• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Zilch's AK Design Collaborative - Econowave Speaker

I may very well be joining the ranks of the E-wavers in the near future but I have some questions about an unusual way to go about it. I have no cabs (although I've been on the lookout for some) that will allow me accomplish the normal woofer/horn arrangement.
Many eWavers are running with the waveguide just sitting atop the woofer boxes.

Your problem going active biamp is providing the requisite high-frequency compensation for the compression driver. I'd suggest you build with the passive crossover and connect the woofer output directly to your woofer terminals.... :yes:
 
Many eWavers are running with the waveguide just sitting atop the woofer boxes.

Your problem going active biamp is providing the requisite high-frequency compensation for the compression driver. I'd suggest you build with the passive crossover and connect the woofer output directly to your woofer terminals.... :yes:

I've been meaning to ask this. Is it possible to omit the CL HP portion of the Ewave crossover and just use the RC compensation portion when active biamping, or do the two parts of the network interact in a necessary way?
 
Many eWavers are running with the waveguide just sitting atop the woofer boxes.

Your problem going active biamp is providing the requisite high-frequency compensation for the compression driver. I'd suggest you build with the passive crossover and connect the woofer output directly to your woofer terminals.... :yes:

Generally, that was the plan. There are no LF inputs on the DCMs as it is not set up for biamping. I was planning on sending the LF signal straight to the DCM and the HF signal through the E-wave crossover to the horn. Although in that arrangement, I wouldn't need the full E-wave crossover, I was planning on building and using it in expectation of getting a cab and woofers in the future.

I've also read the warning about amp loading using passive biamping and wanted to make sure that my plans for using and active crossover with a tube high end and SS low end wouldn't create any problems. To me it seems that the use of an active crossover would prevent any problems like that but it never hurts to make sure.

Also before getting an active crossover I want to make sure that it will have the needed crossover point to work well with the horn. If it only has the choice of 1k or 1.5k should I use the 1.5k?

And just to be clear, the DCMs will have their original crossovers and tweeters in place.
 
Use 1.5 kHz.

Try 20 Ohms across the input to the eWave highpass when driving it with tubes.
 
The 4-Pi highpass, the red line, is more overcompensated and underdamped. The culprit at 1.8 kHz is 123A-1. Wayne's lowpass knocks that down, orange, but not optimally, perhaps; the apparent flat response through the crossover region is coming from the underdamped HF driver making up the difference, an effective 4 dB of "boost" in a region below the recommended minimum crossover frequency for the DE250. Once the comp is tweaked, we'll not want that to remain. The fact that red is above blue there indicates the flat response is the result of a phase cancellation:

attachment.php

What I do is to set the crossover up with the aid of in-air acoustic measurements, as shown in the post called "Crossover optimization for DI-matched two-way speakers". I'm not as concerned with individual transfer functions as I am with overall summed response. That's why in the case of the four Pi loudspeaker, you'll see a bit more peaking near crossover in the tweeter circuit when measured alone, but the overall system response is very smooth. This is my "secret sauce".

When I first came up with the R/R/C network for CD compensation, I depended on Spice heavily and on manual calculations for finding the null angles. I used baffle offset and crossover phase to set the position of the nulls. It worked pretty well, actually, but it cannot come as close to perfection as I'm able to do with the aid of computer measurements and a development system like the ICD in the Smith & Larson WTPro.

As you've seen from numerous posts over the years, the target transfer function is a lower shelf that is flat from the crossover frequency up to mass rolloff, where 6dB/octave augmentation begins (by removing attenuation). This approach works very well, but as you have noticed from many of your designs here, it often results in a little bit of ripple through the crossover region. It's not objectionable, but improvements are found with a little bit of adjustment to the basic filters, usually pushing one or both a little bit towards being underdamped or overdamped, or maybe moving the slope or frequency up or down some. The idea is to modify phase just enough to get summing to provide flat response through the pattern and to set the nulls where you want them to be. That's the goal, of course.

Watch what happens to the four Pi response curve on and off axis, and you'll see how important it is to set the crossover like this. What you want is a best fit of several (on-axis and off-axis) curves, an alignment of crossover and physical layout (baffle spacing) that provides good summing everywhere in the pattern. You're always going to see a different response curve at different listening positions, and I think it is important that the response stay pretty smooth everywhere within the pattern.

Sometimes, even with the nulls outside at a useful angle, you still see more ripple than you really want either on-axis or just off-axis. The same thing that forms the nulls is what causes this - summing of different sound sources with different phase at different angles. The difference between the major dip at nulls and the minor ripple within the pattern is due to different phase between sound sources. Near 180°, you get the nulls, but around 120° you get partial summing and that's what causes change in the minor ripple inside the pattern, usually just inside the nulls but sometimes closer to the baffle normal (straight forward) depending on all the interactions of phase, driver motion (pistonic or starting to flex), horn reactance (pipe modes), baffle offset, etc. All these details are why subtle adjustments to filter slope, frequency and damping sometimes make all the difference in the world.

In some cases, the tweeter circuit is shifted a little towards being overdamped, other cases a little underdamped. Same thing for the woofer, sometimes the Zobel allows some peaking, sometimes more damping than the textbook case. I don't care to make the filters' transfer functions flat in isolation, what I care is that the overall system performance is good. The reason an adjustment is necessary is the interactions between the core splitter filters (tweeter high-pass and woofer low-pass), the top-octave compensation, the Zobel and the driver's complex reactance (both electrical and acoustical), all these come into play. I've found that the best overall performance rarely happens when the transfer function of an individual circuit is made "textbook", how you would expect it to be. This is because of things like impedance (phase) ripple and complex summing in the acoustic domain.
 
I've been meaning to ask this. Is it possible to omit the CL HP portion of the Ewave crossover and just use the RC compensation portion when active biamping, or do the two parts of the network interact in a necessary way?

There's a tube crossover for DI-matched two-way (Pi/Ewave) loudspeakers based on the Steve Bench circuit on my forum, if you're interested.

 
There's a tube crossover for DI-matched two-way (Pi/Ewave) loudspeakers based on the Steve Bench circuit on my forum, if you're interested.


Wow. That takes me WAY back. I read Steve heavily when I was getting into tube audio more than a decade ago. Good writer and an excellent analyst. I never thought of adapting one of his xovrs as an active filter but it's a good idea.
 
skywave-rider said:
-The big transition is obviously at about 1k. Any interpreters? Earl?
attachment.php

- Am I zoomed-in far enough?
skywave said:
attachment.php


- OK, Earl, I removed flight time and I zoomed in more.
- Trying to get a grasp of scaling in this software, and the big thing is interpretation. Thanks for your input.

Hi Skywave

- Personally, I'd try 1K and even a bit lower .
- For my own purposes I'd be trying to get the crossover point ( with that waveguide ) to work as low as possible / this may mean excusing the DE250 from participating in the design exercise if it can't be made to respond to a passive bump-filter ( "underdamped" in the present vernacular ) .

- FWIW, I'd be willing to sacrifice some pattern control ( though I'd love have some down at 700hz because of the intended SR usage ) if the tradeoff would offer up a better vertical Forward Facing Lobe (of at least 35deg before the null points become too apparent ) .

- Here's AugerPros' Horizontal polars for the QSC / at a size and resolution that means something to these older eyes . ;)
- Polar control has narrowed at 1K to be sure / but hasn't completely collapsed until seven or eight hundred hertz .
B_C_on_QSC_000446_wavequide_polars_.PNG

- The wide Centre to Centre (C2C) spacing between this horn & a 12" or 15" should give problems with ever increasing crossover points ( though not having an actual QSC waveguide to play with means most of that comment is just conjecture ) .

- Like Gedlee, Brandon seems to be ignoring the possible lobing issue ( in the vertical ) for the time being . As a result , there seems to be a dearth of vertical polars to study ( of a full system ).

>< cheers :)
 
Red is 4pi, blue is EWave.
attachment.php

I want to point out some things that may not be immediately obvious to everyone. Hopefully this is helpful.

JBL usually shows distortion this way in their data sheets. I measure distortion like this too - an SPL curve of the fundamental plotted on the same chart as an SPL curve of the distortion. Another common way to chart distortion is by percentage, which looks decidedly different.

For more examples of distortion plotted as SPL, look at the distortion charts in the post below:

This post is a comparison of various basshorns, not necessarily the topic, but the thing I wanted to do was to show several SPL charts of this type, with distortion plotted along with the fundamental. The charts in the post above show a fundamental and THD+N, bascially 2nd and 3rd harmonics combined. You can also split them out, plotting 2nd and 3rd individually with a tracking VCF, as skywave-rider has done. Either way, this kind of chart shows actual SPL, not percentage. To calculate percentage, use the chart at the link below:

Another thing worth mentioning is the noise floor. As the fundamental drops, so does the distortion, sometimes below the noise floor. Once distortion is below the noise floor, obviously, you can't know what it is. You can only know it is below a certain level.

Notice that distortion basically tracks the fundamental in most cases. Where you see SPL rise in the fundamental, you'll usually see a corresponding rise in the distortion chart. This doesn't mean distortion went up - It means the acoustic output went up. If the distortion tracks the fundamental exactly, then distorton is flat and even. This is an important thing to remember when looking at SPL charts that show distortion.

You'll see a sort of baseline for each speaker where distortion is fairly uniform across the passband. Distortion rises dramatically when excursion rises quickly, like below the passband in a horn or reflex box. That's one of the key things to look for - if distortion goes way up at the low end, that's an indication you're using the device too low. This shows a lower limit of the device.

As I said earlier, you'll usually (hopefully) see that at some point, distortion drops below the noise floor. If the low end of the scale doesn't show a big rise in distortion, then the device is high-passed above the point where excursion has become excessive. The device basically will not distort in the passband, at least not any more than its nominal amount.

When you look at skywave-rider's chart above, you can clearly see this trend. Both crossovers high-pass the horn above its cutoff, so distortion down low doesn't rise (as a percentage). Where you see distortion SPL rise, that's because the fundamental rises. The distortion tracks the fundamental, basically -60dB straight across. This is a very low level, approximately 0.1%, indicating to me the drive level was probably just a couple volts.
 
Last edited:
Like Gedlee, Brandon seems to be ignoring the possible lobing issue ( in the vertical ) for the time being . As a result , there seems to be a dearth of vertical polars to study ( of a full system ).
Brandon has posted a preliminary look at the verticals of his 12" woofer "No Quarter" at 1.3 kHz using this waveguide, on axis and in 10° increments to 40°:

Up:

attachment.php

Down:

attachment.php

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17187889#post17187889

In my own work with the QSC, C/C distance is an issue with large diameter woofers, and the lowest practical crossover frequency may be an element in resolving this; as you suggest, we'll likely have to give up some pattern control to get there.

Geddes claims he doesn't care about the system verticals and won't publish the data, conspicuously evading my challenge for over a year, now. In the one instance where an owner measured them, at minimum, the vertical lobe was misaligned in his 10" Nathans. He is working up an elliptical oblate spheroid waveguide in the hope of overcoming some of the problems inherent in his current designs.

The vertical lobes/nodes are Wayne's "thing," and his conclusion is that axisymmetric (round, typically,) waveguides are problematic in several significant respects. While he won't (ever, probably,) admit it, Geddes apparently agrees.

********

For $8 apiece, acquire a pair of these QSC waveguides and play along with us here, Earl! :thmbsp:

[You, too, Wayne! :) ]
 

Attachments

  • active_up_0to40.png
    active_up_0to40.png
    20.9 KB · Views: 325
  • active_down_0to40.png
    active_down_0to40.png
    20.6 KB · Views: 328
Last edited:
me said:
- Like Gedlee, Brandon seems to be ignoring the possible lobing issue ( in the vertical ) for the time being . As a result , there seems to be a dearth of vertical polars to study ( of a full system ).
Zilch said:
Brandon has posted a preliminary look at the verticals of his 12" woofer "No Quarter" at 1.3 kHz using this waveguide, on axis and in 10° increments to 40°:
attachment.php

Thanks Zilch for setting me straight. I see now that I was being unfair to Brandon with that statement .

>< cheers :)
 
Hi,

While checking out the LF capabilities of the DE25-8 ( the predecessor to the newer generations' DE250 ) here's what I just measured ( with no applied EQ ) .

- This particular example ( of this driver model ) has a diaphragm fitup problem ( challenge ) leading me to ( somewhat ) ignore the FR anamoly at 1216 hz .

- The horn is an exponential type ( which ought to be obvious by the flattery given to the FR curve ) . I use this horn to get a good look at the FR possibilities of any 1" exit driver . It's front dimensions are 12.5"W by 7.75"H .

B_C_DE25-8_Sammi_expo_9040_30cm_.PNG


- Here's one type of distortion layout ( from ARTA/STEPS ).
- This was measured in millivolts at a normal listening level ( for me ) .

B_C_DE25-8_Sammi_expo_9040_30cm_dist_.PNG


- Here's the same DUT / but with the distortion expressed differently by ARTA/STEPS .
- This type of layout normalizes the distortion ( and expresses it as a percentage ) / it's graphed as if one has EQed the original FR to be a flat line .
- Distortion ( at these lower playback levels ) is ignorantly low, ( below .2 % at @ 800 hz ) .

B_C_DE25-8_Sammi_expo_9040_30cm_dist-normalized_.PNG


- FWIW, I do have a passive line level Hipass in front of the amp driving these horns . It's F3 is about 200 hz .

- Anyways, some food for thought for those who might want to try crossing over their mylar diaphragmed drivers a bit lower .

>< cheers :)
 
Last edited:
Zilch said:
What is your analysis of the system verticals as Brandon measures them, Earl?

- I hate the miserly sizes of the graphs, that Sound Easy seems to be limited to .
- OTOH, I guess it helps create flattering graphs for its users .

- I know that's not your question. So;

- With that 1.3K crossover point ( & the chosen slopes / whatever they are ), I ( think I ) see that the useful vertical response is limited to a total of @ 20 degrees ( from about 800 hz to 1600 hz ) .

- What do you see ?

>< cheers :)
 
Last edited:
- What do you see ?
Applying the same -6 dB criterion that is standard for other determinations, I agree.

At a 10' listening distance, with the acoustic center of the speaker at sitting height, I calculate the difference in listening height between me sitting (45") and standing (67") as 10.4°, and the ceiling bounce occurs at +40.4° and +33.7°, respectively, at the speaker. Floor bounce sitting is at -36.9°, and standing, -43.0°. The acoustic center of the speaker is at my sitting height.

Thus, I would find Brandon's speaker as measured entirely acceptable for my routine listening.... :thmbsp:
 
Last edited:
Hi all :) By the -6dB criterion I would spec my verticals as +18/-12 degrees, for roughly 30 degrees total window size. I think that is reasonable?

I'm enjoying these so far, it's really my first taste of high efficiency/highish directivity speakers, so it's been a steep learning curve. One thing I've found that maybe some of you more experienced owners can help me with is do you have general setup rules of thumb for these higher DI type speakers? Being more focused I'm finding that the soundstage is more heavily dominated by speaker placement than conventional speakers.

I'm also a bit surprised at how the DE160's sound. I figured they would have better dynamics than a typical softdome but would lose out in smoothness. But these are some to the smoothest drivers I've heard. No sibilance or spittiness even at very high levels. You could live with these a long time.

Brandon
 
I keep getting "file not found 404" errors when clicking the project summary links on the first page. Is that a problem or just on my end? Oddly enough I was able to get to some of them earlier today.
 
Hi Brandon,

- These are beautiful speakers that you have built ( BTW ) . Congratulations !
consruction006.jpg


Brandon said:
Hi all By the -6dB criterion I would spec my verticals as +18/-12 degrees, for roughly 30 degrees total window size. I think that is reasonable?

- 30 degrees total window size for the vertical, is very reasonable / if that's what the vertical actually is .

EarlK said:
- I hate the miserly sizes of the graphs, that Sound Easy seems to be limited to .
- OTOH, I guess it helps create flattering graphs for its users .

- It would help others interpret ( & confirm ) your findings if you published pics with better resolution ( ie ; use a bigger pic size with a maximum, 50 db vertical scale ).
- This might mean having to use other testing software like HolmImpulse or ARTA ( to name a couple ) .

augerpro said:
One thing I've found that maybe some of you more experienced owners can help me with is do you have general setup rules of thumb for these higher DI type speakers? Being more focused I'm finding that the soundstage is more heavily dominated by speaker placement than conventional speakers.

- That's a huge topic and even Gedlee doesn't fully divulge ( IMO ) all the secrets behind creating the best soundstage available .
- Zilch gives a nice analysis below .

- For a real mind-twister addendum / try to figure out why Greg Timbers ( of JBL design fame ) would stake his professional reputation on doing something as adventerous as pushing Harman for a consumer line of speakers ( he was quite successful ) that uses a JBL CD horn ( the H4338 ) on its' end ( all because this flipped orientation offered better imaging than the typical orientation ) . Here are some pics of but afew of his various efforts for JBL . The first is of hos home system ( circa 2006 ) .
attachment.php

attachment.php

attachment.php


Brandon said:
I'm also a bit surprised at how the DE160's sound. I figured they would have better dynamics than a typical softdome but would lose out in smoothness. But these are some to the smoothest drivers I've heard. No sibilance or spittiness even at very high levels. You could live with these a long time.

- I think that you've been fortunate in that mylar diaphragmed drivers where your first choice . IME, B&C does make a very high quality product .



>< cheers :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom