Jager crossover frequency spec

Well...I don't know. I need to order the circuit board modules for a marchand xm26 in anticipation of switching from straight 8s to Jagers. I thought I pretty much understood what I was asking, but I guess I don't!
 
That's the electrical side. 

The tweeter is a 2nd order Linkwitz-Riley at 2.8kHz.

IIRC the woofer should be a 3rd order Linkwitz-Riley at 2.8kHz. 

I'd let PJ weigh in before ordering modules, as those suckers are pretty spendy.
 
PB didn't mention the acoustic slopes, but a Marchand is 24db/oct, so can you use the Marchand with a Jaeger?
The Silver Flute cone doesn't have a big breakup above the xover point, so the slope is probably not that steep in the stock xover.

Jamie
 
To clarify, the drivers are passively equalized between the crossover and the driver. This is done to make it possible to use standard, well-known external crossover functions.

The equalized tweeter acts like a second-order highpass at 2800Hz, with a Q of 1.0. If it is driven with a second-order high-pass function with a Q of 0.5 (i.e. a second order Linkwitz-Riley), the combination approximates very closely to a fourth-order Linkwitz-Riley.

The equalized woofer acts like a first-order lowpass at 2800Hz. If it is driven by a third-order Butterworth filter, the combination approximates very closely to a fourth-order Linkwitz-Riley.

Thus the acoustic crossover is a fourth-order Linkwitz-Riley.
 
The Silver Flute has some cone breakup around 4300 Hz. Although it is not a huge bump, would the passive EQ from the stock Xover remain in place to smooth this out,even with an active Xover in place? I think this was what you were describing in your explanation. Now that I see the curve I can see why you went with 24db/Oct (with a Xover point of 2800 Hz. )

Jamie
 
The XM26 can be configured with 6, 12, 18 or 24 dB/oct curves. The frequency modules are only $15/per, but a $60 investment is nothing to sneeze at. I am curious to know if it's advisable to leave the tweeter side of the passive in place downstream of an active. Thank you, all.
 
You want to leave all of the components mounted in the box in place if you use an active.  The tweeter is not so delicate IMO that you need the protection cap.  One way that I deal with that concern differently is to buy the hole plugs for the banana portion of the speaker binding posts, then plug the holes in the tweeter binding posts and only use your banana speaker cables for the woofer side of things.  That way it is more difficult to accidentally connect the woofer amp to the tweeter amp.
 
Do you mean leave just the impedance compensation board in place? (I figured that would be the case.) Or leave both that and the passive xover board in place but connect directly to the binding posts on the back of the cabinet?
 
Jamier said:
The Silver Flute has some cone breakup around 4300 Hz. Although it is not a huge bump, would the passive EQ from the stock Xover remain in place to smooth this out,even with an active Xover in place? I think this was what you were describing in your explanation. Now that I see the curve I can see why you went with 24db/Oct (with a Xover point of 2800 Hz. )

Jamie
Click to expand...

Yes, the passive eq inside the cabinet removes the bump, leaving a first order (6dB/octave) rolloff from 2800 to about 9kHz. It also cuts out the lower woofer above around 500Hz, and compensates for impedance fluctuations form all the eq and and woofer inductance, leaving a constant ~8 ohms.

The tweeter eq reduces its sensitivity to match the woofer, provides some treble boost to flatten the response, and compensates the impedance fluctuations leaving a constant ~8 ohms.

The real reason for targeting a 24dB/octave was to maintain the beaming to straight ahead; odd-order crossovers send the interference beam either up or down through the crossover region. For that reason I do not advice trying different order filters than the ones specified.
 
PJ, in my limited experience, Beaming is an issue when ever I cross woofers near the upper end of their useable range. The upside is these designs often are very good on axis (but lose coherency off axis). 2.5 way TMMs are generally not very good in the near-field because the “sweet spot” is not focused in a location for near-field listening and floor bounce is hard to control. Would the Jaeger, perhaps, be a good near-field TMM? The bass response of the speaker might be too much for a small room (10x15x8), but that could be adjusted, perhaps? The straight forward Beaming has me interested since these cones are wool. Beaming with metal cones tends to be obnoxious, but with softer materials it can be used constructively, especially in the near-field.

Jamie
 
Jamier said:
PJ, in my limited experience, Beaming is an issue when ever I cross woofers near the upper end of their useable range. The upside is these designs often are very good on axis (but lose coherency off axis). 2.5 way TMMs are generally not very good in the near-field because the “sweet spot” is not focused in a location for near-field listening and floor bounce is hard to control. Would the Jaeger, perhaps, be a good near-field TMM? The bass response of the speaker might be too much for a small room (10x15x8), but that could be adjusted, perhaps? The straight forward Beaming has me interested since these cones are wool. Beaming with metal cones tends to be obnoxious, but with softer materials it can be used constructively, especially in the near-field.

Jamie
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, when I said "beaming", I was just referring to the interference between the woofer/tweeter at crossover (the driver centers are about 1.6 wavelengths apart at crossover), and ignoring the difference in acoustic path length. So it's just the vertical beaming.There ought to be a theoretical null at -18 degrees and another peak at -40 degrees, but the beaming of the woofer probably reduces that substantially. At least, that is the thinking that went into this design.

The bass is tuned on the assumption that the amp damping factor is around 2.5 which is typical for zero-feedback SET amps (Kaiju is 2.8). If the bass is too much, you could plug the ports and get a sealed box; volume is about 1.1 cubic feet for each woofer - the cabinet is divided into two independent chambers. That gives, very roughly, 45Hz resonance at QT 0.65 with an SET, or QT 0.45 with a high-damping amp. I imagine that would work well in a smaller room, but we have not tested this, so YMMV!
 
I work sometimes with a finish carpenter who's a music lover and who has been talking a bit lately about getting into speaker design; I'm going to suggest he read this thread to get a sense of the depths of what he does not yet know!
 
I was at a trade show several years ago where I had been talked into showing our electronics with someone else's speakers. The manufacturer was a contractor. The cabinets were beautiful looking and IIRC the price was $80K. When we had a Q&A session the manufacturer asked me to field the technical questions about his speakers (which I was experiencing for the first time) because he had no clue how they worked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ipetruk
Configuring third party subwoofer amp for Pipettes and Subette
Replies
13
Views
24K
Doc B
Doc B
O
Sublime amp buzz/whine/noise
Replies
3
Views
12K
Doc B
Doc B
Rabco
High voltage circuit testing: out of spec reading 190-190.2V DC [resolved]
Replies
13
Views
5K
Rabco
Rabco
J
Stereomour II upgrades
Replies
2
Views
1K
hmbscott
hmbscott
Mucker
Considering Steremour II
2
Replies
23
Views
29K
hmbscott
hmbscott
Back
Top