Better pic attached.
Sounds better WITHOUT the solid state amp...now running all through the SET 300B. I need to attentuate the horns down 3 or 6dB. Subs are hardly needed.
YES....!!! Finally got the 416's today from Great Plains Audio.
Wonderfulyl packed...very professional.
They look absolutely fantastic....heavy, very well machined...just a piece of art.
I was keen to get them into their custom boxes...so, after only 15 minutes, I had them playing. What a relief.
Without run-in, they are sounding very good. The cabinets are around 160 liters, so bass extension is good, most likely getting a flat response to 40Hz, then gradual roll off. I'll check this on the weekend with my signal Hz CD.
Running the separate 100-watt pro amp to drive the woofers, with a 500Hz passive xover.
On the weekend, I'll disconnect this amp and run the drivers through the Bob Crites 500/5000 xover from the 300B SET...but I suspect I'll have to attenuate the horns down somewhat.
The tapped horn subs were hardly needed...but if I run the drivers with the 300B, I'll probably retain the subs.
The blue horns will go on sale so I can start on the 511/811/902 project.
Last edited by atilsley; January 20th, 2013 at 10:42 PM.
Better pic attached.
Sounds better WITHOUT the solid state amp...now running all through the SET 300B. I need to attentuate the horns down 3 or 6dB. Subs are hardly needed.
Last edited by atilsley; January 20th, 2013 at 10:43 PM.
Removed legs and sealed up the port to floor, then created another port on the front elevation, reducing size by 1/3. Greatly tighter and improved bass.
Also, tonight, I tested some miniDSP settings for the bass...adding low shelf rise to the 20-80Hz range by 6dB....plus used a Butterworth 24dB crossed 550Hz.....
Better filling of bass throughout the range...but probably too strong down low. Sounds more like a permanent sub woofer turned on.
Last edited by atilsley; January 20th, 2013 at 10:43 PM.
No and no. Frankly, I was stunned to learn how highly regarded it is among the ?faithful?. Technically, it?s a poor ?marriage?, sonically coupling the tail end of the driver?s break-up modes to the HF horn?s compression loaded BW. The 416, and especially the 515, are better than most WRT controlling break-up modes, but????Originally Posted by atilsley
Run the 416 full-range by itself and with various XO points/slopes and let your ears decide. Altec knew they needed to use either the 515 or a custom, but between budget constraints and the desire to keep up with the competition bass ?thump? wise????
GM
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
Yes, if there?s no need for the larger horn?s ?tighter? polar response and/or not in a prosound app where the bigger horn better protects the driver below the XO point.
GM
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
Understood. Why didn't Altec cross the 19 around 700Hz...given the 511's LF range? Wouldn't this have solved the criticims you raise re HF distortion of the woofer....?
??? The M19 uses the 811, presumably to limit cab depth, cost, plus wanted to bypass the sectoral horn's 'honk' and get a good blend off axis at around 90 deg through the XO BW with a nominally 15? point source [cone driver], hence the need for it to be so high.
They did a great job with what they were forced to work with [PA horn] and in some ways superior to earlier consumer designs, but it's fundamentally flawed based on my understanding of what constitutes ?best? compression horn, point source LF speaker design for use in a high SQ, wide BW app, especially when max efficiency isn?t the prime goal.
GM
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
Thanks GM
For home audio, how would you compare the compromised M19 with the 604? I've had a GPA 604 in a large 250 liter Stonehenge cab and like the overall presentation. Appreciate your opinion on the 604 'sound.'
You?re welcome!
The 604 is a near-field monitor and the M19 a far-field one plus designed to handle much more power, so pick the one that is the best ?fit?, though the ?rub? here is that neither one is optimum for most HIFI apps, though historically, the few that have converted the M19 concept to a low tuned MLTL were much happier overall, making the choice between the two a ?no-brainer?.
Factor in that to get a proper comparison the 604 needs to either be at ear height and the M19 adjusted for distance/slope to get the center of its horn?s ?sweet spot? at ear height or bring the 604 down and adjust it to have the same HF ?sweet spot?, doing it in a typical HIFI room would also require rolling off both speakers fairly high up due different cab tunings, room interaction [I?m guessing around 250-300 Hz].
Compared this way and fiddling with the M19?s tone controls to minimize horn size differences [?fullness?], I imagine that in a narrow ?sweet spot? there wouldn?t be a significant difference sonically, but run wide range and optimized for in-room response it?s going to be enough different to be an apples n? oranges choice to me.
Anyway, there are folks here with both, so they are the ones to best answer this one.
Really, based on your stated performance goals, thoughts, and not wanting to stray too much from the ?conventional wisdom?, it seems to me that a 604 MLTL with a 511 perched on top to make a three way is a good way to ?have your cake and eat it too?, and if you add the 416 as a helper mid-woofer, then system sensitivity can be 3 - 6 dB higher/channel.
Hmm, after 15 sec. of thought, this is my ?official? recommendation as it satisfies the XO point issues once the XO is dialed in phase wise [horn tilt + vertical driver offset] at the listening position to account for the large c-t-c spacing.
GM
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks