With some choir and som opera singers I have some glair. After taking some messurment I sees I have some decay "problem" in the +5khz region.
Can anybody tell me the reason for this? And what I can do to correct it? My speakers are troelsgravesen jenzen next with the t25 tweeter.
Can anybody tell me the reason for this? And what I can do to correct it? My speakers are troelsgravesen jenzen next with the t25 tweeter.
That either looks like a problem with the tweeter or more likely a measurement issue, since the Excel tweeter doesn't have any such probkems that I've ever come across -it doesn't have the lowest HD on the planet (not bad though) but as far as linear distortion goes it's very clean for a soft dome, with a good decay time (not that I put much value on CSD plots). WRT 'glare' -if you haven't tried adjusting the level of the padding resistor per the writeup, I'd probably make that my first port of call. It does cross higher between mid & HF than I personally like, which may cause some flaring in the polars around 3KHz, but that's the nature of this sort of speaker, and to a point a matter of taste -without the plots it's difficult to say for sure in any case.
How did you take your measurement? If you're out for finding resonances, make close range measurements.
You should get results like this, and any 'ringing' up to 8 periods shoud not bother you very much. This is an oldie btw, proving ferrofluid can hold its own for more than 35 years.
You should get results like this, and any 'ringing' up to 8 periods shoud not bother you very much. This is an oldie btw, proving ferrofluid can hold its own for more than 35 years.
The messurment Washington takene at 1 meter. But in a small room abort 20m2. I didnt make any special settings in rew. Should I do that when loooking at tweeter decay in spesific.
Well, I was thinking around the dome, but looking at the Wilson treatment that apparently starts around 1 kHz and comparing with published measurements, thinking theirs may 'kill two birds with one stone', so try it first and if necessary, add a smaller one at the dome's edge since we don't know if they use electronics and/or add a coating to deal with it.
That’s what I saw. And suggested the close range measurement. Otherwise diffraction and reflections (…resulting virtually in the same thing) blur the image too much.
Oh wait, this is the Jentzen design with those ugly ridges close to the tweeter. No matter what Troels states, these give strong reflections that will lead to interferences and possibly some resonances. So any mid field or far field measurement will show strange artifacts. I think one can even see them in his measurements.
Oh wait, this is the Jentzen design with those ugly ridges close to the tweeter. No matter what Troels states, these give strong reflections that will lead to interferences and possibly some resonances. So any mid field or far field measurement will show strange artifacts. I think one can even see them in his measurements.
Last edited:
I have hade the idea off building the next 4 (Also troels gravesen) . It looks like a wilson speaker. And is a 4 way with an additional 8" covering from 200hz down. I guess it will have less diffraction problems. Would the different layout give "big" changes in the sound? Maybe bether more transparent soundstage, fro. A narrower baffel?
Any thoughts?
Frankly, I don’t have a clue what you have been measuring. I even doubt if it was something acoustical, as your decay plot shows something I’ve never witnessed In acoustical measurements.
But that aside, you use a 502ms time window, so every sound (acoustical?) within that half a second would be represented in the result. That in turn means you would have recorded every sound that has traveled for some 170 meter (reflection paths in your room I mean). Essentially you measured your full reverberation in your room. Since you didn’t include the time window shape, it is not certain in what way this long reverberation is included in your measurement.
Normal time windows in normal circumstances (measuring in your living room) would be 4 to 5ms. Or, with near field (microphone at 1 or 2 cm from the dome or cone) maybe 40 to 50ms. Read something about measuring first, then proceed.
BTW, Wilson isn’t exactly known for their acoustically smart enclosure designs. Personally I think their main quality is showing off, but that’s just me.
But that aside, you use a 502ms time window, so every sound (acoustical?) within that half a second would be represented in the result. That in turn means you would have recorded every sound that has traveled for some 170 meter (reflection paths in your room I mean). Essentially you measured your full reverberation in your room. Since you didn’t include the time window shape, it is not certain in what way this long reverberation is included in your measurement.
Normal time windows in normal circumstances (measuring in your living room) would be 4 to 5ms. Or, with near field (microphone at 1 or 2 cm from the dome or cone) maybe 40 to 50ms. Read something about measuring first, then proceed.
BTW, Wilson isn’t exactly known for their acoustically smart enclosure designs. Personally I think their main quality is showing off, but that’s just me.