Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Midrange horn beaming.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stash
    replied
    AEIOU makes a good point. And it reinforces my opinion of the auto-calibration on many surround receivers. Maybe high end studio equip with auto eq and room analyzers work well. But at substantial cost. However, when the average Joe buys a receiver for a few hundred dollars, the included calibration programming and limited eq, mic set-up, etc, is meant more for the uneducated ear. Not for the critical listener.

    Manual 31 band/ch graphic eqs are much more affordable. One can be purchased for $100-$200. But the problem there is how to loop the eq into a modern surround receiver.

    Leave a comment:


  • AEIOU
    commented on 's reply
    Because the vast majority of us cannot afford a many kilobuck setup like that, and what we can afford has audible artifacts.

  • fpitas
    replied
    Sorry, I know next to nothing about AVRs or Auto EQ.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stash
    replied
    I'm assuming the auto eq software referred to by Bill is much more sophisticated/accurate than the auto calibration which is included with Yamaha receivers?

    My receiver supposedly includes parametric eq in auto calibrate mode. But, it never sounds right to me. Although I have not tried it yet, since I built my Mach Ones. I typically use the auto calibrate to set distance and levels. Then I disregard the auto-set eq, re-adjusting it by ear, and re-adjusting levels of the rear surround speakers, as they always seem to be set a bit too low. The resulting sound via the auto calibration always seems to be more mid-bass heavy, sacrificing lowest octave tones. Mids and highs never sound right to me either. I've been disappointed with the auto cal. I had envisioned the parametric equalizer squeezing out the deepest bass and fine tuning the treble.

    With so many AV set-ups like mine, (TV optical line-out to receiver input), I'm surprised there are no digital eq components to connect between the TV and receiver. I imagine a digital 31 band/ch eq would not be that expensive (no pots, just a few buttons and a screen).

    Leave a comment:


  • fpitas
    replied
    What Bill said. It took me a while to get good at EQ, but it's worth it. Yes, if you do it badly it will sound bad. I like horns, so I took the effort to get good at it.

    Leave a comment:


  • billfitzmaurice
    replied
    Recording and live sound engineers have been using manually adjusted 31 band EQs since the 1980s and haven't had trouble getting good results. With auto EQ software it's child's play. It takes longer to set up the mic than it does for the system to set the EQ.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve Lee
    commented on 's reply
    Transporter Room?

    :D

  • Stash
    replied
    I can tell you, for me, it's the thought of altering the sound with negative results, or no longer being pure. Also, it can be frustrating trying to find that right sound with multiple bands.

    Leave a comment:


  • billfitzmaurice
    replied
    I've never understood why some have an adversion to using EQ. Perhaps because they've never seen one of these?
    Click image for larger version

Name:	church3.jpg
Views:	133
Size:	30.9 KB
ID:	1458637

    Leave a comment:


  • Stash
    replied
    Btw...all other mid/treble bands at 0dB. TREBLE control also bypassed. Enhancement OFF.
    playing Marian Hill. Incredibly smooth and detailed. Wow

    Leave a comment:


  • Stash
    replied
    Well, I caved...turned on my receivers built-in EQ. Only 7-bands per channel, but seems to make a difference.

    Attenuated 160Hz by -3dB. Really smoothed out deep bass. All other bass bands at 0dB.
    BASS control bypassed.

    Attenuated 2.5Khz by -2dB. Much better! Peak seems gone. Midrange sounds just as full, but a little warmer. Seems very smooth now. Will listen for a while and fine tune if neccessary.

    You guys were correct about using EQ. Many thx 👍. Much prefered over opening up my speakers and altering crossovers

    Leave a comment:


  • Stash
    replied
    I based my speakers on the old school MACH ONE. My mistake was I didn't follow their design. That is to say, The MACH ONE included resistors for both mid-horn and tweeter horn, as well as mid and tweeter L-pads.

    When I designed my crossovers, I was very afraid of the tweeter horns being overly shrill. I absolutely despise shrill treble. And so, I added a resistor to dampen output, with excellent results.

    My mid-horns are crossed over at 800Hz and at 8Khz. I incorrectly assumed shrillness would be avoided. I never even considered the sensitive 1Khz-3Khz region. Lol, idk why? In my car, I installed component 6.5 woofers & 1" dome tweeters and an upgraded receiver. The receiver features an 8-band EQ. I have the1Khz band attenuated by -8dB, because I find the shrill resonating sound so very annoying.

    If I had money to blow, I'd buy an old school amp or receiver with preamp in/out and a 31-band/ch EQ to patch in. Then I could really fine tune the sound.

    It's too bad modern surround receivers do not come with preamp in/out loop. My old Pioneer 80's receiver included the loop to patch in another component. But I was too dumb to make use of it back then

    Leave a comment:


  • fpitas
    replied
    Yeah, horns are often more like 110dB/w.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stash
    replied
    Yeah. I expected some beaming or slight peaks.

    Since I turned down L-pad a bit more, the peak is attenuated. Overall, sound is well balanced.

    i think this horn driver is simply much louder than the tweeter and woofer. Louder than I anticipated.

    The tweeter is rated 96dB, but it is a 4 ohm driver. So i used a 4 ohm padding resister in series which probably reduces output by -3 to -6dB, and brought it in line with the woofer, rated 90dB. Those two drivers sound very well balanced.
    Looking back, I probably should have done the same with the mid- driver. I didn't think to add an 8-ohm resister in series and then re-calculate crossover values. That would have attenuated mid output to more reasonable levels.

    It may be ok as-is. I just have the mid L-pad turned way down, almost completely off. I'm guessing as long as L-pad does not overheat, all is good. I originally counted on the L-pads to fine tune the treble drivers without altering their characteristics. But I didn't allow for such a difference in SPL for the mid driver. My mistake. Live and learn .

    Leave a comment:


  • fpitas
    replied
    It's common for horns to narrow dispersion at certain frequencies. That results in a raised area, and the solution is to measure on-axis and EQ it flat. Generally speaking, unless that takes more than a few dB of EQ, it's harmless otherwise. Even horns that don't have narrowing dispersion often aren't flat. Take a look at the goofy EQ curve for the JBL M2 horn sometime.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X