Jump to content
The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums

onplane

Members
  • Content count

    426
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About onplane

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

4,431 profile views
  1. Well, Gene, that is exactly the problem and why I choose the SuperZero - in hopes that its natural roll off would NOT overlap the SVS unit in the LOWEST frequencies. I don't know, but my gut feel is a single low frequency driver would yield the clearest, cleanest bass. Regards, Jerry
  2. Gene, is there any reason you did not chose this option? https://www.nhthifi.com/products/16546-c-3-bookshelf-loudspeaker?category_id=1964842-bookshelf-speakers#specs Now, I felt the unit went too low and would overlap too much the SVS sealed 12 inch sub. Regards, Jerry
  3. Adams, you just might be right about that. Another possibility is that board members rather than seeking high performance speaker systems, are spending big $'s on high performance hearing aids. Regards, Jerry '
  4. Gene, your point about AVR LFE output being a summed signal is on the mark. It would be of no value with two subs where we wish to maintain imaging. I did mention in my post above about an external xover, but that would NOT be my goal. I just wish NHT published the frequency response graphs of their units. I suspect that 4.5 inch NHT unit begins to roll off somewhere in the 150Hz to 100Hz range. This natural roll off could be complemented quite well by the sub. As for the low pass defeat, SVS is not the only manufacturer that provides for a complete by-pass. The idea is to let systems like Audseey take complete control of satellites and sub. Regards, Jerry
  5. Adams, it looks like you are correct that the LFE setting is the only way to cross the SVS sealed sub above 160Hz. That is, the actual crossing must be done outside the sub. AVR is one way to do this, but so is an external electronic xover. In both cases, IF YOU CROSS THIS HIGH, you must also make certain that you limit these frequencies from the bookshelf (i.e. the other speaker in the stack). With the NHT unit I choose, I suspect crossing at 100 to 120Hz would be ideal. That is, assuming the NHT bookshelf does a decent job in the 100 to 200Hz range. Now bear in mind, it is "rated" down to 85Hz. Regards, Jerry
  6. Well, Adams, it certainly gets confusing, especially when you bring in AVR units. I don't have a lot of experience with these. I do own a Marantz 5.1 AVR with Koss mains, KLH rears and an AR sub. For movies, it is great! For music... not so hot. I much prefer my AR's powered by a rather standard two channel amp. (Actually my unit has two full range amps in a single box allowing bi-amping with just the three terminals AR provided.) Anyhow, when my AR's finally succumb, I know I would never be happy with a single sub for music. I simply must have a sub for each channel. Further, I want sealed units, because I enjoy the bass delivered by the AS system. I can hear the difference over ported systems and I simply prefer the AS sound. So with the "heavy lifting" being done by the subs, and having found in SVS sealed units capable of being driven by speaker level inputs, my next problem is to find AS units to handle the mids and highs. (I believe Rel is correct that integrating subs into music systems works better when the subs "see" exactly the same signal as the mains with any and all phase shifts introduced in the power amps. Next the SVS unit can easily go to 200Hz, which is another plus.) So to reiterate, the remaining problem would be to achieve the dispersion of the domed mid and that is NOT easy. My "gut feel" is that the NHT unit with the 4 inch "mid/woofer" would do this better than units with larger drivers. My fear is that larger drivers would just become far too directional at and near the xover with the tweeters. Thus giving up dispersion to gain... what? So I am back to where I started. Clearly, the SVS/NHT stack is not perfect, but it still might be the closet you can get with modern components. My only real fear is with the NHT SuperZero and will it really get down to the range of 200 to 150Hz smoothly. Possibly members who have them can comment. Regards, Jerry
  7. Supposing you really enjoy that acoustic suspension sound "invented" by AR and supposing you no longer wished to "struggle" keeping those 40 to 50 year old speakers running and properly tuned. How would you achieve that "AR sound" with devices in today's audio market? There is a current thread about the resurgence of KLH started by Frank, but I did not see any AS offerings in that new line. (It's possible that AS speakers will be included, but as I said, I did NOT see any.) Thanks, Frank, for that thread as it is interesting to see an American company ... trying! Anyhow, I have been giving this subject some thought and given that I would be willing to spend some $'s, but NOT mortgage my house, I think stacking something like these: https://www.nhthifi.com/products/10654-superzero-2-1-our-amazing-mini-monitor?category_id=1964842-bookshelf-speakers#specs On a pair of these: https://www.svsound.com/collections/1000-series/products/sb-1000 Just might yield acceptable results. The SVS 12 inch, front firing sub is a sealed box and the NHT unit is also sealed. The specs on the NHT rate it down to 85Hz, but my suspicion is that around 120 is more realistic. At the same time the SVS is rated up to 260Hz, but again looking at the actual graph, 200 is more realistic. My point is there should be adequate "room" to merge these units using the variable xover on the sub. Two questions: 1. What do you think of this stack? 2. How would you achieve that AR sound with modern components? Regards, Jerry PS: Just happened to think that for Frank and his LST's, you could get 4 of the NHT units and wire them two units for each channel in parallel.
  8. Well, I agree with you, GD. In small to mid-sized rooms, you'll get some 'room gain' that coupled with the shallower roll-off slope, will get you a low frequency bass extension. When you elevate, you give away that room gain and will never hear those lowest notes due to the roll-off in frequency response. In short, elevation results in a low end response almost identical to the speaker's quasi-anechoic frequency response. Regards, Jerry
  9. Driving these AR3a speakers

    RAY, not vintage, but the Sherwood RX-5502 (see datasheet attached) would handle 4 AR-3a's. Reason for this is this unit has 4 full range amps (i.e. 2 stereo amps) in a single box. Each amp is rated 100 wpc at 4 ohms. Beauty of this scheme is you get two independent volume controls so you can balance the two set of speakers to get similar volume in spite of room placement. With a single amp, one speaker set with dominant the other just due to its position in your room. Regards, Jerry Sherwood-RX-5502-datasheet.pdf
  10. Craig, that pic is confusing, because the brown zip cord is the Red connections on two independent amps in the same box!! The doubled up zip on the Black post goes to any black connection on this amp. Going back a year I wrote about this amp on this board: http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?/topic/9108-cheap-charlie-amp-solution-for-those-power-hungry-ars/&tab=comments#comment-110230 This amp is highly unusual in that it has 4 full range, 100 wpc @ 4 ohms amps in a single box. So in this case AR TSW-610's, one amp powers the woofers (main amp) and the remote amp powers the mids/tweeters. Each amp has it's own digital volume control, so returning to 'factory' voice is as simple as having both amps at exactly the same digital volume setting. I rarely do this, however, as these speakers in my room (wood paneling) are just way too bright. I almost always set the woofer amp ahead of the mid/tweeter amp. Sometimes, depending upon source, I will change this and that is done with remote volume clicks. Below is the datasheet for the amp. Now, on my 3a's the wiring is different, because even though I have the same three terminal, I have two completely separate amps. In that case, I run two sets of lamp cord to each speaker with the Black leads (common ground) tied together and connected to the negative post. Now on the 3a's, I always, always, always run the mid/tweeter amp ahead of the woofer amp. Regards, Jerry Sherwood-RX-5502-datasheet.pdf
  11. It is what is know as "passive bi-amping". That is, a separate amp for mids/tweeters and another totally independent amp for the woofers. Further, the "passive" indicates that the passive xovers are in place and continue to select/deselect frequencies for the three drivers. Thus via the separate volume controls, we get voice control that far exceeds what could be obtained with pots. The pic shows a line out for the woofer only xover connection. That connection no longer connects inside the box to the red terminal. The red terminal now connects strictly to the mid and tweeter. Black terminal, of course, is the return line for both. My purpose in showing the pic was NOT to suggest going this way, but to show that bringing out terminals can be done in an inexpensive way. The better way to passive bi-amp would be to bring out a two separate terminals for the woofer. Advantage of doing this is you could bi-amp with non-common ground amps (i.e. tube amps, etc.). Using just three terminals, like I do, limits you to strictly common ground amps (which is all I have) that are the same polarity. Regards, Jerry
  12. I doubt you'll get much for your old corroded pots. I can guarantee you'll degrade sound if you don't seal the holes well, so ... Anyhow, just wanted to share another idea with you. Since you no longer have original woofers and since balancing sound with your infinity woofers will be a problem, I strongly recommend you consider bi-amping. That is, one amp dedicated to powering the infinity woofers and another amp for the mids/tweeters. You then balance sound via the independent volume controls on the amps. Notice that the amps do NOT have to be identical. You can use a much smaller amp on the mids/tweeters. I have a 140 wpc amp on my woofers and an old 35 wpc amp (that was collecting dust in my basement) driving the mids/tweeters. Now, I bi-amp using just the three terminals AR provided, but the correct way to do this would be to separate the xovers and bring out a 4th terminal. This does not have to be an expensive proposition. You could simply bring out a wire - see example below. Regards, Jerry
  13. Roy's recommendations are, as always, spot on. My question is why go through all of the work to physically remove the pots? What harm are they doing? In my 3a's, the mid pot is wired to the "top of the pot" so that the resistance is still there to keep xover frequencies correct. The tweeter pot is totally by passed to gain an addition 1db in tweeter output. That 1db isn't much, but it helps. My real point, however, is the pots are physically in place. I see zero advantage to creating holes which then must be properly sealed. Regards, Jerry
  14. AR-3a vs. Original Large Advent

    Steve, your observations are spot on! Below is an example of that original AR frequency response graph. My 3a's still sound fairly decent (I am the original owner), and I did NOT spend a fortune restoring. I by passed both pots, and added a padding resistor to the mid to drop it further behind the woofer. Finally, I bi-amp using just the 3 terminals AR provided. Then to bring everything back into balance, I simply provide more voltage to the mids/tweeters via the volume control on their dedicated amp. In short, I have moved "voice control" from those pots behind the speakers to the volume controls on my amps. Further, on my latest amp the volume controls exist on a single remote, so altering voice is now a matter of remote clicks. This was done on my 3a's ten years ago and I have experienced zero problems with this setup. Now, in all fairness, Roy cautioned me ten years ago about the eminent demise of the tweeters. He felt the additional power they now see, will kill them off. The 3a's are in my den, a very small room, so keeping Roy's advice in mind, I rarely apply more than a watt of power. At that level the voltage across those tweeters ... well, it isn't very much ... NOT very much at all! They really aren't being "pushed" that hard and I suspect that is why almost 50 years later they still work and sound better than the original "muted" setup. Regards, Jerry
  15. The Quintessential AR Speaker

    I realize I am veering a little off topic, but if I had a friend with a pair of AR-4x's, I would "suggest" a stacking experiment. Since the 4's are 8 ohms, most decent amps could handle them in parallel. Has anyone ever tried this? Regards, Jerry
×