Best bass from Lowther [message #21945] |
Mon, 14 April 2008 12:26 |
Dynavector
Messages: 13 Registered: May 2009
|
Chancellor |
|
|
Hi all, I've heard some Lowther based speakers that sounded pretty good but some are a little too tilted up for my taste. Weird thing is the good ones aren't all big horns or lines. One was a little bass reflex speaker and that surprised me. Maybe they had a crossover in them to voice them but I didn't think most people with Lowthers did that sort of thing. That brings me to my point. What cabinets work best with Lowthers and do you use electronics for voicing them? TIA, David
|
|
|
Re: Best bass from Lowther [message #21946 is a reply to message #21945] |
Tue, 15 April 2008 03:07 |
Duke
Messages: 297 Registered: May 2009
|
Grand Master |
|
|
I think that the best bass I ever heard from a Lowther system was one of Bob Brines' creations. They look simple, but last year at Lone Star he told me a little bit about what he's doing. I'm not going to give away any of his secrets, but I'll just say that his design is very, very intelligent and it really works. He had me kicking myself and saying, Now why didn't I think of that?? Duke
|
|
|
|
One Way or the Other [message #21948 is a reply to message #21947] |
Tue, 15 April 2008 14:07 |
Skip_Pack
Messages: 18 Registered: May 2009
|
Chancellor |
|
|
You end up equalizing them. Bob does use passive filters like you mentioned. Others go to current drive (high output impedance) power amps, like some of the First Watt amps. I have been playing with the EQ feature in InguzAudio, a DSP pluging for use with Squeezeboxes. I'm not sure which approach will ultimately be best, but I like the explicit nature of the digital EQ method, it's easier to vary and assess. I'll have this setup at LSAF in a few weeks.Skip
|
|
|
Re: One Way or the Other [message #21949 is a reply to message #21948] |
Tue, 15 April 2008 15:06 |
Dynavector
Messages: 13 Registered: May 2009
|
Chancellor |
|
|
Skip, I am intrigued by your idea of digital processing/EQ for a single driver speaker. Do you use a sound meter and test tones to set EQ? Will you make adjustments for your room at LSAF? David
|
|
|
Re: One Way or the Other [message #21950 is a reply to message #21949] |
Tue, 15 April 2008 16:18 |
Skip_Pack
Messages: 18 Registered: May 2009
|
Chancellor |
|
|
I'm not using the digital room correction of Inguz as I don't have a mic and appropriate preamp, and I have been doing the EQ by ear. There's an XML file that you can edit to specifiy how many bands, the frequency of each and a positive or negative db change. Starting with a measured flat curve would be a better starting point. I am sure I will be at least tweaking it at LSAF and will be happy to show the process.Skip
|
|
|
Re: Best bass from Lowther [message #21951 is a reply to message #21945] |
Tue, 15 April 2008 22:19 |
Martin
Messages: 220 Registered: May 2009
|
Master |
|
|
I have used several different Lowther speakers in a moderately sized floor standing ported enclosure. I also used a BSC circuit to even out the rising frequency response, with some reduction in efficiency, and thus rebalancing the bass with the mid range and high end. It can work very well and provides a bass extension down to 40 Hz. This arrangement really shines with acoustic music like the jazz I listen to most. Without the passive filter the sound is very bright and fatiguing. I have heard other low Qts drivers in moderately sized BLH enclosures and they produce a similar performance. They also benefit from a BSC circuit but maybe require a little less correction and are a little more efficient. My most recent Lowther system is an OB arrangement where I have used 15" high efficiency woofers to produce the bass below 200 Hz and relieve the Lowther of this duty. This has been the best performing of my Lowther systems and has lasted for over years in my listening room. Right now this system is very big, I believe I have found the key for reducing the size to something more reasonable. But I guess technically speaking it does not fall into the catagory of a full range driver system.
|
|
|
Contour Filters [message #21952 is a reply to message #21947] |
Thu, 17 April 2008 08:38 |
Bob Brines
Messages: 186 Registered: May 2009 Location: Hot Springs Village, AR
|
Master |
|
|
Yes, I have been using a passive filter. When I sell one of my speakers, it will include the filter. The plan package also includes a parts list for the filter. But.... If you were at the LSAF last year, you may remember that I was using a computer for my front end. I used WMP as the player. I thought that it sounded pretty good, but a visitor berated me for foisting such lousy sound on an audiophile convention. Well, I've had a year to play with this and I think I have the ultimate answer. My player is now Foobar2000. The choice of Foobar over WMP is mainly because of Foobar is a much more flexible player. Also the internal equalizer in Foobar has more steps than that in WMP. The final consideration was that Foobar is the only free player that will properly catalog classical music. There are other players around, each with its own set of features, but I doubt that any will sound better than Foobar. On to filters. I have taken the passive filters out of my speakers. All filtering is now done with the equalizer within Foobar. I simply set the sliders to the mirror image of the speaker's frequency response. Flat response! Adjusting BSC for a different room or position is just a matter of adjusting a few sliders. As a bonus,I've remove the last of the harshness from the Lowther driver. Neat, No? Come to my room at the LSAF and I'll give you a demonstration. Bob
|
|
|
EQing and efficiency [message #21953 is a reply to message #21945] |
Mon, 21 April 2008 15:30 |
akhilesh
Messages: 1275 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (3rd Degree) |
|
|
I have tried EQing extensively in the past with different speakers, and to me: electronic EQing usually ends up sounding artificial over the long run. Maybe I just wasn;t doing it right, but it never sounds "natural" to me. Perhaps it's the decay of instruments. The one EQ that does sound OK to me is when I turn up the "loudness" button on an old Yamaha natural sound solid state amp, and turn the bass up by 2 nothces. THat does crank up the bass.Another thing to note: no matter what EQ you do, it will casue a drop in efficiency. If you want ultra high eff, then crossing them off in a sealed box or open baffle at 150-200 hz is probably ab etter solution. Of course then you no longer get teh "full range" effect. -akhilesh
|
|
|
Re: EQing and efficiency [message #21954 is a reply to message #21953] |
Tue, 22 April 2008 01:06 |
RC Daniel
Messages: 18 Registered: May 2009
|
Chancellor |
|
|
I am far from an expert, so perhaps I am way off, but I thought the eq'ing before an output stage was just a matter of reducing / increasing the voltage at the desired frequency. Providing you have enough voltage and gain, you can still drive the output to max, which is passed to the driver. This seems in contrast to passive eq', which would pass off the output power (as heat?) at the speakers' filters, thereby reducing efficiency. So, if you have enough drive voltage and gain there should be no loss of efficiency, no? As for other detriment to musical presentation, I have heard that digital processing may not be as innocuous as first thought... Perhaps if that is the case, it becomes a matter of what matters to the listener? Just tossing some ill-thought out ideas around... Cheers
|
|
|