Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 122

Thread: Passive Monitor Thread

  1. #106
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,201
    One thing I have noticed is I can flatten the response of the HF to within a dB or so but find extensive eq robs the life out of them, counter intuitive I know but they definitely sound better with a few 'warts' left in if you get my meaning.
    Hello Cooky

    Thanks! Yes I do almost like looking at an airbrushed model! I tried an early auto digital EQ once and it measured great but just didn't sound right, go figure!? As rough as those in-rooms look they sound better than you would expect looking at the measurement.

    Rob
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  2. #107
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    10,297
    Quote Originally Posted by cooky1257 View Post
    One thing I have noticed is I can flatten the response of the HF to within a dB or so but find extensive eq robs the life out of them, counter intuitive I know but they definitely sound better with a few 'warts' left in if you get my meaning.
    I have experienced that with virtually every system I have had. And it doesn't seem to matter if the EQ uses analog or digital filters.

    Once you get the crossover filters (slopes, knee points, frequencies) and levels balanced and set up properly, additional corrections start to kill the "life" of the system.

    I remember the first time I heard DEQX. It was a demo being preformed by Kim Ryrie where he took a small B&W bookshelf speaker and showed us the in room response. He then "corrected" it using the automated room correction built into DEQX. The resulting curve was textbook beautiful, but the result, to my ears at least, was a sound that was far less compelling. At the time I assumed it was simply a hurried demo being done at a trade show, but subsequently I've had similar experiences with virtually every type of system I have used... and I have used quite a few. The systems that limit their correction to the LF room issues and leave the "warts" at the higher frequencies tend to sound the best.



    Widget

  3. #108
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    7

    Less is more

    Like with many things in life, less is more! In my opinion massive and big passive crossovers do not sound as nice as simpler once, that have been build with similar attention, even if the response is not as flat. Let the driver sound like what they are supposed to sound like... problem is, to achieve great results sound wise one will need great components. But then the crossover part is not about perfect linearity but about good balance between each component. The good sound comes from the driver itself, not the frequency response!

    Greetings

  4. #109
    On Holidays Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,382
    Boosting HF is problematic.

    S/N and overload margin goes to hell.

  5. #110
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,201
    Well after another week of finally have the bi-amp set-up dialed in where I am getting closer to what the system is capable of. I thought I had it wrapped but I decided to start all over again from scratch and am glad I did. I shifted the crossover frequency down closer to the where the passive set-up would be and re-tweaked the levels which were actually close to where they were before. Listened to a ton of music using the King Crimson 40th anniversary box sets and ITCOTCK as a reference and it's better than before.

    This is the first time I have really done some SPL and WOW! They just stay together and dynamic contrasts on well recorded material can be startling. Those darn woofers never cease to amaze. They have amazing definition. Well time to go outside and get some sun! Hear is a close and chair measurement. The 1K dip is a measurement artifact, just going for over all smoother in room. Looks like I have the horn down a bit trying to see through the room. Sounds good though.

    Rob
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  6. #111
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    3,290
    Interesting.

    I also did more work on the Memans and decided that with 4mH/30 mfd on the 2241, I could get a better better blend between the 2241 and 2251 at the higher end of the range (~900 Hz), but the 2241 became too present and I felt was "clouding" the 2251 removing definition.

    I changed this to 5mH/72 mfd and this takes the 2241 out of the range where the THD begins to rise (>1,200Hz), clears up the mids, and tightens up the bass. Also went from 3.4 to 6.0 mfd on the Heils to blend with the reduced output of the 2251 after the peak at ~2kHz. I.e., instead of a peak followed by a flat line, the peak now tapers down to the flat line.

    Once one gets the frequency fairly flat, you can work with voicing to enhance to taste.

  7. #112
    On Holidays Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,382
    Agreed.

    Did you use a congregate network on the woofer to flatten the rising impedance?

    This will improve the network characteristics.

  8. #113
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,201
    Had to move a speaker into a different room but finally got a decent measurement on the 2216 in the cabinet and redid the horn as well to start fresh and see where it goes.

    Rob
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  9. #114
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    10,297
    Have you tried a <1/2" near field measurement of the cone and a port measurement?


    Widget

  10. #115
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,201
    Hello Widget

    Yes and I had issues with it. I don't normally measure that way usually set-up 1-2 meters on the tweeter axis and shoot from there. I was having some significant room issues. Looking at an RTA measurement was telling me I could not trust what I was getting. Doing it from the drivers I was having phase issues where I could sim a flat response but the low pass 2216 didn't look right based on JBL networks and if I reversed phase no null!! So I did the passive comp as a temp so I could at least listen to them. Glad I did have been enjoying them.

    Figured when I got the time I would move them into the other upstairs room where my L5's are and give it a shot. When I moved to a different room things got much better. I got a measurement that was almost in a 5db window down to 200Hz. I don't gate my measurements so they are really warts and all. I feel you loose way to much resolution. The best thing would be outdoors but that is difficult doing it solo. Especially when it's 90 and intermittent showers are in the forecast.

    So I think I am OK! Won't know for sure until I actually do the build but I am much more comfortable committing and purchasing the parts. I now have a network that sims very well in LEAP, makes more sense value wise vs JBL and that gives me the expected null. Shifted the crossover lower as well. Fell better about the measurements still concerned about the attenuation match although it looks fine.

    Take a look at these not bad! Didn't I say that before?????

    Rob
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  11. #116
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,201
    And the fun begins!! Got my crossover components so I can see if the network is right. The caps in the high pass are going to be charge coupled so large values x 2 takes up a lot of space. Wish I could get the Radioshack pcb's I used to use. Going to use the thin plywood cut to size and painted black.

    Rob
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  12. #117
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    10,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606 View Post
    And the fun begins!! Got my crossover components so I can see if the network is right. The caps in the high pass are going to be charge coupled so large values x 2 takes up a lot of space. Wish I could get the Radioshack pcb's I used to use. Going to use the thin plywood cut to size and painted black.

    Rob
    I don't know if your favorite pcbs are still available, but Radio Shack still has an on-line store and you can get many of their products.

    https://www.radioshack.com

    Recently I needed a specific RF modulator that they used to offer and amazingly it was still available from them.


    Widget

  13. #118
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,201
    Thanks Widget!!

    I found them on the site!! For next time!! I have one PCB built and tested and it's good! Was really worried about keeping the level right for a max flat response. Did a quick measurement looks good!!!! Should be running tonight! I have attenuation worked out if needed.

    https://www.radioshack.com/products/...nt=20332061829

    Rob
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  14. #119
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,201
    OK back to the build! So I got the passive crossovers done and installed. When I was doing the biamp passive comp on the CD it sounded really good on some material and not quite right with others. I know I had some issues going on below the crossover point 700Hz in this case and the passive network really makes a big improvement. If you look at the raw measurement there is a tilt with 100Hz down a bit and 300-700Hz is raised.

    So when I was running the biamp set-up this tilt was there and messing up the overall balance. Now that it is gone things sounds "right". Definite improvement overall. Green is measured blue is the raw woofer curve.

    Rob
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  15. #120
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,201
    Well it's great when a plan comes together and it all works out. The decision to build the cabinets low tuned with a bump filter is working out very well. I get the last octave fill with no boom at all. Just sounds fuller with more weight. Even low tuned there is a surprising amount of bass that works with a lot of music. It's essentially a 40Hz system without the bump and can tune in 1dB increments. Glad I was skittish on building the crossovers as it paid off the 7/5 measurements in the next room really made all the difference. Now I know just do it!

    I am listening as I type this and with the upper mid bass rise gone they are really well balanced. They measure very well within a db or 2 over most of there range from the Leap sim. The real target was as close to M2 flat as I could manage. Obviously not happening without DSP but as close as I will ever get. Green is the LEAP simulation Red is the actual in room measurement @ 1 meter. Used a 700Hz crossover point and have stepped attenuation worked out if needed. Going to try them as is for a while first, Now I just have to tear them down to finish the cabinets. Winter project!

    It's nice to have finally got this done and just be able to relax and enjoy them!

    Rob
    Attached Images Attached Images     
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. passive crossover help
    By bottleneck in forum Electronic Crossovers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 07:37 AM
  2. 4350 Monitor Plans - Discussion Thread
    By boputnam in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-28-2005, 09:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •