without delay: better separation and vocals have an amazing immediacy.... very very good indeed. I am sticking with this for now. I am hoping to start measuring soon.
Attachments
i have been busy...
first, as you can see in my previous post, i built heavy frames for the woofers.
the center is 7 layers of mdf; i had it covered with 3cm thick marble, and the base is butcher block. weigh probably 30kg each. frames are 52x52 and 21cm deep, sth between u and h frame.
feet are 3 wooden pins drilled into the butcher block; works very well with tiled floor.
i have tried no-baffle (swinging nude) and baffle with fin type center brace, but this heavy u/h frame surpassed them all; least ringing = tighter bass
first, as you can see in my previous post, i built heavy frames for the woofers.
the center is 7 layers of mdf; i had it covered with 3cm thick marble, and the base is butcher block. weigh probably 30kg each. frames are 52x52 and 21cm deep, sth between u and h frame.
feet are 3 wooden pins drilled into the butcher block; works very well with tiled floor.
i have tried no-baffle (swinging nude) and baffle with fin type center brace, but this heavy u/h frame surpassed them all; least ringing = tighter bass
after the heavy woofer frame, the only ringing i could hear was in the mids.
the center was the weak point of the mid frame, hence i decided to close the back and put a brace in the center.
the walls are perforated on sides and top, and lined with wool carpet underlay.
box is 25x25 and 15cm deep.
the radiation should be closer to cardioid.
mid ringing is much reduced... whatever left is mostly room acoustics, i suspect. i will revisit after some room treatment.
the center was the weak point of the mid frame, hence i decided to close the back and put a brace in the center.
the walls are perforated on sides and top, and lined with wool carpet underlay.
box is 25x25 and 15cm deep.
the radiation should be closer to cardioid.
mid ringing is much reduced... whatever left is mostly room acoustics, i suspect. i will revisit after some room treatment.
Attachments
and now the bomb...
we have an IB subwoofer in the room.
two faital-pro 18fh500 push-push wired to 4ohm... powered by the center channel of the AVR ( i was worried that the class D icepower might struggle with 4ohm but it seems to work ok)
currently SW covers 30-60hz
sounds WWWWOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!
we have an IB subwoofer in the room.
two faital-pro 18fh500 push-push wired to 4ohm... powered by the center channel of the AVR ( i was worried that the class D icepower might struggle with 4ohm but it seems to work ok)
currently SW covers 30-60hz
sounds WWWWOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!
Attachments
Very interesting. Would you mind posting a picture of the back of the midbass section? Why did you choose the "low H" on the front vs U? Aesthetics, structural robustness, other? Midbass are 18"?
I also have 18" midbasses in the same frequency range, currently on a swing, but your comments are making me wonder
Last edited:
Thanks Adason.
Lewinski, there is a picture of the back in post 45
My midbass is 15" and subwoofer 18".
The frame is not a full U, to somewhat protect the paper cone from accidents.
Yes, I do think that the heavy frame performs better than the swinging, but my experience is not a fully controlled scientific experiment. It needs confirmation by other DIYers too.
Lewinski, there is a picture of the back in post 45
My midbass is 15" and subwoofer 18".
The frame is not a full U, to somewhat protect the paper cone from accidents.
Yes, I do think that the heavy frame performs better than the swinging, but my experience is not a fully controlled scientific experiment. It needs confirmation by other DIYers too.
Back to 2 way + sub.
I tried all sorts of xo and eq, but there were always too much ringing in the mid section, IE 4xbmr.
What is different with latest two way? Very low xo point, 400hz 8th order BW. Neo8s handles it no problem even at high volume.
Best effort so far.
Listening to Monolake album Silence right now. Clean sounding system and electronic music is match made in heaven, who knew?
I tried all sorts of xo and eq, but there were always too much ringing in the mid section, IE 4xbmr.
What is different with latest two way? Very low xo point, 400hz 8th order BW. Neo8s handles it no problem even at high volume.
Best effort so far.
Listening to Monolake album Silence right now. Clean sounding system and electronic music is match made in heaven, who knew?
Attachments
I'm a bit surprised that you are getting anything below 200Hz on such a small baffle, at least with a 416. You later versions have more baffle area, so that's good. But the 416 has to be bass limited on OB, right? It makes a heck of a good mid-bass on OB, for sure. So does the 515 if the crossover is right.
Years ago when I was tuning the crossover for my 416s (not on OB this time) the only thing bugging me was a slight paper coloration from the woofer. Of course I figured that moving the crossover point down would take away the paper sound. But on good advice I was told to move the crossover point up, not down. By golly it worked! There must have been something strange going on with the harmonics that my brain was hearing as paper cone coloration. Allowing ghe woofer to play a little higher, killed the coloration. A very big surprise for me.
Thanks for posting your speaker project, it's fun to see what other people are doing, building, finding.
Pano, thanks very much for your kind and encouraging words.
Bass response does fall off below 200hz or so, but it is not a cliff fall. I was able to eq it on DSP, no problems. Plus I now have a IB subwoofer crossed at 60hz. Everything below 60 is cut off 8th order for the 416s. As a result, even with bass heavy music at high volume, the 15" cone does not show any visible excursion.
With my 2 way prototype (xo at 600hz), there was too much ringing/resonance. It could have been due to cone break-up or poor peototype frame.
My current marble frame is very heavy and rigid. Gives best mid and upper bass I have heard. And with the xo at 400hz, the two very different drivers blend seamlessly. C to c distance is btw 1/3 to 1/4 wavelength.
I don't know what the problem was with the three way. It could be the problems with the three way crossover. Or a resonance problem with the mid driver or the frame.
With the latest speaker, I really can't hear any ringing overall (I am afraid to listen individual drivers). I was always concerned with excursion of the planar. But it is as clean as ever. And the final benefit is the reduced vertical height of driver column. This is probably why two ways image better. The center image is much more focused yet the ambient soundstage is not any smaller. Really good.
Bass response does fall off below 200hz or so, but it is not a cliff fall. I was able to eq it on DSP, no problems. Plus I now have a IB subwoofer crossed at 60hz. Everything below 60 is cut off 8th order for the 416s. As a result, even with bass heavy music at high volume, the 15" cone does not show any visible excursion.
With my 2 way prototype (xo at 600hz), there was too much ringing/resonance. It could have been due to cone break-up or poor peototype frame.
My current marble frame is very heavy and rigid. Gives best mid and upper bass I have heard. And with the xo at 400hz, the two very different drivers blend seamlessly. C to c distance is btw 1/3 to 1/4 wavelength.
I don't know what the problem was with the three way. It could be the problems with the three way crossover. Or a resonance problem with the mid driver or the frame.
With the latest speaker, I really can't hear any ringing overall (I am afraid to listen individual drivers). I was always concerned with excursion of the planar. But it is as clean as ever. And the final benefit is the reduced vertical height of driver column. This is probably why two ways image better. The center image is much more focused yet the ambient soundstage is not any smaller. Really good.
Reporting yet another mod.
Now using a carved acoustic foam bass trap as open back frame for neo8s.
No need for OB loss DSP compensation any more = more headroom.
Crossover point moved to 80hz for sub and 320hz for mains.
C to C distance now closer to 1/4 wavelength = sharper imaging
Happy
Now using a carved acoustic foam bass trap as open back frame for neo8s.
No need for OB loss DSP compensation any more = more headroom.
Crossover point moved to 80hz for sub and 320hz for mains.
C to C distance now closer to 1/4 wavelength = sharper imaging
Happy
Attachments
Rough guesstimate only Hornresp sim of your H-frame at Xmax looks good- I guess the IB XO could fill in up to 80Hz as the OB drops off?
An advantage of the small H-frame depth is a cleaner impluse:
but its only guess work:
Last edited:
Super smart decision crossing over at 80Hz to the IB at 80Hz, where most OB bass systems are fighting a losing game with physics.
I guess you cant pick the IB location?
The IB HD's and HOM's should be so low in dB that they are buried down in the mix and cant give clues about the IB slot placement.
All you need now is an ESL on top to replace that little planar
http://www.eraudio.com.au/505_Mini_Panels/505_mini_panels.html
I guess you cant pick the IB location?
The IB HD's and HOM's should be so low in dB that they are buried down in the mix and cant give clues about the IB slot placement.
All you need now is an ESL on top to replace that little planar
http://www.eraudio.com.au/505_Mini_Panels/505_mini_panels.html
And all this time, I have been trying to reduce the vertical height of the total radiating surface, to achieve better imaging. 😀
I indeed can't locate the sub. It's push push slot loaded. And with some delay on DSP to time align everything.
I very often listen to music/concerts on YouTube and I do get a very nice center image on the screen and a much bigger overall stage.
I indeed can't locate the sub. It's push push slot loaded. And with some delay on DSP to time align everything.
I very often listen to music/concerts on YouTube and I do get a very nice center image on the screen and a much bigger overall stage.
Last edited: