dragonfyr Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Is there any chance that Klipsch might be able to provide the time delay/offsets as they do for many of the pro/commercial variations of their products where bi/triamping is more common? It might be worth checking with Klipsch, as I am sure they are available somewhere! (But there will be an additional offset due to the zone section processing as well...... therefore, you might simply try dialing it in by using a VERY short duration impulse bursts of full spectrum noise (a click track) and adjust the time offset by listening to the reproduced burst - adjusting for maximum coincidence...) If you have one, a metronome and a mic can provide this stimulus in a pinch... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 The acoustic center of a driver changes with frequency. I think the Behringer EQ is a good product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 ---------------- On 4/25/2005 6:45:38 AM DeanG wrote: The acoustic center of a driver changes with frequency. ---------------- Some do. Some don't. And they also range in degree. Some almost non existent to the point of saying It doesn't and some changing dramatically. Measurements have shown that I would be hesitant to make any hard rules about various transducers except to say that using the voice coil/diaphragm as the point of acoustic origination is probably incorrect '=). And CD horns have an even more interesting characteristic whereby the acoustic center is 'in front' of the throat, although it must be measured to ascertain its location. And some transducers display a non-symetrical displacement whereby the entire speaker's mechanical center of displacement moves forward or back as well. Nevertheless a useful dertermination can be derived. And for the frequency range in question their median acoustical centers can be determined and the various transducers put into a minimum phase relationship (to the greatest degree possible). And the benefits exist, especially when dealing with elements such as multiple heritage series speakers that have a rather significant transducer offset. And I am not so much interested in this for the relative phase wrap of the speaker (although group delay is a much more significant aspect)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbley Posted May 12, 2005 Author Share Posted May 12, 2005 Looking at the Blauert and Laws report on audible group delay, it would seem that the RF-7 really shouldn't need any delay correction. The report says that at 8kHz, delay becomes barely audible at about 2msec. That's equivalent to about 2 feet. At 2kHz it's about 1 foot, which appears to be the worst case. Even with the horn's driver set back, I don't see how it's acoustic center could be more than 5 or 6 inches behind the upper woofer. I wouldn't want the two woofers operating with differing delay because they're in the same box together and would be out of synch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee_vr6 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 I'm using the 2496 in my 2-channel system and have my Chorus II's +/- 2 db from 31.5hz to 18000hz at the listening seat. I'm not going to delve into a technogeek battle about the "sound" of DACs or what not. All I can say is that by using the RTA I cannot listen to my system unEQ'd now. It's horribly bright and edgy, and there is no pitch definition in the bass. I turned my Choruses into fast, detailed monitors that can still kick your *** silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 i have been wanting to try a digital EQ ... Griffiator, tho, knows the score here ...Behringer is the cheapest Crap made i have been saving for a Rane, or Yamaha .... You guy's ...Talk me into the Behringer ...( not likely ) or ... Griff .. talk me into something elce .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/D2040/ Get the original, the best. The Behringer is simply a cheap Chinese imitation. Yamaha's DAC's are world-renowned, as is their DSP. You want to improve your system with a digital crossover, do it with a piece of equipment that won't negate most of your gains with inferior circuitry. For all of you who are lauding Behringer gear, let me ask you a question... What would you do if a noob who had some experience in a related field (say, FM radio broadcasting) came in here and started trumpeting about how great the reverb DSP on the Sony surround receiver he just bought made his Klipschorns (handed down from his dad) sound? Now you understand where I'm coming from... It's not so much that there's no benefit to the cheap junker, it's just knowing that there's far, far better equipment out there that does the same job, only, well, far, far better... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnysal Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 yamaha no longer makes the d2040 though it is still available in a few stores. you might consider a DBX driverack PA. regards, tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbley Posted May 12, 2005 Author Share Posted May 12, 2005 If I were going to spend the big bucks, I head straight for the DEQX. www.deqx.com It looks like the DEQX is the best of breed for home DSP right now. Either that, or perhaps TACT. DEQX looks more interesting, although I don't like the fact that I'd have to run a Windows PC to interface with it, or run Virtual PC on my Mac. It's a pain, and makes it that much more expensive. The DEQX was what I originally lusted after. But I'm smug with this cheap Behringer crap. If it doesn't fizzle out on me, I'll be using it for a long while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnysal Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 yup DEQX is the one to get, but at $3,500 I will have to think long and hard before taking the jump...regards, tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Sal .. i heard the Driverack sux in a big way ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 ---------------- On 5/12/2005 9:37:43 AM timbley wrote: If I were going to spend the big bucks, I head straight for the DEQX. www.deqx.com It looks like the DEQX is the best of breed for home DSP right now. Either that, or perhaps TACT. DEQX looks more interesting, although I don't like the fact that I'd have to run a Windows PC to interface with it, or run Virtual PC on my Mac. It's a pain, and makes it that much more expensive. The DEQX was what I originally lusted after. But I'm smug with this cheap Behringer crap. If it doesn't fizzle out on me, I'll be using it for a long while. ---------------- That's the whole operative - it's the best of breed for home DSP. It's also one of the only digital crossovers designed for home use. I'm talking about professional equipment, not home gear - and yeah, the Windows interface would absolutely kill the deal for me even if I were considering one. The reason, BTW, that the D2040 is being phased out is because Yamaha is rolling out a new line of full-feature rack digital mixing stations that basically render it, for the application, pointless. It's still a piece I'd seek out over that Behringer number. Be smug, by all means. I wish you well with it. One of these days I'll bring over some heavy duty gear and show you what you're missing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 BTW - I misspoke myself on what Behringer ripped off when they built the Ultra Pro. Here's the original - by a very reputable brand. http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/XO24/ $500 extra to have much higher class AD and DA and overall better built circuitry? Sure, I'll spring that. How about you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbley Posted May 12, 2005 Author Share Posted May 12, 2005 ---------------- On 5/12/2005 6:32:45 PM Griffinator wrote: ---------------- One of these days I'll bring over some heavy duty gear and show you what you're missing... ---------------- Don't do that! You'll ruin everything. No, really I'd love to hear some other equipment, and will certainly take you up on that offer. I'm always game to listen to new gear, regardless of the risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrt Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 I bought one about a month back because they are cheap and I wanted to biamp my Khorns. It's a lot better sounding now with biamping. Before, I had a set of 300B SET tube amps running the Khorns. Now I have the 300B's running the tweeter/squawker and a solid state powering the bass (the dynaclone is still being soldered together). A 30 watt SS amp on the bass REALLY puts some meat into it. So far, I've been very happy with the addition of this crossover- even if it is 'junk'. I'm sure Griffinator has quite a bit more experience than I and he brings up some interesting points. But so far I don't use it in a 'pro' environment, so I don't care if the knobs are plastic. I can't compare it to any other crossover except a friend of mine's weird homebuilt thing (that's really, really good). Perhaps one of these days I'll get a more expensive crossover, but I'll have to audition it first. I really would like to listen to others. Importantly, one consideration about adding a crossover is the learning experience. It's fun to learn about new wiring (biamping, balanced outputs). It's fun to play with all the equalization curves and delays and whatnot- just to see how it sounds when you get something very right or very wrong. That's one reason I play with audio gear- it's fun. No need to take myself too seriously :^) Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.