I was reading this post(keep in mind it's 6am) and was
thinking wow, I planning the same thing. Then realized
hey, that is my post. LOL.

I have put the project off.
I have been studying up on designing and building
speakers. Collecting books, software, hardware. Note:
nothing wrong with my WT2 just trying to use it on a
Mac with Win xp. Did not work right, works fine on
pc.
Anyway, ready for first project but the spouse aprovel
factor is preaty bad right now :( So, I may have
gotten all this stuff for nothing.

Richard

--- timboinoz2002 <tim-bailey@...> wrote:

> --- In diy_audio_tweaks@yahoogroups.com, "Richard
> Rea"
> <my89_928gt@...> wrote:
> >
> > I have a new project, I'm going to go active on my
> front speakers(this
> > system dose both 2ch for music and suround for
> movies). My plan it to
> > do the LCR speakers. I was orginaly planning to
> use some older Marantz
> > MA700 mono blocks for the job. Now I'm thinking of
> useing some Acurus
> > A200 x3 amps. I'm thinking the Acurus may be the
> better sound quality
> > amp. But not sure. Has anyone here owned eithr or
> both amps? Or have
> > had the opertunity to hear them?
> >
> > Also, have not made my mind up on an active
> crossover, any recomended?
> > Both premade or good diy kits or plans?
> >
> > Richard
> >
>
> NB I haven't yet read the other posts.
>
> However, one of the BIG issues with going active on
> existing OEM
> passive xover spkrs is getting a good match to the
> MFR's original
> voicing .......
>
> IF .....
>
> You want to retain that, of course.
>
> further is the issue that - using matching active
> (say 4LR) slopes -
> does require you to use crossover points well within
> the flat pass
> band of each driver. Otherwise your acoustic slopes
> won't match OR BE
> 4LR! One at least will be steeper. IF your fronts
> are 2 by 2-ways, and
> an appolito 3way using the same drivers, you ARE
> facing this risk!
>
> Associated with this is whether you have the
> experience and measuring
> equipment to get the new active xover sounding as
> good or better than
> what the spkrs sound NOW.
>
> AT this point I should perhaps make it clear that
> I'm a simple is best
> / less is MORE guy when it comes to audio!
>
> I'd agree that all other things being equal that
> active or passive
> line level xovers are way better than complex spkr
> level xovers.
>
> My current spkrs are semi-actively biamped, as
> there's no lowpass to
> the mid-bass. I am certain that the HP passive xover
> is too complex,
> even though it uses low-z AIR-core chokes, it also
> uses padding
> resistors which waste even more power!
>
> IME active circuitry often sounds worse than simple
> / passive / line
> level crossovers.
>
> I'd add that IF the 3 spkrs you have for the fronts
> all match, then
> the job should be easier. cos you'll have three goes
> at it!
>
> IF the spkrs use ribbons/planars off a passive I'd
> suggest you do
> consider 4LR minimum for them, even steeper if
> possible, further
> complicating your path, IYTMMeaning.
>
> Timbo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Richard Rea
a man of few words :)

--- In diy_audio_tweaks@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Rea"
<my89_928gt@...> wrote:
>
> I have a new project, I'm going to go active on my front speakers(this
> system dose both 2ch for music and suround for movies). My plan it to
> do the LCR speakers. I was orginaly planning to use some older Marantz
> MA700 mono blocks for the job. Now I'm thinking of useing some Acurus
> A200 x3 amps. I'm thinking the Acurus may be the better sound quality
> amp. But not sure. Has anyone here owned eithr or both amps? Or have
> had the opertunity to hear them?
>
> Also, have not made my mind up on an active crossover, any recomended?
> Both premade or good diy kits or plans?
>
> Richard
>

NB I haven't yet read the other posts.

However, one of the BIG issues with going active on existing OEM
passive xover spkrs is getting a good match to the MFR's original
voicing .......

IF .....

You want to retain that, of course.

further is the issue that - using matching active (say 4LR) slopes -
does require you to use crossover points well within the flat pass
band of each driver. Otherwise your acoustic slopes won't match OR BE
4LR! One at least will be steeper. IF your fronts are 2 by 2-ways, and
an appolito 3way using the same drivers, you ARE facing this risk!

Associated with this is whether you have the experience and measuring
equipment to get the new active xover sounding as good or better than
what the spkrs sound NOW.

AT this point I should perhaps make it clear that I'm a simple is best
/ less is MORE guy when it comes to audio!

I'd agree that all other things being equal that active or passive
line level xovers are way better than complex spkr level xovers.

My current spkrs are semi-actively biamped, as there's no lowpass to
the mid-bass. I am certain that the HP passive xover is too complex,
even though it uses low-z AIR-core chokes, it also uses padding
resistors which waste even more power!

IME active circuitry often sounds worse than simple / passive / line
level crossovers.

I'd add that IF the 3 spkrs you have for the fronts all match, then
the job should be easier. cos you'll have three goes at it!

IF the spkrs use ribbons/planars off a passive I'd suggest you do
consider 4LR minimum for them, even steeper if possible, further
complicating your path, IYTMMeaning.

Timbo

--- In diy_audio_tweaks@yahoogroups.com, Kevin O'Connor
<labs_west@...> wrote:
>
> The Slashdot article has a link to the pertinent section of Randi's
website.
>
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/04/1354224
> --
> KevinO
>

YAWWWRRRRRRRNNNNNN!

;-)!


Timbo

Skyptical mensurer and Audio Scrounger!

(Praise de lawd and Hi-i-ide the silvah de young Massha am BACK!)

Yeah I decided to have a bittuva rest from groups EXCEPT AA.

anyways here's the audio DIY question.

I have been reminded, and recall from experience, that the right
sounding / best blend value for a first order spkr level capacitor to
a tweeter may not be anything like the one that theory says IE after
getting the X at that freq for the particular tweeter.

But I was wondering would this variance - a measurement / self-doubt /
tweaking ISSUE!!!! - be MUCH smaller if one was using an inline RC /
CR at the input to the tweeter amp?  yes I do know the output Z of my
pre and the input z of the power amp.

WHY Does TWTKTAnswer?

well ......

I'm thinking of upgrading the treble section on my spheres*, by
getting more treble extension and getting a tweeter allowing a simple
- single cap - 1st order xover with NO padding. NB the existing treble
arrangment is a BIG 35mm soft dome by Foster (1970s before) nee Fostex.

*(Each of this model of sphere has a flat ~14" OD circular baffle!)

The big dome - like most - is ~95db/w and is padded down to match the
low-pass-less 91db/w mid-bass driver, also by Foster/x. NB The
existing 2-way spheres meet the rule of thumb of a BWproduct of
~400,000 by having -3db points of ~ 35 and 12k

But being LOw-pass-less (and very open throated) They DO need better
mid and upper bass at lower listening levels and could do with some
further bass extension, too

So the treble side with extra EHF extensionn is to tonally match the
other side of the sphere upgrade!  ?

having at last obtained a 2nd pair of the same spheres with working
drivers I can now go ahead with .......

2.5 way baffle dip compensation, and ELF?- but passively

using another sphere facing down into a squat cylinder to give a
largish Vb of about 60 litres, thus allowing for an increase in bass
extension. Either using the same mid-bass drivers per side and rolling
in from about 150hz on down OR using some 12's I have.

The main 2-way sphere will sit directly on top of the bass bin (sphere
into squat cylinder) and WILL stay in place on the bottom sphere!!!!

How? a short square vertical steel pipe and a basket-ball hoop
attached to the squat cylinder!!!! Gravity will do the rest and seal
the bass sphere into its cylinder!

The tweeter choice has come down to one of the 27 range from Seas's
Prestige series, either the meshed* aluminium dome or the soft dome,
both about 30 bucks each.

* we have cats!!!

Ohh yes the cylinder is made of circles of different thickness layers
of MDF, blockboard, chipboard, and craftwood! Yes with central
circular cut-outs. And I have a big picture-frame-makers press, too!

The bass-only driver will face down / be slot loaded by a short gap to
the floor!

TIA


Timbo

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the diy_audio_tweaks
group.

   File        : /CS8412 substitute.pdf
   Uploaded by : jmlpartners <jb@...>
   Description : Substitute/upgrade for CS8412

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/diy_audio_tweaks/files/CS8412%20substitute.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles

Regards,

jmlpartners <jb@...>

Any of you nuts live in the Dallas/Fort Worth Texas area?

I'll assume they won't mind me borrowing the photo as I'm posting the
link too. jim...
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/69/696451.html

The Slashdot article has a link to the pertinent section of Randi's website.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/04/1354224
--
KevinO

--- In diy_audio_tweaks@yahoogroups.com, "keysal" <keysal@...> wrote:
> I'm not looking for anyone to convince
> me one way  as much as I'm looking for any experiences, insights or
> things to look out for when changing stock tweeters such as changing
> the crossovers. Having recently found a soft dome with very similar
> specs to the recommended hard dome I doubt I will have any problems
> just swapping  out. Any thoughts or advice?
>

Those must be very special speakers to justify changing the tweeters
and possibly the crossovers. Good luck.

> The pros and cons for either material are very simple: Some people like
> them and some don't. It appears from your experience that hard dome
> tweeters lead to listening fatigue. If that's the case, what could
> anybody say to convince you that hard dome was superior and you should
> endure the discomfort to reap the benefits?
>

I don't believe thats the case. Not all hard dome tweeters affect me
that way. I was thinking since this particular tweeter dome is damaged
that may be the cause of the fatigue. Since my original post I have
moved the speakers away from each other and I think that has
alleviated most of the problem. I'm not looking for anyone to convince
me one way  as much as I'm looking for any experiences, insights or
things to look out for when changing stock tweeters such as changing
the crossovers. Having recently found a soft dome with very similar
specs to the recommended hard dome I doubt I will have any problems
just swapping  out. Any thoughts or advice?

--- In diy_audio_tweaks@yahoogroups.com, "keysal" <keysal@...> wrote:

> Basically I guess I'm looking for opinions, experiences, inside
> knowledge passionate diatribes and even irrational rants on the topic
> of hard and soft dome tweeters pros and cons.

The pros and cons for either material are very simple: Some people like
them and some don't. It appears from your experience that hard dome
tweeters lead to listening fatigue. If that's the case, what could
anybody say to convince you that hard dome was superior and you should
endure the discomfort to reap the benefits?

My vote would be for a good quality soft dome.
That said I just picked up a pair of speakers MTM with a Ribbon
tweeter, my first ribbon. WOW, I like it very detailed and clean and
not tizzy so to speak. The copper 8" woffers are a bit tizzy and I'm
working on that. I contribute the great sound stage these speakers
have mostly due to the tweeter, but what do I know, lol.

My 2cents
Richard
P.S. Anyone know how to make a passive crossover with a 120db slope?



--- In diy_audio_tweaks@yahoogroups.com, "keysal" <keysal@...> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> This is my first post as a recent joiner and lurker. I'm pretty
new to
> getting serious about modifying my audio components and the elusive
> pursuit of audio nirvana on my meager budget.
>
> I have a particular problem that I think this may be the best
place to
> ask for opinions. I have recently a acquired a pair of Castle
Howard
> speakers. Made in England they don't seem to be very common over
here
> and information is pretty sparse on the net. The company was/is up
for
> sale so I don't believe they are producing anymore. I could be
wrong.
>
> The problem I have is that one of the aluminum dome tweeters is
> damaged. Its a Vifa D25AG-05 which madisound has a recommended
drop in
> replacement available. I have been playing these speakers with the
> dented/damaged tweeter and they seem to be giving me a lot of
> listening fatigue.
>
> By comparison I have a pair of Philips FB825 and Polk Audio SDA 1c
> studio that I enjoy for some really extended listening times with
> little or no fatigue. They are being driven by Philips components
from
> the early to mid '90s
>
> I know I have a lot of work to do trying to find where in the room
> they will sound best and I have a lot of rearranging planned. But I
> keep wondering in the back of my mind if I might prefer a soft
domed
> tweeter to replace the stock aluminum ones. I noticed in the specs
of
> their last iteration the Howard S3 they use a softdome tweeter. I
have
> been happy for a long time with the ribbon tweeter in my Philips
FB825
> but the dual soft dome Polk SDA 1c and its sound dimension magic
has
> been the most enjoyable since I purchased them this spring.
>
> Basically I guess I'm looking for opinions, experiences, inside
> knowledge passionate diatribes and even irrational rants on the
topic
> of hard and soft dome tweeters pros and cons.
>
> Thanks
> Steve
>

Hello all,
This is my first post as a recent joiner and lurker. I'm pretty new to
getting serious about modifying my audio components and the elusive
pursuit of audio nirvana on my meager budget.

I have a particular problem that I think this may be the best place to
ask for opinions. I have recently a acquired a pair of Castle Howard
speakers. Made in England they don't seem to be very common over here
and information is pretty sparse on the net. The company was/is up for
sale so I don't believe they are producing anymore. I could be wrong.

The problem I have is that one of the aluminum dome tweeters is
damaged. Its a Vifa D25AG-05 which madisound has a recommended drop in
replacement available. I have been playing these speakers with the
dented/damaged tweeter and they seem to be giving me a lot of
listening fatigue.

By comparison I have a pair of Philips FB825 and Polk Audio SDA 1c
studio that I enjoy for some really extended listening times with
little or no fatigue. They are being driven by Philips components from
the early to mid '90s

I know I have a lot of work to do trying to find where in the room
they will sound best and I have a lot of rearranging planned. But I
keep wondering in the back of my mind if I might prefer a soft domed
tweeter to replace the stock aluminum ones. I noticed in the specs of
their last iteration the Howard S3 they use a softdome tweeter. I have
been happy for a long time with the ribbon tweeter in my Philips FB825
but the dual soft dome Polk SDA 1c and its sound dimension magic has
been the most enjoyable since I purchased them this spring.

Basically I guess I'm looking for opinions, experiences, inside
knowledge passionate diatribes and even irrational rants on the topic
of hard and soft dome tweeters pros and cons.

Thanks
Steve

I asked my pal Ken Valliant to try and build a DIY 12 inch tonearm.
Results of his latest valiant effort are on the Home Page. I'll add a
photo folder too. A DIY 12 inch tonearm built with a Pioneer rear end.
A graphite or carbon fiber? golf club used for the tube. It's mounted
on a Gates rim drive turntable. Shure 97. And it sounds mighty fine.
Thanks Ken!!!

New Home Page photo shows one of my friend Ken's Rec-O-Kut creations
happily playing at my place. Layered plinth of two MDF and two birch
ply. A Rega RB250 with a Shure V15 type IV... I think. It's labeled
Radio Shack/Shure V15. German made motor, circa 1961, totally separate
from platter. Platter damped with Dynamat, rubber mat and a suede
leather mat of my creation. Nice sound, Someone said it had PRAT! One
thing that bothers me is this and my Rega read to run a touch fast
while looking at a speed wheel. Anyone tried a VPI or other brand speed
controller to lock an AC motor dead on? jim...

I happen to fave a bunch of Carol I guess cat5 cable.
say's 18awg on it. Got 3 insulated wires and one naked silver colored
twisted wire. The insulated wires are a bundle of 7 wires.
Is this stuf any good for interconects and braided speaker wire or
should it be 1 solid wire in each of the 3 insulated wires?
Seems like I read somewhere that you only wanted solid wire. But, did
not save nor can I find it. So, not sure.
It say's Carol (R) 18awg E22035 75c E60233-6
(ul) cl3p c(ul)cmp made in usa 06-06 0048
Witch number by the way is the part number :)
I have not measured but guessing I got a couple 100 feet of this stuff.

Thanks,
Richard

.

I think you have thermostat wire. Cat5 is 4 twisted pairs
of 24awg.

--- In diy_audio_tweaks@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Rea"
<my89_928gt@...>
wrote:
>
> I happen to fave a bunch of Carol I guess cat5 cable.
> say's 18awg on it. Got 3 insulated wires and one naked silver
colored
> twisted wire. The insulated wires are a bundle of 7 wires.
> Is this stuf any good for interconects and braided speaker wire or
> should it be 1 solid wire in each of the 3 insulated wires?
> Seems like I read somewhere that you only wanted solid wire. But,
did
> not save nor can I find it. So, not sure.
> It say's Carol (R) 18awg  E22035 75c E60233-6
> (ul) cl3p c(ul)cmp made in usa 06-06 0048
> Witch number by the way is the part number :)
> I have not measured but guessing I got a couple 100 feet of this
stuff.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>

I happen to fave a bunch of Carol I guess cat5 cable.
say's 18awg on it. Got 3 insulated wires and one naked silver colored
twisted wire. The insulated wires are a bundle of 7 wires.
Is this stuf any good for interconects and braided speaker wire or
should it be 1 solid wire in each of the 3 insulated wires?
Seems like I read somewhere that you only wanted solid wire. But, did
not save nor can I find it. So, not sure.
It say's Carol (R) 18awg  E22035 75c E60233-6
(ul) cl3p c(ul)cmp made in usa 06-06 0048
Witch number by the way is the part number :)
I have not measured but guessing I got a couple 100 feet of this stuff.

Thanks,
Richard

Harbor Freight Tools in Dallas has an impressive digital scales on sale
for $12.99 in store or $9.99 on line!
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=93543
I've tested one against my $60 scales and it was gram for gram. Also
against a friends much more expensive scales. More of the same. The
only caveat is mine measure to two decimal points as 1.95 and these do
one. But then it drifted between 1.9 and 2.0 when weighing 1.95. Good
price. Good backup if you have some already. 8:-) jim...

I just uploaded a couple DIY projects (IC and speaker cable). See the
file section of this site.

Hello Richard,
I'll be so bold as to weigh in a bit on active crossovers. My present,
2-channel, system is quad-amped. 0 to 75HZ, 75 to 500HZ, 500 to 3500HZ
and 3500HZ & up. You can find a few pictures here in the photos section
under Ray's room. Obviously I wholly endorse your plans to go "active"
as the amps ability to control the drivers is greatly improved when the
electrical "springs", (inductors) are taken out of the way.
I have had many different schemes for active X-overs over time,
tubes, IC's, 6dB/oct, 12, 18 and 24dB/oct etc..etc. D.I.Y.'d, pro-
audio, kits..you name it. My present and all time favorite X-overs are
available as kits or finished units by Marchand. I am using his XM-9's
in 24dB/oct at 500 and 3500HZ. The only modification I've done is to
replace all the LF-353 IC's with OPA2604's.
Check out: www.marchandelec.com

For power amps I use....my own D.I.Y.'s.
As a generality I use bi-polar outputs for subwoofers, MOSFET's for
midranges and....tubes above 3500HZ. But that's just me. I think the
amps you are considering, either, would be fine.
Ain't this stuff fun?
RFM-

-- In diy_audio_tweaks@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Rea" <my89_928gt@...>
wrote:
>
> I have a new project, I'm going to go active on my front speakers
(this
> system dose both 2ch for music and suround for movies). My plan it to
> do the LCR speakers. I was orginaly planning to use some older
Marantz
> MA700 mono blocks for the job. Now I'm thinking of useing some Acurus
> A200 x3 amps. I'm thinking the Acurus may be the better sound quality
> amp. But not sure. Has anyone here owned eithr or both amps? Or have
> had the opertunity to hear them?
>
> Also, have not made my mind up on an active crossover, any recomended?
> Both premade or good diy kits or plans?
>
> Richard
>

Hello Richard,
I'll be so bold as to weigh in a bit on active crossovers. My present,
2-channel, system is quad-amped. 0 to 75HZ, 75 to 500HZ, 500 to 3500HZ
and 3500HZ & up. You can find a few pictures here in the photos section
under Ray's room. Obviously I wholly endorse your plans to go "active"
as the amps ability to control the drivers is greatly improved when the
electrical "springs", (inductors) are taken out of the way.
   I have had many different schemes for active X-overs over time,
tubes, IC's, 6dB/oct, 12, 18 and 24dB/oct etc..etc. D.I.Y.'d, pro-
audio, kits..you name it.  My present and all time favorite X-overs are
available as kits or finished units by Marchand. I am using his XM-9's
in 24dB/oct at 500 and 3500HZ. The only modification I've done is to
replace all the LF-353 IC's with OPA2604's.
    Check out:  www.marchandelec.com

For power amps I use....my own D.I.Y.'s.
As a generality I use bi-polar outputs for subwoofers, MOSFET's for
midranges and....tubes above 3500HZ. But that's just me. I think the
amps you are considering, either, would be fine.
Ain't this stuff fun?
RFM-


-- In diy_audio_tweaks@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Rea" <my89_928gt@...>
wrote:
>
> I have a new project, I'm going to go active on my front speakers
(this
> system dose both 2ch for music and suround for movies). My plan it to
> do the LCR speakers. I was orginaly planning to use some older
Marantz
> MA700 mono blocks for the job. Now I'm thinking of useing some Acurus
> A200 x3 amps. I'm thinking the Acurus may be the better sound quality
> amp. But not sure. Has anyone here owned eithr or both amps? Or have
> had the opertunity to hear them?
>
> Also, have not made my mind up on an active crossover, any recomended?
> Both premade or good diy kits or plans?
>
> Richard
>

I have a new project, I'm going to go active on my front speakers(this
system dose both 2ch for music and suround for movies). My plan it to
do the LCR speakers. I was orginaly planning to use some older Marantz
MA700 mono blocks for the job. Now I'm thinking of useing some Acurus
A200 x3 amps. I'm thinking the Acurus may be the better sound quality
amp. But not sure. Has anyone here owned eithr or both amps? Or have
had the opertunity to hear them?

Also, have not made my mind up on an active crossover, any recomended?
Both premade or good diy kits or plans?

Richard

Here is a very good read. In PDF form . Even if you agree, disagree or
some where in between. Much information here. Including "damping" an
external CD burner (from your computer) for better sound! jim...

  http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/whitepaper/Black_CDsII.pdf

Hi folks, I know this has been covered before but I am in a
tweaking/vibration damping mood. I have placed a rather heavy cutting
board on the player and it has kind of "cleaned up " the sound. My wife
was very entertained. I am looking for any other tweaks like
pods,putty,sandbagging,cheap CD enhancers etc.  Thanks

-Hi Larry,
That input offset of 0.1mv, if to be believed, is far better than the
previous miracle IC you got samples of. There's sure a lot of zeros
twixed the point and the three in that THD + N number.
AND, it's a plug in for all the previous favorites.
Ain't this stuff fun?
RFM