Care to explain?
I would relate noise issues to gain structure rather than to amplifier topology, provided the design of the circuitry and quality of components is decent.
I am not an amplifier expert by any means, but have used quite a few.
200 amp panel, located less than 15 feet from where the amplifiers reside. The utility pole transformer is approximately 75 - 80 feet from the service entrance wiring stack.
A smaller amplifier could be used on the compression drivers.
That's good.
I have good service too, and ran 10 gauge dedicated short runs from the panel to try to eliminate dropouts. Helped, but still had drops on heavy bass transients.
Forget a PLX with extension cords, LoL....prosound forums are full of such threads.
It appears the fact that the caps in the PLX's aren't up to the same spec as in the Powerlight's, is the dropout culprit.
I've never had an equivalent wattage PL3 drop where the PLX did....but in fairness to QSC, there's a reason PLX cost less, huh?
Yep to smaller amp for the CD. A used 4ch CX amp goes for peanuts on ebay.... if you're biamping the BMS..
This thread could "get a second wind" when designs using the new 1.4" B&C DCX464 coaxial compression driver, and the new wide bandwidth 1.4" Faital HF1440 compression driver go through measurement and listener testing.
A small group buy on the SEOS-24 and these new CDs would also add blood, sweat, and ears.
Hmm, don't recall the desired BW, but for 20-20 kHz split by equal acoustic power we get a ~632 Hz XO, then another at ~3557 Hz with a co-ax, so ideally need a ~2.875" diameter horn/driver throat with downstream phase plug.
Probably will remain a 'pipe dream', so even with a new co-ax we're stuck with some hefty compromises re 'accurate' reproduction and why best overall to DIY MEHs + sub system if an option.
GM
Probably will remain a 'pipe dream', so even with a new co-ax we're stuck with some hefty compromises re 'accurate' reproduction and why best overall to DIY MEHs + sub system if an option.
GM
Its not dead, its in the cocoon stage. I did research, you guys did research, compromises where made, and strengths were focused where it mattered most to the designer. Now it is up to me to apply it all. I am going to do my best, but breaking the norm on enclosure design doesn't look likely. Read that as, monkey coffin (lol). Slotted port between drivers.
The 630hz xover is interesting. I didn't know it was a happy median of sorts. I just copied the jbl xover point of the 4722, wisely I might say.
Random idea; I was thinking of creating a multi slot port (8) copying the Onken in a round about way. Maybe some of the benefits will transfer. A true onken requires a 22 cbft box for one driver. Way too big.
HiFi Loudspeaker Design
I will say that using the bottom woofer as a "sub" is kinda making sense right now. Especially for the vertical array. Lower woofer, low passed at 130hz or so though I'm not sure why not just stick with the straight up 2 way...I was thinking......think think think...
I finally received my horns from Germany, all appears to be in order there.... I am flipping back n forth from vertical and horizontal array for the woofers. Horizontal array appears to be better, vertical has less horizontal dispersion....seemingly desirable, along with a smaller footprint within the room.
I emailed AE, asking if it were possible to make the woofers in 16ohm...sigh
I do have faith in my finish abilities, though, I'm not picky, I have skills in that area. I keep getting ideas of greens, and slight blues, mostly green....dark forest green......woodgrain.....glossy.....Black horns....matte or gloss.
The 630hz xover is interesting. I didn't know it was a happy median of sorts. I just copied the jbl xover point of the 4722, wisely I might say.
Random idea; I was thinking of creating a multi slot port (8) copying the Onken in a round about way. Maybe some of the benefits will transfer. A true onken requires a 22 cbft box for one driver. Way too big.
HiFi Loudspeaker Design
I will say that using the bottom woofer as a "sub" is kinda making sense right now. Especially for the vertical array. Lower woofer, low passed at 130hz or so though I'm not sure why not just stick with the straight up 2 way...I was thinking......think think think...
I finally received my horns from Germany, all appears to be in order there.... I am flipping back n forth from vertical and horizontal array for the woofers. Horizontal array appears to be better, vertical has less horizontal dispersion....seemingly desirable, along with a smaller footprint within the room.
I emailed AE, asking if it were possible to make the woofers in 16ohm...sigh
I do have faith in my finish abilities, though, I'm not picky, I have skills in that area. I keep getting ideas of greens, and slight blues, mostly green....dark forest green......woodgrain.....glossy.....Black horns....matte or gloss.
Last edited:
what you asked for still existed since decades. Look at Klangfilm or Voice of the Theatre. In the same way these Designs work with low Power amps. The very high end beyond 15k is not so important imho as less Musical Information is contained in this range. Therefore a 2way or 2.5 way is a more than appropriate approach.
About the 15khz and beyond. You have to consider that these speakers are meant to be reference monitors. That means if it’s there I need to hear it. It’s really a matter of subjective opinion but rather, a matter of honest replication of the source.
The enclosure would be more simple if just one open cavity vs two....are there any other benefits to a single space vs 2 separate?
It's just one of many since it's based on the 1/2 acoustic power point of a given BW. Sound expands exponentially [1/f], so to find the 1/2 power point [Fm] of a desired BW is Fm = [Fl*Fh]^0.5, hence for 20-20 kHz: [20*20,000]^0.5 = ~632.456 Hz. Based on this, the 4722 calcs ~775 Hz, so 800 Hz normally, but obviously there's other things to consider too.
The pioneers chose 500 Hz since the power response of a 75 piece orchestra peaked at 10 acoustic Watts [AW] [130 dB] in the 250-500 Hz BW, dropping to 'only' 2 AW [123 dB] , petering away to 'only' 0.3 AW [114.77 dB] out to ~18 kHz.
Another speaker design 'rule' that's fallen by the wayside is tonal balance, i.e. [Fl*Fh] = ~500,000. Presumably this is based on an orchestra's piano lowest note [~27.5 Hz] to the violin's highest notes [18+ kHz].
Re Onken; better to use n = 5.7 [the pioneer's Vas/1.44], which will be 'only' ~217 L/7.66 ft^3 + vents, bracing, etc..
Works for me, the original reflex patent used [13] tube vents surrounding the driver: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f5/b7/13/74309571b5f641/US1869178.pdf
GM
Last edited:
Interesting..never heard that one. I've always just used hearing based 400,000 for the tonal balance target.
My favorite form of tone control, for a system that has truly flat frequency and phase response, is a see-saw EQ that has it's fulcrum at around center ie about 630 Hz.
So it's really nothing more than a downward linear tilt to frequency response, very bottom to very top. Only the tilt/slope changes.
Seems to fix more program material, easily, than any other tone control method I've found.
Only problem is implementation... needs EQ presets of various tilts since no 'see-saw' filter type yet exists (that I've found).
Due to the hassle of making/implementing various see-saw slope presets,
I often use a workaround that gives section section of a 4-way its own level control (all jointly controlled by a master level control). The 4-way has roughly equal octave span per section, and uses steep linear phase crossovers. So phase remains flat even as frequency response changes.
I just adjust the 4-sections by ear, and it almost always reflects a frequency response tilt that look like a see-saw...only in 4 steps
At some point in time after the '60s, folks [my SWAG is the '70s audiophool journalists] arbitrarily 'upgraded' it the 20*20,000 Hz = 400,000 as opposed to using a real world musical frequency response range, but narrows up the BW, so chose to ignore it.
Hmm, if EQing with pink noise [as you should], then 'flat' sound power is actually falling at 3 dB/octave, so are you saying you're using other than pink noise and/or need more tilt than 'flat' to sound tonally balanced?
GM
Yeah man, I hate to think about all the audiophool spewing I swallowed back then (and probably into the mid 90's
)Yes, I tune speakers flat using pink.
The see-saw EQ, or my 4-way volume control, is just my version of combining a house curve with a variable tone control for program material.
Hi, I don't understand why a FFT would need white noise to render a flat curve.....assuming the flat curve we are interested in, is the usual pink noise flat.
Seems like it's just a small math conversion to translate between white and pink.
Dual channel FFT's like Smaart typically use use pink noise for generating transfer functions, but can really use any dense full range signal, even music.
I'd sure hate to have to use, and listen to, white though