digital into processor then balanced out.
And I agree with you.....the better pro equipment offers a more lively detailed sound and loud enough to even ‘feel’ treble! lol
I’ve told people I reference changes to my system as to how many clean db’s I can get at lp (so far I get a couple test tracks up to 108db without too much distortion.) I call the cringe factor!
Most say oh your gonna hurt your hearing and do permanent damage.....well I really don’t condone it as it is dangerous but loud music has never bothered me and I can still hear 15khz + at age 54 and I’ve been to more live shows front row then I can count or remember.
The bones in the ear have a way of separating themselves to protect your hearing and then slowly come back together when the threat is past.....this is what causes the short term hearing loss after a concert.
huh.... What’d ya say?lol
Besides I only do testing that loud.....no more than snippets or one or two song at the most.
My relaxed listening level is 90-95db....enough to still feel it.
I see another thread on here that offers a upgraded circuit board for the dcx...
I need to dig into that a little deeper.
Last edited:
I wrote myself crossover simulation software, and for the next 20 years (this began before I found the interwebs), I struggled to get anywhere near the sound I was aiming for (yes, it was accurate).
It seems easy enough to hear and describe a problem but not so easy to discover the reason. Then there are those that won't refrain from drawing conclusions and there is so much misinformation about.
Why simple crossovers, tuned by measurement, don't work either (without an open mind).
Yep.....not just gonna throw away what I know because a fancy calculator says I’m wrong!
Specific....
Well, knowing something is wrong after a change then working it out by process of elimination. It’s either gonna be better,worse, or indifferent.
I look at as a producer would mastering a track.....tweaking until it’s right.
Edit.....I should add that the goal is to eq as much as possible at the lp with the xo and then add eq later if needed, I have come to the point where I need no added eq at all.
At least with my 600+ tracks I’ve accumulated on tidal......it is a bit more picky as to source recording quality but that’s ok with me.....the results are worth it.
What is right? Well that’s quite subjective, but if approached objectively and fine tuned from experience all you have to do is trust your ears......a lot say don’t trust your ears but afaik hearing is a sense and senses can be fine tuned enough to trust given the chance.
Last edited:
I use the term eq’ing broadly in the sense of changing the sound at lp.....I suppose if I listen to Ben I can’t hear phase differences and therefore it wouldn’t apply?
Any xo changes that I make are textbook in one sense or another (everything has been tried and true, not a whole lot of new frontier left) and results can be approximated enough to know what’s happening.....measures can be taken to compensate to the best of my ability then testing ensues, notes are taken, results processed and then implemented if found worthy.
Basically what the computer does in seconds, but i find it a bit more interesting and educational learning the hard way......if that’s what your after?
Well I suppose if you asked a specific question I could answer.....the tools available to me at the moment are a basic swap of polarity, xo manipulation, and fine tuning with the dsp in MusicCast on my Yamaha reciever....the particular adjustment is ‘distance’ this supposedly (as marked) can adjust from 2’-78’ on the each main Channel and sub separately.....my next move if I don’t get the dsp processor in the near future will be to faux ‘biamp’ my current 2 ways between the a/b outputs of the amp....this (although not really biamping) will allow me to adjust phase separately between tweet/woofer/subwoofer as each channel output has separate ‘distance’ (phase) control.
Might be 90’ adjustment at best......it definately moves it around though.
Bob
Last edited:
Research leads me to believe it does change phase to an extent....and the Ypao
Measurement can be moved in and out of phase with this adjustment.(doesn’t give increments just ‘in’ or ‘out’)
I really don’t know what it does exactly......is anyone here familiar with ypao/MusicCast in a Yamaha R-N803 ?
I would imagine the biwiring I mentioned would have a further effect on relative phase?
That’s kindly what I understood from it.....but there are no concrete explanations of how Yamaha implements it.
not to confound things but let add that the effects of phase can be additive, subtractive or varying in frequency if the sources are moving, the only circumstance where phase anomalies in stationary sources can be audible is when the source frequency is changing like a sliding tone on a guitar or violin and the x-over is "not right" then it's audible.
For me it tends to affect perceived bass, lacking upper mids and highs,soundstage (what I would call presence and depth), and to some extent leading edge transients depending on what’s out of phase of course.
Now this is testing with music which (to me anyway) is always moving.
I have found what seems to be phase anomaly’s in some recordings but don’t know if that’s even possible?
And if I can’t hear it anymore than it’s close to right.....right?
The resulting of the XO , both passive and active should not screw up the phase more than it needs too, it should also have a decent impedance, and timing.
You ABSOLUTELY cannot do this by ear... there are millions of possibilities and so many factors, doing it by ear is not smart.
But, if your computer XO gives you : peaks, resonances, dips, phase problems, or impedance problems or the XO point is not ideal then you need to address that by feeding that input into the simulator..
Simulators without the actual driver accurately measured in their room/box with the actual amp with dual outputs (one at the amp end, one at the speaker end), with full phase data, full impedance data, full response are USELESS. Models just work at the design stage when choosing drivers and building boxes.
You ABSOLUTELY cannot do this by ear... there are millions of possibilities and so many factors, doing it by ear is not smart.
But, if your computer XO gives you : peaks, resonances, dips, phase problems, or impedance problems or the XO point is not ideal then you need to address that by feeding that input into the simulator..
Simulators without the actual driver accurately measured in their room/box with the actual amp with dual outputs (one at the amp end, one at the speaker end), with full phase data, full impedance data, full response are USELESS. Models just work at the design stage when choosing drivers and building boxes.
I reckon so. Similarly it is suggested that phase effects only work as they are changing. Rod Elliott's article on audibility of phase is interesting
For me, improving sound quality is a process of optimization. I start with the important stuff, and then keep tweaking until I estimate that residual benefits will no longer be worth the effort. I use tools such as a microphone, audacity, JACK, Calf filters, REW, and tone generators (keyboard connected to the PC), but their use is guided by my senses.
My latest project uses sealed STX 10" woofers that I had lying around, paired with Dayton 3.5" bullet full-rangers as mid-tweeters.
Although very capable on their own, the Daytons were struggling with the shelving bass-boost I had given them. How did I know they were struggling? I could hear the IMD when playing multiple low musical notes. Isolated single notes would only produce subtle harmonic distortion, but whenever 2 or more bass notes 'collided' they would produce a lot of additional 'grit' that wasn't present in either note individually. It didn't have to be a formal test — just jamming on the left side of middle C.
So I attached the woofers to the PC's soundcard, and used the software I had available to create some "quick and dirty" filters. Note the high-Q band-reject at 38Hz. Even though the woofers use sealed boxes and already sounded very 'clean' with a simple low-pass, I found that fixing a room resonance was a higher priority than from the get-go than the actual crossover frequency! I called it a room resonance, but actually room leverage would be more accurate. The speakers' (in)ability to cushion the vibrations that they were pushing out into the room was making them resonant. The cone movement may be superbly damped by a TAS5704EVM 20W class-D amplifier, but my ears were telling me that the air vibrations in the room were clearly not well damped. I tested this on my keyboard, and the lowest D~Eb (~38Hz) notes on the piano (when playing pure sine waves) were strongly boosted compared to the adjacent A-B-C and E-F-G notes.
Furthermore, I added 10 ohm series resistors as an experiment, and found that although the relative sensitivity increased at the resonance, it was a broader peak. It covered more notes and required a lower Q anti-resonance to correct it. By relying on my ears and 'tinkering', I was able to make a finding that was completely at odds with the common forum 'wisdom' that a high damping factor equates to tighter sound.
My latest project uses sealed STX 10" woofers that I had lying around, paired with Dayton 3.5" bullet full-rangers as mid-tweeters.
Although very capable on their own, the Daytons were struggling with the shelving bass-boost I had given them. How did I know they were struggling? I could hear the IMD when playing multiple low musical notes. Isolated single notes would only produce subtle harmonic distortion, but whenever 2 or more bass notes 'collided' they would produce a lot of additional 'grit' that wasn't present in either note individually. It didn't have to be a formal test — just jamming on the left side of middle C.
So I attached the woofers to the PC's soundcard, and used the software I had available to create some "quick and dirty" filters. Note the high-Q band-reject at 38Hz. Even though the woofers use sealed boxes and already sounded very 'clean' with a simple low-pass, I found that fixing a room resonance was a higher priority than from the get-go than the actual crossover frequency! I called it a room resonance, but actually room leverage would be more accurate. The speakers' (in)ability to cushion the vibrations that they were pushing out into the room was making them resonant. The cone movement may be superbly damped by a TAS5704EVM 20W class-D amplifier, but my ears were telling me that the air vibrations in the room were clearly not well damped. I tested this on my keyboard, and the lowest D~Eb (~38Hz) notes on the piano (when playing pure sine waves) were strongly boosted compared to the adjacent A-B-C and E-F-G notes.
Furthermore, I added 10 ohm series resistors as an experiment, and found that although the relative sensitivity increased at the resonance, it was a broader peak. It covered more notes and required a lower Q anti-resonance to correct it. By relying on my ears and 'tinkering', I was able to make a finding that was completely at odds with the common forum 'wisdom' that a high damping factor equates to tighter sound.
Attachments
Hello there.
I have read all the 14 pages and it is so interesting.
I created a new crossover for 3 drivers in a 3-way system and everything tuned by ear. How is the sound? Wonderful and coherent, some people told that cannot be better. I notice I don't have any measuring equipment, etc. but my ear. So yes, it is possible to tune by ear definitely, just take time.
I have read all the 14 pages and it is so interesting.
I created a new crossover for 3 drivers in a 3-way system and everything tuned by ear. How is the sound? Wonderful and coherent, some people told that cannot be better. I notice I don't have any measuring equipment, etc. but my ear. So yes, it is possible to tune by ear definitely, just take time.
I did a scientific study of noise abatement for homes adjacent to a major highway some years ago. Despite many failures of other researchers previously, I was able to discover there was one kind of fence that inevitably was effective in reducing the noise: the fence the home owner built themselves.
At the least, aren't you curious about the frequency plot you found best? Surely others would want to use it in their homes too.
B.
At the least, aren't you curious about the frequency plot you found best? Surely others would want to use it in their homes too.
B.