• 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

Zilch said:
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=128826&#post128826

I designed it using topology info available on the MarkWart site because people wanted to biamp Model 19s, and I didn't want to mod my vintage pair for that.

Skywave's N-19Z:

attachment.php

Yes, AKers determined that BMS drivers require ~4 - 6 dB more attenuation for the controls to operate in their normal ranges when using them. It's 1.2 kHz, nominal.

Dc270's build:

attachment.php

I believe I've seen another, but I don't recall where just now.... :yes:
Click to expand...

The M19 over VerZ.1 appears to be a relatively minor transposition of the stock M19 circuit (moving L1/R1 from the input side of the circuit to the HF output [Markwart's designators]) but with one significant detail added: the addition of C5/2nd part of LP2 [Zilch's designators] at the HF output. At a glance it looks like this would provide for additional "linear" HF attenuation capability with the added possibility of HF response shaping. A guess is that this accommodates "foreign" drivers of higher eff. I vaguely recall you discussing the design brief of this revised M19 Xover way back but I dread the number of "hits" I'll get if I go after it with my unrefined search techniques. Can you refresh my memory?
 
Steve O said:
The M19 over VerZ.1 appears to be a relatively minor transposition of the stock M19 circuit (moving L1/R1 from the input side of the circuit to the HF output [Markwart's designators]) but with one significant detail added: the addition of C5/2nd part of LP2 [Zilch's designators] at the HF output. At a glance it looks like this would provide for additional "linear" HF attenuation capability with the added possibility of HF response shaping. A guess is that this accommodates "foreign" drivers of higher eff. I vaguely recall you discussing the design brief of this revised M19 Xover way back but I dread the number of "hits" I'll get if I go after it with my unrefined search techniques. Can you refresh my memory?
Click to expand...
Nobody ever came up with a rational explanation as to why the M19 HF was sourced from the lowpass filter with attendant consequences. The two controls were reciprocally interactive, which Altec promoted as a feature, but the pros hated it; the system could not be adjusted reliably or repeatably without a spectrum analyzer, and conceptually, they didn't have a clue as to what was going on. Altec responded with a version of the crossover in which the HF comp could be bypassed entirely, which is posted on the MarkWart site:

http://home.earthlink.net/~jmarkwart/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/604-8h.pdf

Markwart himself did the opposite and eliminated the attenuation adjustment altogether. Ultimately, for 604, Altec topologically relocated that to after the HF comp, and I did the same for M19. The controls now operate independently, and the optimum settings for both are more easily established -- set the comp first (HF Adjust,) and then attenuate to balance with the LF (MF Adjust).... :yes:
 
Last edited:
Zilch said:
Nobody ever came up with a rational explanation as to why the M19 HF was sourced from the lowpass filter with attendant consequences. The two controls were reciprocally interactive, which Altec promoted as a feature, but the pros hated it; the system could not be adjusted reliably or repeatedly without a spectrum analyzer, and conceptually, they didn't have a clue as to what was going on. Altec responded with a version of the crossover in which the HF comp could be bypassed entirely, which is posted on the MarkWart site:

http://home.earthlink.net/~jmarkwart/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/604-8h.pdf

Markwart himself did the opposite and eliminated the attenuation adjustment altogether. Ultimately, for 604, Altec topologically relocated that to after the HF comp, and I did the same for M19. The controls now operate independently, and the optimum settings for both are more easily established -- set the comp first (HF Adjust,) and then attenuate to balance with the LF (MF Adjust).... :yes:
Click to expand...

Ah! A hybrid of the 6048H xover and the M19. Got it. Thanks.
 
This will take some time...

new to the forum, I have a pair of B&C DE250's and my eye on some Eminence 3012HO's.

This thread belongs back on top, anyway...
 
Last edited:
Hey Truth. Welcome to the forum and this thread. You have a ton of reading ahead of you. Go to the first page and see all the links Zilch has put up. Those will give you a good idea of this project. Cheers.
 
truth seeker said:
new to the forum, I have a pair of B&C DE250's and my eye on some Eminence 3012HO's.

This thread belongs back on top, anyway...
Click to expand...

I'd recommend reading some of the individual Ewaver project descriptions as an efficient way to learn the basics. I purposely wrote the Econowave Large Advent build as as separate thread to act as something of a tutorial.

Please keep us posted on your decisions and progress.
 
Wayne Parham said:
By the way, the three Pi uses the TD12S, DE250 and H290 and the four Pi uses the 2226H, DE250 and H290. Crossovers are similar but not the same.



Basically, that's true although the low-pass filter also uses different components to get phase right.
Click to expand...

Opps, I missed note 4! Wayne, what is the 3PI option "AE woofer+ appollo" mean? I know what the AE woofer is, but the "appollo" part has me baffled.

Russellc
 
Last edited:
OK I have a small question here and could use some advise on a new driver selection. I have been discussing these with a friend and he has listened to the several sets of EW that I have built. He has decided that hes ready to invest the funds and we are going to use either the BMS 4555 or the JBL 2431H. The problem is that I have never worked with the 2431s and have never even heard a set so I cant offer any advise that would be subjective. I know allot of you guys have worked with both, so would the JBL 2431 be a upgrade, downgrade or comparable driver to the BMS 4555. Would there be any benefits to using the JBL 2431H. Which would you prefer? Also I dont know if it helps or matters but the LF will be 2235s
 
I went ahead and ordered the stuff to do my first ewave today. Some of it is on back order from PE. No problem ther because I wont be back in town and able to work on it until after the first.

I am using a set of Barzilay cabinets. I installed a set of 15" CTS drivers in them and a selenium d210-ti/selenium h-25 horn. I used a POS rat shack xover from the 70's. They still sounded pretty good. I can only imagine what they will be like when I get plywood(insted of particle board) motor boards and backs. I am going to need to brace thh cabnet a bit and also add the ewave. Can't wait to hear them.

I saw another ak'er did a set of barzilay ewaves - I don't know if he finished them or not though.
Pics to come soon.

Mark
 
djnagle said:
The Apollo upgrade is only needed for pro sound situations where the speaker will be pushed to the max. Does not effect home sound pressure levels.
Click to expand...

Right, but it also looks like it may decrease distortion, which is what interests me. Are these rings similar to JBL's shorting rings, in addition to the heat handling part?

If so, that option would interest me. I'm reading the post Simi put up now. See note #2 on the link provided, this is what I'm pondering... Sounds different than a shorting ring, but its sounds like it makes major improvements in its performance in terms of "transient response and bass quality." Note #1 refers to the extra heat sinking, which I wont need, but the other is very interesting.

Russellc
 
Last edited:
djnagle said:
The Apollo upgrade is only needed for pro sound situations where the speaker will be pushed to the max. Does not effect home sound pressure levels.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I should have added that too. Biggest use for the upgrade is to wick heat from the voice coils in high volume atmospheres..
 
From what I understand about the Lambda drivers is that they are so detailed, you're probably not going to hear a different with the Apollo upgrade in the home. Until you start taking them to their limits, they should be insanely clean sounding from all I've read without the upgrade..

However, if you feel you'll hear a $200 difference per driver, it's your money.. You're looking at about $1000 for a pair with the Apollo upgrade from the pricing I've seen.
 
hhibrownsbac said:
OK I have a small question here and could use some advise on a new driver selection. I have been discussing these with a friend and he has listened to the several sets of EW that I have built. He has decided that hes ready to invest the funds and we are going to use either the BMS 4555 or the JBL 2431H. The problem is that I have never worked with the 2431s and have never even heard a set so I cant offer any advise that would be subjective. I know allot of you guys have worked with both, so would the JBL 2431 be a upgrade, downgrade or comparable driver to the BMS 4555. Would there be any benefits to using the JBL 2431H. Which would you prefer? Also I dont know if it helps or matters but the LF will be 2235s
Click to expand...
Jack and I began this adventure with 2431H on PT-F1010HF waveguides in JBL L200 cabs and 2235H woofers on LHF, as is documented in my "Quick & Dirty" thread over there.

The consumer versions of 243x drivers with Aquaplassed diaphragms are used in many of JBL's TOTL systems. They have response anomalies that are tough to deal with passively, but once Greg Timbers showed us how to deal with them and get the HF comp right, there have been several successful builds over there using PT waveguides. Generally, the consumer horns are not available, though there have been several attempts to clone them with varying success.

Once 2452H-SL became available, that driver became the focus of my own efforts toward achieving maximum performance, though my L200s are still in play here. Generally speaking, the JBL compression drivers are not compatible with eWave crossover designs. To some extent, the same may be said regarding BMS drivers, though they are affordable enough that several of us have used them successfully, and I have provided the current status of those efforts here. It appears as though Jack may be doing more with BMS drivers for everyone's benefit.... :yes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom