I have one of these on the way, I am gonna try bi amping my speakers with an active xover. Anyone here use one of these?
I will wait to hear your reply before I change anything.Okay,
First the issues:
> Your mic calibration file does not appear to be very accurate. The overall roughness is too great and the shape also appears to deviate from the expected profile a little too much. I don't think it is bad enough that it will be a major problem though. We normally adjust the house curve a little to taste anyway so it may wash out due to that. I only mention it in case you a highly motivated to achieve high accuracy measurement to work from. A calibration from Cross-Spectrum Labs would provide higher confidence.
John that's strange I guess it is a new mic with cal.
> It appears something went wrong in the loopback timing of the HF horn. It was delayed more than the other drivers were. Make sure your loopback cable is connected in channel 1 output to input and that the input level is properly set on that timing channel. I was able to see the evidence of the issues due to the the timing channel crosstalk into the measurement channel. I made the needed adjustment to correct the HF Horn impulse position so the delay analysis below is still good.
Oops, I didn't have the loopback cable connected. Maybe the cause of some bad info?
Analysis of the XO filter shapes:
> Both acoustic XOs have reasonably good symmetry with these XO filter settings. The lower XO is shaped a little better than the upper one. The roll-off of the HF horn appears to be lower in frequency and shallower than ideal, but it is still very usable. We could confirm the frequency was set correctly and possibly increase the HPF frequency a little and also increase the slope to 18 dB/octave and see it that helps. The phase tracking looks pretty good though so the impact of any changes is not likely to be significant.
Acoustic XOs:
View attachment 142370
Timing Analysis:
Since the filter settings look reasonable and I was able to correct the misplaced HF Horn Impulse it was possible to go ahead with step 2 to determine the delay adjustment needed for close phase tracking.
> HF Horn: It's the reference so no changes to its delay. Its polarity is also correct now.
> MR Horn: Invert this driver and increase its delay by 0.86 ms.
> W: Invert this driver and leave the delay unchanged.
I do have some delay already put into the HF and MR horns, is this gonna be a problem?
Phase tracking Lower XO:
View attachment 142378
Phase tracking Upper XO:
View attachment 142386
EQ Considerations:
With this mic position it is possible to EQ the range above the floor / ceiling bounce frequencies. With the appropriate window settings we can we can safely EQ down to maybe 500 Hz. At this mic distance there is only minor roll-off of high frequencies. In the EQ chart below I did set a very minor slope to the high end reflecting my personal preferences in my setup. You may want to change this as per your preferences. Below 500 Hz it is better to take an average of several measurements around the LP area. It is normally fine to EQ the range below 200 Hz or so to a single LP measurement if you prefer. The mid range from 200-500 is best done with and average measurement and taking care not to be too aggressive. Many prefer to EQ to account for the baffle step effect, but otherwise not use any other EQ in that range. Below I offer a starting point for EQ above 200 Hz as the response needs some EQ to account for the direct sound SPL. The bass EQ must be done from the LP so you can adjust the Woofer level and EQ the response there accordingly. Just with the rough EQ setting I noted below the sound quality is likely to be very good. Both channels should be EQ'ed identically above 500 Hz. Below that you can experiment to see what works best for you. I have had good luck using identical EQ for both channels down to approximately 250 Hz in my setup.
EQ settings:
View attachment 142394
Predicted Response With EQ >500Hz
View attachment 142402