Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BiggerIsBetter

  1. No cable, and I ended up disconneting everything so the only thing I had connected was the xover outs to the amp in, both are balanced and XLR. Both where plugged into my power conditioner (panamax) and I also tried plugging them both directly into the wall. With the crossover I was able to determine that the buzz is between 400-800hz. I also don't thing the impedance mismatch is the problem, even though 100 to 200000 is way over 10:1, the Audio Research BL1 (designed to convert unbal to bal into the VT-150 amps I am using has a 60ohm output, even lower than my xovers 100). I'm going to try other devices (like the BL1) directly hooked to the amp to see if there is the same buzz. Is so, it might just be amp noise exacerbated by the fact that I am using 116DB sensitive horn drivers with HUGE horns. Since the xover is pro and the amp is commerical I expect they are looking for different signal strengths, but I just dont get how that results in a buzz and if so what to do about it (I have not seen a balanced to balanced interface box)
  2. As background: My chain is sources (mixed bal and un) to a Carver lightstar passive to an Apogee CRQ-12 parametric to a pair of BSS FDS-310 X-overs to 3 amps (2 bal, 1 not), to the speakers. All connection between the pre and xover are balanced XLR. I have a buzz, not a low hum. After hunting grounding loops and the like, I ended up with just the xover (no input), directly hooked to the amp with the worst buzz (the mid). Since the buzz was the same with no source connections, and I am going balanced to balanced and tried directly grounding the chasis of the 2 component and lifting the ground of the xover I have concluded that I do not have a grounding problem rather an impedance or sensitivity mismatch. The xover has an output impedance of 100 ohm and the amp (AR VT-150) has an input impedance of 200K ohm with a sensitivity of 2.3 v P-P. In order to get the buzz down to a barely acceptable level, I need to turn the xover output level to around -12DB. As a result, given that I am driving this with a passive, I have limited "juice" to drive an acceptable output level. Is this high noice floor (buzz) due to the impedance mismatch? If so, what are some options....I have a soldering iron and I'm not afraid to use it... Thanks!
  3. Yep, It is likley somewhere in the laws of physics I replaced my 11.25" round tractrix horns with 27"x31" CD horns less than a week ago. Man are these things HUGE. This morning I walked by them and thought, if I skoot them over a bit I could get that big Jub horn in there no problem.
  4. Very Interesting. I have a transformer hum on my citation 5.1 amp ONLY when the light in my room is in the dimmest of the 3 settings. I can solder and have lots of caps around, but am not exacle sure where those caps/diodes go, can you elaborate/simplify?
  5. This is the same dilema that comes up a lot in conversatino about the Behringer digital unit. In summary, you want the highest level input (without climping) in order to maximize the amount of bit available. The best solution requires a volume control after the processor (which means know you need 2 since you are biamping)....hense the whole dilema. Either, do the best you can with the adjustment you have on your amp (i.e set to minimum and maximize the input to the processor) and put your head in the sand OR read everything that has been written about this for the Behringer on the various forums, prepared to be fustrated and have a head ache.
  6. For the amperex, unless you bought them from a credible source as true NOS, I would check them often for emissions. I have had a large number of the amperex 6dj8 (various "version" from several sources), which tested just fine when I put them into use, go gassy....one taking a rather expensive amp with it....
  7. How about one of you really smart guys read it and provide a reader's digest for the wanna be's llike me.
  8. those things can have a "significant" amount of resistance. I would use a price of poper guage copper wire, it's cheap and easy....
  9. Yep, Walnut, oiled finsih. From the pics the Ser Num shows 1985. Looks like GREAT deal for $500, and a fair price up to around $750. Looks more like sun fading than dust. The only quesiotn they raise is I thought that 1985 was a cornwall II, but in the pics the drivers are mounted from inside the cabinet (i.e. like a corn 1). I must be wrong on that, I'm expect someone knows the real answer...
  10. You are likely to get lots of opinions. I expect you will get a good solid 100DB with that setup. Unless you want concert realistic levels and bass impact you should be fine. ....to me, the cornwalls don't provide concert realistic levels (limited by the bass abilities) with any level of power so if you are trying to get there you have more issues than just your amp.
  11. Thanks Duke. After looking at all the options, looks like I am going with the P.audio C18-650LF. I was hoping to get 2240's, but got screwed on that deal and the 2240s are not that easy (or cheap) to come by.
  12. For horn scoops, what is the criteria for a good woofer (18" and xover of up to 700hz if it matters)? My understanding is low Qts and high Fs (preferably Fs/Qts> 120) and low diaphram mass. Is that right, is there more?
  13. The decision may also affect your level matching, i.e. if the mids and high are much more efficient the the low end driver, using a 16 ohm driver would be one way to close the gap.
  14. djk, thanks for the info. Not sure I completely get it, but did have a specific question on the formula's under Fig. 6. If you take a 2240 with a Qts of .24 and a fs of 28 hz for example, we would get: flc = .24 x 28/2 = 3.36 fhm = 2 x 28 / .24 = 233 That seems right for the high cutoff, what wrong with the calc for the low (i.e. 3.36). I would have expect a low cut of around 40hz.
  15. The 18A-2 has a Fs of 28 and a Qts of .29. Now I'm really not sure what several places are advertising as an Omega Pro 18 with a Qts of .24, it's not the 18A or A or the 18A-2. As an example, here parts express lisitng (they call it an 18A) http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=290-428 I doubt it is a typo since most places list the spec as 28 Fs and .24 Qts Right now I am using a 400 hz round tractrix, crossed over at around 700hz. If/when I get a bigger horn I would like to try to go as low as 225hz on the crossover with the BMS 4592. Everyone is telling me the compression driver will sound like crap that low, but I think these drivers will do it with no problem so I need to hear it to believe it.
  16. Thanks Bob. I would guess that the one I am looking for is the A-2. The 18A and C are the ones currently listed on the website with the higher Qts and lower Fs. I have not seen anyone refer to an A-2, but that must be it. Does the A-2 spec sheet have an Fs of 28 and Qts of .24? Jim
  17. I am looking for 18" woofers for my new bass horn scoops, looks like I am get shafted on the JBL 2240s that were part of the deal. My understanding is that I need a woofer with a high Fs and low Qts. I have seen good deals on the Omega Pro 18, but there seems to be 2 sets of specs that are stated. The Eminence website has a Fs as 24 and .31 for Qts and no reference to an older (or newer) model with different spec. Several sites that sell the same model number woofer (including parts express) state specs of 28Fs and .24 Qts (which would be seemly better in this application. I have seen reference to "new" spec Omegas, but again no info on their website. Any ideas on on whether there was a change and any way to tell the difference between the 2? Other woofer suggetions also appreciated.
  18. Flater is better Just because it's flat does not mean it will sound good I would prefer a "good" (ability to reproduce realistic dynamics with low distortion) speaker Eq'd over a "poor" speaker that has a nice graph. Don't be afraid of the EQ....
  19. Another easy idea. If you have a cable TV cable connect anywhere in the same "system". Disconnect the cable....they can be a huge source of noice and be intermittent. If the hum goes away when you disconnect it's obviously the souce....only take a few seconds to try it....
  20. Step 1, do a search for "tri-path" and check out what these amp chips can do, a real bargain. Step 2, BUY ONE of these now. This is a CRAZY deal for around $100. I already have 2 and may get a few more. Caviots, there are no component video outs (only s-video), but you can use an external DVD and there have been relaibiity report...for $100 it's worth the risk in my book http://cgi.ebay.com/Motorola-DCP501-new-in-the-box-with-new-DCP-501remote_W0QQitemZ260036342283QQihZ016QQcategoryZ14981QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
  21. Thanks for checking Roy, I greatly appreciate it. There is a good chance I will take you up on the offer to buy the set and sort it out from there. I have the smaller round 400hz tractrix so I will start there. Maybe those little horns will sound great and end my persuit for a lower crossover. I doubt it!!! More to come......
  22. Dean, no grief. I greatly appreciate everones input and put a lot of weight on your thoughts. Well, enough thinking I just pulled the trigger and ordered the 4592s. Dr. Who, I have not selected a horn yet, that's is my primary purpose for and question in this thread...I am still hoping for the K402 but seriously looking at the 200hx exponential as the fall back. In the meantime, I do have a pair of 400hz (likley more like a 500-700hz crossover) round tractrix to play around with. I am hoping I don't have the same issues as Dman had with the tractrix on that driver....again mine are round As far as off-axis, my room is 20' x 25' and the speakers will be around 15' apart and the listening position around 16'. As long as I get decent responce within 2-3' feet from each side of the listening position sweet spot I will be happy. I have not done the geometry on that, but that's can't be more than 10-20 degrees off axis.
  23. I beleive that the low end of the 4592 is the same as a 4591 driver and the difference in measurements is the horn. The 4591 measurements, it does not give the size of the horn, show usable response and acceptable distoration down to around 270hz....which is where many report crossing it over at. http://www.woodhorn.com/BMS/bms_4591.htm I realize that this is blowing a lot of peoples paradigms, but if it IS new technology should it not change our traditional thinking about what a cone handles versus a compression driver???
  24. I cancel the question on magnets, sounds like a tube vs. solid state type question. I made my decision on that one. I don't want an extra set of horns and point sources to deal with. If I had to I would go higher and use the 4592, I would choose that over lower with another horn added. This all assumes I can get the right horn with 4592 for good HF. The plots on the BMS driver are on a small horn, which is dictating the cutoff. Yes, there are several individuals (I have sommunicated with some of them to confirm) and a small company crossing them over in the 200's with good results. Earlier in the thread there a link to a product that uses them with a 220hz crossover. I certainly have doubts and don't even know if it's worth it, i.e. I don't know how good/bad my bass bins will sound. My simple view is that if that driver can effectively go that low then why have 2??-500 coming from a bass bin (of any variety)????
  25. "BTW. I have touched base with one of the "winners" of the 200Hz Bentwood horns via EBAY's First Octave Audio. The winner seems to be very please. He is from germany and comes across as having a lot of experience with compression drivers and horns." Good new, thanks! I had read of a guy using this horn and 4590 with excellent, i.e. better than his previous ORIS horns. I beleive he is crossing over at close to 200hz on that horn with the 4590. Reading the statements of the Jubilee not sounding very "heritiage", I wonder how much of that is the tractrix vs exponential and further wonder after longer listing tests whether the tractrix sounds is utlimately better or if "something" (likley distortion) is missing when compared to the exponential. I have never heard a 2" exponential and maybe I ruled it out too quickly... Bonus question, "everyone" is telling me that he BMS 4592 (neo magnet) sounds better (more clear) than the same version with ceramic magnet (4590). The price difference is around $115/each and the replacement diphrams more expensive on the neo. Given the same flux rating, shouldn't they sound the same? Is there the possibilty that the flux measurements are inaccurate and the neo actually does have more flux and sound better beause of it? I don't care about the extra size/weight, so what are opinions on the extra value/cost of the neo version. In any case I am having difficulty getting anyone to sell me either BMS driver, including assistance audio, woodhorn, and us speaker. Lots of unreturned emails and phonecalls.....
  • Create New...