Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community

Rudy81

Regulars
  • Content Count

    3509
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Rudy81 last won the day on January 21

Rudy81 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

465 Excellent

1 Follower

About Rudy81

  • Rank
    Forum Ultra Veteran

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    North Texas

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Stay strong during such difficult times. You and your wife will be in my prayers. Rely on the Lord to get you through this.
  2. I feel exactly the same way. I tweaked the system for the last two days and have done as much as I know how to do in my limited knowledge base. Sounds awesome to me right now. I'm always willing to try and improve things, but I have reached my limit for now. Going active most certainly gives one a thousand ways to improve and modify one's system. One thing I have learned over the years is that every time I feel I've reached great sound, I later find something just a little bit better. For example, the case of going from six years with my Oris horns....until I found out and tried the Heil AMT!
  3. Unless I have this wrong. After you take your REW sweep. Click on the 'Controls' wheel. Click on 'Estimate IR delay', click 'shift IR' in the dialog that opens. Then, click 'generate minimum phase', and then 'unwrap phase'. You should then be able to look at the phase and GD plots for what we are looking for. The Spectrogram defaults need to be modified to give you the screen I posted earlier. In one of @Chris A posts, there are explanations on doing this. Hopefully, I have given you the correct info.
  4. Not to point out the obvious, but have you unwrapped the phase plot?
  5. I have now spent the better part of a day working strictly on optimizing the crossover region without using 'named' xovers, while monitoring effects on phase and GD. So far, I cannot detect much (if any) of a difference in using just PEQ vs. using a single PEQ and a shelf. In my trials I find that using the shelf and a single PEQ makes setting the xover region much easier. For the time being, I will leave it as is. I could not better the spectrogram or reduce phase growth using just the PEQ technique. I did manage to optimize the overall EQ settings to get the entire SPL within +/- 2 db, which in a room is pretty good IMHO. Hopefully I am not missing some major point that would vastly improve performance. I will note that when working with my system, an AMT stack and dual 18" woofers, mic placement takes a lot of trial and error. A couple of inches movement up or down at 3 feet can cause all sorts of anomalies in the GD plot. I am guessing there is some comb type filtering going on near the stack, causing the plot anomalies.
  6. Unless I am doing something incorrectly, I don't see much in the way of phase changes. This plot is the original setup with a shelf and single EQ, vs. various timing changes....all with the two PEQ method and NO shelf. I don't see much in the way of phase change.
  7. @Chris A, so far, all my testing shows virtually no difference in GD, spectrogram and SPL between using two PEQ points and using a shelf and one PEQ. I expected to see some big change in the phase profile, but not so. The phase continues to look as it does in the plots I posted above. Seems to me that using the shelf has little or no effect on the overall speaker response. Timing differences, on the other hand, make a HUGE difference in the GD if you go too far away from ideal.
  8. Here are the REW results for my current setup. I have a 1ms delay on the AMT stack. Some EQ on the open baffle H frames. I am ignoring the HF rolloff above 10kHz since that is due to mic placement. I can get relatively flat response in the HF, but the mic then is set very high off the floor relative to the bass OB. The important thing to note relative to the current discussion is the 'crossover' region. I created that region using a combination low shelf and PEQ for the HF and a high shelf and PEQ for the LF. Overall, the results sound excellent, but I want to get closer to @Chris A and his technique of avoiding the use of the shelf and go with just PEQ.
  9. @Chris A, thank you. Starting to make sense now. It just takes time to understand new information that seems to contradict everything you thought you understood to be correct. I will play around with the settings this afternoon.
  10. @Chris A, thank you for the continuing explanations. In your other thread on the subject, you gave us this method of setting the PEQs. "So all you have to do is put the HF and LF drivers together without phase shifts: Don't use the "crossover filters" that come with DSP crossovers--clear any crossover filters if they're set. Set the HF or LF channel delay to get perfect impulse response in the time domain--as seen in the spectrogram view. Flatten each driver's SPL response within their pass bands. Match the channel gains between flattened phase drivers. Use output channel PEQs to trim off response on each end of the bass and high frequency drivers until you've got overall flat SPL across the crossover interference band and smooth handover of SPL vs. frequency. The drivers themselves will tell you where that transition/crossover should occur. [If you're using MEHs, you'll have to use multiple PEQs to attenuate the bass bin peaks in response above the first notch frequency.] Use the input channel PEQs to further flatten the overall response within the interference band to correct any dips or peaks in response within that band. Voila! Flat phase. It's really that easy." It seems simple enough for the smart guys. In my case, my question concerns how many PEQ filters to use and what attenuation is appropriate. Looking at the settings on @Thaddeus Smith post, the attenuation seems rather modest for the Heils. -6dB @ 640hz. My question is, what does the Heil diaphragm see when it gets say a 50hz signal? I guess that's the part I'm having difficulty understanding. I always understood that part of the function of a xover was to protect those drivers that could not handle certain frequency ranges....such as a tweeter getting an LF signal. Sorry to be so dense guys.
  11. @Thaddeus Smith, you were correct on this whole crossover thing....and I was wrong! Apologies. Thank you for bringing up the issue so I can get my act together. My Goldwood H frames have response up to 3kHz....so, do I simply use a series of PEQ filters to attenuate response?
  12. I don't know enough about the Danley theory to trust a full range signal going to the tweeters. Makes one wonder why various named crossovers were developed to begin with.
  13. Several times I read MJ King's papers on his Goldwood H frame design. I copied his frame dimensions and just added a second driver. So far, it seems to work exceedingly well. I'm amazed at how little the cones move when playing LF. More than enough bass for sure.
  14. Very good. I guess I am implementing the concept correctly. I got confused when @Thaddeus Smith talked about sending a full signal to all drivers.
×
×
  • Create New...