Unity Horn taming a Lambda Acoustic Unity - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 28 Old 10-21-2012, 07:59 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Ray Weikel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10






I purchased a pair of Unity Horn kits from Lambda Acoustics nearly 10 years ago (hard to believe) that got put aside in favor of planar, dipole designs that I have been using for some time. This summer after reading William Cowan experiences with both Planar systems and Unity systems, I decided it was time to complete my Unity project. I had already purchased a used but just re-coned pair of TAD 1603 woofers to mate to the Unity Horn. Learning from Williams past experiences, I decided to built the system as a corner system. Not as elegant as his built in the wall system, but trying to achieve many of the same benefits of corner placement.

Attached it a picture of the rough (no finish yet) speaker in my living room.

I will use the Unity horn by using a DEQX digital processor for crossover and EQ. As soon as I hooked it up and ran some DEQX curves, I found some nasty things going on that were unexpected. The DEQX kept coming back with correction curves with a huge peak at 4.5K. If I by passed the correction curve portion and used it as a straight crossover, things started to sound promising, but I wanted to find the source of the issues with DEQXs correction curves.

I did some measurements. I combined some of the measurements on the attached graphs. I discovered the source of the 4.5K problem with DEQX. On axis, the Unity from Lambda has a sizable dip at that frequency which the DEQX tries to correct. The problem, is that the dip in only on axis and goes away off axis. I did a little web search and found references to the dip being caused by the mid-range holes in the Unity Horn, and a hint that the implementation of the Unity Horn by Lambda, was not exactly what Thomas Danley did on the original. I could not find any definitive references to what was different, but did see other DIYers efforts to experiment with the same issue with other Unity clones. I have also noticed that the radius of the curvature in the “seams” of the horn seem much greater on the Lambda version compared to sharper radius on other I have seen photos of.

Measurements. Attached graphs high frequency and Mid range portions measured separately. FYI they are all 1/10 octave smoothed (to leave detail), and scaled up and down to allow several on a page. Outputs are not absolute.

On the first graph, (Unity DE25.jpg), the Red Line is the stock finished Unity response from the DE25 (image of stock unit holes attached). The 4.5K dip is clearly visible. (I did do off axis measurements that showed that this largely went away off axis but for this discussion, I have not shown them). Next I covered the mid-range ports with metal foil tape. The gray line shows this change. The 4.5K dip is gone and the whole response gets soother. So, I know the ports are the problem. Next I poked holes into the foil - roughly 1/4 in diameter (image attached) and measure again - this is the Green curve. Most of the improvements are maintained. The last curve was to replace the thin foil with a thicker rubber washer with a 1/4 hole drilled in it. There is also a picture of that and the result is the blue curve - which is nearly identical to the hole in foil curve.

So far so good. Now to see what happens to the mid range drivers. The second graphs (Unity Mid.jpg) shows the curves for the mid range. First the red line is the stock Lambda ports. What the red graphs shows is that the stock Unity has elevated response at 300 Hz of nearly 10 dB above the level at around 650 Hz.
I did not do a gray graph with the ports covered as no sound comes out.
The green graph shows the response with the foil with 1/4 holes. The graph is scaled down, but in absolute output, it is within about a dB in the middle of the pass band, and the 300 Hz peak is suppressed a little and moved lower in frequency.
The blue graphs shows the same thing with the rubber washers and again is nearly identical. While the foil and washers now seem on the right track to work, I find both unacceptable in appearance.

So my next step is to find a more refined and permanent way to do this. So I took a piece of birch plywood, drilled holes in it the diameter of those in the unity horn (3/4”)and then filled one with Bondo and the other with Durham’s Rock Hard Water Putty. Then I drilled a 1/4 hole all the way through them, and finally drilled a 5/8” hole from the back side to within about a 1/8” all the way through. This can be seen in the attached photos. So it appears that either of the two material will work, I think I like the Bondo best.

Questions to anyone with knowledge of Unity or Synergy Horns.
1. Does anyone have any knowledge of the preferred geometry of the holes for the mid-range drivers for Unity?
2. Will the 1/4” holes cause any distortion problems (bearing in mind that this is a home installation - not a PA app)? I have no way to measure distortion.
3. Can anyone explain the tuning of the ports? The mid system appears to have double resonant humps at 300 and 1000 with a valley in between. Any suggestions on tuning these - more cavity in the port or less, taper vs cylindrical, etc. I did try filling the original holes with damping material and the pass band response dropped significantly, so I am not inclined to use damping.
Ray Weikel is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 28 Old 10-22-2012, 04:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
bwaslo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 819
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Hi, Ray,

I have a similar on-axis dip in my diy Synergy horns at about the same frequency. I was attributing mine to the shape of the holes, but I used 3" long radial holes and you have side -by-side smaller holes so I guess I'm wrong about that. The dip in mine is wider but shallow, probably because my horns are asymmetric (90 x 60).

http://www.diysoundgroup.com/forum/index.php?topic=19.msg895#msg895

One thing to keep in mind is that your dip is very narrow so not likely to be audible. Also if properly set up with a strong toe-in, no one will probably be sitting on-axis to hear it from the direct path. I don't want to imply that reflected responses don't matter, but they will not be as important as direct particularly for a narrow dip like that.

DIY Synergy horn spreadsheet http://libinst.com/SynergyCalc/
XSim -free crossover designer and simulator http://libinst.com/Xsim/XSimSetup.exe
bwaslo is offline  
post #3 of 28 Old 10-22-2012, 09:45 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Ray Weikel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Bwaslo,

Thanks for your reply. I agree that the 4.5kHz hole is very narrow and since most listening is not done on axis, it is not very audible. The problem with the dip is how it is handled by DEQX. Unlike some other speaker management systems, DEQX measures speakers and creates it's own correction curves (for both FR and Phase) which makes it unique and the results can be spectacular. The on axis measurement with the dip causes a big correction peak which sounds awful because that is not what is happening in the power response. The correction curves cannot be modified to eliminate the peak. In using DEQX you always work on finding the best measurement position. When you get there - the results are spectacular. So that is my motivation to acoustically optimize the port holes.

I tried measuring the Unity off axis and generating a curve and there is no problem with the 4.5kHz dip (and corrective peak), but because there is some HF rolloff off axis, the corrective curve is a little hot. So, I still want to acoustically tame the dip as much as possible. I think I have a good solution planned, but before I bondo up the holes and start making new holes as I described, I am hoping to hear from others about their experiences. (I was hoping that Thomas Danley might see the link and tell me what he found as optimum - from various forums discussing Unity Horns, it appears that the Lambda version may have had some significant differences from those made by Sound Physics).

Thanks, Ray

PS Am i correct in my guess that you are the BWalso of IMP and OmniMic fame? I wish I had OmniMic. My 20 year old LMS/LEAP system has served me well, but is showing it's age and the new LinearX replacements are way beyond my now current budget (I'm now retired).

Thanks again.
Ray Weikel is offline  
post #4 of 28 Old 10-23-2012, 05:09 AM
Advanced Member
 
bwaslo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 819
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Ray, yeah, that's me.

I guess I'd do it off axis, about 22 degrees like Geddes does. But it will pull down the extreme highs (isn't that the reality, though? ). That's where I eq'd mine (manually ) but then I also added a downward sloping 'house curve ', so I guess I also tamed down the treble.

DIY Synergy horn spreadsheet http://libinst.com/SynergyCalc/
XSim -free crossover designer and simulator http://libinst.com/Xsim/XSimSetup.exe
bwaslo is offline  
post #5 of 28 Old 10-23-2012, 05:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coctostan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Indy
Posts: 1,960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwaslo View Post

Ray, yeah, that's me.
I guess I'd do it off axis, about 22 degrees like Geddes does. But it will pull down the extreme highs (isn't that the reality, though? ). That's where I eq'd mine (manually ) but then I also added a downward sloping 'house curve ', so I guess I also tamed down the treble.

I agree with this. I would actually suggest setting them up so they are "off-axis" and measure them for what the new "on-axis" is. In effect, you are simply choosing a different "on-axis". This has a number of positive effects concerning side wall reflections and it would solve your DEQX issues. I would suggest setting them up "off-axis" and tuning the crossover accordingly regardless of the DEQX anomaly.

I wasn't aware that the DEQX didn't allow user intervention on its EQ. That is unfortunate. Not everything that is measured should be EQ'd.

Cool project BTW. Keep us posted.
coctostan is offline  
post #6 of 28 Old 10-23-2012, 12:08 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Ray Weikel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks Bill and Coctostan, I did try an off axis, but it was probably more than 22 degrees. After I modify the mid port holes I will again remeasure things and find a good slightly off axis measure point.

Just to clarify what DEQX does (as I am convinced that what they do is unique and better than anything else out there). Nearly all other "loudspeaker management systems" have crossovers with choice of freq. and slopes, and usually several bands of parametric EQ that can be applied to each band and sometimes also some that can affect the entire band (before x-over).
DEQX has a different approach. It measures each driver in a system at close range and provides a correction curve for each driver independent from the others. The correction includes both Frequency Response and Phase response. The goal is to get each speaker producing the flattest response with uniform phase integrity. Crossover frequencies and slopes for the individual drivers are user configurable. These are far more complicated than simple parametric EQ and the correction curves cannot be adjusted after the fact. THEN, after the driver in speaker is optimized to be producing the best possible sound and you have configured the crossover, you make a measurement at the listening position in the room and to that you can apply many parametric EQ bands. I don't remember how many bands it has but it is more than I have ever needed. So, it can do as much parametric EQ as you might want, but you cannot modify the very sophisticated driver corrections because they are doing much more than just FR correction. They are the reason that when the driver corrections are executed well, they have a dramatic effect.

The reason that this is an issue with Unity is that the on a very narrow band of on axis is so different than the off axis or power response. I have use DEQX on many different types of systems and find that the DEQX process delivers an integration of sound not achieved by FR compensation only.

I am aware of someone else using DEQX with Unity, but they used a passive crossover for the Unity, and then used the DEQX crossover for a mid bass driver and a sub. I am using the three bands of DEQX crossover to use High for the DE25 compression driver, Mid for the Mid drivers in the Unity, and Low for the TAD woofer. This should optimize both frequency response and phase response for both the Unity and the whole system. The only passive components will be a capacitor on the compression driver to protect it from any low frequency components from direct hookup to the amplifier.

Next step to take everything back to the garage to disassemble the horns for port modifications, and for putting veneer on the enclosure. I have limited experience in veneering, so that should be interesting. I have read a lot about it, and know that veneering something this big will be challenging.
Ray Weikel is offline  
post #7 of 28 Old 10-23-2012, 01:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coctostan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Indy
Posts: 1,960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Ray-

I'm not sure if you are familiar this approach, but I'm suggesting setting the speakers up so that the axes cross just in front of the primary listening position. I would then measure from your listening position and feed those measurements into the DEQX. The reason I suggest this because I believe it is the best way to setup constant and controlled directivity speakers like your Unities. Here is an explanation of what I'm referring to:

http://audioroundtable.com/PiSpeakers/messages/23369.html

It will give you the following benefits:

1. Reduced side wall reflections
2. Wider sweet spot with good imaging across all positions.

Beyond that, it will solve your on-axis problem which will still be a problem, although I'd suspect an undetectable problem given its high Q (is that really a problem? smile.gif)

I'm sure the DEQX is a nice tool. I have experience with PC based tools that do the same thing and my experience is that the effect is minimal at best, but that is only relative to a well designed crossover. Alas that is not what this thread is about and that is just my experience. I would like to see some detailed measurements when you get it all worked out.

The downside to the DEQX is that it doesn't take into account off-axis response which should be accounted for in a design. In your case, you have the advantage of using a uniform directivity speaker which means you don't need to sacrifice on-axis response to work around off-axis anomalies.

I would much rather have your problem of an irregularity on-axis with uniformity off-axis versus its converse. It wouldn't be as apparent, but the DEQX will make a mess of a speaker that is a mess off-axis.
coctostan is offline  
post #8 of 28 Old 10-23-2012, 11:22 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Ray Weikel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Coctostan,

I am sorry if I have contributed to this drifting off topic. The topic is the Unit Horn and the issues of optimizing the mid range port opening.

The DEQX was mention in regard to how it reacted to the anomalies of the Unity on Axis. I only explained how the DEQX works to explain what it does - not wanted to cast it in a bad light. I am a big DEQX supporter.

I didn't elaborate much in my first post but I chose a corner system with a controlled directivity horn for many of the same objectives to those in the article you site - namely much direct sound and little to no short time duration reflections. This does create a "window of sound" in the corners that makes the walls seem to disappear - you hear things beyond the walls. The effect is very stricking - revealing more of the decay of the sound around instruments than I have heard in other systems. I used similar principles to place dipole speakers raked in roughly 45 degrees, well into the room, so that there is no reflected from the sides of the dipole (by definition), resulting in a predominance of direct sound over any early reflections.

I am still hoping to learn more about others experiences with Unity Horns - either home design, Lambda kits, or those from Sound Physics or Danley Sound Labs.
Ray Weikel is offline  
post #9 of 28 Old 10-24-2012, 03:06 AM
Member
 
JackNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Ray:
No need to apologize. I appreciated your description of how the DEQX works and might choose one over the MiniDSP for my next project, which might indeed be a Synergy.

Several threads I've read do stumble over the location, size and shape of the midrange holes so I'm sure there are lots of us out here eager to see your results.

Jack
JackNC is online now  
post #10 of 28 Old 10-24-2012, 05:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coctostan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Indy
Posts: 1,960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Ray-

No need to apologize. I simply didn't want to ruin your thread discussing the merits of the DEQX. Of course it is your thread and you can bring up whatever you want. smile.gif

If you are already toeing in significantly, where would you estimate the axes cross relative to the primary listening position? If it is possible to have the cross just in front of that position, IMO it is best. From there I would simply measure from the primary listening position and implement the crossover from there. It will probably only be 5-10deg off-axis but it will effectively be the on-axis based on how you have it set up.

I think you are on the right path with the modified mid ports.
coctostan is offline  
post #11 of 28 Old 10-29-2012, 02:03 PM
Member
 
Nate Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Here's a link to the Synergy Horn patent: http://www.goodsoundclub.com/PDF/Synergy_Patent.pdf

It details how the ports are designed on the Synergy horns, which are an evolution of the Unity. The Synergies use a "frustoconical" port, which allows the use of a smaller entrance hole for the mids (that cleans up the HF response as you've seen). This is done by adding a taper or counter-bore to the driver side of the mid entrance port. Google "synergy horn ports" and you'll get some links to several DIY builds that show how the ports are done.
Nate Hansen is offline  
post #12 of 28 Old 10-31-2012, 06:30 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Ray Weikel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks for the link Nate. It turns out that I had come up with a solution like the Fig. 10 in the patent, and was in the process of implementing a final version of it on my Unity Horn. First I filled the existing ports with Bondo. I put tape over the inside opening to keep them flush and filled from the back. Then I finished them flat on both inside and back. Next I drilled a 5/8 in hole leaving about 3/16" material at the inside opening. Then I drilled a 1/4" hole in the center. Here are some pictures of the progress. I haven't reassembled them yet to measure but fully expect it to be as good as if not better than the washer versions or the foil with holes versions above (which were nearly identical).

I will post before and after test results after everything is back together.

Thanks again for the link - it is nice to know that Danley arrived at the same solution.





Ray Weikel is offline  
post #13 of 28 Old 11-01-2012, 02:08 PM
Member
 
Nate Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Glad to help..........it looked like you were heading in that direction. I gotta wonder though, if your entrance holes and counterbores are a little on the small side. You were wondering about distortion with the smaller holes and I'm wondering the same thing. You're going to have a higher compression ratio with the smaller ports. Depends on how loud you tend to listen. Been a while since I read the patents but I don't think Danley gave away anything when it comes to sizing the ports. I've read that the port should be 25% of the driver SD. For a 5" driver that's a 3" diameter port! You can get around this by using a counter-bored port and averaging the area of the counterbore and the area of the port itself. Take that with a grain of salt though rolleyes.gif. I am using that method with my Paraline project however, and for a 4" driver I've got a 2" diameter counterbore .375" deep in half inch MDF. The port itself is a curved slot that's roughly .7" x .25"

There's a guy on here that's doing some DIY Synergy's with Eminence Alpha 8" drivers, and he had audible distortion which he thought was due to too small ports. IIRC he was looking at over 110db levels though!
Nate Hansen is offline  
post #14 of 28 Old 11-02-2012, 07:57 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Ray Weikel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Re: distortion
I did not hear any noticeable distortion of either the foil with 1/4" holes or the washers with 1/4" holes. Also, the output level was not diminished either. Smaller holes did reduce the output, as did any form of damping in the ports. From the patent drawing, if the original port size is 3/4" the smaller opening would be about 1/4". I will be using these in a living room for music, so I will not be pushing SPL limits anyway. I wish I had an Omni-Mic to measure distortion and know the read impact of the mod. My old LMS system still does some things very well, but measuring distortion is not one of them.
Ray Weikel is offline  
post #15 of 28 Old 11-04-2012, 09:37 PM
Newbie
 
MikeSeddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Good work Ray.

I currently have a DIY Synergy/Unity horn in the process of being built with the intention of using my first-gen DEQX to do the crossovers. I thought I would be the first one to use the DEQX for this kind of set up but it seems you beat me to it!

I agree with your conclusions about the DEQX - it really is a unique tool that seems to be massively unappreciated on the whole. The DEQX is perfect for a Synergy horn because even though it does time delays to achieve 'perfectly time aligned' drivers that is only at a single point in space so if you have a traditional design (which generally would have a large distance between many of the drivers) as soon as you move the listening position (or in this case the microphone) then all the time delays are no longer 100% correct. The Synergy basically represents a point source which should overcome this limitation of any time delay approach but will completely fix frequency response and phase issues. Perfect.

I am interested in reading about any more tinkering you do.

Cheers,
Mike
MikeSeddon is offline  
post #16 of 28 Old 11-14-2012, 12:14 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Ray Weikel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Update on Unity project. Both cabinets are done, Cherry veneer is on both, (that was a learning experience - but with careful planning, reading, and make test boards first, it all went well). I have put two coats of stain and two coats of polyurethane on one side. The other side will start tomorrow. I have not modified the mid-range port holes on the other side yet so I can compare performance of modified to un-modified before I modify the second Unity Horn.




Ray Weikel is offline  
post #17 of 28 Old 11-14-2012, 05:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coctostan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Indy
Posts: 1,960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 128
That looks great. I think you did well with the veneer.
coctostan is offline  
post #18 of 28 Old 11-14-2012, 08:38 AM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 208
Nice job Ray.

Having spent some time listening to bwaslo's diy Synergys, I too am convinced pursuing TD's designs is time well spent. Thanks for sharing.

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
post #19 of 28 Old 11-19-2012, 12:18 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Ray Weikel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks to all for input, advice, and encouragement. I still planning on doing more measurements and posting them. Here is a photo of the pair.


Ray Weikel is offline  
post #20 of 28 Old 11-29-2012, 09:12 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Ray Weikel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here are some results (hard to say if it is ever Final) of Lambda Unity Horn project.
By modifying the port openings I eliminated the suck out interference dip at approx. 4.5kHz. The modified ports also smoothed out the mid driver as well, though the smaller holes decreased mid output several dB. This could result in high distortion (I don't have any means to measure), but I sure don't hear any distortion at any volume I can tolerate at home!

Using the DEQX HP3 configured as a three way system with Linear Phase 96 dB crossovers at 300Hz and 1kHz. Attached is a LMS measurement of the results. On the graph, the red line is the 1/3 octave smoothing of the Unity Horn with the DEQX crossover. I included the Un Smoothed lower green curve as well just to see how flat it is even without smoothing. The top blue curve is the response including the TAD woofer, measured from a point between the woofer and the Unity Horn, probably still slightly off axis of the horn. All measurements were made at 1 meter.

How does it sound? Well, I'm pretty happy. I am hearing things in recordings I have not heard before. I do (like William Cowan) find that a gentle downward roll off is preferrable, at least on some close mic-ed recordings, while others sound fine when totally flat. My wife thinks they look nice, and if I clean up the living room, I can then just enjoy.

BTW, though I am not using a passive crossover, I plan on making one as an option. I did quite a bit of modeling in LEAP which will show you a final output with the filter components you choose. It starts with accurate SPL and Impedance measured by LMS. The original Lambda circuit isn't too bad (using the data from my modified port horns), but the other "later" circuit did not model very well with my modified horns. If I optimized the later circuit big improvements could be made by some radical changes of just resistors, but more could be done by change LC values as well. Anyway, I included a screen shot (taken with my phone!! Old DOS program has no image capture) of one optimized crossover. As you can see on the lower left screen, it has lots of parts. I will do more work on this before ordering or building.

Thanks to all for the help and encouragement.



Ray Weikel is offline  
post #21 of 28 Old 11-29-2012, 09:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
LTD02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 16,202
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 233 Post(s)
Liked: 948
looks great.

a little work on the bass response up next. ;-)

Listen. It's All Good.
LTD02 is online now  
post #22 of 28 Old 11-29-2012, 11:24 PM
Troll
 
ufokillerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NYC Area
Posts: 1,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Wondering if i can somehow update a few yorkville u215's i have coming as well!
ufokillerz is offline  
post #23 of 28 Old 11-30-2012, 09:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
Aaron Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 406
Posts: 638
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ufokillerz View Post

Wondering if i can somehow update a few yorkville u215's i have coming as well!

I asked Carl about that subject a few weeks ago (it came up in another thread) and he mentioned that Tom stated that 'improving the crossover makes them sound like his latest designs'. Carl said he liked them best with active crossovers and eq applied.
Aaron Smith is offline  
post #24 of 28 Old 11-30-2012, 12:30 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Ray Weikel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
LTDO2
Re: Bass response. I hope the wink means your kidding. The bass curve is a result of in room measurement. Measured at 6", other than a natural roll off below the 40 Hz mounted resonance, the bass is much flatter and any peaks and dips are pretty much a function of mic placement, not driver. The DEQX does have (in addition to crossover and driver correction) a room correction parametric EQ which is done from the listening position. That is not part of any of these curves.

UFOKILLERZ
Re: Yorkville u215. I have not every heard or seen in person the Yorkvilles, but in doing my exploration on this project did read a bit about them, and looked at pictures. I have read good comments by posters on the Yorkvilles, so you may not need to do much except improve their WAF - ;-) Do you have some measurement tools?

It looks like they tackled the mid port issue by using elongated port holes, and there are only 3, so I am guessing that nothing needs to be done to correct for that anomaly that was present in the Lambda Unity. Areas that might be improved upon could be Cabinet - both to eliminate any panel resonances and perhaps change grille and horn mounting to eliminate diffraction. The other is crossover. Again, don't know if it needs help, but crossover components are expensive and most commercial products do the minimum for acceptable sound. That being said, modeling crossovers is difficult. Many crossover or circuit design software packages will model the network results into a static load, but not into the complex impedance of the actual loud speaker, let along let you optimized multiple drivers. LEAP from Linear X does that, but costs more than the speaker. That is why I am using my 20 year old DOS version of LEAP for crossover modeling. It still works great, but is just not user friendly.

Enjoy your new speakers.
Ray Weikel is offline  
post #25 of 28 Old 11-30-2012, 09:17 PM
Troll
 
ufokillerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NYC Area
Posts: 1,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Weikel View Post

LTDO2
Re: Bass response. I hope the wink means your kidding. The bass curve is a result of in room measurement. Measured at 6", other than a natural roll off below the 40 Hz mounted resonance, the bass is much flatter and any peaks and dips are pretty much a function of mic placement, not driver. The DEQX does have (in addition to crossover and driver correction) a room correction parametric EQ which is done from the listening position. That is not part of any of these curves.
UFOKILLERZ
Re: Yorkville u215. I have not every heard or seen in person the Yorkvilles, but in doing my exploration on this project did read a bit about them, and looked at pictures. I have read good comments by posters on the Yorkvilles, so you may not need to do much except improve their WAF - ;-) Do you have some measurement tools?
It looks like they tackled the mid port issue by using elongated port holes, and there are only 3, so I am guessing that nothing needs to be done to correct for that anomaly that was present in the Lambda Unity. Areas that might be improved upon could be Cabinet - both to eliminate any panel resonances and perhaps change grille and horn mounting to eliminate diffraction. The other is crossover. Again, don't know if it needs help, but crossover components are expensive and most commercial products do the minimum for acceptable sound. That being said, modeling crossovers is difficult. Many crossover or circuit design software packages will model the network results into a static load, but not into the complex impedance of the actual loud speaker, let along let you optimized multiple drivers. LEAP from Linear X does that, but costs more than the speaker. That is why I am using my 20 year old DOS version of LEAP for crossover modeling. It still works great, but is just not user friendly.
Enjoy your new speakers.


have a older version omnimic that i should send in for upgrades. but i don't even have my yorkvilles yet, not too worried about WAF. Will see if danley can be of any help. Thanks
ufokillerz is offline  
post #26 of 28 Old 12-02-2012, 05:01 PM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 208
Ray,

Noticed the cabinet along the front wall, .... I was blown away by how significant a cabinet, quite similar, affected a two channel rig of mine some time ago.

I too knew it was an issue, however until I removed it, I had no idea how great the impact was. Just a reminder.

Again, nice project.

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
post #27 of 28 Old 12-03-2012, 12:40 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Ray Weikel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH View Post

Ray,
Noticed the cabinet along the front wall, .... I was blown away by how significant a cabinet, quite similar, affected a two channel rig of mine some time ago.
I too knew it was an issue, however until I removed it, I had no idea how great the impact was. Just a reminder.
Again, nice project.

FOH

Yes, I know and agree. I don't have a place to put it yet, but when I remove the subwoofers of the previous system from the room, then I can move it. One good thing about the Unity horn is the controlled directivity minimizes the impact of the cabinet.

Thanks for the feedback
Ray Weikel is offline  
post #28 of 28 Old 04-17-2013, 12:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kimeran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,203
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 114
Only thing that could make this better in my opinion is if the front baffles were painted blue like the JBL 4343...but that's just cause I like blue

Trying to enjoy the simple things in life.

 

Steam: madbrayniak

Kimeran is offline  
Reply DIY Speakers and Subs

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off