Audiolense digital crossover question

Audiolenser

New Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Jul 25, 2021
Messages
6
Hi guys,

Could a pair of Active Genelec 8351B's work with Audiolense's Digital Crossovers and it's individual driver time correction? Or would I need to open them up to connect every driver separately to my interface?


Looking forward to chat with all of you,


-Roy
 

juicehifi

Audiolense
Staff member
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
279
Genelecs plus Audiolense has worked well in the past. If you have a microphone, you can test it with the demo.
 

2234rew

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2020
Messages
204
Genelecs plus Audiolense has worked well in the past. If you have a microphone, you can test it with the demo.
Hi Bernt, OP asked about "individual driver time correction"

Driver time alignment is not possible unless you bypass the Genelec's internal crossover right?

Of course , overall speaker time domain correction will still benefit from Audiolense XO
 

juicehifi

Audiolense
Staff member
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
279
Everything that the microphone captures will be time-aligned. Phase differences between drivers will remain, but the sum will be time-aligned. The difference between passive and digital (Audiolense) crossovers do usually not show on the simulations.
 

Audiolenser

New Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Jul 25, 2021
Messages
6
That's right @2234rew and Oh okay @juicehifi that is great to know, thank you both.

I use a UAD Apollo with them and it has multiple channels, but I initially thought that digital crossovers could be done digitally without me needing to connect every driver individually to an output on my interface and having to dissasemble the speaker to do so.

I'd also like to ask how to setup the Measurement&Correction window and the TTD subwindow properly in the correction procedure panel?

Are there certain numbers I should look out for based on my measurements?

TTD.jpg
 

juicehifi

Audiolense
Staff member
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
279
I recommend that you try the default first. Maybe add a partial correction that stops around 15-20 kHz to quieten down the tweeter correction. From there it’s tweaking based on simulations. You want a best possible step response without signifikant pre-ringing in the filters.
 

2234rew

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2020
Messages
204
Maybe add a partial correction that stops around 15-20 kHz to quieten down the tweeter correction.
Is this your general recommendation ? Is it because tweeter correction is often source of pre-ringing?

I've never tried partial correction before , so i'm happy to try your recommendation. But would also like to learn the reason behind if you can kindly share

Many thanks
 

juicehifi

Audiolense
Staff member
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
279
Is this your general recommendation ? Is it because tweeter correction is often source of pre-ringing?

I've never tried partial correction before , so i'm happy to try your recommendation. But would also like to learn the reason behind if you can kindly share

Many thanks
Yes, most of the time I think this is the best solution. It is mostly about not correcting the tweeters’ low pass. Very significant for horn loaded tweeters, not so much for regular ones.
 

Audiolenser

New Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Jul 25, 2021
Messages
6
Also @juicehifi , I just took my first measurements and all of them look like this, it's not exactly like in the chart, so I'm not sure if they're good or bad?

Measurement Report.jpg
Measurement Report 2.jpg
 

juicehifi

Audiolense
Staff member
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
279
This looks good.

THe noise floor as reported here is the worst among the measured channels. Full range and hig range performs better than low range. I prefer to look at the log measurement in the main folder. It should level out around -60 dB or better, depending on microphone and mic amp.
 
Top Bottom