Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Over the last few weeks I've kinda got a speaker bug as I've been thinking
about 5.1 systems.
I came across a few sites regarding improvements to SBL/SL2/DBL/IBL range of
crossovers as they are all more or less identical.

As it now looks that I may be using my SBL's to part accomadate home theatre
along with my standard Hi-Fi, I've been chewing on the claims made of
improved sound performance through substituting better components within the
crossover.

I'd like to know on a cost basis if this really is a useful step upwards for
the speakers (rather than spending money elsewhere) & pick peoples brains of
useful tips on the subject.
If anyone has had direct experience to I'm all ears :)

Steve

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Stevie Boy wrote:

Over the last few weeks I've kinda got a speaker bug as I've been thinking
about 5.1 systems.
I came across a few sites regarding improvements to SBL/SL2/DBL/IBL range of
crossovers as they are all more or less identical.

As it now looks that I may be using my SBL's to part accomadate home theatre
along with my standard Hi-Fi, I've been chewing on the claims made of
improved sound performance through substituting better components within the
crossover.

I'd like to know on a cost basis if this really is a useful step upwards for
the speakers (rather than spending money elsewhere) & pick peoples brains of
useful tips on the subject.
If anyone has had direct experience to I'm all ears :)

The components in any decent crossover are probably perfectly up to the
requirements for the job. What kind of substitution did you have in mind and
what improvements were you anticipating ?

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...
Over the last few weeks I've kinda got a speaker bug as I've been thinking
about 5.1 systems.
I came across a few sites regarding improvements to SBL/SL2/DBL/IBL range
of crossovers as they are all more or less identical.

As it now looks that I may be using my SBL's to part accomadate home
theatre along with my standard Hi-Fi, I've been chewing on the claims made
of improved sound performance through substituting better components
within the crossover.

I'd like to know on a cost basis if this really is a useful step upwards
for the speakers (rather than spending money elsewhere) & pick peoples
brains of useful tips on the subject.
If anyone has had direct experience to I'm all ears :)



**I am unfamiliar with the speakers you mention. However, my experience with
various types of speakers tells me this:

* Electrolytic caps should be replaced. Bipolar electros have a relatively
short life and rather poor characteristics. A caveat, however: Some
manufacturers take the flaws of electros into account and design their
speakers accordingly. Simply replacing electros with film type caps may lead
to other problems.
* Ferrite core inductors are (generally) to be avoided. A suitable air core
inductor will almost always lead to improvements. A further caveat: Ferrite
core inductors can be made small and with low resistance at low cost.
Additionally, leakage flux is less of an issue. If replacing a ferrite
inductor with an air core type, ensure the resistance is the same as the
ferrite one and that it is suitably oriented such that leakage flux does not
interfere with other inductors.
[Anecdote]: A client sent me a sample speaker he was importing from the US
(major, high quality manufacturer), complaining that it didn't sound as good
as expected. After running tests, I noted that the ferrite core inductor was
saturating at a level of 10 Volts RMS @ 50Hz. Replacing the ferrite
inductors with air core types solved the problem. This was, admittedly, a
rare fault, but indicative of what can occur.
* Laminated iron core inductors are much better than ferrite core inductors.
They do not have a 'square law' hysteresis curve and thus do not saturate
nastily. Personally, I would probably not bother replacing laminated iron
core inductors with air core types.
* Solder all connections.
* Cover all internal surfaces with a suitable damping material. I rather
like Bostik Sound Deadening panels. These are used in automotive
applications and are quite reasonably priced.

Trevor Wilson

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

The components in any decent crossover are probably perfectly up to the
requirements for the job. What kind of substitution did you have in mind
and
what improvements were you anticipating ?

Graham

-----------

I had nothing in mind but I've heard people replacing the electrolytic
alcaps & iron core inductors for the likes of Wilmslow audio super caps or
mundorf silver/oil caps & air core inductors from the likes of Jenson for
example. I don't know what to expect improvement wise as I've not
experienced how these components differ in sound & electrical
characteristics from the stock crossover items used. Claims are made for
better soundstaging, imaging, depth, neutrality, greater bass weight,
dynamics & so on. Basically quite a lot!

I would not say I am unhappy with my SBL's as they are but if I can get more
out of them for a nominal cost in comparison to thier price or using an
active set-up I would be more than willing to give it a try. After all no
loudspeaker comes near to perfection.

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Stevie Boy wrote:

The components in any decent crossover are probably perfectly up to the
requirements for the job. What kind of substitution did you have in mind
and what improvements were you anticipating ?


-----------

I had nothing in mind but I've heard people replacing the electrolytic
alcaps & iron core inductors for the likes of Wilmslow audio super caps or
mundorf silver/oil caps & air core inductors from the likes of Jenson for
example.

Firstly, the alleged defects of electrolytic caps are overstated. However they
do inherently tend to have a very broad tolerance which will mean that one
crossover will not match the next very accurately and so on. That alone might be
a good reason to replace them with 5% tolerance plastic film caps.

As for Mundorf and the like, these are no better than a snake-oil 'Monster'
version of 'ordinary' caps. There is no measurable difference between them and
any other competently manufactured cap using the same dielectric. And no,
esoteric dielectrics don't sound any better either. All of this stuff is
superficial snake oil. Any polyester film cap will be just fine but do get the
5% tolerance type, not 10% or 20%.

It is true that ferrite and iron cored inductors will cause some small
distortion at higher power levels but replacing them with air-cored types (which
are free of this effect) is very likely to increase the DC resistance of the
coil and this will potentially have an adverse effect on the crossover
oepration.


I don't know what to expect improvement wise as I've not
experienced how these components differ in sound & electrical
characteristics from the stock crossover items used. Claims are made for
better soundstaging, imaging, depth, neutrality, greater bass weight,
dynamics & so on. Basically quite a lot!

Please define the actual meaning of the words "soundstaging, imaging, depth,
neutrality, greater bass weight, dynamics & so on ". These are all made up
nonsense concepts invented by reviewers who would be out of a job if they had to
be honest. You could do worse than read my post in the thread "What a sad excuse
for a group this is..." about this matter along with the replies. I can assure
you that a change in component is not going to suddenly made the stereo image
suddenly leap out at you.


I would not say I am unhappy with my SBL's as they are but if I can get more
out of them for a nominal cost in comparison to thier price or using an
active set-up I would be more than willing to give it a try. After all no
loudspeaker comes near to perfection.

Bear in mind that component substitution in a filter network is likely to cause
at least some subtle change in frequency response because of tolerance issues
with the components unless you measure the original part and fit *exacrtly* the
same value. This subtle difference is typically erroneously interpreted as
'better' by the audiophool who has no understanding of the underlying science.
Simply a change in the sound will convince him he did the right thing. Any
change in the sound will assure him of that.

If you really want to listen to good speakers, you should be considering
bi-amplification with accurate electronic filters. This is the ONLY way to deal
intelligently with 'crossover issue' imperfections..

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Firstly, the alleged defects of electrolytic caps are overstated. However
they
do inherently tend to have a very broad tolerance which will mean that one
crossover will not match the next very accurately and so on. That alone
might be
a good reason to replace them with 5% tolerance plastic film caps.

I can see your argument here & therefore I should theoretically hear a
difference if I swapped the crossovers over & just listened to 1 SBL.

As for Mundorf and the like, these are no better than a snake-oil
'Monster'
version of 'ordinary' caps. There is no measurable difference between them
and
any other competently manufactured cap using the same dielectric. And no,
esoteric dielectrics don't sound any better either.

Therefore by your consensus different dielectrics do sound different because
they measure differently.

All of this stuff is
superficial snake oil. Any polyester film cap will be just fine but do get
the
5% tolerance type, not 10% or 20%.

The tighter tolerance the better. Is it worth going even tighter if that is
possible?
Also I've seen some designs to use brass cores over the capacitors to lower
the Q is this useful?

It is true that ferrite and iron cored inductors will cause some small
distortion at higher power levels but replacing them with air-cored types
(which
are free of this effect) is very likely to increase the DC resistance of
the
coil and this will potentially have an adverse effect on the crossover
oepration.


Yes I'm aware but say 1.5mm cross section of copper wire of well lets say a
few extra feet is not gonna measure a huge amount of resistance I would of
thought, less than 0.5 ohm?

Please define the actual meaning of the words "soundstaging, imaging,
depth,
neutrality, greater bass weight, dynamics & so on ".

I surely do not need to explain such words as dynamic range or depth.

Neutrality: Where a sound is reproduced as accurately as possible without
emphasis of any frequency.
In other words as life like as possible.

Bass weight: A stronger representation of the lows as if it were a larger
speaker.

Imaging: placing voices & instruments at a point in space.

Soundstaging: How a performance fills the room, does the sound feel it is in
the room (if so does it fill the whole room or sound as if it is confined to
within the speaker listening positions), confined towards the speakers or
eminating from the speakers!


You could do worse than read my post in the thread "What a sad excuse
for a group this is..." about this matter along with the replies. I can
assure
you that a change in component is not going to suddenly made the stereo
image
suddenly leap out at you.

I shall read....

Bear in mind that component substitution in a filter network is likely to
cause
at least some subtle change in frequency response because of tolerance
issues
with the components unless you measure the original part and fit
*exacrtly* the
same value. This subtle difference is typically erroneously interpreted as
'better' by the audiophool who has no understanding of the underlying
science.
Simply a change in the sound will convince him he did the right thing. Any
change in the sound will assure him of that.

This I understand, speakers can sound radically different if fed the wrong
frequency range, from awful to really good.... I've experienced this. A
change in sound does not by any means mean better. Unless your speakers are
revealing more of the source then change is not better.

If you really want to listen to good speakers, you should be considering
bi-amplification with accurate electronic filters. This is the ONLY way to
deal
intelligently with 'crossover issue' imperfections..


I would of thought so as any passive component put in an amplifiers way to
control a speaker can only reduce it's success to control it. However I
already think my speakers are good! I don't want to spend shed loads on
active crossovers I just wanted to improve them if I could at a minimal
cost. If this could bring me closer to active crossover heaven then great!

Finally, when these crossovers were designed they did not have the benefit
of todays computer modelling software, would a more accurate design benefit
them in a large way?

Steve

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...

Firstly, the alleged defects of electrolytic caps are overstated. However
they
do inherently tend to have a very broad tolerance which will mean that
one
crossover will not match the next very accurately and so on. That alone
might be
a good reason to replace them with 5% tolerance plastic film caps.

I can see your argument here & therefore I should theoretically hear a
difference if I swapped the crossovers over & just listened to 1 SBL.

As for Mundorf and the like, these are no better than a snake-oil
'Monster'
version of 'ordinary' caps. There is no measurable difference between
them and
any other competently manufactured cap using the same dielectric. And no,
esoteric dielectrics don't sound any better either.

Therefore by your consensus different dielectrics do sound different
because they measure differently.

All of this stuff is
superficial snake oil. Any polyester film cap will be just fine but do
get the
5% tolerance type, not 10% or 20%.

The tighter tolerance the better. Is it worth going even tighter if that
is possible?
Also I've seen some designs to use brass cores over the capacitors to
lower the Q is this useful?

It is true that ferrite and iron cored inductors will cause some small
distortion at higher power levels but replacing them with air-cored types
(which
are free of this effect) is very likely to increase the DC resistance of
the
coil and this will potentially have an adverse effect on the crossover
oepration.


Yes I'm aware but say 1.5mm cross section of copper wire of well lets say
a few extra feet is not gonna measure a huge amount of resistance I would
of thought, less than 0.5 ohm?

Please define the actual meaning of the words "soundstaging, imaging,
depth,
neutrality, greater bass weight, dynamics & so on ".

I surely do not need to explain such words as dynamic range or depth.

Maybe not dynamic range, but what is "depth" in the context of audio?


Neutrality: Where a sound is reproduced as accurately as possible without
emphasis of any frequency.
In other words as life like as possible.

The two statements are not synonymous. Lack of emphasis of any frequency
means a flat frequency response, with no sharp peaks or troughs, especially
peaks. "As life like as possible" implies not only a flat response, but also
low distortion and accurate dispersion characteristics which, when the room
acoustics are included, result in an accurate representation of the recorded
event. The closest approach to the original sound anyone?


Bass weight: A stronger representation of the lows as if it were a larger
speaker.

How does this differ from extention?


Imaging: placing voices & instruments at a point in space.

Soundstaging: How a performance fills the room, does the sound feel it is
in the room (if so does it fill the whole room or sound as if it is
confined to within the speaker listening positions), confined towards the
speakers or eminating from the speakers!

This is primarily a function of the room, together with the dispersion
characteristics of the loudspeakers.



You could do worse than read my post in the thread "What a sad excuse
for a group this is..." about this matter along with the replies. I can
assure
you that a change in component is not going to suddenly made the stereo
image
suddenly leap out at you.

I shall read....

Well worth it.


Bear in mind that component substitution in a filter network is likely to
cause
at least some subtle change in frequency response because of tolerance
issues
with the components unless you measure the original part and fit
*exacrtly* the
same value. This subtle difference is typically erroneously interpreted
as
'better' by the audiophool who has no understanding of the underlying
science.
Simply a change in the sound will convince him he did the right thing.
Any
change in the sound will assure him of that.

I would add that passive loudspeaker crossovers are only as good as the
tolerance of the crossover components and the tolerance of the drive units
used. Some manufacturers will grade their drive units and crossovers and
match them such that the results are uniform across production. Some
manufacturers may tolerance their components tightly such that any
combination can be used succesfully. I don't know which NAIM would have used
in the SBL, or indeed whether they just relied on normal commercial
tolerances.

This I understand, speakers can sound radically different if fed the wrong
frequency range, from awful to really good.... I've experienced this. A
change in sound does not by any means mean better. Unless your speakers
are revealing more of the source then change is not better.

If you really want to listen to good speakers, you should be considering
bi-amplification with accurate electronic filters. This is the ONLY way
to deal
intelligently with 'crossover issue' imperfections..


I would of thought so as any passive component put in an amplifiers way to
control a speaker can only reduce it's success to control it. However I
already think my speakers are good! I don't want to spend shed loads on
active crossovers I just wanted to improve them if I could at a minimal
cost. If this could bring me closer to active crossover heaven then great!

I doubt it. Active crossovers, especially DSP derived, are the best way of
achieving accurate results. (or screwing things up royally!)


Finally, when these crossovers were designed they did not have the benefit
of todays computer modelling software, would a more accurate design
benefit them in a large way?

Steve

No, I don't think so unless you can measure the actual performance of each
drive unit individually, then design the crossover accordingly. If you're
going to that sort of effort, an active crossover would be a lot less
trouble.

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

* Laminated iron core inductors are much better than ferrite core
inductors.

Actually it turns out they are ferrite cores.

* Solder all connections.

It's built on a copper track PCB.

* Cover all internal surfaces with a suitable damping material. I rather
like Bostik Sound Deadening panels.

Are you talking about the cabinets themselves? The crossovers are externally
mounted.

Steve

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Maybe not dynamic range, but what is "depth" in the context of audio?

Depth: The amount the sound seems to eminate from behind the speakers
therefore giving a much more space perspective sound which gives a good
feeling of distance & out of the box experience.
This is not to say that anything that should have a specific point in place
is destroyed by depth.
Any sound that breaks away from appearing from a speaker sounds more
enjoyable to me.


Neutrality: Where a sound is reproduced as accurately as possible without
emphasis of any frequency.
In other words as life like as possible.

The two statements are not synonymous. Lack of emphasis of any frequency
means a flat frequency response, with no sharp peaks or troughs,
especially peaks. "As life like as possible" implies not only a flat
response, but also low distortion and accurate dispersion characteristics
which, when the room acoustics are included, result in an accurate
representation of the recorded event. The closest approach to the original
sound anyone?

That's why it's life like as POSSIBLE. Cheaper gear cannot benefit from all
good measurements but can stab at mimmicking them.
The closest approach to the original sound is much more dependant on source
quality + recordings therefore is not quite the same.

Bass weight: A stronger representation of the lows as if it were a larger
speaker.

How does this differ from extention?


Extention implies that a frequency goes lower but clearly unless the
crossover is designed to allow this it does not.

This is primarily a function of the room, together with the dispersion
characteristics of the loudspeakers.

Crumbs I agree :-)

I doubt it. Active crossovers, especially DSP derived, are the best way of
achieving accurate results. (or screwing things up royally!)

Going active is more of a dream & has been for many a year, it's a expensive
route to take & requires lots of shelf space. This was not my intention at
all. If it proves a pointless exercise in rebuilding the crossovers then I
probably won't do anything at all, apart from putting a improved tweeter in
& amending the crossover circutry to complent (not my designing mind you!).


No, I don't think so unless you can measure the actual performance of each
drive unit individually, then design the crossover accordingly. If you're
going to that sort of effort, an active crossover would be a lot less
trouble.


People have done this whom in the know so it would be just a case of buying
& fitting although not with my actual speakers!

Steve

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Serge Auckland wrote:
"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...

snip leaving rigid definition part


Neutrality: Where a sound is reproduced as accurately as possible without
emphasis of any frequency.
In other words as life like as possible.

The two statements are not synonymous. Lack of emphasis of any frequency
means a flat frequency response, with no sharp peaks or troughs, especially
peaks. "As life like as possible" implies not only a flat response, but also
low distortion and accurate dispersion characteristics which, when the room
acoustics are included, result in an accurate representation of the recorded
event. The closest approach to the original sound anyone?


If the OP had added that accurate meant 'original', and that emphasis
meant change, would that have cheered you up?

And 'an accurate rendition' of an 'original' need not represent
'lifelike'. If someone thinks an oboe sounds more like an oboe with
certain things added or taken away from the original recorded sound (as
opposed to the performance), is that not more lifelike, and hence neutral?


Bass weight: A stronger representation of the lows as if it were a larger
speaker.

How does this differ from extention?


Perhaps it does mean extension, although not necessarily linearly.

Imaging: placing voices & instruments at a point in space.

Soundstaging: How a performance fills the room, does the sound feel it is
in the room (if so does it fill the whole room or sound as if it is
confined to within the speaker listening positions), confined towards the
speakers or eminating from the speakers!

This is primarily a function of the room, together with the dispersion
characteristics of the loudspeakers.


Room a big factor no doubt, but often not practical to remedy. I do find
that valve amplification and a vinyl source create (recreate?!) a sense
of space, making sound more like music. Just thought I'd mention it ;-)

Rob

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...


Maybe not dynamic range, but what is "depth" in the context of audio?

Depth: The amount the sound seems to eminate from behind the speakers
therefore giving a much more space perspective sound which gives a good
feeling of distance & out of the box experience.
This is not to say that anything that should have a specific point in
place is destroyed by depth.
Any sound that breaks away from appearing from a speaker sounds more
enjoyable to me.

Surely this is a function of the recording? A simply-miked recording played
back *at the right volume level* can portray depth, but a close-miked
pan-potted recording just won't.



Neutrality: Where a sound is reproduced as accurately as possible
without emphasis of any frequency.
In other words as life like as possible.

The two statements are not synonymous. Lack of emphasis of any frequency
means a flat frequency response, with no sharp peaks or troughs,
especially peaks. "As life like as possible" implies not only a flat
response, but also low distortion and accurate dispersion characteristics
which, when the room acoustics are included, result in an accurate
representation of the recorded event. The closest approach to the
original sound anyone?

That's why it's life like as POSSIBLE. Cheaper gear cannot benefit from
all good measurements but can stab at mimmicking them.
The closest approach to the original sound is much more dependant on
source quality + recordings therefore is not quite the same.

Bass weight: A stronger representation of the lows as if it were a
larger speaker.

How does this differ from extention?


Extention implies that a frequency goes lower but clearly unless the
crossover is designed to allow this it does not.

Crossover design has normally nothing to do with bass extension. The bottom
end of a passive loudspeaker's response is left to roll off naturally, the
frequency at which it does so is a function of driver and cabinet. The
passive crossover will act at the upper end of the woofer's response range,
rolling it off and rolling in the mid-range or tweeter depending on design.
Active crossovers, on the other hand, can provide a degree of equalisation
of the bottom end, achieving a response equivalent to a much larger
enclosure, albeit at the expense of power handling. In other words, all
things being equal, you can go deep or you can go loud, you can't do both.
Successful active designs, like Meridian's, balance these two carefully and
manage to go satisfyingly loud *and* deep by good engineering.


This is primarily a function of the room, together with the dispersion
characteristics of the loudspeakers.

Crumbs I agree :-)

I doubt it. Active crossovers, especially DSP derived, are the best way
of achieving accurate results. (or screwing things up royally!)

Going active is more of a dream & has been for many a year, it's a
expensive route to take & requires lots of shelf space. This was not my
intention at all. If it proves a pointless exercise in rebuilding the
crossovers then I probably won't do anything at all, apart from putting a
improved tweeter in & amending the crossover circutry to complent (not my
designing mind you!).

Be careful when changing tweeters and crossover design, unless you're happy
to experiment. A change may not necessarily be an improvement. I'd want to
see some measurements to show just *how* the change improves things.
Subjective impressions may be just a case of different=better.



No, I don't think so unless you can measure the actual performance of
each drive unit individually, then design the crossover accordingly. If
you're going to that sort of effort, an active crossover would be a lot
less trouble.


People have done this whom in the know so it would be just a case of
buying & fitting although not with my actual speakers!

Steve

Good luck. Loudspeakers are a fascinating area for experimentation, but can
easily drive you mad unless you have some solid measurements to ground
subjective impressions.

S

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Rob wrote:

I do find that valve amplification and a vinyl source create (recreate?!) a
sense
of space, making sound more like music.

Oh Dear ! More voodoo and magic !

Maybe a poorer signal to noise ratio, a crummier frequency response and lots more
distortion DO sound more like music ?

It's certainly not what I've striven for over the years in my designs though.

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...

snip leaving rigid definition part


Neutrality: Where a sound is reproduced as accurately as possible
without emphasis of any frequency.
In other words as life like as possible.

The two statements are not synonymous. Lack of emphasis of any frequency
means a flat frequency response, with no sharp peaks or troughs,
especially peaks. "As life like as possible" implies not only a flat
response, but also low distortion and accurate dispersion characteristics
which, when the room acoustics are included, result in an accurate
representation of the recorded event. The closest approach to the
original sound anyone?


If the OP had added that accurate meant 'original', and that emphasis
meant change, would that have cheered you up?

And 'an accurate rendition' of an 'original' need not represent
'lifelike'. If someone thinks an oboe sounds more like an oboe with
certain things added or taken away from the original recorded sound (as
opposed to the performance), is that not more lifelike, and hence neutral?


Bass weight: A stronger representation of the lows as if it were a
larger speaker.

How does this differ from extention?


Perhaps it does mean extension, although not necessarily linearly.

Imaging: placing voices & instruments at a point in space.

Soundstaging: How a performance fills the room, does the sound feel it
is in the room (if so does it fill the whole room or sound as if it is
confined to within the speaker listening positions), confined towards
the speakers or eminating from the speakers!

This is primarily a function of the room, together with the dispersion
characteristics of the loudspeakers.


Room a big factor no doubt, but often not practical to remedy. I do find
that valve amplification and a vinyl source create (recreate?!) a sense of
space, making sound more like music. Just thought I'd mention it ;-)

Rob

Now that electronics have reached the present level of perfection, the room
is the single biggest factor affecting accurate sound reproduction.

I find myself amazed that we're collectively prepared to spend thousands on
new amplifiers, CD players etc, let alone silly money on cables or mains
conditioners, when we're not willing to put in some basic acoustic
treatment. Maybe it's the low WAF, or maybe we're not artistic enough to
make the stuff look acceptable, or maybe it's a bit more difficult to brag
down at the pub that I've just bought a new bass trap.

Whatever the reason, we throw money at equipment without tackling first what
the equipment is going to work into, i.e. the room. I have visited several
friends with what would otherwise be very good systems, to find that the
sound is dire due to poor loudspeaker positioning (e.g. QUAD ELS63s in
corners) poor acoustics (bare tiled floor, minimalist decor), large
'speakers in tiny rooms for hi-fi when the TV is in the large room, stereo
'speakers at different heights on top of furniture, and don't get me started
on people's surround-sound efforts. Get the room right *first* using a
modest system, then upgrade.

Rant over! Merry Christmas
S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Serge Auckland wrote:

Rant over! Merry Christmas

Leave the christians out of it please ! They merely hijacked our wid-winter
festival.

God Jul !

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Serge Auckland wrote:

Rant over! Merry Christmas

Leave the christians out of it please ! They merely hijacked our
wid-winter
festival.

God Jul !

Graham

What's religion got to do with Christmas? Isn't it a celebration of the fat
old man dressed in red (used to be green) that brings us presents?

Happy Saturnalia.

S


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:08:17 -0000, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:

Depth: The amount the sound seems to eminate from behind the speakers
therefore giving a much more space perspective sound which gives a good
feeling of distance & out of the box experience.
This is not to say that anything that should have a specific point in
place is destroyed by depth.
Any sound that breaks away from appearing from a speaker sounds more
enjoyable to me.

Surely this is a function of the recording? A simply-miked recording played
back *at the right volume level* can portray depth, but a close-miked
pan-potted recording just won't.

It's got to be IN the recording. But surely you're not suggesting
poor speaker quality and placement can't sabotage it? And if bad
placement can destroy depth, good placement can enable it.

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Eeyore wrote:

Rob wrote:

I do find that valve amplification and a vinyl source create (recreate?!) a
sense
of space, making sound more like music.

Oh Dear ! More voodoo and magic !

Maybe a poorer signal to noise ratio, a crummier frequency response and lots more
distortion DO sound more like music ?


Perhaps :-)

It's certainly not what I've striven for over the years in my designs though.


No, that'd be daft. If design involved listening (which I very much
doubt in the mainstream, even with speakers) we might be at a very
different place ...

Rob

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Rob wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Rob wrote:

I do find that valve amplification and a vinyl source create (recreate?!) a
sense of space, making sound more like music.

Oh Dear ! More voodoo and magic !

Maybe a poorer signal to noise ratio, a crummier frequency response and lots more
distortion DO sound more like music ?

Perhaps :-)

It's certainly not what I've striven for over the years in my designs though.

No, that'd be daft. If design involved listening (which I very much
doubt in the mainstream, even with speakers) we might be at a very
different place ...

As it happens I DO listen to my circuits, especially EQ circuits (and reverb
algorithms). But that has little to do with hi-fi reproduction and everything to do
with music production.

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Serge Auckland wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...
snip leaving rigid definition part

Neutrality: Where a sound is reproduced as accurately as possible
without emphasis of any frequency.
In other words as life like as possible.
The two statements are not synonymous. Lack of emphasis of any frequency
means a flat frequency response, with no sharp peaks or troughs,
especially peaks. "As life like as possible" implies not only a flat
response, but also low distortion and accurate dispersion characteristics
which, when the room acoustics are included, result in an accurate
representation of the recorded event. The closest approach to the
original sound anyone?

If the OP had added that accurate meant 'original', and that emphasis
meant change, would that have cheered you up?

And 'an accurate rendition' of an 'original' need not represent
'lifelike'. If someone thinks an oboe sounds more like an oboe with
certain things added or taken away from the original recorded sound (as
opposed to the performance), is that not more lifelike, and hence neutral?


Bass weight: A stronger representation of the lows as if it were a
larger speaker.
How does this differ from extention?

Perhaps it does mean extension, although not necessarily linearly.

Imaging: placing voices & instruments at a point in space.

Soundstaging: How a performance fills the room, does the sound feel it
is in the room (if so does it fill the whole room or sound as if it is
confined to within the speaker listening positions), confined towards
the speakers or eminating from the speakers!
This is primarily a function of the room, together with the dispersion
characteristics of the loudspeakers.

Room a big factor no doubt, but often not practical to remedy. I do find
that valve amplification and a vinyl source create (recreate?!) a sense of
space, making sound more like music. Just thought I'd mention it ;-)

Rob

Now that electronics have reached the present level of perfection, the room
is the single biggest factor affecting accurate sound reproduction.

I find myself amazed that we're collectively prepared to spend thousands on
new amplifiers, CD players etc, let alone silly money on cables or mains
conditioners, when we're not willing to put in some basic acoustic
treatment. Maybe it's the low WAF, or maybe we're not artistic enough to
make the stuff look acceptable, or maybe it's a bit more difficult to brag
down at the pub that I've just bought a new bass trap.

Whatever the reason, we throw money at equipment without tackling first what
the equipment is going to work into, i.e. the room. I have visited several
friends with what would otherwise be very good systems, to find that the
sound is dire due to poor loudspeaker positioning (e.g. QUAD ELS63s in
corners) poor acoustics (bare tiled floor, minimalist decor), large
'speakers in tiny rooms for hi-fi when the TV is in the large room, stereo
'speakers at different heights on top of furniture, and don't get me started
on people's surround-sound efforts. Get the room right *first* using a
modest system, then upgrade.


Well, I'm not amazed. The little I've read on the subject seems to
indicate a need to make and understand measurement, extensive listening
with a range of music (and films etc), and converting living space into
some sort of sound box. The act/art of compromise is also tricky. Do you
have a favoured book/web resource you could point me to?

I've just plonked some Castle Harlech* speakers in my front room - they
shouldn't work, but on a lot of music they sound splendid.

Rant over! Merry Christmas
S.

Pick it up in the new year! Merry xmas to you and all.

Rob

* at my local dealer, £300, leaving me nowhere to go :-)

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:25:08 +0000, Rob
wrote:

I've just plonked some Castle Harlech* speakers in my front room - they
shouldn't work, but on a lot of music they sound splendid.

What DON'T they sound splendid on? Can you analyse why?

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

I find myself amazed that we're collectively prepared to spend thousands
on
new amplifiers, CD players etc, let alone silly money on cables or mains
conditioners, when we're not willing to put in some basic acoustic
treatment.

----------------

As important IMO as the equipment. I've had to make the best of a bad
situation, lashing out on wall papering all the walls, large carpet mat on
top of a floored carpet & some soft furnishings (not to mention myself!) in
the likes of cuddly animals & comfy chairs, the listening one being the most
comfy :-) In addition I've kept the speakers away from the corners &
slightly out into the room. Currently experimenting with marble base plates
(bread boards) to rest the speakers on.

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...
snip leaving rigid definition part

Neutrality: Where a sound is reproduced as accurately as possible
without emphasis of any frequency.
In other words as life like as possible.
The two statements are not synonymous. Lack of emphasis of any
frequency means a flat frequency response, with no sharp peaks or
troughs, especially peaks. "As life like as possible" implies not only
a flat response, but also low distortion and accurate dispersion
characteristics which, when the room acoustics are included, result in
an accurate representation of the recorded event. The closest approach
to the original sound anyone?

If the OP had added that accurate meant 'original', and that emphasis
meant change, would that have cheered you up?

And 'an accurate rendition' of an 'original' need not represent
'lifelike'. If someone thinks an oboe sounds more like an oboe with
certain things added or taken away from the original recorded sound (as
opposed to the performance), is that not more lifelike, and hence
neutral?


Bass weight: A stronger representation of the lows as if it were a
larger speaker.
How does this differ from extention?

Perhaps it does mean extension, although not necessarily linearly.

Imaging: placing voices & instruments at a point in space.

Soundstaging: How a performance fills the room, does the sound feel it
is in the room (if so does it fill the whole room or sound as if it is
confined to within the speaker listening positions), confined towards
the speakers or eminating from the speakers!
This is primarily a function of the room, together with the dispersion
characteristics of the loudspeakers.

Room a big factor no doubt, but often not practical to remedy. I do find
that valve amplification and a vinyl source create (recreate?!) a sense
of space, making sound more like music. Just thought I'd mention it ;-)

Rob

Now that electronics have reached the present level of perfection, the
room is the single biggest factor affecting accurate sound reproduction.

I find myself amazed that we're collectively prepared to spend thousands
on new amplifiers, CD players etc, let alone silly money on cables or
mains conditioners, when we're not willing to put in some basic acoustic
treatment. Maybe it's the low WAF, or maybe we're not artistic enough to
make the stuff look acceptable, or maybe it's a bit more difficult to
brag down at the pub that I've just bought a new bass trap.

Whatever the reason, we throw money at equipment without tackling first
what the equipment is going to work into, i.e. the room. I have visited
several friends with what would otherwise be very good systems, to find
that the sound is dire due to poor loudspeaker positioning (e.g. QUAD
ELS63s in corners) poor acoustics (bare tiled floor, minimalist decor),
large 'speakers in tiny rooms for hi-fi when the TV is in the large
room, stereo 'speakers at different heights on top of furniture, and
don't get me started on people's surround-sound efforts. Get the room
right *first* using a modest system, then upgrade.


Well, I'm not amazed. The little I've read on the subject seems to
indicate a need to make and understand measurement, extensive listening
with a range of music (and films etc), and converting living space into
some sort of sound box. The act/art of compromise is also tricky. Do you
have a favoured book/web resource you could point me to?

I've just plonked some Castle Harlech* speakers in my front room - they
shouldn't work, but on a lot of music they sound splendid.

Rant over! Merry Christmas
S.

Pick it up in the new year! Merry xmas to you and all.

Rob

* at my local dealer, £300, leaving me nowhere to go :-)


Nice buy at £300! Hope you get them working well in the room.

As to acoustics, a lot of what I know has just come for 35 years experience
of designing and working in Broadcast studios, albeit as a broadcast
engineer, never as an acoustician. Have a look at my web site and you can
see what I've done to my own listening room. There are also links to a very
useful forum and to some DIY acoustic absorbers. Finally, have a look at
www.acoustics101.com It's aimed at small recording studios, but the
principles are identical to a domestic setting, you just need to pay a bit
more attention to cosmetics, or have a very understanding partner. Either
way, the acoustic treatment I did cost only a few hundred pounds excluding
the rug, the most expensive thing was the curtains to hide it all behind.

Have fun,

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...

I find myself amazed that we're collectively prepared to spend thousands
on
new amplifiers, CD players etc, let alone silly money on cables or mains
conditioners, when we're not willing to put in some basic acoustic
treatment.

----------------

As important IMO as the equipment. I've had to make the best of a bad
situation, lashing out on wall papering all the walls, large carpet mat on
top of a floored carpet & some soft furnishings (not to mention myself!)
in the likes of cuddly animals & comfy chairs, the listening one being the
most comfy :-) In addition I've kept the speakers away from the corners &
slightly out into the room. Currently experimenting with marble base
plates (bread boards) to rest the speakers on.
Wallpaper will make a very small difference, unless it's 100mm thick! What
you're trying to achieve is a short reverberation time which means plenty of
soft furnishings, carpeted floor and so on. In "normal" sized listening
rooms you're also trying to suppress early reflections from side walls,
which requires some wide range absorption on the sides. Early reflections,
especially if there is some frequency dependant absorption, will confuse the
stereo image, and change the perceived frequency response. This is most
easily achieved by 75-100mm of rockwool positioned from ground level up to,
say, 150cm high up the walls. These can be in the form of free-standing
panels (gobos) or attached to the walls.

You also may need to suppress the echo from the ceiling , but provided the
room is reasonably symmetrical, this will affect both channels equally and
won't have too serious an effect on the stereo image. It *will* affect bass
resonance by allowing standing waves, but if the floor is very absorbent
(e.g. thick carpet and underlay), then resonances will be reduced somewhat.

Corners will cause a bass boom, so if you can, position some corner
absorbers, or move the 'speakers about to minimise the effect. You will
probably end up with conflicting requirements for 'speaker positioning, one
position gives good imaging but the bass booms, another minimises bass
problems, but early reflections affect the image and so on. Ultimately, some
rooms just aren't any good for stereo. However, if you are willing to
experiment, most rooms can be made usable.

My web site shows what I've done to my own listening room, there are also a
couple of useful links to acoustics web sites. Also, have a look at
www.acoustics101.com for more advanced ideas. It's aimed at the small
recording studio, but is equally valid domestically, albeit with more
attention to the cosmetics.

What do you think will be achieved by standing the 'speakers on breadboards?
If you have suspended wooden floors I would isolate the 'speakers by
mounting them on rubber. Alternatively, you could use mass, but you'll need
an awful lot more than a marble slab ( a couple of tombstones might work!
I'd like to hear the discussions with one's wife over than suggestion....)

Anyway, good luck.

S


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...

* Laminated iron core inductors are much better than ferrite core
inductors.

Actually it turns out they are ferrite cores.

**If you replace them, ensure the resistance of the replacement coil is
identical. I am not well pleased with ferrite core inductors.


* Solder all connections.

It's built on a copper track PCB.

**ALL Connections. That includes connections to the drivers.


* Cover all internal surfaces with a suitable damping material. I rather
like Bostik Sound Deadening panels.

Are you talking about the cabinets themselves?

**Of course.

The crossovers are externally
mounted.

**Your point being?

Trevor Wilson

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:45:44 -0000, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:

As important IMO as the equipment. I've had to make the best of a bad
situation, lashing out on wall papering all the walls, large carpet mat on
top of a floored carpet & some soft furnishings (not to mention myself!)
in the likes of cuddly animals & comfy chairs, the listening one being the
most comfy :-) In addition I've kept the speakers away from the corners &
slightly out into the room. Currently experimenting with marble base
plates (bread boards) to rest the speakers on.

Wallpaper will make a very small difference, unless it's 100mm thick!

But it may be audiophile wallpaper from Russ Andrews :-)

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:25:08 +0000, Rob
wrote:

I've just plonked some Castle Harlech* speakers in my front room - they
shouldn't work, but on a lot of music they sound splendid.

What DON'T they sound splendid on? Can you analyse why?

Any pop/rock that sounds edgy/sibilant at the mid/top end - the Castles
seem to exaggerate it. Classical sounds superb, on the other hand, even
relatively shrill strings. It's difficult for me to tell whether they're
simply showing up bad recordings or source, or they're 'tuned' that way.
Also, when loud, the sound is simply uncomfortable and exaggerates this
effect. I wouldn't say distorted, more 'shouty'. They've taken the place
of some Dynaudio Contour 1.1s, which never had these traits - so I'd
conclude the Castles have a tendency towards edgy treble. The bass,
while a little uneven at times ('inaccurate'), is plentiful and enjoyable.

Keith would never thank me for this (!), but the overall tone reminds me
of some of his horn speakers.

Difficult to tell whether they're here to stay. I've found some music
sounds astounding, good as I've heard - well recorded pop (Pink Floyd,
say) and classical, but if I find myself not listening to music because
of their foibles, they may have to move along ...

Having said this, I'll have a look into Serge's ssuggestions on rooms.

Rob

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Serge Auckland wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Stevie Boy" wrote in message
...
snip leaving rigid definition part

Neutrality: Where a sound is reproduced as accurately as possible
without emphasis of any frequency.
In other words as life like as possible.
The two statements are not synonymous. Lack of emphasis of any
frequency means a flat frequency response, with no sharp peaks or
troughs, especially peaks. "As life like as possible" implies not only
a flat response, but also low distortion and accurate dispersion
characteristics which, when the room acoustics are included, result in
an accurate representation of the recorded event. The closest approach
to the original sound anyone?

If the OP had added that accurate meant 'original', and that emphasis
meant change, would that have cheered you up?

And 'an accurate rendition' of an 'original' need not represent
'lifelike'. If someone thinks an oboe sounds more like an oboe with
certain things added or taken away from the original recorded sound (as
opposed to the performance), is that not more lifelike, and hence
neutral?


Bass weight: A stronger representation of the lows as if it were a
larger speaker.
How does this differ from extention?

Perhaps it does mean extension, although not necessarily linearly.

Imaging: placing voices & instruments at a point in space.

Soundstaging: How a performance fills the room, does the sound feel it
is in the room (if so does it fill the whole room or sound as if it is
confined to within the speaker listening positions), confined towards
the speakers or eminating from the speakers!
This is primarily a function of the room, together with the dispersion
characteristics of the loudspeakers.

Room a big factor no doubt, but often not practical to remedy. I do find
that valve amplification and a vinyl source create (recreate?!) a sense
of space, making sound more like music. Just thought I'd mention it ;-)

Rob

Now that electronics have reached the present level of perfection, the
room is the single biggest factor affecting accurate sound reproduction.

I find myself amazed that we're collectively prepared to spend thousands
on new amplifiers, CD players etc, let alone silly money on cables or
mains conditioners, when we're not willing to put in some basic acoustic
treatment. Maybe it's the low WAF, or maybe we're not artistic enough to
make the stuff look acceptable, or maybe it's a bit more difficult to
brag down at the pub that I've just bought a new bass trap.

Whatever the reason, we throw money at equipment without tackling first
what the equipment is going to work into, i.e. the room. I have visited
several friends with what would otherwise be very good systems, to find
that the sound is dire due to poor loudspeaker positioning (e.g. QUAD
ELS63s in corners) poor acoustics (bare tiled floor, minimalist decor),
large 'speakers in tiny rooms for hi-fi when the TV is in the large
room, stereo 'speakers at different heights on top of furniture, and
don't get me started on people's surround-sound efforts. Get the room
right *first* using a modest system, then upgrade.

Well, I'm not amazed. The little I've read on the subject seems to
indicate a need to make and understand measurement, extensive listening
with a range of music (and films etc), and converting living space into
some sort of sound box. The act/art of compromise is also tricky. Do you
have a favoured book/web resource you could point me to?

I've just plonked some Castle Harlech* speakers in my front room - they
shouldn't work, but on a lot of music they sound splendid.

Rant over! Merry Christmas
S.
Pick it up in the new year! Merry xmas to you and all.

Rob

* at my local dealer, £300, leaving me nowhere to go :-)


Nice buy at £300! Hope you get them working well in the room.

As to acoustics, a lot of what I know has just come for 35 years experience
of designing and working in Broadcast studios, albeit as a broadcast
engineer, never as an acoustician. Have a look at my web site and you can
see what I've done to my own listening room. There are also links to a very
useful forum and to some DIY acoustic absorbers. Finally, have a look at
www.acoustics101.com It's aimed at small recording studios, but the
principles are identical to a domestic setting, you just need to pay a bit
more attention to cosmetics, or have a very understanding partner. Either
way, the acoustic treatment I did cost only a few hundred pounds excluding
the rug, the most expensive thing was the curtains to hide it all behind.

Have fun,

S.


Many thanks for that, I'll have a look. I think an enduring point is
your experience - you could look at a room and diagnose/treat with some
accuracy fairly quickly. It'd take me a fair while, and I'm not very
good at evaluating sound under test conditions. But it does look this
side of fun, if not quite new year resolution material :-)

Rob

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Serge Auckland wrote:

What you're trying to achieve is a short reverberation time which means plenty
of
soft furnishings, carpeted floor and so on.

Well it's a combination of reducing the reverberant field's *intensity* as well
as the reverberation time.

You don't want to 'overdamp' a room though, it won't sound natural. The ear
adaps naturally to dealing with a modest reverberant field.

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

**ALL Connections. That includes connections to the drivers.


Easier said than done as the driver cabinets are extremely difficult to get
into as the drive units use a sealant to ensure a air tight fit.

* Cover all internal surfaces with a suitable damping material. I rather
like Bostik Sound Deadening panels.

Hmm I'm not saying this is a bad idea as I've used sound deading panels &
materials in car door panels before with great effect (car doors arn't
exactly rigid affairs) but the SBL's use some rather unique tuning devices
(not sure what they are made of) that are adhered to the inside of the
enclosures. I know this as I saw an internal unit at thier launch. It's also
a one of treatment, like it or hate it once it's done.

The crossovers are externally
mounted.

**Your point being?

My point was to merely mention where they were as I was not sure in your
post what you were refering to in damping.

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Serge Auckland wrote:

What you're trying to achieve is a short reverberation time which means
plenty
of
soft furnishings, carpeted floor and so on.

Well it's a combination of reducing the reverberant field's *intensity* as
well
as the reverberation time.

You don't want to 'overdamp' a room though, it won't sound natural. The
ear
adaps naturally to dealing with a modest reverberant field.

Graham

Indeed. Too short a RT and the room sounds dead. However, in my view what
you don't absorb should be diffused, so I mix a certain amount of absorbtion
with diffusion. In a domestic setting, a bookcase with different size books,
and with several gaps which could have small ornaments (standing on felt so
they don't rattle) makes an acceptable diffuser. A slatted ceiling can be
very effective as both a diffuser and absorber, and look attractive if well
done.

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Wallpaper will make a very small difference, unless it's 100mm thick!

Overall it achieved my goal of reducing the echo in the room. Naturally it
was not 100% efficient so I went for further treatments as outlined.

While many of your suggestions is something I've heard mentioned before it
does not make a front room, home friendly! In the past I've used carpeted up
right panels filled in behind with loft insulation installed behind speakers
to reduce/eliminate echo. These did a fine job but when they were removed
from the room it was amazing how fresh & spacious the room became so I doubt
that method would be used again.


What do you think will be achieved by standing the 'speakers on
breadboards?

Before they were on breadboards I experienced some bass mudiness & thickness
which I would say was contributed by extra reverberation through the floor.
They were also very difficult to get stable as aligning 4 spikes to sit
correctly was not easy. I guess I am trying to rid the speakers of this bass
anomalie without attracting other anomalies in upper frequency areas. With a
solid base it is also very easy to get 4 spikes to sit correctly.
Having experimented with them for quite sometime I would say they have done
the trick but I feel they sound a bit light weight now so I'm not sure which
I prefer.

If you have suspended wooden floors I would isolate the 'speakers by
mounting them on rubber.

The floors are concrete but I like that suggestion for wooden floors :-)

Alternatively, you could use mass, but you'll need
an awful lot more than a marble slab ( a couple of tombstones might work!
I'd like to hear the discussions with one's wife over than suggestion....)

I'd like to see someone whom would use that suggestion let alone go and pick
them up (I do hope they liked music).

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Stevie Boy wrote:


**ALL Connections. That includes connections to the drivers.


Easier said than done as the driver cabinets are extremely difficult to get
into as the drive units use a sealant to ensure a air tight fit.

* Cover all internal surfaces with a suitable damping material. I rather
like Bostik Sound Deadening panels.

Hmm I'm not saying this is a bad idea as I've used sound deading panels &
materials in car door panels before with great effect (car doors arn't
exactly rigid affairs) but the SBL's use some rather unique tuning devices
(not sure what they are made of) that are adhered to the inside of the
enclosures. I know this as I saw an internal unit at thier launch.

That sounds very odd indeed.


It's also a one of treatment, like it or hate it once it's done.

There's no question that more cabinet damping greater accuracy or neutrality
if you prefer. Unless you don't want that of course.

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Serge Auckland wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Serge Auckland wrote:

What you're trying to achieve is a short reverberation time which means
plenty of soft furnishings, carpeted floor and so on.

Well it's a combination of reducing the reverberant field's *intensity* as
well as the reverberation time.

You don't want to 'overdamp' a room though, it won't sound natural. The
ear adaps naturally to dealing with a modest reverberant field.

Indeed. Too short a RT and the room sounds dead. However, in my view what
you don't absorb should be diffused, so I mix a certain amount of absorbtion
with diffusion. In a domestic setting, a bookcase with different size books,
and with several gaps which could have small ornaments (standing on felt so
they don't rattle) makes an acceptable diffuser. A slatted ceiling can be
very effective as both a diffuser and absorber, and look attractive if well
done.

Sounds good to me.

Graham

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

I've just plonked some Castle Harlech* speakers in my front room - they shouldn't work, but on a lot of music they sound
splendid.

What DON'T they sound splendid on? Can you analyse why?

Any pop/rock that sounds edgy/sibilant at the mid/top end - the Castles seem to exaggerate it. Classical sounds superb, on the
other hand, even relatively shrill strings. It's difficult for me to tell whether they're simply showing up bad recordings or
source, or they're 'tuned' that way. Also, when loud, the sound is simply uncomfortable and exaggerates this effect. I wouldn't
say distorted, more 'shouty'. They've taken the place of some Dynaudio Contour 1.1s, which never had these traits - so I'd
conclude the Castles have a tendency towards edgy treble. The bass, while a little uneven at times ('inaccurate'), is plentiful
and enjoyable.

Why did you replace the Dynaudios with Castles? Anything wrong with the
former? What did you do with them?

Difficult to tell whether they're here to stay. I've found some music sounds astounding, good as I've heard - well recorded pop
(Pink Floyd, say)

OI! GET YOUR FILTHY HANDS OFF MY DESERT!
What d'he say?

************* !!!

Sorry.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:


Crossover design has normally nothing to do with bass extension. The
bottom end of a passive loudspeaker's response is left to roll off
naturally, the frequency at which it does so is a function of driver
and cabinet.

IIUC Some loudspeakers use a large capacitor in series with the LF unit to
alter the low frequency behaviour and interaction with the cabinet effects.
I think KEF did this with various speakers, but I don't know how widespread
the practice may be.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


You don't want to 'overdamp' a room though, it won't sound natural.
The ear adaps naturally to dealing with a modest reverberant field.


Indeed. Too short a RT and the room sounds dead.

Depends on the nature of the sound source, and what you want to hear. For
good recordings of classical or 'acoustic' music I prefer to hear the
recorded acoustic of the location where the recording/performance was made.
So a room that sounds 'dead' when you are speaking, etc, may be fine.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:


Crossover design has normally nothing to do with bass extension. The
bottom end of a passive loudspeaker's response is left to roll off
naturally, the frequency at which it does so is a function of driver
and cabinet.

IIUC Some loudspeakers use a large capacitor in series with the LF unit to
alter the low frequency behaviour and interaction with the cabinet
effects.
I think KEF did this with various speakers, but I don't know how
widespread
the practice may be.

Slainte,

Jim


I haven't come across this at all, so I don't think the practice can have
been very widespread. Of course, before split power supplies were common,
solid-state power amps had a large capacitor in series with the output, but
that was for DC blocking reasons. I can't imagine why a loudspeaker
manufacturer would deliberately roll off the extreme LF, unless it was for
power-handling reasons at the time when the main source was LPs and
consequently there could be a lot of subsonic energy due to warps and the
like.

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


You don't want to 'overdamp' a room though, it won't sound natural.
The ear adaps naturally to dealing with a modest reverberant field.


Indeed. Too short a RT and the room sounds dead.

Depends on the nature of the sound source, and what you want to hear. For
good recordings of classical or 'acoustic' music I prefer to hear the
recorded acoustic of the location where the recording/performance was
made.
So a room that sounds 'dead' when you are speaking, etc, may be fine.

Slainte,

Jim


This may be a personal thing, but I find a room that's too dead somewhat
oppressive. The few times I've worked in an anechoic chamber, I didn't find
it pleasant. I get much the same feeling if I'm wearing earplugs or good ear
defenders, I'm too concious of my own internal body noises, breathing and
the like.

Of course, the phrase "too dead" is a subjective one, and I agree with toy
in that I prefer to listen to music in a room that tends toward the "dead"
rather than "live". I've never got on terribly well with the LEDE concept
(Live End Dead End) for listening rooms, I've always preferred a room that
tends towards "dead" but one can still carry on normal conversation, and has
a "normal" feel. What that means in actual RT and the frequency distribution
of that RT I don't know, as I haven't measured many rooms. The IEC standard
listening rooms I've been in have sounded "right", as have the radio studios
built to the old IBA Code of Practice.

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

Of course, the phrase "too dead" is a subjective one, and I agree with toy
in that I prefer to listen to music in a room that tends toward the "dead"
rather than "live". I've never got on terribly well with the LEDE concept
(Live End Dead End) for listening rooms, I've always preferred a room that
tends towards "dead" but one can still carry on normal conversation, and has
a "normal" feel. What that means in actual RT and the frequency distribution
of that RT I don't know, as I haven't measured many rooms. The IEC standard
listening rooms I've been in have sounded "right", as have the radio studios
built to the old



IBA Code of Practice.

Is that online anywhere?...

--
Tony Sayer

Improving loudspeaker crossovers (SBL's)
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
Of course, the phrase "too dead" is a subjective one, and I agree with
toy
in that I prefer to listen to music in a room that tends toward the "dead"
rather than "live". I've never got on terribly well with the LEDE concept
(Live End Dead End) for listening rooms, I've always preferred a room
that
tends towards "dead" but one can still carry on normal conversation, and
has
a "normal" feel. What that means in actual RT and the frequency
distribution
of that RT I don't know, as I haven't measured many rooms. The IEC
standard
listening rooms I've been in have sounded "right", as have the radio
studios
built to the old



IBA Code of Practice.

Is that online anywhere?...

--
Tony Sayer


Not that I know of. I have a partial set of the IBA Technical Review
booklets. Book 2 has the CoP for TV and ILR studios.

If anyone's interested, I can scan the relevant Radio Studio pages and post
them

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com