Yes ! you already have worked hard on the octaves 
Now our team (FIFA rank 9) is not a team, too much problems with a very bad coach. The result, they are very bad. The Chinese (rank 84) beat them, Mexican (rank 17) too. I actually think the australian team (rank 20) is better. The German team football (rank 6) is very strong, they played very well against Australia.
REW seems to be done for room response. It is better to work with the impulse response. Don't worry HOLM is easy. We will see later ?
Were are waiting for your measurements
Now our team (FIFA rank 9) is not a team, too much problems with a very bad coach. The result, they are very bad. The Chinese (rank 84) beat them, Mexican (rank 17) too. I actually think the australian team (rank 20) is better. The German team football (rank 6) is very strong, they played very well against Australia
. REW seems to be done for room response. It is better to work with the impulse response. Don't worry HOLM is easy. We will see later ?
Were are waiting for your measurements
yeah Ted, of course. It was just mentioned as something that stuck in my head (and thought 'check it out and see') after reading it recently. In any case, as I type they tens are crossed to the mid at 500 hz. That is for no reason other than 'work out how to get these two deqxs running together'. Auditioning to see what works best it still a little way down the road.
I might find the same as you. Or not, time will tell.
I guess one of the 'real' reasons to look at this two octave thing is because at the back of your mind what you can't help thinking is 'it would be a waste to run a driver over a narrow bandwidth, why bother having it otherwise'? Kind of follow that?
In the end, that does not make sense does it. The only thing that makes sense is 'does it work to give improvements?'. If it does, then really who cares what limited bandwidth you run it over???
For example, the tweeter and mid are very good, but the heart and soul of the system has to be the 18's (?). So applying the first reasoning to that, why restrict what the 18 does???
Well, as I have just found out, there is a very good reason indeed. It sounds much better!! So there ya go, it pays to not have 'preconceived' ideas or 'follow rules' (restrictions).
If it were a passive design fully, then yeah I can see all sorts of problems running a system like this with all the crossovers etc etc. But with a deqx, pffft. So (if needs be) have a four way with some drivers handling small parts of the signal, you can do it successfully with the deqx that something like a dcx would struggle.
This mid in a two way can run down to fifty hz nicely with a ported box. So not worried about how low I cross it at all.
Just on a side note, I did have a brainwave this morning how to overcome one of the 'deqx problems' I have been grappling with, one that kinda was the impetus for this thread. Still, will probably try any passive design we come up with. Once I get an idea in my head the only way to get it back out is to test it, can be a blessing or a curse you know!
If it does the cross without too much sonic penalty compared to straight active each, what it DOES do will allow that extra output, and I can go absolutely pig greedy with the subs bit. It will give me at least four distributed subs, but I may as well just gorge (and see if that gorging makes me sick) by actually having six subs as well as the 18's.
Once again, once the idea gets in my head.......
jerome, we will try and see what we get with rew first ok?? Holm is easy you reckon, well I think you underestimate the level of my computing stupidity!
I do recall downloading it once, and hit some sort of set up problem (cannot remember right now what it was). It may not have been a problem as such, but it was enough for me to go 'why bother, I already have all I need with REW'.
THIS may be the impetus that tells me that I no longer have all I need with REW, but we will cross that bridge later.
Funny last thing. Seems my plans are already inspiring others...., brett emailed me and let me know he is thinking of building something similar!! A four way like mine!
Hey, glad to be of inspiration to you brett hahahahahahahahah
I might find the same as you. Or not, time will tell.
I guess one of the 'real' reasons to look at this two octave thing is because at the back of your mind what you can't help thinking is 'it would be a waste to run a driver over a narrow bandwidth, why bother having it otherwise'? Kind of follow that?
In the end, that does not make sense does it. The only thing that makes sense is 'does it work to give improvements?'. If it does, then really who cares what limited bandwidth you run it over???
For example, the tweeter and mid are very good, but the heart and soul of the system has to be the 18's (?). So applying the first reasoning to that, why restrict what the 18 does???
Well, as I have just found out, there is a very good reason indeed. It sounds much better!! So there ya go, it pays to not have 'preconceived' ideas or 'follow rules' (restrictions).
If it were a passive design fully, then yeah I can see all sorts of problems running a system like this with all the crossovers etc etc. But with a deqx, pffft. So (if needs be) have a four way with some drivers handling small parts of the signal, you can do it successfully with the deqx that something like a dcx would struggle.
This mid in a two way can run down to fifty hz nicely with a ported box. So not worried about how low I cross it at all.
Just on a side note, I did have a brainwave this morning how to overcome one of the 'deqx problems' I have been grappling with, one that kinda was the impetus for this thread. Still, will probably try any passive design we come up with. Once I get an idea in my head the only way to get it back out is to test it, can be a blessing or a curse you know!
If it does the cross without too much sonic penalty compared to straight active each, what it DOES do will allow that extra output, and I can go absolutely pig greedy with the subs bit. It will give me at least four distributed subs, but I may as well just gorge (and see if that gorging makes me sick) by actually having six subs as well as the 18's.
Once again, once the idea gets in my head.......
jerome, we will try and see what we get with rew first ok?? Holm is easy you reckon, well I think you underestimate the level of my computing stupidity!
I do recall downloading it once, and hit some sort of set up problem (cannot remember right now what it was). It may not have been a problem as such, but it was enough for me to go 'why bother, I already have all I need with REW'.
THIS may be the impetus that tells me that I no longer have all I need with REW, but we will cross that bridge later.
Funny last thing. Seems my plans are already inspiring others....
, brett emailed me and let me know he is thinking of building something similar!! A four way like mine!Hey, glad to be of inspiration to you brett hahahahahahahahah
Well I can't afford the DEQX yet so still using the CX3400 Behringer, but I have few SQ problems with fixed 4thLR when crossing as low as I usually do, which is almost always 500 or below.
Things have been very slow on my building front for various reasons lately, money ( or the lack there-of ) being only one.
Things have been very slow on my building front for various reasons lately, money ( or the lack there-of ) being only one.
Well I dunno how you can shoe-horn the 10 into the existing baffle,, I need to see a pix and a sketch I guess.
If you have a bit of breadboard or peg-board around it is easy enough to play around with passive XOs,
Basic starting point is a "BOOK" XO' but developed using the impedance at the crossover frequency
If you have a bit of breadboard or peg-board around it is easy enough to play around with passive XOs,
Basic starting point is a "BOOK" XO' but developed using the impedance at the crossover frequency
Hi malcolm, have you heard those speakers?? Got any pics??
TBH not too fussed about flush mounting. It would be extremely difficult to position a blank baffle on the machine to get all the speakers in the right place yet aligned with my 'odd shaped' baffle. And, if you flush mounted the ten you'd also have to flush mount the 18 and the 6.5. Not worth the grief in my book.
Haha, you got an 1120 laying around?? Again, I don't really want to get into another round of auditioning different drivers, I hate that process. Having said that, these 6.5's are all interchangeable and so no mods needed to be done with the baffle. I already have a set of 1660's that I could go back to to compare to the 1360, so I spose if there were a set of 1120s laying around it would be stupid to NOT try. But I would not outlay any dosh for an experiment.
Ted, nahh you can't shoehorn one in. That is why I have mentioned 'lucky the baffle just unbolts'. I am pretty sure that I can physically get a ten in within the baffle footprint (cannot find a dimensioned set of drawings to make sure, Pat was to email them to me but nothing yet). The extra box (external size) will naturally take up more internal volume, so make the box smaller for the 18's. That might mean a loss of extension slightly, but that is of little concern if I am adding subs.
I spoke with andrew yesterday, he is coming out tomorrow for a few days R&R so I told him to bring his laptop (with a crossover calculator in it) and as big a bag of bits as he has. We can whip up a few crossovers and see what's up.
Will still be good to get alternatives from the good folk here tho.
Just going to hop out to the shed and do some more work on these PRDs I am building, then back in and do a new round of measurements. Hopefully yesterdays brainwave DOES work and neatly gets around this technical deqx measurement 'problem'. Well, it's not really a problem per se, but more of a 'I can get it to do what I want' thing.
I had to let paul spencer into the secret, am trying to enlist his help in designing a folded sub. But he is sworn to the same brotherhood vow as you two.
Back soon with some measurements, looking forward to those pics mal!
TBH not too fussed about flush mounting. It would be extremely difficult to position a blank baffle on the machine to get all the speakers in the right place yet aligned with my 'odd shaped' baffle. And, if you flush mounted the ten you'd also have to flush mount the 18 and the 6.5. Not worth the grief in my book.
Haha, you got an 1120 laying around?? Again, I don't really want to get into another round of auditioning different drivers, I hate that process. Having said that, these 6.5's are all interchangeable and so no mods needed to be done with the baffle. I already have a set of 1660's that I could go back to to compare to the 1360, so I spose if there were a set of 1120s laying around it would be stupid to NOT try. But I would not outlay any dosh for an experiment.
Ted, nahh you can't shoehorn one in. That is why I have mentioned 'lucky the baffle just unbolts'. I am pretty sure that I can physically get a ten in within the baffle footprint (cannot find a dimensioned set of drawings to make sure, Pat was to email them to me but nothing yet). The extra box (external size) will naturally take up more internal volume, so make the box smaller for the 18's. That might mean a loss of extension slightly, but that is of little concern if I am adding subs.
I spoke with andrew yesterday, he is coming out tomorrow for a few days R&R so I told him to bring his laptop (with a crossover calculator in it) and as big a bag of bits as he has. We can whip up a few crossovers and see what's up.
Will still be good to get alternatives from the good folk here tho.
Just going to hop out to the shed and do some more work on these PRDs I am building, then back in and do a new round of measurements. Hopefully yesterdays brainwave DOES work and neatly gets around this technical deqx measurement 'problem'. Well, it's not really a problem per se, but more of a 'I can get it to do what I want' thing.
I had to let paul spencer into the secret, am trying to enlist his help in designing a folded sub. But he is sworn to the same brotherhood vow as you two.
Back soon with some measurements, looking forward to those pics mal!
Very slowly ,lifes just getting in the way .All I need to do is glue the cabinets together .
Pat was over my place a month ago loved Andrews machining work and the alloy baffles .
Cheers
cool malcolm, you still gotta do life eh. You need to start a thread here, will possibly be more appreciated?
Ok, here is the shot of the tweeter and 1360, measured 1m on axis. Not exactly on either axis, but just what I am doing for the deqx. (don't want to move the mic)
Don't worry about any sort of level compensation, that all will be handled by the deqx. I presume that's best, the less components the better.
On the waterfalls, can't do it I am afraid, REW will only plot up to 200 hz. Makes sense given what it is mainly used for.
NOT really wanting to learn holm impulse tho.......
hope this helps.
Ok, here is the shot of the tweeter and 1360, measured 1m on axis. Not exactly on either axis, but just what I am doing for the deqx. (don't want to move the mic)
Don't worry about any sort of level compensation, that all will be handled by the deqx. I presume that's best, the less components the better.
On the waterfalls, can't do it I am afraid, REW will only plot up to 200 hz. Makes sense given what it is mainly used for.
NOT really wanting to learn holm impulse tho.......
hope this helps.
Hi Terry !
No. You are using a complex active filter with a lot of components (a lot more than the passive crossover).
I think you can use my suggested values
Woofer 12dB Lw=1mH Cw~10uF
Tweeter 18dB C1=4.7uF L1=0.22mH C2~15uF . The tweeter don't need attenuation.
Fine tuning Cw 4.7 to 15uF and C2 10 to 15uF.
Have Fun.
No. You are using a complex active filter with a lot of components (a lot more than the passive crossover).
I think you can use my suggested values
Woofer 12dB Lw=1mH Cw~10uF
Tweeter 18dB C1=4.7uF L1=0.22mH C2~15uF . The tweeter don't need attenuation.
Fine tuning Cw 4.7 to 15uF and C2 10 to 15uF.
Have Fun.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.