Yes very well executed, I don't think you should be using the 35-50mA, as the max for the NSL32SR2S is 25mA, they are run at 20mA in the Lightspeed.
If so looks from the measurements you had a very good batch buy, I do really think you were accidently given NSL32SR2S (sorted) as this is too good for even a good batch buy of sorted ones.
PS: There are no markings that donates "s" sorted, they look the same as non sorted.
Cheers George
If so looks from the measurements you had a very good batch buy, I do really think you were accidently given NSL32SR2S (sorted) as this is too good for even a good batch buy of sorted ones.
PS: There are no markings that donates "s" sorted, they look the same as non sorted.
Cheers George
I confirm that I bought simple NSL32SR2 not "sorted".
I find it strange that I just got lucky. Maybe it has improved
production? I do not know ..... but now I will have a good basis for the future, but above all I want to try the lightspeed to some friend who was waiting for this result.
thank you George
Your supplier could accidently have mixed up, as you can't tell by looking at them, I got some non sorted once to try and they had thinner gauge legs, but all markings were the same.
None got down to the low impedance that the "S" versions did at 20mA, therefore the lowest volume level wasn't as low as the "S" were.
Also I had a higher percentage that weren't usable compared to the "S". So the saving on price of the none "S" was out weighed by what was usable, and low volume was also a big deciding factor.
Cheers George
Yes channel balance is very important, that's why the "S" is the way to go especially for low level, without any need of active forced matching circuits attached to the signal path some clones have to get out of the labour intensive quad matching process, it adds a distinct sound (probably distortion) and can over drive (cook) some of the ldr with too much current trying to "force match" at low volume.
Sure, I have no problems, just don't use the registered Lightspeed name or try to make money (use Vendors Bazzar) from it here on these diy pages, as quite a few clones have tried.
Cheers George
I am sorry that someone has profited by selling what 'does not belong. I imagine that this' could happen. It depends on the honesty 'of the people. I'm just a DIYer who built a bit 'of everything (recently a beautiful DAC with PCM1704).
My only interest is good listening. To live I do is very committed to me and so I'm satisfied. So you will not have any damage by me. Indeed I thank you for sharing this object: the lightspeed attenuator.
My friends are friends not customers who sell something
Thanks for the info on your crossover.
From the above, are you implying that a well implemented digital preamp/ DSP (such as the DEQX or that designed by Tranquillity Bass) would be better than the Lightspeed plus active or passive crossover? Or is there a downside to in having an ADC in there?
Room correction would then be an added bonus.
No I don't like digital domain xovers at all in the mids and highs, I'd prefer active analog xovers if I had to use one or the other.
What I'm saying is I prefer passive xovers for my ESL for mids and highs over both the above.
Things like the Deqx to me would be fine just for the bass and room correction tools. But my room seems fine in the bass so I just use an active 24db analog xover for it up to 150hz. The rest is passive going to the esl's
Cheers George
Last edited:
Thanks for clarifying that.
I'm not sure about the quality and age of the large capacitors in the Sequel IIs. I may have to upgrade/ change those or look for a line level passive/ active (maybe retaining some of the internal filter) to remove those. The bass will definitely go active and remove the components from the internal crossovers.
Quite few people have reported much better results from an digital crossover and dsp, but I don't know if they used or replaced a pre-amp as good as your LDR circuit.
I'm not sure about the quality and age of the large capacitors in the Sequel IIs. I may have to upgrade/ change those or look for a line level passive/ active (maybe retaining some of the internal filter) to remove those. The bass will definitely go active and remove the components from the internal crossovers.
Quite few people have reported much better results from an digital crossover and dsp, but I don't know if they used or replaced a pre-amp as good as your LDR circuit.
Hello George,
I am planning a custom made studio mixer and if you look at a typical 3-channel mixer, you will see that is has a bunch of potentiometers and gain stages. Example of one channel:
gain->3 band EQ->rotary fader->3 band master EQ->headphones gain
So you see that each channel's signal goes through about 9 pots, in series. Best case scenario -- Blue Velvet pots.
I am determined take my mixer concept to the extreme of what's possible in terms of transparency and sound quality. Do you believe it is possible to implement your LDR expertise in this device, using external PS?
I would say that this mixer would have a total of around 20 potentiometers that can be replaced with LDRs.
Let me know if this is possible and this is a mixer that is similar (for reference only)
AR-4 Desk Top Mixer | Bozak – Audio For The Soul
thanks,
Herman
I am planning a custom made studio mixer and if you look at a typical 3-channel mixer, you will see that is has a bunch of potentiometers and gain stages. Example of one channel:
gain->3 band EQ->rotary fader->3 band master EQ->headphones gain
So you see that each channel's signal goes through about 9 pots, in series. Best case scenario -- Blue Velvet pots.
I am determined take my mixer concept to the extreme of what's possible in terms of transparency and sound quality. Do you believe it is possible to implement your LDR expertise in this device, using external PS?
I would say that this mixer would have a total of around 20 potentiometers that can be replaced with LDRs.
Let me know if this is possible and this is a mixer that is similar (for reference only)
AR-4 Desk Top Mixer | Bozak – Audio For The Soul
thanks,
Herman
What you are not being provided answer on post after post, is that mixers invariably
have balanced circuits, but also cater for some unbalanced inputs as well
ie the rear panel of the link you provided - ( although not the mixer you intend to convert ) - shows XLR connections. An overview of the fundamental differences is here:
http://www.perreaux.com/blog/2012/2/27/balanced-vs-unbalanced-audio
One way to do balanced with LDR's involves achieving a signal side double L pad, and careful matching of not only Left to Right, but also then Hot to Cold. When done correctly It works well !
I suggest though to involve firstly sourcing the schematic for the mixer you actually intend to convert.
What he is not telling you is that it is the connections that are balanced.
The system is balanced impedance and that impedance is referring to the connections.
Make the inputs and outputs balanced. Use balanced connections, Use balanced complimentary equipment.
Inside the mixer it is far easier to convert all the bal inputs to unbalanced. process all the signals inside as unbalanced. Then convert the signals back to balanced ready for the balanced impedance connections.
Look at B.Putzeys' balanced volume control to see this in operation. Bal input > bal 1st stage > bal to unbal 2nd stage > unbalanced vol pot > unbal to bal output stage > bal output.
The system is balanced impedance and that impedance is referring to the connections.
Make the inputs and outputs balanced. Use balanced connections, Use balanced complimentary equipment.
Inside the mixer it is far easier to convert all the bal inputs to unbalanced. process all the signals inside as unbalanced. Then convert the signals back to balanced ready for the balanced impedance connections.
Look at B.Putzeys' balanced volume control to see this in operation. Bal input > bal 1st stage > bal to unbal 2nd stage > unbalanced vol pot > unbal to bal output stage > bal output.
By the way it would be fair to mention that I do not have a design and schematic. I'd love to work with someone who can help design and tune this project to my needs.
Can anyone suggest a capable designer who would work on a mixer project for money?
In this application I will use unbalanced inputs and balanced outputs.
Can anyone suggest a capable designer who would work on a mixer project for money?
In this application I will use unbalanced inputs and balanced outputs.
Just new in this thread though I've read the posts till p510. I'd like to build an SLA but the only LDR readily available locally is NSL32SR3. My questions may have been asked already but I'll ask anyway. Are the only reasons for not preferring the NSL32SR3:
- harder to get a matched pair/quad?
- issue with getting lowest resistance(?) that affect low volume listening?
Though it might be difficult, are there ways to go around these? Thanks in advance.
- harder to get a matched pair/quad?
- issue with getting lowest resistance(?) that affect low volume listening?
Though it might be difficult, are there ways to go around these? Thanks in advance.
Hi guys, just a feedback:
mounted the second kit provided by Uriah on a Copland CSA-8.
I choosed 2way pot for 20k total impedance. Perfect balance tight, round and powerful bass, airy mids, more refined highs, stable and focused stage.
What can i say?
Many many thanks George and Uriah!!!
mounted the second kit provided by Uriah on a Copland CSA-8.
I choosed 2way pot for 20k total impedance. Perfect balance tight, round and powerful bass, airy mids, more refined highs, stable and focused stage.
What can i say?
Many many thanks George and Uriah!!!
Attachments
You could parallel up the S3's to get a lower impedance, then matching up quad sets will become an even bigger headache.
Cheers George