Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
90.218.129.65
In Reply to: RE: Are my ears really that sensitive? posted by Satie on September 12, 2014 at 12:06:36
Was thinking of another couple of options rather than redesigning the whole crossover.
1. Find out if the wire gauges of mid and bass are different between MGIII and MGIIIa and if so, rewire the MGIIIa and use the MGIII crossover. A big job, but could be an option and probably far cheaper than redesigning and changing the whole crossover. Would just need to buy the wires. Have all the other stuff for the job. The original MGIII does sound v good IMO so this is an option I'm considering.
2. Put in an extra midrange LP inductor into the stock MGIIIa internal crossover (0.4 mH inductor and 11uF cap) making it third order (as in the 3.3R, 3.5R and 3.6R spec) and hopefully reducing the 1-2 KHz dip. Not got the spreadsheet at hand to run simulations and am not sure how easy or hard this is. I suppose it might take quite a bit of trial and error to get it to sound ok. This is the sort of crossover that was in the 3.3.R stock spec which I found phasey and a bit troublesome, but if it helps the Nasty midrange peak I'm interested in it.
Won't be using the speakers again until early next week so I have some time to think of strategies.
On a separate note I wanted to ask. In the 18 6 6 6 spec I put in my modded 3.3rs (before I broke the tweeter) I was also having trouble with peakiness in the presence region after not hearing it for a long time. This showed up on the Anthem graphs too. Your Neo mids blend well with the Maggie tweeter for 1st order but there is too much constructive interference with the Maggie mid and tweeter for this first order crossover. Would I spacing it more help? Another option is obviously to make the tweeter HP 2nd order as per MGIII spec and leave the mid LP first order, though you lose the linear phase and the imaging is less precise as a result.
Follow Ups:
Was just thinking that rewiring the panels might not work as the magnet strength and/or magnet distance might not be the same between MGIII and MGIIIa. These models are coming up for 30 years old now so it might be hard to get info on that from Magnepan!, though I see it's also hard to get new information from them too!
I could give the extra inductor a go and/or adjust the existing ones in the mid/tweeter crossover. A bit fiddly but not that hard to do as I have a cheap Chinese inductance meter!
Davy, with the skills that you already have, plus good hearing, I suspect that you could do even better by adopting REW or similar measuring programs. This, to further monitor in-room acoustic behaviors. REW is free, and getting an adequate calibrated mic for a PC has become very inexpensive. This would offer you a higher degree of analytical options.By careful listening and by careful measuring in-room acoustic outputs, I've had terrific results modding my MMGs & system along the years. We can't easily turn our homes into labs but that's the beauty. We can get the individualized, room-inclusive soundscape that takes us closest to our goals. I get the feeling that you could do monstrously well if you keep at it. Finer tools may make things more impressive still.
Edits: 09/12/14
Thanks for the advice. I was going to ask about REW as it seems to be so popular. Will read up more and look for a calibrated mic. Do you really need a special, advanced sound card too or is that not absolutely necessary?
These days, newer sound cards -- even most of the motherboard-integrated ones -- are adequate for the acoustic measurements. There is more than enough headroom in terms of linearity, low distortion and good S/N for in-room takes.
So, for example, REW's ability to provide good comparative measurements of harmonic distortion in a room, are practical with almost any newer audio chip. The room + speakers figures are way over any normal electronic distortion. Yet, as long as one keeps the limitations in mind, some useful information can be gathered from comparing things "apples-to-apples". Absolute distortion figures without an anechoic environment are not achievable in our rooms. OTOH, comparing the distortions of, say "tweak A vs tweak B", can be quite revealing if done with care regarding environmental acoustic variables.
The same goes for finding some other kinds of distortion at the macro level, and this is quite useful. For example, some types of unseen damage to Maggies, or the impact of defective bias controls (as in crossover distortion in the amps) are not hard to see even with basic gear.
Some laptop built-in audio cards are tricky. The auto setups need to be bypassed. Yet, as long as the basic [laptop] quality is good, even the worst case I've seen can be made useful for many practical purposes.
Now, REW also allows a few measurements of the electronics at line level. For these, yes, you would want some of the better cards. These, for example, could allow meaningful stand-alone electronic distortion figures. In my case, an oldish E-mu 0404 USB that came with solid specs is normally used. The better internal add-on audio cards can do the trick also. With the growth of PC-based audiophile requirements, the overall quality of the audio electronics has improved greatly.
Many thanks for the info, sound really good. I need to start using this. I bet there are lots of guides online to REW but is there anything specific you would recommend reading?
It's great that computer sound cards are probably ok for the job, or if not I could just get a 0404 USB. Had one before for use with the Hauptwerk organ system and they are pretty cheap. Guess I will have to find a place in the Uk selling a decent calibrated mic for the job.
In the meantime I was perhaps thinking a bit too far with the idea of putting an extra inductor in the midrange LP internal XO of my MGiiia. Another simpler solution might be an internal crossover more like the 20 or 20.1, increasing the existing midrange inductor to a higher value of around 0.7 to 1.1 mH. This would probably also help the 1-3 KHz peak. I can easily change the tweeter cap to 10 uF for this to be more like the MG 20 crossover. I'm not sure how this type of crossover would blend with the stock MGiiia external crossover though as that is 2nd order HP whereas the mg20/20.1 external is first order.
I already have some made up 0.74 mH inductors I could use for this so it very easy to try and see how it sounds.
[my wife's got me shopping...or rather she shops and I sit on a aisle bench and pray...lol! This is me wriritng on phone while hooked to my PC via remote VPN. i have copied and pasted an earlier relevant post. ]
--start snip
...I mentioned that in recent times the availability of calibrated microphones has increased while the prices have come down. I have tested several units and they fare well vs my more expensive ones, at least for all practical purposes. In fact, the Dayton Audio iMM-6 Calibrated Measurement Microphone is less than $20 and works well with REW on PC/Mac (though it was originally designed for iPhones & Android). Look it up at Dayton (link below).
I wish I could offer a proper basic "how-to" but I am a bit short on time these days. ...count also on others who have similar experience to pitch in. You may also want to roam REW's forum on HometheaterShack.com
I do plan to place more emphasis on some practical examples of what can be achieved with REW or similar packages. Folks tend to become more motivated to learn when they see the usefulness.
Once they see how easy and practical it has become to measure, the real challenge is to remind them that some discipline helps achieve the best results.
---end snip
Thanks a lot for the info. Sounds very interesting. I can get that microphone you linked from Amazon UK ( double the price though!) . So I assume you just get an extension lead and plug it into the pc's (or soundcard's) mic input?
I will have to read up thanks for the advice I'll take a look at the Hometheatreshack site.
Is measuring FR and measuring distortion levels the most useful thing to use it for?
Davy, for this particular microphone to work on PC, laptop or sound cards you are going to need an adapter like what I link to at the bottom here. The mic has a thin male connector format like what iThings & Android phones use. The adapter separates the stereo mic and speaker feeds. You may also want to get a pair of long cables so you can use the mic anywhere in the room and also send a REW reference output to your audio gear. At the preamp (or power amp) end of this one, a set of male RCA terminations (adapters), can go to the AUX inputs, for example.
As to what REW is most useful for, it may depend on your needs at different points in time. For a long while, FR, group delay, phase and impulse measurements come in handy most of the time; but waterfalls not too often. Lately, since REW's harmonic distortion & IM distortion measurements have become more reliable in the past 2 years, I often find them very useful while testing the more radical tweaks.
I do many quick FR takes with the RTA, feeding or playing pink noise at the source. However, I can switch to the more informative sweeps very easily. This graph below shows a "quick and dirty" RTA from a few days ago. The PLLXO bi-amp here is set to run both drivers in "same polarity" (see that slight center dip?) which I prefer. (Incidentally, flat enough as it looks, I have actually "de-tuned" the settings. This is not exactly how I really listen but that's another story. )
One thing that I like very much about recent versions of REW is having up to 30 sweeps per file. It makes it easier to compare results. For example, back in 2012 someone had asked me what kind of difference could the line-level bi-amping be making. I found enough of the old original xover parts to restore them in the left MMG. This allowed me to tell a portion of the story with measurements; many actually, all in one file. And not just the a whole MMG but also of its separate drivers. (BTW, knowing individual driver behaviors can be pure gold when tweaking the Maggies.) This image below is an example.
The many sweeps in one file has another huge benefit for me. I can repeat the same sweep a few times when I have concerns about ambient noise intruding into a more critical set of reads. I live in hot South Florida, where A/C compressors' noise easily intrudes into measurements. I schedule most of the critical acoustical measurements for verification in the cooler months. In the warmer months...I sweep and re-sweep, LOL! The group delay comparison of the two settings shown before (old parts vs PLXXO) was repeated. That hot June summer, they still did overlap in 2 out of 3 sweeps. However, look what a starting compressor did at the bottom of the PLLXO (orange) in this one. At this low a frequency it may not seem to matter for the MMGs. Yet, it would, had this been real and not noise-induced like it really was. (There can normally be very faint but real acoutical output down to 32hz in mine and other tweaked MMG systems).
The other thing I like about REW it the ample space to add details about each sweep. I chose this slide below to demonstrate it for 3 reasons. One reason is that it shows the various facilities and options in the program. The 2nd reason is that you can see the space to add comments about an individual sweep. I tend to cram in a lot of details in each here when conducting tests with a long-term intent. One forgets key details easily...and almost everything is really "key"...
The 3rd reason is to show how important it is to consider the room's noise floor in many cases. The first sweeps that I showed at the top display a minor bass peak at right under 40hz from both MMGs. However, THAT ain't really by the MMGs. You will actually find it in the noise floor as recorded below. In fact, it is this same kind of noise peak that distorted the group delay sweep (PLLXO, orange) shown above, back in 2012.
Lastly, there are some of these same sweeps and tests that can be conducted at the line level instead of acoustically. One usually hooks up the output of the sound card to the input (loopback) and adjust signal levels. There are other tests that require a more elaborate hookup setup. Of all these, at least testing the soundcard with a loopback the first time around may be a wise thing to do. Most newer sound cards are good enough by default but one never knows...and it is not hard to make sure that they meet specs.
Thanks for very much info and graphs. Looks like a really useful tool indeed. I haven't had time yet to read the hometheatreshack guides but will do soon and also use what you've written here.
Just a quick question for now though. How does it measure the room noise floor?
The room & ambient noise floor can be done in at least 2 ways:
- In RTA mode while playing nothing, the mic is just listening to the background noise. In the case shown earlier, above, I asked the program to average 16 continuous samples (about as many seconds, I think). When compared to the pink noise reads in the RTA, there's good SPL correlation if using the same input gain settings. I may repeat this up to 3 times when I suspect there's too active an external environment. Approaching thunderstorms, hot days (A/C) and delivery trucks are the worst offenders. A nearby soccer park contributes with crowd and whistle noises during weekends and some evenings.
- In "sweeps mode" I let REW try taking a sweep but I turn off the power amps. The program records the noise anyway. Right now I am on coffee break. So, I just took the one below remotely while my wife watches TV (the mic is in place). The sound is from the small speakers on the TV, not the surround system. She reports that the program is "The Chew"...they are cooking some delicious stuff...and I can only have a miserable tasteless snack, LOL!
Sorry didn't see this earlier. Thanks a lot again for the info. Will bear all that in mind when I eventually use this great program.
Hi Satie,Many thanks for the advice. I will try flipping the polarity of the tweeter in the present 18 6 (6 12) spec and see what happens. (I didn't think it would matter but seems I was wrong) Thanks also for the tip of trying the resistor too to reduce peakiness. Could be worth a go as well. Not sure if that would work well though as the bass is already quite strong in stock MGIIIa. It might swamp everything with the mid reduced.
Otherwise I had another idea which is quite easy to do. Going back to 18 12 (12 12) stock MGIIIa xo setup but then simply increasing the midrange series inductor from 0.4 to around 0.7 mH or higher. This is similar to the mg20/20.1 internal crossover and looks good for reducing that peak on the spreadsheet. I have some 0.74 inductor I could use for this. They use 18 awg wire not 16, but I guess it should be ok for testing purposes. The tweeter cap in the MGiiia is a 10 uF paralleled with 2uF so I could disable the 2uF cap easily to make it more like mg20 spec. I'm not totally sure how this would blend with the stock MGIIIa external 18/12 crossover as the MG20 external is 18/6
This is also very easy for me to try so I think it's worth a go. Certainly easier than adding an extra inductor on the mid LP making that 3rd order as that might take a lot of playing around with the values.
Yeah bit of a mystery how Magnepan got the original MGIII crossover sounding good with that kind of midrange suckout. The lower and upper bass are too sucked out for sure.
Edits: 09/13/14 09/13/14
The option of raising the mid LP inductor from .4 to .7 mH is interesting, but may end up cutting you off too low- that is nearly an octave's worth - if you have something like 0.1-0.2 mH to add on to the 0.4 that might not be too drastic, but if you like what the simulation shows, go ahead - you already have the parts. I would not worry about the 18ga wire for now, as you say, it is good enough for experimentation.
As for reproducing the MG20 XO in the IIIa, I think that you can start with the top filters and change the 18/12 to 18/6 later on. It is just a wire snip and possibly a cap substitution. In my setup doing anything other than 1st order on the midrange is so disuptive to SQ that I just don't do it at all. The initial experimentation with the free midrange was incredibly instructive as to how good things can sound. I only added the filters because the amp and drivers needed protection from loud bass and in order to do away with the head in a vise problem due to low dispersion of the midrange beyond 6-8 khz.
Ok I tried several things on the MGIIIas last night. I think I am slowly dialing things in.With 60uF worth of external HP caps (first order filter) in the 18 6 (6 12) config I flipped the tweeter polarity as you suggested, and this did make the sound more to my liking, but it was a bit too sucked out in the presence region and lower treble.
So instead (still running 18 6 6 12 I put the polarity back (to + - + for the drivers) and increased the mid LP inductor from 0.4 to 0.72 mH. Obviously this spaces the mid/tweeter crossover more and brings down the XO point. This was better than flipping the tweeter polarity, but again things were too sucked out in the presence region. I think you are right, with a less drastic change, - maybe to 0.5 or 0.6 mH things might work well. Another additional thing which might help is to bring the tweeter XO down slightly by increasing the cap (and possibly reducing the tweeter inductor).
Anyway, the next move (with 0.72 mH mid inductor still installed) was to reconnect the parallel midrange 10 uF cap, going to 18 6 12 12 (MG20/20.1 type spec). This change the sound a lot and it did not sound as good as 18 6 6 12 in my opinion as the sound was much thinner and anaemic and the presence region was becoming more prominent. The midrange output had gone up significantly I think. Quite a bit of work would probably be needed to get 18 6 12 12 sounding better, - maybe increasing the Mid LP inductor more to around 1mH or higher (as in the 20.1). I did try decreasing the tweeter cap to 10 uF and that improved things slightly, but not enough. I think the midrange output is higher in 18 6 12 12 than 18 6 6 12.
So I think I'll go back to 18 6 6 12 and try to get that to work. I'll start unwinding the 0.72 mH inductors and go down slowly to around 0.5 to 0.6 mH. Might also try lowering the tweeter, and maybe try increasing the external HP from 60 uF to 70 uF or higher.
This is the electrical plot I am getting from the spreadsheet with 18 6 6 12, 70uF external HP, and 0.55 mH mid LP and the tweeter adjusted to 15uF and 0.4 mH parallel inductor (reduced from 0.7 mH). I can use the previously used 0.4 mH midrange inductor on the tweeter instead. The ribbon is still safe as its not going as low as it does in the 3.3, 3.5 or 3.6
The plot looks good, but one issue is that I have noticed is that when I change the tweeter crossover values on the spreadsheet, the midrange curve also changes. I guess this must be wrong. I am trying to get to grips with LSPCAD demo version instead (which is limited to 2 drivers, but still usable).
Edits: 09/16/14
Been running some sims and things don't look too great increasing the mid LP inductor to 0.7 mH whilst running the stock external 18 12 setup with (with 3.5 mH inductor and 60uF caps on the external HP)
18 6 external with 60 uF HP caps looks better.
I think the problem I had with thinness increasing the external HP caps to from 35uF to 60uF with the first order external HP yesterday is that it increases the mid output meaning bass is less prominent. With a resistor on the mid it might work much better. The FR is quite flat with that particular config. When AndyR altered his MGIIa crossover he also had to use resistors so perhaps this is something to bear in mind. Increasing the caps higher to 75 or 90 looks even better but I'm not sure the mid would be happy running that low in first order.
If I used a resistor on the mid what wattage should I use? Several 10 watts in parallel or a much higher rating?
My other idea of adding an 2nd mid LP inductor to make it 3rd order won't work unless the present inductor is increased substantially in value, to 8mH or higher, whilst also increasing the parallel cap significantly to around 50uF. This is basically the 3.3 or 3.5 internal crossover setup. That's quite a bit of work.
It is possible that the 60uF swap was making the lower mids (250-500 hz) too prominent and creating a dip from destructive interference lower down. If it is just a matter of mid prominence then you might get rid of the problem with a smallish resistor.
The resistor can be made of a few parallel 5 or 10 watters. You probably don't need any massive resistors like 50 watt rated ones that often have heat sinks.
I would not go to 3rd order in the mid or treble. It starts sounding rough.
Replicating the XO you built for the 3.3 or 3.5 is not necessarily a bad idea since you liked it all things considered. Your lower levels of playback are friendlier to the 1st order XO than my need to shatter glass with operatic sopranos.
Thanks Satie. I think even with the new mid LP inductor value I'd still need to lower the midrange output level with a resistor. I see Andy used 30w resistors so that seems sensible.Like I said I was not happy with the 18 6 6 6 crossover I put in the 3.3rs after not hearing it for a long time. Also way too much peakiness in the prescence region. It would need adjusting, maybe back to stock MGIII 18 6 6 12 (which actually worked well in them before, unlike in the iiia where the mid is too sucked out), or I might actually go back to the stock 18 12 18 12 crossover in them when I get the ribbon repaired. You are right things do start to sound a bit rough with third order on the mid LP but I would not mind trying it again anyway as it was designed for the speaker. Does not help that the cap Magnepan use in parallel on the mid LP is an electrolytic...
Wow you do listen loud. Front row of concert stuff! I remember that from before! Be careful with your hearing though!
Another option ( though it's harder to do as you have change all the values) are Bobwire's two 18 12 12 12 crossovers which are very flat. Much flatter than stock MG IIIa . I would probably want to introduce a slight dip in the prescence region if possible but I might play around with them in simulation to see. AndyR ran them in Lspcad for me a few years back and thought they looked extremely good. They might need the relative driver levels adjusting too.
Edits: 09/14/14
You guys conversation makes my head hurt. :) This kind of tedious, iterative approach to tweaking is MUCH easier handled by a DSP-crossover and multiple amplifiers. You can experiment endlessly and ultimately come to a solution (if you're careful) that can be recreated with passive components.
And always remember, just looking at simulations of the electrical curves are limited in value when determining suckouts, peaks, phase responses, etc, etc. You MUST factor in the acoustic responses of the drivers and be skilled with an acoustic measuring acumen or it can be pointless.
Cheers,
Dave.
Thanks for the input. I do kind of personally like plodding along, adjusting stuff slowly, even if its no the best way to do it. Guess it depends on what floats your boat. I am also however quite interested in your suggestions. Which DSP crossover(s) do you recommend?, seem to be quite a few out there.
From my (reasonably limited) experience I do think you can get some idea of the sound from the electrical response, and AndyR also agreed with me on this. I acknowledge it does not account for many other factors though (as you say), but obvious things like the big presence dip in the electrical response of the stock 3.3R crossover, or the presence peak on the MGIIIa or Stock Tymapni IVa are certainly audible to me.
My favorite currently is the miniDSP 4x10Hd. An extremely versatile unit that offers the ability to go 4-way, control your system volume, provides digital inputs, and a host of other features.
However, Satie would reject this unit out of hand. :) There's no satisfying some people. :)
Dave.
We have competing goals in mind. These have to be weighed against each other and I (not so Davy) can't stand mediocre DACs such as those in DSP devices. Using them makes my subjective evaluation useless as I focus on the irritating sound they produce - all I can do is say "I don't want this". I can easily tolerate wow, noise, hum, non linear FR and peaky mids, bloated bass, or overcooked highs, I can take lots of phase issues, I shut down with bad digital.
Though I suggested all along that Davy use REW to do the characterization of the drivers (I did it on spreadsheets a decade ago with manual measurements for my drivers) and work things out on the computer, but he did not want to redesign the speakers from the drivers up, but to tweak them. I knew that is what I would have to do from the get go, Davy did not and still doesn't intend to.
Davy is very sensitive to coherence and has gone back from multiamping to single amping. Your solution is a design tool instead of a tweaking/fine tuning of the FR and phase issues. I don't think that within the limited scope of Davy's goals he would benefit from creating a DSP and multiamp setup he can't listen to. Not to speak of the learning curve in using the measurement and dsp software which would not be in place for his final product.
Neither Davy nor I intend to be professionals in this field but to tweak what we have. I kept an adjustable PLLXO/hybrid XO so that I can change things on the fly for recordings and experimentation with positioning (Limage and Rooze setups that do better with tweaking of the XO to complement them because of timing issues with something so large as the T IV).
I had done the mod TIV/Neo8 with Marchand's XO and had excellent results. I liked what I heard with the naked Neo8 array and attempted to use it that way for a couple of years, but the practical limitations drove me to rework the XO again with the constraint of having a 1st order XO for the midrange.
Davy is trying to iron out a peakiness in the top of the midrange that is the flaw in an otherwise fine speaker that he likes. An all out redesign assault on the speaker is not what he wants to do.
Hi Satie,
Sorry didn't see your post until now.
I hear what you say about the DSPs if they do degrade the sound somewhat. I know the older Behringer DXC2946 didgital crossover is very dated compared to modern DSP crossovers but I don't think I could have used that on the Maggie mid and tweeter to make subjective evaluations.
You are right, I am just tweaking what I have right now, and I freely admit that quite a bit of it is a shot in the dark, but I do quite enjoy that and eventually getting to something that works.
I do like single amp drive (being sensitive to coherence as you rightly say). Part of the trouble trying to get the drivers to blend well with biamping and triamping is having to do lots of experimentation with different power amps, crossover setups etc. That can take lot of time to get it to work well. For sound quality above anything else, PLLXO on the mid and treble is better than any active crossover in my view (and also better than single amp drive at speaker level), though it can be harder to blend PLLXOs with active bass due to delay issues etc. I might eventually go back to biamping or triamping in the future and really go for it and try to get something coherent, but for now I'm just tweaking the basic sound I've got with these MGIIIas in single amp drive. Ultimately I'm not sure if you'd ever quite the same degree of coherence of single amp speaker level passive drive with any multi amp setup, but with careful tweaking and matching I am sure you could get very close and also get the big advantages of biamping/triamping such as enhanced clarity and less distortion. I could likely also live with the latter.
Davey is likely right in that it could be easier and quicker to iron out the issue I am having with now, but only if I had the system set up already and knew what I was doing (and know how to transpose it well to passive components). The expensive of buying the DSP and more power amps along with the learning curve and time needed don't really make it viable for my situation right now (especially with single amp drive), but thanks for the advice Davey. It's certainly something I will bear in mind to try out in the future, especially if I do go back to a multiamp setup.
I will try flipping the tweeter polarity with the 18 6 (6 12) setup as per your suggestion now to see how that fares. Then think about the mid LP inductor change.
Yeah, I'm well aware of your sensitive ears and point-of-view on this, but if you can't listen past the sound of some digital circuitry to make relative evaluations it REALLY makes this sort of evaluation tedious and difficult. That's all I'm saying.
I can appreciate the learning curve of measurement, DSP-software, etc, etc, but eventually you get to a point with this hobby that you're forced to learn/utilize this stuff. You two guys are at (beyond) that point and seat-of-the-pantsing experimentation is a real double-edged sword.
If you're going to be a master auto technician, you need a complete set of tools......you can't do everything with a crescent wrench. :)
Cheers,
Dave.
This is true. We also need to know what kind of frequency response is prefered. Most of the DSP-systems available seems to think it is a straight line from 20-20000 Hz at the listening position we are aming for. It is not!
Thanks for the advice. I've asked Roger to kindly run a simulation to check how 0.74 mH on the mid LP looks. I am hoping this is going to be an easy change to sort out the peakiness at 1-2 KHz. That inductor is 0.7 mH in the original mg20 (but with a 7uF parallel cap) and goes up to 1.12 mH in the MG20.1 (with a 12 uF parallel cap) though I guess the drivers are a bit different. The 20.1 (in particular) simulation does have quite a broad suckout centered around the prescence region. I can always unwind some inductor if 0.74 mH is too much and measure with my meter.
You are right it's v easy to change the external HP from 2nd to 1st order so I can do that later. The 18 12 bass to lower mid transition is quite good in the stock MGIIa XO. Better than it sounded with the stock bass HP in 18 6 so I think I'll try stock external first with this internal inductor change and it from there but I will definitely try both and see which one blends better.
The Neo 8 array must have great ability to be able to be run full range, but yes I guess it's sensible to protect it from bass and reduce the beaming problem in the upper mids/lower treble. I guess when it was run full range the lack of phase etc made things sound really good?
I think the broad suckout may not play out that badly in the presence region since I suspect the sensitivity of the mid is possibly 1 db higher than the bass. So long as the depression on the gann chart is not deep it may not sound like it looks.
Re the Neo8, it is phenomenal in the range it covers and yes, the lack of phase is really a great plus. But doing things that way just leaves me without the ability to play as loud as I need.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: