Regarding dsp, is there a performance difference in doing + or - when it comes to gain?
For example, I have +3.2Db gain on the HF. Is it better to do -3.2Db on the LF instead?
Same with my low-shelf +9.5dDb in the bass. Is it better to make it an high-shelf with -9.5Db?
Hallo!Originally Posted by bubbleboy76
You have to do a proper Gain Structure, don't guess...
You clearly did not understand my question. Read it again, slowly.Hallo!You have to do a proper Gain Structure, don't guess...
My gain structure is optimized (to my knowledge) as much as it can be in my system and my conditions.
That's hilarious!It is your destiny. Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son!
I don't know about that but it's very kind of you to say. As hard as I try, I am not a Jedi yet.
All the best,
Barry.
If we knew what the hell we were doing, we wouldn't call it research would we.
Hi,
Is it correct sampling rate 44.1kHz or 48kHz.
I think that it would be better to reduce gain vs to enhance the gain.
regards
ivica
do not know about the sampling rate, will check that out, thanx!
I do not trust microsoft windows and sound at all...
I know in certain cases/devices increasing digital gain is bad, can introduce digital clipping.
This will make some guys happy
Yesterday, I reconnected the passive crossover to the horn to see what would happen to the sound. The sound memory is short!
The sound lost a bit of dynamics and clarity, but it gained coherence and sounded more "correct". So the stock passive filter won over my rudimentary dsp-setup (for the HF).
I have learned that getting a crossover right for the HF, and a CD-horn, is over my head (at the moment), but you do not know until you try
The LF on the other hand...
It is a so simple crossover function / voltage drive in the passive filter that I think "what could possibly go wrong"
The bass was so profoundly much better in my system when I went to active crossover, so I will continue with that (for now), and try to get it to match the passive HF-crossover the best I can. Will play with that today.
The added delay to the LF-driver made a significant improvement in my system. The sound was "released" from the speakers. Before, I could hear the sound coming from the speakers. After, the sound comes from the room, if you get what I mean.
I am now a strong believer of the importance of time-alignement of speaker drivers.
Yes. I think I have mentioned several times that it isn't trivial.I have learned that getting a crossover right for the HF, and a CD-horn, is over my head (at the moment), but you do not know until you try
G.T. mentioned the same thing on several occasions.
Tuned it in now, and it resembles very much the stock sound that I did not fully like. It is most likeley due to my bad room accoustics causing this. It is my livingroom and unfortunately I can not do room treatment.
Will try to post my measurements later on.
I found out today that the 4365 uses 12Db/oct LR crossover, not a fancy 24DB/oct like k2S9900.
I think I will have another go at fully active.
I don't remember that being the case. I posted the voltage drives to both networks years ago, I don't remember where though. For example, the low pass filters on the 1500AL-1 and 1500Fe are nearly identical. 6.2 mH series, 27 uF parallel versus 39 uF parallel, and 1.0 mH series.
I might be wrong, but it looked like that when I was measuring.
Measurement with the stock crossover (LF, HF and UHF) in my listening position.
Looks very good, but in some way the sound is to bright for my taste.
Measurements of crossover with active on LF and passive on HF/UHF.
Mic 1m from speaker.
12Db/oct Linkwitz-Riley low-pass at 600Hz of the LF in the DBX 260.
-8Db high-shelf at 136Hz, 6db/oct.
Notch 6Db reduction at 80Hz
LF delay 0.10m
The summing graph looks good to me.
Measurement in listening position right now, with active LF and passive stock HF and UHF.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote