Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Dunlavy SC IV schematics ?
Dunlavy SC IV schematics ?
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24th May 2020, 01:35 PM   #81
mark100 is offline mark100  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Dunlavy SC IV schematics ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenB View Post
Is this because the steepness can result in significant group delay?
Sure, but not can result, ...it will result.....if xovers are passive or active IIR.

Imho, the significant group delay from using steep passive or IIR active xovers, is why so many people shun their sound, and prefer low order.....
....Mr Dunlavy being one of them. I bet he would have loved to play with FIR and linear phase xovers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2020, 02:29 PM   #82
mickiboi007 is offline mickiboi007  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottmoose View Post
'ain't that the truth. Although if I see one more company marketing spiel including the phrase 'designed without compromise'...
I had a 1000 bucks to spend. I spent it. I didn't compromise
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2020, 02:57 PM   #83
mickiboi007 is offline mickiboi007  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottmoose View Post
Very true -he would. But from an operational & listening POV it ultimately comes down to how much you care about whether it's nominally a linear phase speaker or not. Some do, some don't. For e.g., I can take it or leave it -I simply can't hear the huge advantages that are sometimes claimed. Clearly others can; fair enough. It's just not a universal guide to quality. For some it might even be the opposite in certain situations -say, if power-handling & dynamic range is their focus, since linear-phase designs by nature tend to be more demanding on the tweeter's low end distortion performance, which may (may) place them at a disadvantage compared to an alternative. YMMV as always.

There is a difference.

Have a look at my thread for a 4 way active here. Large 4 way using Active Crossovers

The Ultimate Preamp allows me to put whatever crossover I want into it. It allows me to compare apples for apples. Same drivers different xover. I use 1st order just like Mr Dunlavy did for the same reason. When I go to 2nd, 3rd,nth order, you can clearly hear difference. I think this is one of the hardest things to hear since no manufacture makes a passive speaker using the same drivers with different order xovers, so it does make it hard to compare because of how different all these speakers, rooms etc sound. I have done this test many times with friends, had them listen to the same song using different order xovers. They all agreed there is a difference and all had the same opinion of the overall sound. The 1st order sounds better. I can now put a song on when they come over and they can immediately tell I'm messing with their heads and tell me to change it back.

Unless you can compare without delay the same song in the same room on the exact same pair of loudspeakers, its very difficult. But their is a difference.

Everyone who I do this to say about the 1st order, the sound is more enveloping, it surrounds your head more. To me that is sound stage. They all agree as you go higher order the characteristics of each the individual drivers come through. You are no longer listening to the music you are now listening to the drivers, the speakers lose their blendedness, if their is such a word. You really have to hear for yourself.

JD did everything right. If you want to get rid of your passive xover, go active, JD would be happy to see you do that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2020, 03:09 PM   #84
Scottmoose is offline Scottmoose  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickiboi007 View Post
I had a 1000 bucks to spend. I spent it. I didn't compromise
Right, that's it, I'm getting the blunderbuss.

Re the above -I don't doubt you've found that. I am simply stating a fact however: not everybody is that fussed about linear-phase / transient perfect designs, myself included. I simply don't hear the huge advantages that are sometimes touted for them, leading me to the conclusion that these are often overstated and my own priorities lie elsewhere. Which doesn't change the fact that the Dunlavy designs were excellent (if a mite demanding on the tweeter at higher levels ).
Attached Images
File Type: png PP.png (95.7 KB, 89 views)
__________________
www.wodendesign.com (commercial site)
www.frugal-horn.com www.frugal-phile.com (community sites)

Last edited by Scottmoose; 24th May 2020 at 03:19 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th May 2020, 02:00 AM   #85
mickiboi007 is offline mickiboi007  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Earth
Not disagreeing with you one bit Scott. I just wish everybody could come and listen to mine and see what difference time alignment and crossover order make to the sound. Being able to change any parameter instantly and hear the result is something we could have only dreamed about years ago. The human ear is an amazing thing. You wouldn't think the ear could discern 10uSec. When I remove the time alignment and then put it back 10uSec is clearly audible.

Thats the beauty of the active preamp. No distortion or blown tweeters no matter how high you turn the volume up. Johns Magnus would have been a reality by now if he were still here.

Its a testament to his brilliance that 15 years after the last pair of DAL rolled off the line that they are still so revered. I know he would be thrilled that we still talk about his work and his life.

Last edited by mickiboi007; 25th May 2020 at 02:22 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th May 2020, 02:38 AM   #86
AllenB is offline AllenB  Australia
diyAudio Moderator
 
AllenB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Dunlavy SC IV schematics ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark100 View Post
....Mr Dunlavy being one of them. I bet he would have loved to play with FIR and linear phase xovers.
Perhaps. I'd also consider him capable of not requiring them, in the context of the kind of speakers he prefers. In addition could a steep filter cause an abrupt transition when bringing together two ways that are not well matched, such as to cause bad sound that a more shallow filter might reduce?
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th May 2020, 03:59 AM   #87
mickiboi007 is offline mickiboi007  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickiboi007 View Post
I had a 1000 bucks to spend. I spent it. I didn't compromise
just to clarify my speakers cost a hell of a lot more than 1000 to build. Add another zero.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th May 2020, 04:54 AM   #88
AllenB is offline AllenB  Australia
diyAudio Moderator
 
AllenB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Dunlavy SC IV schematics ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickiboi007 View Post
Being able to change any parameter instantly and hear the result is something we could have only dreamed about years ago.
It just took a little longer. Gave us a certain appreciation for things.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th May 2020, 02:17 PM   #89
mark100 is offline mark100  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Dunlavy SC IV schematics ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenB View Post
Perhaps. I'd also consider him capable of not requiring them, in the context of the kind of speakers he prefers. In addition could a steep filter cause an abrupt transition when bringing together two ways that are not well matched, such as to cause bad sound that a more shallow filter might reduce?
I can't see how the type speakers he designed would benefit significantly with FIR either. Other than perhaps making timing a little easier, and opening up a wider selection of usable drivers.

Because his designs depend on well behaved wide-bandwidth drivers share the SPL load....as does any design trying to use first order xovers...

I think the only real limitation with such first order designs is in SPL and dynamics.
(As a rule imo, the wider the bandwidth of a driver, the lower its SPL potential.)

Dunlavy achieves SPL and dynamics with very large speakers,
using multi-way increasingly sized drivers from center, that continuously sum towards 1/4 wave length spacing.
But to maintain first order, the drivers must all have wide bandwidth relative to their primary range where they are the sole frequency producer.

And SPL depends on drivers sharing the load.
Steep filters in his designs would end up decreasing available SPL and dynamics.

Now, take the exact same physical box, and put more robust drivers of the same sizes in place.
Where all the drivers have narrower bandwidth and higher SPL and dynamic capability.
Then use steep linear phase filters to tie it together, and I'll wager you get an even better sounding, certainly more powerful speaker with greater headroom.


Oh, I don't understand your question ...
why bother theorizing over a two-way when drivers are not well matched?
Maybe you mean a shallow xover can hide sin better in such cases? I can see that...
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th May 2020, 04:06 PM   #90
system7 is offline system7  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
system7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Portsmouth UK
Does a first order crossover ever equate to 6dB rolloff? Very rare IMO. Usually nearer LR2 and 12dB slopes. But in a three-way you might achieve something close to that. But fascinating to see the crossover at last.

And that time-alignment issue is a pain.

I am ready to pull the trigger on an LR2 design by Michael Chua: Finch (Morel CAT378 + Vifa PL18W0-09-08) – AmpsLab

Clever Morel CAT378 waveguide stuff that solves some dispersion issues along with time alignment on a flat baffle: MOREL CAT 378 Soft Dome Horn Tweeter – AmpsLab

Here in a DeVore Orangutan '96:

Click the image to open in full size.

It is quite easy to use a simulator to look back down the filter with the inputs shorted. Just replace the driver with an amp. Seems like crossovers DO get in the way, compared to digitally filtered amps. They have high impedance at points near crossover.

Michael has quite won me over to simple filters, if the drivers are well-behaved enough. They do have a nice liveliness.
__________________
Best Regards from Steve in Portsmouth, UK.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Dunlavy SC IV schematics ?Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dunlavy IV Question maxpou Multi-Way 0 9th July 2010 08:11 PM
Help with dunlavy SM1 crossover ebenai Multi-Way 12 27th December 2008 12:21 AM
Crossover Schematics Dunlavy SC-V dazzdax Multi-Way 0 29th October 2006 01:00 AM
dunlavy sc-1 maxpou Multi-Way 4 2nd May 2006 11:23 PM
Dunlavy out of business? eLarson Everything Else 0 10th November 2002 01:16 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:02 PM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 15.00%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2020 diyAudio
Wiki