Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 106 to 112 of 112

Thread: Passive Monitor Thread

  1. #106
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,185
    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
    10,290
    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
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,371
    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
    8,185
    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
    3,286
    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
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,371
    Agreed.

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

    This will improve the network characteristics.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 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
  •