The 2.5 clone papers - CCRMA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

LCR impact on full range response 100.0 dBSPL TGAudio MLS - Frequency Response 06-10-02 17.59.22 90.0 108.0 80.0 36.0 70.0 -36.0 60.0 -108.0 50.0 -180.0 400 1k 10k Hz 20k CH A dBSPL 1/3 Octave 51.2kHz 16K Rectangular Start 2.46ms Stop 5.12ms FreqLO 376.47Hz Fig.10. Full range response +/- LCR, 0.33 oct. smoothing. 90.0 dBSPL TGAudio MLS - Frequency Response 06-10-02 17.56.08 80.0 108.0 70.0 36.0 60.0 -36.0 50.0 -108.0 40.0 -180.0 200 1k 10k Hz 20k CH A dBSPL Unsmoothed 51.2kHz 16K Rectangular Start 2.46ms Stop 5.12ms FreqLO 376.47Hz Fig. 11. Full range response + LCR, same and reverse polarity (no smoothing). 1 meter distance, tweeter height. CLIO CLIO 180.0 Deg 180.0 Deg 6
Significance of LCR on cumulative spectral decay. TGAudio Waterfall 06-10-02 17.59.41 0 dB -5 -10 -15 -20 400 1k Hz 10k 20k CLIO Cumulative Spectral Decay Fig.12. 20 dB range CSD, without notch filter. TGAudio Waterfall 06-10-02 17.58.05 0 dB -5 -10 -15 -20 400 1k Hz 10k 20k CLIO Cumulative Spectral Decay Fig.13. 20 dB range CSD, with notch filter. <strong>The</strong> impact of the notch filter speaks for itself. With the LCR circuit in place an impressive + 1 dB frequency response is achieved between 300 and 4000 Hz, and the lack of the 2 kHz bump is clearly audible, where especially female voices gets a natural balance and acoustic guitars which may sound almost too good with the bump, now are presented with a much more realistic timbre. Listening to pink noise on the 8535 +/- LCR filter strongly suggests we get rid of the bump. Read Lynn Olson (Ariel) on the use of pink noise! http://www.alohaaudio.com/Arieltxt2.html#top And best of all, the 8535 does not loose its fresh and crisp presentation. <strong>The</strong> sound of the 8535 is hard to describe (isn’t sound always?), but certainly this is a very lucky/clever combination of the right matrix of paper pulp and carbon fiber, the right cone size and weight (the cone is more flexible that the 8545), voice coil dimensions, magnet size, all giving a smooth roll off characteristic and simplifying crossover design. 2.7 2.7 1.8 1.8 0.9 0.9 0.0 ms 0.0 ms 7
Page 1 and 2: The 2.5 clone papers by Troels Grav
Page 3 and 4: 3 Tweeter polarity My first comment
Page 5: 47 ohms resistor in HP section. In
Page 9 and 10: Fig.16. System response with Fig. 1
Page 11 and 12: TS parameters at different measurin
Page 13 and 14: 100.0 dBSPL TGAudio MLS - Frequency
Page 15 and 16: Impedance of system with series fil
Page 17 and 18: Construction of bass reflex cabinet
Page 19 and 20: At last, the final cabinets with dr
Page 21 and 22: 100.0 dBSPL MLS - Frequency Respons
Page 23 and 24: Let’s take another look at the fr
Page 25 and 26: 2.5 clone crossover, version 6. Twe
Page 27 and 28: 110.0 dBSPL TGAudio MLS - Frequency
Page 29 and 30: Sonic evaluation of modified 2.5 cl
Page 31 and 32: 31 Modification of ScanSpeak D2010/
Page 33 and 34: Listening tests The listening sessi
Page 35 and 36: The 2.5 clone now bear little resem
Page 37 and 38: 37 The new coated 8535 drivers from
Page 40 and 41: New project to come: “The Point75
Page 42 and 43: Totem Acoustic Mani2 KEF RDM Dynaud

The 2.5 clone papers - CCRMA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?