Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community

Danieln

Regulars
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

1 Follower

About Danieln

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Danieln

    My new LaScala crossovers.

    But Mark, you are right in the sense that in the absence of the swamping resistor, the amp will effectively see an easier load (40 ohms in many of the old klipsch xovers). it ensue that in the presence of the said resistor, the amp will work harder compared to when there is no resistor. And as you are pointing, some energy will be absorbed by the swamping resistor. The thing is that the swamping resistor (Which we should name an impedance matching resistor) is there to accommodate higher output impedance amplifiers who will have their amplitude perturbed by a high midrange impedance. Simple ohms law in fact that can easily be demonstrated. Dan
  2. Danieln

    My new LaScala crossovers.

    Marvel is right, the swamping resistor is only there to make the midrange an 8 Ohms speaker, as the tweeter and the woofer already are. Dont worry, if your amp is able to generate 3 watts at 200 Hertz into 8 Ohms, it will also do it in the midrange with the same 8 Ohms without sweating. Regards, Dan
  3. Danieln

    My new LaScala crossovers.

    Deang, ever heard about a Zobel?? Hint...it is used to nullify the VC inductance when required. If I remember, ALK used one of them in his Forte crossover , and other design. On the other hand, in another one, he states that he utilizes this inductance as part of his filter. It's there and cannot be ignored. https://www.trueaudio.com/st_zobel.htm
  4. Danieln

    My new LaScala crossovers.

    John, thanks for the factual post. My goal is to understand. Basically you state that in order to get rid of the big 2000 Hz bump, the crossover must be lower in order to get enough attenuation at 2000. You propose around 500 Hz, which make sense. But in this case, the crossover will be stated to be @500Hz. Speaker's acoustic output is proportional to electrical signal that drives it. So when I measure voltage at the electrical crossover, that must be reflected in the acoustical response. The fact is that I measure a lower electrical crossover with the 2.5mH on my crossover. It is quite an easy measurement to do using an AC voltmeter and tone generator. So do you propose that electrical and acoustic crossover frequency are not the same?
  5. Danieln

    My new LaScala crossovers.

    Wrong crossover. You can run any amp on a constant impedance one :-)
  6. Danieln

    My new LaScala crossovers.

    Mark, I consider the ALK crossover in high regard. Mine is inspired by his work. But as you noted, I slightly modified, simulated, constructed and measured the result. My hearing is not so good, so i will trust a good design methodology and measurement over my hears anyday :-) I cannot stress enough that you need a constant impedance network with Single Ended Triode (SET) amplifiers or even more so with pentode (without feedback). The key is the damping factor, or say another way the amplifier output impedance. The worst offenders are the original Klipsch networks. The midrange is boosted by several DB without controlled impedance, but is flat with a constant impedance network. been there, done that! Dan
  7. Danieln

    My new LaScala crossovers.

    Thanks Mike, i don't remember exactly which one is which, but as you noted it shows the phase shift. i strongly encourage you to try and confirm the measurement. You don't really need a scope, just an AC voltmeter. Use "onlinetonegenerator dot com" to drive your amp. I'm jealous of your K-horns , but in my case haven't corners to put them in. Dan
  8. Danieln

    My new LaScala crossovers.

    the other using 2.5mH crossing @300Hz:
  9. Danieln

    My new LaScala crossovers.

    So I rewired my crossover to use a 2.5mH inductor and precisely measured using my scope and also confirms with an AC voltmeter. I re-simulated both the 1.25mH and the 2.5mH design. The results are not surprising: Using the 2.5mH, the crossover point is lower. Simulation shows 338Hz @ -4Db Measurement shows 300Hz@ -4.8Db Using the 1.25mH, the crossover point is higher. Simulation shows 417Hz @ -2.8Db Measurement shows 430Hz@ -2.8Db It is clear that my crossover requires the 1.25mH woofer inductance. Joined are two pictures, showing equal low and mid levels and the measured period and frequency. One channel on the woofer, the other on the mid, before attenuation. Dan
  10. Danieln

    My new LaScala crossovers.

    in the next couple of days, I will revert one of my crossover to 2.5mH and measure the crossover point again. Quite curious to see how this will compare to my simulation.
  11. Danieln

    My new LaScala crossovers.

    Mike, exactly as you describe. I have a two channels oscilloscope. Channel one on the woofer, channel two connected to mid range before attenuator (Output of 300uH inductance). I then use "online tone generator" and find at which frequency the two channels reads the same peak to peak amplitude. This is the crossover frequency. I then measure the crossover input level. My measurement were 2.0Vpp (Woofer and midrange) with a 2.75Vpp input @ 430 Hz. 20Log(2.0/2.75) = -2.8Db very slightly off the -3.0Db (.727 vs .707) Dan
  12. Danieln

    My new LaScala crossovers.

    I see Deang, L2 is about 2.5mH. The point is that part of this is in the voice coil. Else, how can I explain my measured point is 430?
  13. Danieln

    My new LaScala crossovers.

    Here is the simulation schematic:
  14. Danieln

    My new LaScala crossovers.

    My spice simulation models the woofer as a 6.2 Ohms in series with a 1mH voice coil inductance. Adding my 1.25mH (Essentially two 2.5mH in parallel taken from the AL type crossover) brings the total to 2.25mH for my simulation. The resulting crossover is simulated at 417 Hz. Now, when I look at the actual electrical response of the crossover, I measure 430 Hz which matches quite well the simulation. Increasing the inductance lowers the crossover point in fact. Which crossover frequency is optimum from your point of vue?
  15. Danieln

    My new LaScala crossovers.

    Thanks for the answers, yes I was referring to -4 DB, and it is quite a bit more lively than -6DB. The more I listen to it, the more I prefer -4. Oh i see Deang, you lined-up the center of the cores. i thought that been 90 degrees apart was sufficient at these low frequencies.
×