wineds
Active Member
You only need the board. But the low thd filter is a different board to the main crossover board. If you building from new you probably only need the main crossover board.
You only need the board. But the low thd filter is a different board to the main crossover board. If you building from new you probably only need the main crossover board.
I could not find the 4.7u or the 5.1u on parts list (page 1). @XMechanik could you add a update parts section for the reduced THD?Before the audio show, I experimented a bit more with the THD trap. This time I used a 0.1mH inductor and a 5.1uF capacitor, without a resistor. I measured the impedance characteristics of the resonant circuit, disconnected the midwoofer from the crossover, and measured the near-field SPL, where the driver's breakup frequency was clearly visible. I noticed that the two frequencies didn't match very precisely. The impedance peak was at a slightly lower frequency than the breakup (around 7kHz vs. 7.15kHz). I unwinded the coil until the two frequencies matched. Below is a comparison with the measurement of the previous THD trap implementation.
It seems the thd level of the 2.4kHz peak (the breakup frequency is at the third harmonic of this frequency) has been reduced additional few dBs.
View attachment 495796
It should be noted that this is a comparison with the measurements taken months earlier and I'm not really sure how well the measurement conditions were replicated (background noise, signal levels, driver copies used, etc).
With 96dB level max thd is still around -40dB (i.e.1%), at least not much more.
View attachment 495797
I could not find the 4.7u or the 5.1u on parts list (page 1). @XMechanik could you add a update parts section for the reduced THD?
OMG that is ingenious! And so simple. Coming to this thread late I hope there is/will be a 6.5" version...I love well done waveguided tweeters, so many advantages.The box is filled with polyester fiber. To prevent it getting into the speaker basket, I put a thin mesh on the filling.
Can you share the dimensions of the box? I’m thinking about building something similar for some rear mounted surrounds in my room as well.Long time lurker, first time poster. I finished a test unit the other day and finally got to measuring, design mirrors the reference with one primary change to the enclosure shape and port location. It is mounted to the wall using a french cleat with a rear 1" cavity to give room for the cleat and in-wall cable, making it a fantastic Theater side and rear designs.
Used the port and PCB from wineds (thank you!). 1/2" mdf, doubled for the front, face of it has the same dimensions as the reference post then widens out to net ~8L, port on the bottom roughly center.
Sharing as someone might be interested in the general design of it and results.
View attachment 501810 View attachment 501811
View attachment 501812 View attachment 501813
Seating position in non-treated room, the drop at 95, 285, and 365hz seem room related as they change with different speaker locations.
View attachment 501816
Off to build the next 3 and make this one look pretty.
I am about to build a pair of these and have all the parts except for the ports. I live in Canada and the Monacor MBR-35 seem to be based in the UK and are killing me with shipping prices. Any North American (or ideally Canadian) suggestions? I am happy to modify and cut anything, I am just a bit lost with what port to order and what to modify it into.
Sorry for the dumb question, but thanks for any help!
It looks quite ok, except that the response in the 2-5k semms to be a bit lower comparing to my simulations and Klippel characteristics.I just received my UMIK-1 and made my first attempt at measuring. As a total beginner with all of this, it's hard to tell if I'm on the right track or if there are any issues.
I would be very grateful if someone with more experience could take a look at my graphs and give me some feedback.These are gated measurements taken with the UMIK-1, and the speakers are, of course, the Mechano23