I confess that I have not yet finished reading this thread, so apologies if this is redundant or not helpful. In any case, I’m a long-time fan of Dunlavy speakers, and agree with those who stated active is the way to take it to the next level.
With that in mind, it might be worth exploring the Grimm Audio monitors. They take an interesting approach to the crossovers. From their website:
“ The concept of the LS1 draws maximum benefit from intelligent application of DSP technology. An IIR crossover imposes exact LR4 acoustic slopes crossing at 1550Hz, and the phase is subsequently corrected using an idealised inverted all-pass filter, resulting in a maximally linear phase response without any pre-echo’s. This removes the “digital loudspeaker sound signature” typical of the more ubiquitous impulse inverted FIR designs.”
I’ve been impressed with the “smarts” that company has harnessed for its products so perhaps their approach is worth exploring as a way to achieve the Dunlavy linear phase response without the difficult driver overlap?
Few
With that in mind, it might be worth exploring the Grimm Audio monitors. They take an interesting approach to the crossovers. From their website:
“ The concept of the LS1 draws maximum benefit from intelligent application of DSP technology. An IIR crossover imposes exact LR4 acoustic slopes crossing at 1550Hz, and the phase is subsequently corrected using an idealised inverted all-pass filter, resulting in a maximally linear phase response without any pre-echo’s. This removes the “digital loudspeaker sound signature” typical of the more ubiquitous impulse inverted FIR designs.”
I’ve been impressed with the “smarts” that company has harnessed for its products so perhaps their approach is worth exploring as a way to achieve the Dunlavy linear phase response without the difficult driver overlap?
Few
If the mic position is on the tweeter axis then moving the mids away from the tweeter
increases the mid delay when what we actually want is delay on the tweeter - as far as
conventional thinking goes. I was thinking in terms of lobing, but yes delay is another
consideration. Odd.
I would think that this is a wacky design based on the above, but we know from
measurements that these speakers measure VERY well at least on axis.
Perhaps he's compensating for the acoustical response of the drivers which strongly
contribute to the electo-acoustical response of each section not being 1st order.
increases the mid delay when what we actually want is delay on the tweeter - as far as
conventional thinking goes. I was thinking in terms of lobing, but yes delay is another
consideration. Odd.
I would think that this is a wacky design based on the above, but we know from
measurements that these speakers measure VERY well at least on axis.
Perhaps he's compensating for the acoustical response of the drivers which strongly
contribute to the electo-acoustical response of each section not being 1st order.
Last edited:
Not sure to understand. I will find logical than the treble is delayed to have this great impulse response. But I can not get why the mid could betime delayed and for what purpose ? Trebles have almost never phase problems and group delays have an importance the more you go towards bass.
I so not know but I surmise the treble was physically offseted enough to align impulse responses and the vertical offset between the mids and the treble not being for any phase behavior but jut for power response indeed or mor confortable lobbying off axis where the listener stands. But who knows...
I so not know but I surmise the treble was physically offseted enough to align impulse responses and the vertical offset between the mids and the treble not being for any phase behavior but jut for power response indeed or mor confortable lobbying off axis where the listener stands. But who knows...
Again, are we not cutting hair in forth parts ? At least in term of delay, phase, just because this is the hype nowadays ?
First rule : make a good power response that please your ear with the cut-offs. What do we have here ? 4 cm between the edge of the tweeter driver gasket and the mids' ones !
= (?) a lobbiyng or focus a little more on the medium frequencies off axis or a better overlap curve there ?
= a wider rear cabinet for the mids without increasing the depth of the cabinet (remind me Audionote 2 ways) ?
The few degree of phase won with a larger spacing are that much listenable ? And there is a difference at the end between the top and the bottom mid phase, not sure where it drives us !
Is it because more foam was better here for correcting the power response ?
This needs a good retro engineering... switch the bat projector on, we need Patrick Batmann here !
(the foam around the tweet is an horn !
First rule : make a good power response that please your ear with the cut-offs. What do we have here ? 4 cm between the edge of the tweeter driver gasket and the mids' ones !
= (?) a lobbiyng or focus a little more on the medium frequencies off axis or a better overlap curve there ?
= a wider rear cabinet for the mids without increasing the depth of the cabinet (remind me Audionote 2 ways) ?
The few degree of phase won with a larger spacing are that much listenable ? And there is a difference at the end between the top and the bottom mid phase, not sure where it drives us !
Is it because more foam was better here for correcting the power response ?
This needs a good retro engineering... switch the bat projector on, we need Patrick Batmann here !
(the foam around the tweet is an horn !
Last edited:
Is it because more foam was better here for correcting the power response ?
This needs a good retro engineering... switch the bat projector on, we need Patrick Batmann here !
I assume your being funny.. The foam is to combat diffraction of tweeter / mid wave front and lobing of driver response overlap. I use wool felt on my stepped baffle designs for the same reasons.
Dunlavy was a brilliant designer. His speakers sound incredibly real and true to source with correct imaging and soundstage. They're used by some of the best mastering guys around ie. Bob Ludwig, Doug Sax, etc.
Dunlavy also tuned his stuff by ear to sound right, not just to measure flat or laboratory "perfect" in a certain way. His speakers sound natural and right with all kinds of music. Vandersteen has similar design philosophies but his stuff is a step below Dunlavy IMO.
hi all .... I can state my opinion on 1st order vs higher order filters .... this is based on having a set of Dunlavy designed small PCL-15 monitors for a few decades. Such an incredibly well designed system with proper 1st order crossovers seem to be different... in lack of better words: higer order designs seem to have something mechanical to them, something non musical that is just not there in the 1st order designs.... the magic you can get out of these Dunlavy designs is unreal.
Main thing is I think that phase coherence is extremely important to that magical musical experience.... maybe this sounds like rubbish but I can't find a better way to express this
Some guy in another forum stated the Dunlavy PCL-15 is the best imaging speakers on the market independent of price.... ever.... I think this may be a significant overstatement but it has some relevance to the incredible competence and execution of late Mr. Dunlavy
The thing with the Duntech PCL-15, they can't play very loud, then there is not any low bass and they are bears to drive ... and music is complete magic
Unfortunately there is now serious issues with the drivers in my Duntech PCL-15's (I think my ex wife did something there) so I need replacements and those Dynaudio drivers are out of production
Last edited:
The larger Dunlavy's have been called "large headphones" because it's a very limited point in space where the time/and phase comes together... simply because as you move closer or further away from the speakers the individual distance to the individual drivers change.
If you move away from the ideal position or rise up they sound like crap, but in the sweet spot .... holy#$@#cra##$goodness
And i would like to know how many 'bad sounding' loudspeakers have been done using both way?
I mean technology choice doesn't matter this is the realisation which does.
In his stereophile intw, Mr Dunlavy himself describe FIR and the issue related to digital (in 1994!), the Magnus were a dsp based system.
Since then digital made huge progress ( first pro approved and 'widely' used FIR system appeared around 1998 iirc).
And both approach are not exclusive: hybrid works pretty well.
I mean technology choice doesn't matter this is the realisation which does.
In his stereophile intw, Mr Dunlavy himself describe FIR and the issue related to digital (in 1994!), the Magnus were a dsp based system.
Since then digital made huge progress ( first pro approved and 'widely' used FIR system appeared around 1998 iirc).
And both approach are not exclusive: hybrid works pretty well.
I love digital.... I use a Trinnov Amethyst PRE myself and love it till the end of the world, best investment I ever did
Main speakers are with passive x-over
crossover with subwoofers are digital, controlled in the Trinnov, as well as some serious DSP corrections below 200 Hz
And I would argue that passive speakers are not necessarily dead, I guess it's all a matter of doing the best choices and best design for the different use cases
I assume a speaker that is born digital is designed in a completely different way as a passive speaker, the digital curves can be way sharper and still keep perfect phase/time, this means we may use different drivers for a digital active speakers vs a passive one, probably many other things too ... I assume then that a "born digital" speaker can be made better than simply taking a passive speaker and replacing the crossover with a dsp based solution. Is it not so that out of band artifacts (like resonances) can be much more easily fixed with a dsp based solution with sharper time/phase coherent filters.
Main speakers are with passive x-over
crossover with subwoofers are digital, controlled in the Trinnov, as well as some serious DSP corrections below 200 Hz
And I would argue that passive speakers are not necessarily dead, I guess it's all a matter of doing the best choices and best design for the different use cases
I assume a speaker that is born digital is designed in a completely different way as a passive speaker, the digital curves can be way sharper and still keep perfect phase/time, this means we may use different drivers for a digital active speakers vs a passive one, probably many other things too ... I assume then that a "born digital" speaker can be made better than simply taking a passive speaker and replacing the crossover with a dsp based solution. Is it not so that out of band artifacts (like resonances) can be much more easily fixed with a dsp based solution with sharper time/phase coherent filters.
Last edited:
Same here i love both, my most prefered reference loudspeakers are passive, my own Dsp multiamped...
Trinnov made huge progress since first time i've heard their system more than 10y ago.
I asked my friends if someone they know have an Amethyst in order to try what and how he does it's thing.
Anyway for someone like you with already good passive loudspeakers they hit the target for sure!
Still haven't make the plunge to DRC but i'm using FIR for xovers. But i'm more and more interested in it. Being blown away by some documented results i've seen recently. It may not be a definitive answer but could simplify the needs for acoustical treatment for sure.
That said since digital* the average of entry level loudspeakers never ceased to increase. To a point where pro nearfield was the thing early 00''s/10's ( remember guys prefered Behringer entry level vs Linktwitz Orion on blind test?).
Of course high end will ever see passive design, but entry level is going to fade away imho. That said one thing will remain from passive: correct approach to acoustical aspect of loudspeaker design ( care about directivity, power response,c-t-c, diffraction,...) will always lead to better designs with less digital compensation.
* digital i talk here in a wide manner, including simulation sofware, CAD for xovers, etc,etc, not only the audio hardware/software.
Trinnov made huge progress since first time i've heard their system more than 10y ago.
I asked my friends if someone they know have an Amethyst in order to try what and how he does it's thing.
Anyway for someone like you with already good passive loudspeakers they hit the target for sure!
Still haven't make the plunge to DRC but i'm using FIR for xovers. But i'm more and more interested in it. Being blown away by some documented results i've seen recently. It may not be a definitive answer but could simplify the needs for acoustical treatment for sure.
That said since digital* the average of entry level loudspeakers never ceased to increase. To a point where pro nearfield was the thing early 00''s/10's ( remember guys prefered Behringer entry level vs Linktwitz Orion on blind test?).
Of course high end will ever see passive design, but entry level is going to fade away imho. That said one thing will remain from passive: correct approach to acoustical aspect of loudspeaker design ( care about directivity, power response,c-t-c, diffraction,...) will always lead to better designs with less digital compensation.
* digital i talk here in a wide manner, including simulation sofware, CAD for xovers, etc,etc, not only the audio hardware/software.
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with FIR or Passives, as long as you know or are willing to learn how to use them.
I'm still learning!
