[Ultralight]

As some of you probably can guess from a few of my others posts, I've become very VERY enamored by the RS5 drivers in the Super 3i configuration.  Other than a bit 'thinner' midrange where piano sounds more like uprights while with the alnico piano sounds more like grands, the RS5 has been absolutely incredible to my ears. Even at very low volume, it really communicates a lot of information.  Every other system I've had like sounds like a stereo rig while the RS5 gives me a sense of lifting the veil and the music sounds like just simply like music. My basis for comparison is listening to a nice grand piano that my son plays.  And this by simply plunking down the RS5 on a pair of 28" tall metal stands and matched to a pair of subs.  Granted, I'm running them through a pair of fine Dac and SET tube amp....

I'm wondering what the RS5 can achieve with additional optimization.  I can think of two ways and am wondering if anyone has tried either and care to comment....

1. Highpass the audio from say 80hz and up.  This will reduce the driver receiving low & subsonic bass - cutting out bottom two octaves from 20Hz.   I did a low db (so as not to hit maximum excursion) audio test and the RS5 produced audible sound to something like 25-30hz, unlike other speakers like the KEF LS50 where by 30hz, there is zero audio or visible movement.  I've read a couple of speaker designer/manufacturer I respect that small full range single drivers sound even better/cleaner when they do not receive low frequency signals so that the driver will produce only the audible range that it can easily reproduce without strain.   Of course, whichever device  is used to high pass the signal must be highly resolving and do minimal damage to the original signal.

2. Isoacoustic stand under the 3i.  It has to be either small or medium size - no larger. Isoacoustics must be matched for WEIGHT. 

3. Not including placement which I fell I've optimized for my room, what else have you all done to optimize for your RS5? 

Thanks in advance for any comments from those who have actually tried this.
UL

[DaveC113]

1. 50 Hz works really well for me with a 24dB slope using the DSP built into the Crown amp... this allows easy blending with a sub where 80 Hz made integration a bit more difficult. It's unbelievable how much louder the RS5 can play even highpassed as low as 50 Hz. Unfortunately, implementing a highpass will usually result in a decrease in sound quality at normal to lower SPLs so it's a tradeoff.

2. IsoAcoustics stands make a big positive difference.

3. If yours didn't come with upgraded binding posts and internal wire this makes a big difference. Louis uses Supra which is a great value, if you want to spend more I can certainly help too.  

[pstrisik]

Hey UL.......   My approach is strongly with the high pass with my Alnico Monitors.  See the thread that starts with "Peter's Super Alnico Monitors......".  I'm using a Marchand analog, active (line level) xover.  Right now just as high pass from 90Hz with my subs filling in to 90Hz.  When Louis ships the woofers, I'll use high pass more up around 150 with 150 down to 50Hz going to the woofers and the subs from 50 down.

I already notice the benefits of relieving both the Omegas and my 5 watt tube amp of the lower frequencies.  May be placebo, but it feels like more head room.  I can crank it up pretty well without distortion.  And, particularly when I get the woofers in the mix, the bass will be cleaner and tighter.

.......Peter

[monsterbill]

I found two things helped bring out the mids for me. 1) Way more burn-in than I thought I would need (at least 100 hrs, maybe more), and 2) adding additional dampening the driver basket.

For me, it was about reducing a slight peak in the upper mids, but it had the subjective effect of filling out the "presence" region of the mids. I haven't done much tweaking to the electronics after upgrading from fostex to the RS5, but I look forward to reading about your results!

[Ultralight]

Thanks everyone.  Appreciate the confirmation that isoacoustics & high passing could make a difference.

I do think my binding post and cables are probably the latest version  Binding post looks like recent photos, but cables - how do I tell?   My port on the rear though looks nothing like the current one which has 4 screws.  Mine is just a small plastic port that seem to be held in by friction.   I wonder if that makes a difference.

Burn in - plenty already on this speaker.

Monsterbill, did you add the dampening material? I'm concerned it could interfere with the wonderful upper frequencies which is so wonderful.  Lots of air/ambiance/space.   Its amazing to me how such a small driver can give the illusion of such a large sound - at least to my ears. 

UL

[monsterbill]

I did add dampening and antireflective material, modeling after what Louis had originally done on the modded fostex drivers I was replacing. I also talked with Louis before I did the mod to make sure I wasnt doing something stupid. 

I prefer the tonal balance with the dampening, but I do think I traded off some air in the bargain. YMMV.  Low risk, though, since it is an easy mod to undo.

[DBC]

Ultralight,

This is probably obvious, but my advice is to go one step at a time with speaker isolation being first. Most people I speak with are quite surprised at the effect isolation can have. This is of course dependent to a large degree on the type of Monitor stands used previously and individual room acoustics. You may actually find it takes a number of listening hours to fully adjust to the change.

Anyway, one change at a time with a good number of listening hours between each change helps to sort out what is an improvement and what is not.

I encourage you to try High Pass Filtering on your Monitors. Personally, I've used a number of High Pass Filter methods over the years and to my ears the Crossover did more harm than good. Wonder why Omega's don't have a crossover? My system is very simple, Oppo Player, one pair of interconnects, Decware Amp, Speaker Cables, Omegas. If you throw a pre-amp and other devices into the audio chain then any negative effects of the crossover my be less noticeable.

Let us know how it works out.

[pstrisik]

I encourage you to try High Pass Filtering on your Monitors. Personally, I've used a number of High Pass Filter methods over the years and to my ears the Crossover did more harm than good. Wonder why Omega's don't have a crossover? My system is very simple, Oppo Player, one pair of interconnects, Decware Amp, Speaker Cables, Omegas. If you throw a pre-amp and other devices into the audio chain then any negative effects of the crossover my be less noticeable.

I think an active (line level) crossover minimizes any negative effects.  Of course, anything in the chain has some effect.  In my experience, the positive effects outweigh any negatives that might be introduced.  With an active xover, the Omegas are still crossoverless with the signal from the amplifier going directly to the drivers.

........Peter

[DBC]

Peter

I've not used the Marchand xover but understand they are top of the line. Which model are you using?

[pstrisik]

Peter

I've not used the Marchand xover but understand they are top of the line. Which model are you using?

It is the XM-66.  Has the advantage of changing xover point on the fly with LED readout.  His others have swappable resistor modules making adjustments cumbersome.  I suppose that would be preferable in theory since the XM-66 uses some kind of switch or selector in line.  But I briefly had an XM-9 and couldn't tell the difference sonically.



........Peter

[Ultralight]

Someone in a different audiocircle forum recommended Harrison Lab's Fmod high and low pass dongles.  Sounds also too good to be true and under $30 a pair.  But the reviews seem pretty incredible.  Anyone tried these?  If the reviews are correct, could be a low cost way to test out high/low pass for Omegas.

UL

[RDavidson]

I've looked at those Harrison Labs too, and actually one could build a better filter using high end resistors. BUT the problem with this, from what I understand, is that passive filters can introduce phase issues (and perhaps other problems). While more complicated and much more expensive, electronic crossovers actually have less issues than passives. I think minidsp makes a pretty great digital crossover. That'd be a route worth investigating too.

[pstrisik]

IIRC, Harrison Labs uses 12db per octave roll off (2nd Order).  Marchand uses 24db (4th order).  4th order does not introduce phase change.  I think even orders (2nd, 4th) are better than odd wrt phase.  This is all from vague memory so verify before counting on it.

If you are running a sub with a phase knob (rather than a switch), you should be able to take care of any phase issues the Harrison's might introduce.

I use a pair of Harrisons for my supertweeters.  They are 15kHz high pass and feed my Bantam Gold for the tweeters.  I'm less concerned about phase with this part of things as the tweeters are a couple of feet behind the mains and point towards the ceiling.

I would say that the Harrisons are definitely the way to go if you want to see if a HPF is for you.  Getting one of his 80, 90, or 100Hz high pass would give you a good idea if the approach is for you.  That's with a big $30 investment!  If you are sold, spring for a Marchand or a fixed frequency custom made filter.  They are not difficult to make if you have the design.  There are calculators on the web that will give you the correct values of caps/resistors/inductors for what you need.

Here's a photo of the back of the Bantam Gold.  The RCAs are plugged into the FMods.  Best photo I could get without removing the amp.  This is largely blind holding the camera into the back of the cabinet!  They are about two inches long though that's hard to see here.




.........Peter

[Ultralight]

Thanks!  Is Marchand better than miniDSP?  miniDSP seem to provide a whole lot more functions including EQ and room correction.  They have a bewildering array of options. 

Thanks,
UL

[pstrisik]

Thanks!  Is Marchand better than miniDSP?  miniDSP seem to provide a whole lot more functions including EQ and room correction.  They have a bewildering array of options. 

Thanks,
UL

Marchand is analog, miniDSP is digital.  It has its own DAC.  If their DAC is ok with you, it is worth looking at.  If you have a favorite DAC whose signal you don't want to mess with, you won't like it.  Thinking out loud....  if the miniDSP has a digital out, I suppose it would do its equalizing etc., then you could send its digital signal to your DAC.  I'm not sure if it can work that way though.


........Peter

edit: no, miniDSP is analog in, analog out, so it is meant to take the analog signal from your DAC - it will then re-digitize it, do its thing to the signal, then convert back to analog for output.

edit again : that was the less expensive 2x4 ($105).  Their miniDSP 4x10 Hd does have both analog and digital in and out ($499) and the nanoDIGI 2x8 B ($170) is digital only (no DAC inside at all).  So they could give you the best of both worlds.  Digital in from your source - miniDSP equalizes and otherwise adjusts for room correction, digital out to your DAC.  I'm not sure if you could use it as a crossover in this way - my guess would be no unless you just could have it output with high pass still in digital.  But then you would need to output two signals from source, one for the miniDSP (midrange-high) and one for bass.  The bass signal would need its own DAC and it may create timing issues.

I may be off on some aspect of all this, but you get the idea of the difference in approaches and the variables involved.

[DaveC113]

miniDSP is best for experimenting and design but maybe not so great as a final solution, I've heard it's not as transparent as could be and can be noisy. HAL here on AC may have a better alternative...

[Ultralight]

THANK YOU Everyone for your helpful comments.    Much appreciated.  So many options.... That's good.  Will of course take some time to explore but it is good to have choices.

UL