I didn't really find Dave's to be bright but really well balanced.
Scott's had some tweeter buzz pending, but the bass was stupendous.
I really liked Chuck's too.
Scott's had some tweeter buzz pending, but the bass was stupendous.
I really liked Chuck's too.
Dave -
I wished I would have remembered that I offered up the name "Sea Waves" in post #4, I would have charged you a royalty of 10 minutes of advice on woodworking. Your craftsmanship is amazing!
I concur with others, I thought your speakers sounded good. Whether they were in fact a little bright or not, I'm not sure but I did get that impression during the competition round when they played. (But not to the extend that they sounded "bad" due to the brightness, just that they seemed bright relative to one or two others in the group.) Most of the speakers differed in pretty minor ways, so it could easily be that yours played between two speakers that were a little more laid back and thus they "appeared" bright. Where people were seated also made a big difference. Friday night someone's theme speakers played and I thought they sounded pretty good, I was standing in the back behind the last row of seats to the side of the video camera on the tripod. Thus, my ears were probably 2.5 feet above tweeter level and there were probably 20 people sitting in the chairs between the speaker and me absorbing/blocking some of the upper frequencies. For the competition, I sat around the 5th row and more towards the middle. Those same speakers seemed too forward relative to the others playing in the same group.
I wished I would have remembered that I offered up the name "Sea Waves" in post #4, I would have charged you a royalty of 10 minutes of advice on woodworking. Your craftsmanship is amazing!
I concur with others, I thought your speakers sounded good. Whether they were in fact a little bright or not, I'm not sure but I did get that impression during the competition round when they played. (But not to the extend that they sounded "bad" due to the brightness, just that they seemed bright relative to one or two others in the group.) Most of the speakers differed in pretty minor ways, so it could easily be that yours played between two speakers that were a little more laid back and thus they "appeared" bright. Where people were seated also made a big difference. Friday night someone's theme speakers played and I thought they sounded pretty good, I was standing in the back behind the last row of seats to the side of the video camera on the tripod. Thus, my ears were probably 2.5 feet above tweeter level and there were probably 20 people sitting in the chairs between the speaker and me absorbing/blocking some of the upper frequencies. For the competition, I sat around the 5th row and more towards the middle. Those same speakers seemed too forward relative to the others playing in the same group.
The slight brightness I referred to is definitely well within the range of voicing personal preference. Probably program material dependent as well. For most pop music, I prefer a -4 dB slope from 100 to 10k... and this is the kind of music used in the competition. For most jazz and classical I prefer a more flat response from 100 to 10k, and this is where i thought Dave's speakers were... Again, just my preference, and I really liked those speakers.
j.
j.
Is zobel network for woofer missing by purpose? It can help to reduce response in cone breakup region, match phases better and to get little better total speaker impedance.
Zobels are not a cure-all. They can help in some ways, but more by nonstandard values than the traditional Zobel. I have not implemented a Zobel in a fair bit if time myself as it was not beneficial enough to use it.
Dave these look and sound fantastic. I don't vote due to my very poor listening position (behind the speakers running the gear) but when I heard them prior to the theme portion, I really liked them. Cabinet design and construction are things to be nearly jealous of here and the crossover design is very good. Honestly if they might have been in with others, they might have won the round. It was quite close in voting.
Yeah your measurements look very well balanced. It would have been interesting if the test was blinded.
Excellent work and craftsmanship - I especially like the thorough approach with the spin table 👍
When making filters, I find that I get a smoother response and sound when correcting the shelf of the upper response of the mid-woofer - in this case - at 2500-3500Hz, where you see the response plateau before it continue to dive. It seems to match the beginning break-up of the woofer, which IME is also a good thing to tame. Thoughts?
When making filters, I find that I get a smoother response and sound when correcting the shelf of the upper response of the mid-woofer - in this case - at 2500-3500Hz, where you see the response plateau before it continue to dive. It seems to match the beginning break-up of the woofer, which IME is also a good thing to tame. Thoughts?
Yes I'am agree with that 🙂
It is a bump but to suppress it can lower the crossover point.
It is a bump but to suppress it can lower the crossover point.
Ok. I usually just ad a second LP or EQ at that specific point, and then fiddle with it until I've smoothed it out, which doesn't seem to alter the cross over frequency. But maybe that's easier with a digital filter? 🤔
A little late, but still: a system with a passive cone is also bass reflex, just with a different type of resonator and a somewhat steeper high-pass filter.