cauldron

The most interesting thing comes now and explains why Klipsch chose 1500 Hz as a crossover frequency. It also explains the non-linear behavior of the woofer over 1500 Hz. Doing a 3kHz crossover would require an equalization for the woofer to maintain a linear behavior. In conclusion I think it is the woofer that creates a less present and less in focus midrange with default passive crossover. My 3kHz LR4 DSP is not formally correct as it would require a woofer equalization above 1.5kHz. Despite this the sense of presence and midrange focus is better and certainly can be done even better with the woofer equalization... KLIPSCH RP-160M: DRIVER SPL RESPONSE WITHOUT CROSSOVERS AND FILTERS (=UNPROTECTED DIRECT CONNECTION) WOOFER(YELLOW), TWEETER(BLUE) KLIPSCH RP-160M: DEFAULT PASSIVE CROSSOVER, BIAMP PHASE CROSSOVER CHECK NORMAL PHASE (RED), REVERSE PHASE (LIGHT BLUE) KLIPSCH RP-160M: DSP 3kHz LR4 (-6db, zita-lrx) CROSSOVER, BIAMP PHASE CROSSOVER CHECK NORMAL PHASE (GREEN), REVERSE PHASE (VIOLET)

Thank you for your request. I have clarified the details above. It should be enough.

To conclude, here are the measurement graphs made with miniDSP UMIK-1, Dayton Audio DATS V2 and RoomEQWizard. Observe how in the band 1k ... 3k there is a substantial difference: the passive crossover has a considerable weakening... The calibrated microphone is about 60 centimeters from the speaker, on the axis and between the woofer and the tweeter. For convenience I used two RP-160M speakers in the same position. The one with the DSP crossover has no rear locks. The microphone obviously remains stationary. Each individual graph was measured independently of the others. KLIPSCH RP-160M: DEFAULT PASSIVE CROSSOVER. LF, HF, FULL KLIPSCH RP-160M: DSP LR4 3kHz CROSSOVER (-6db, zita-lrx). LF, HF, FULL KLIPSCH RP-160M: CROSSOVER COMPARISON KLIPSCH RP-160M: WOOFER (GREEN), TWEETER (VIOLET) ON OPEN BOX (NO REAR LOCKS) PASSIVE CROSSOVER (YELLOW) ON DEFAULT SEALED BOX

For the moment I'm just doing some exploratory experiments because I think these speakers can sound better (as already mentioned at the beginning of this post). With a digital source it is easier to use a digital crossover. Once you have identified a satisfactory setting you can decide how to implement the new crossover: passive, active, digital or hybrid. I am waiting for some measuring instruments to confirm some empirical impressions (Dayton Audio DATS V2 and a miniDSP UMIK-1). I must say that the original passive crossover (second order) gives a wide and very enveloping sound. It's a very live feeling even though I use only one speaker (mono). The real problem is that the sound is not as focused or present as I would like in the midrange. This does not mean that Klipsch's choices are wrong but simply that I would like to optimize the crossover for my needs at the cost of partially sacrificing the low register, directivity at high frequencies, the filters slopes, ... Obviously even a good amplifier can help a lot. In any case the source, the DAC, the cables and the amp are always the same in all my tests: HiFi DAC Asus Essence STX II 7.1 https://www.asus.com/Sound-Cards/Essence_STX_II_71/ ProAudio Samson Servo300 Class AB 100W/8Ohm http://www.samsontech.com/samson/products/power-amplifiers/servo-series/servo300/ I disconnected the passive crossover to understand how the tweeter and the woofer sound independently with various slope orders changing the frequency and the slope live. The woofer sound great, well in focus and with a fuller body even on its own if you increase the filter frequency (from 1500 to 4500 but with a slope greater than 2!). Keep in mind that moving from the second to the fourth slope order changes the sound image. The sound becomes narrower but not in a negative sense. Passive crossover 2nd-order 1500Hz: 3000 -12db 6000 -24db 12000 -36db ... Digital crossover LR4 4th-order 3000Hz (-6db) 6000 -24db 12000 -48db ... I am using zita-lrx ( https://kokkinizita.linuxaudio.org/linuxaudio/downloads/zita-lrx-0.1.0.tar.bz2 ). zita-lrx is a command line jack application providing 2, 3, or 4-band, 4th order crossover filters. The filter type is continuously variable between Linkwitz-Riley (-6dB at the xover frequency) and Butterworth (-3 dB at the xover frequency). Outputs are exactly phase matched in the crossover regions. The easiest way to do these things is to use the miniDSP products even if there are a lot of DSPs available freely for the linux platform: http://audio.claub.net/LADSPA-plugins.html http://rtaylor.sites.tru.ca/2013/06/25/digital-crossovereq-with-open-source-software-howto/

The RP-160M have a simpler passive crossover than the previous RB-61 MKII ( ). In addition the woofer has a very nice sound in the middle register. I wanted to experiment with a fourth-order digital crossover LR4 (with phase coherence) bringing the crossover frequency to 3000...3300 Hz. Compared to the second-order passive crossover, I can say that the image is much more in focus without making any equalization. In particular the voices are much more alive. Perhaps the RP-150M could have a greater margin to raise the crossover frequency with a smaller cone.

Crossover images for those wishing to complete the circuit documentation.