Jump to content

How to make the RP-160M come alive!


Tweaker256
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 10/11/2017 at 8:53 AM, Rotelpower said:

Hi! 

Any result in the stage 2? :)

I am just on the edge of buying some caps and just wanted to check the thread with regards to what Tweaker256 mounted them on :-) I'm not getting any notifications despite I am following (does the top option, "A notification when new content is posted ", not mean I should get an email?)

 

Anyway Jantzen has a crosscap of 33uF and 10uF so 2 could do - though maybe just the true copper bypass would be better. But Deang says above that the electrolyte is in parallel so it does'nt matter anyway. I am not sure what to do, but it is not the most expensive mod.. 

 

I've measured one speaker with a umik-1, it looks like https://postimg.org/gallery/2wzh69um4/ (in my room of course). There is a bit of a dip 1300-1700HZ which voices etc benefit from bringing up (I do it digitally on an Odroid xu4, a raspberry is also fine for this)

 

 

Edited by hkknudsen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, hkknudsen said:

I am just on the edge of buying some caps and just wanted to check the thread with regards to what Tweaker256 mounted them on :-) I'm not getting any notifications despite I am following (does the top option, "A notification when new content is posted ", not mean I should get an email?)

 

Anyway Jantzen has a crosscap of 33uF and 10uF so 2 could do - though maybe just the true copper bypass would be better. But Deang says above that the electrolyte is in parallel so it does'nt matter anyway. I am not sure what to do, but it is not the most expensive mod.. 

 

I've measured one speaker with a umik-1, it looks like https://postimg.org/gallery/2wzh69um4/ (in my room of course). There is a bit of a dip 1300-1700HZ which voices etc benefit from bringing up (I do it digitally on an Odroid xu4, a raspberry is also fine for this)

 

 

You did not overlook then the mention of poplar board OP mentioned earlier?

IAC, have fun and post results:emotion-21: if want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017. 11. 12. at 8:46 PM, hkknudsen said:

I am just on the edge of buying some caps and just wanted to check the thread with regards to what Tweaker256 mounted them on :-) I'm not getting any notifications despite I am following (does the top option, "A notification when new content is posted ", not mean I should get an email?)

 

Anyway Jantzen has a crosscap of 33uF and 10uF so 2 could do - though maybe just the true copper bypass would be better. But Deang says above that the electrolyte is in parallel so it does'nt matter anyway. I am not sure what to do, but it is not the most expensive mod.. 

 

I've measured one speaker with a umik-1, it looks like https://postimg.org/gallery/2wzh69um4/ (in my room of course). There is a bit of a dip 1300-1700HZ which voices etc benefit from bringing up (I do it digitally on an Odroid xu4, a raspberry is also fine for this)

 

 

I've already ordered Jantzen Crosscap capacitators and Jantzen resistors for the tweeter circuit, I'm very curious what will change. Unfortunately the superior Z to expensive. Change the electrolyit which is in parallel does not take too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/04/2018 at 4:25 PM, cauldron said:


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.
 

Thats very interesting. Have you found downsides to raising the freq? Which crossovers are you using? I agree voices and mids are not their strongest points pre eq, they are rather V-shaped.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2018 at 10:58 AM, hkknudsen said:

Thats very interesting. Have you found downsides to raising the freq? Which crossovers are you using? I agree voices and mids are not their strongest points pre eq, they are rather V-shaped.. 

That's odd.  Measurements on line show a slightly tilted up upper high frequency with a bump between 800-2K.  Sound and Vision states for the RP15M +2.85/-0.85db 200hz to 10k.  They do tilt up though as I have experience with the RP-160M

Seems quite reasonable for a speaker of that caliber and don't think it is V-shaped.  Typically speakers in the same family exhibit the same traits.

I have the RP160Ms and don't think they are lacking a lot in the midrange though the tilted up highs can make you think so.  That's the part that that I notice can impart that thin, screechy sound to the vocals.  Use a very high quality amp and front end, not AVR (unfortunately most folks buying in this category will use) and the picture changes significantly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

 

Edited by cauldron
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, cauldron said:

 

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/

 

I hadn't gone and looked for the software DSPs, particularly on Linux.  Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

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

rp-160m_default.png

 

 

KLIPSCH RP-160M: DSP LR4 3kHz CROSSOVER (-6db, zita-lrx). LF, HF, FULL

rp-160m_dsp-lr4-3k.png

 

 

KLIPSCH RP-160M: CROSSOVER COMPARISON

rp-160m-cmp.png

 

 

KLIPSCH RP-160M: 

WOOFER (GREEN), TWEETER (VIOLET) ON OPEN BOX (NO REAR LOCKS)

PASSIVE CROSSOVER (YELLOW) ON DEFAULT SEALED BOX

rp-160m-dats.png

Edited by cauldron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cauldron said:

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...

rp-160m_default.png

rp-160m_dsp-lr4-3k.png

 

 

So what are the two different configurations you are showing here?

What are the crossover values and what are the settings for the filters to reference each chart?  Labels help clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2018 at 2:25 AM, pzannucci said:

Thank you VERY MUCH for the clarification.  That really helps and is very interesting.

 

 

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)

rp-160m_SPL_tweeter-woofer.png.65f6e81508d646738c480e86cd20cefb.png

 

 

KLIPSCH RP-160M:

DEFAULT PASSIVE CROSSOVER, BIAMP PHASE CROSSOVER CHECK

NORMAL PHASE (RED), REVERSE PHASE (LIGHT BLUE)

1663846133_rp-160mpassive-crossover-reverse-phase.png.114d1d8b3d58af5f854e0884e75b292f.png

 

 

KLIPSCH RP-160M:

DSP 3kHz LR4 (-6db, zita-lrx) CROSSOVER, BIAMP PHASE CROSSOVER CHECK

NORMAL PHASE (GREEN), REVERSE PHASE (VIOLET)

rp-160m_dsp_3k_lr4-reverse-phase.png.0ba203dcf7b65d2d9e09437bc87c324b.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Hi Caldron,

I have modified the Crossover of the RP-160M by ear so I am not sure how it measures.  The tweeter crossover is simplified. It consists of 10 ohm resistor(10x 100 ohm metalfilms in parallel) to a 4.7uf film. The woofer is a 1.35 mh inductor to 1.5 ohm wire wound resistor connected to woofer hot. You are welcome to try it.   Have you messed around with the RB-61 crossover?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all - Not the exact same speaker, but I have gone ahead and done this on the newer/smaller model RP-500M.  Replaced yellow Klipsch tweeter cap with Jantzen Standard Z 3.9uf in attached pics. Also put a Jantzen Crosscap 0.10uf as a bypass across the electrolytic for the woofer. Definitely experiencing just a bit more clarity and seperation between instruments. May go for adding a Audyn True Copper bypass to the tweeters next. 

06CFAD96-9016-4F12-9341-49B4010E2E92.jpeg

B2C1407E-ED1F-47F7-9C7B-A818D1AAD8A0.jpeg

Edited by Bkid23
Typo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
5 hours ago, hello said:

That is the same crossover schematic that is used in the RP-160m with presumably different values.  IMO the thing that hurts the sound of these speakers is that massive cap across the woofer.  It hurts midrange quality.  

 

Hi hello, can you take a picture of your upgraded crossover? I'm newbie to this.

 

What kinds of sound improvements do your mod have on the over sound quality? I would love to see  more warmth or body to the tone and clarity on the mid and maybe -2 dB on the treble area.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...