E-III Revision
- Thread starter James
- Start date
To improve something that is already as good as I think it is will be quite an achievement but possibly not as easy to gauge.
Even though I was able to hear a difference between ball material in bearing isolators this exercise might be harder as rebuilding an XO is slightly more time consuming than swapping balls about. It will be a sit and listen for a week or so exercise rather than an immediate and obvious change, most likely (unless of course it is a disaster).
Steve
Even though I was able to hear a difference between ball material in bearing isolators this exercise might be harder as rebuilding an XO is slightly more time consuming than swapping balls about. It will be a sit and listen for a week or so exercise rather than an immediate and obvious change, most likely (unless of course it is a disaster).
Steve
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
Steve,
You'll need four pairs of new inductors, three pairs of new caps and two pairs of resistors, and recycle what's left over from the Bandpass and Highpass filters. Total cost of parts is US$51.40 plus shipping.
That must be the cheapest makeover ever. When you decide to go ahead with the revision, I'll have to piggy-back a pair of drivers or two to make the FEDEX shipping worthwhile.
James
You'll need four pairs of new inductors, three pairs of new caps and two pairs of resistors, and recycle what's left over from the Bandpass and Highpass filters. Total cost of parts is US$51.40 plus shipping.
That must be the cheapest makeover ever. When you decide to go ahead with the revision, I'll have to piggy-back a pair of drivers or two to make the FEDEX shipping worthwhile.
James
A question first.
I presume that the phase charts you have put up here were derived from measurements you took of the actual drivers. If that is the case, how will age and, more particularly, use have changed how the drivers measure.
If a change in phase response is possible, wouldn't it be advisable to do a re-measure before working out values for a new XO?
Steve
I presume that the phase charts you have put up here were derived from measurements you took of the actual drivers. If that is the case, how will age and, more particularly, use have changed how the drivers measure.
If a change in phase response is possible, wouldn't it be advisable to do a re-measure before working out values for a new XO?
Steve
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
There is more variability in my measurement technique that variation in driver performance, I have to say. The measurements I took recently of the E-IIIs look virtually identical to the originals. It probably wouldn't hurt to take a fresh set of measurements, but it is a serious PITA to set up. It's much easier to exercise blind faith in my abilities and just make the changes. 
Or better yet, if you really REALLY already like the E-Vs as they are, why contemplate any changes?
James
Or better yet, if you really REALLY already like the E-Vs as they are, why contemplate any changes?
James
I do like them as they are but that does not mean I would not like them more if they could be made better.
Even more important is that this looks like a not too expensive experiment / learning experience that can be reversed if it proves a failure.
I was tempted to just say go ahead and order the parts but was wondering if the values you have selected might be incorrect for the drivers as they are now since they were based on measurements made as they were. It is really only if aging effects the phase alignment thingy that it really matters I suppose.
Did you not set up your equipment for the E-IX project? The next time you do will be for the E-X project I assume.
Steve
Even more important is that this looks like a not too expensive experiment / learning experience that can be reversed if it proves a failure.
I was tempted to just say go ahead and order the parts but was wondering if the values you have selected might be incorrect for the drivers as they are now since they were based on measurements made as they were. It is really only if aging effects the phase alignment thingy that it really matters I suppose.
Did you not set up your equipment for the E-IX project? The next time you do will be for the E-X project I assume.
Steve
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
Ahhh ... the never ending quest for perfection.
Not if I blow something up as part of the testing or as a result of a wiring mistake.
If there's any change to the native response of your drivers, then phase would change too. They are inter-related. However, unless they are abused or very old or the motor/cone has deteriorated, the FR and hence PR should remain relatively unchanged. It'll be safe to use the original measurements.
Yes I did. The hassle factor is remembering how to run the software, which bits to connect where, whether I have the correct connectors, and having a quiet enough environment to take clean measurements. In the case of the E-V, you'll either have to lug one of them over to Ergoland or I'll have to bring my PC and measuring kit over to your place. If you haven't got an amp that has RCA inputs, then one E-V will have to travel about 15km north.
Let me complete the E-III revision first and see if the change makes a positive difference. I should have both the E-IX and E-III mk2 ready this weekend. A box of LCR bits is expected on Friday.
James
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
Despite being a reasonably practiced hand at building hard-wired crossovers, revising the E-III crossovers was still bloody hard work and took a while. Normally, I'd wire up the 'draft' network loosely on a peg-board to make sure it sounds right before committing to fitting them all together. This time, I felt sufficiently confident that I had got it right. Any changes that might be required would relate mainly to resistor changes to adjust relative mid and tweet balances.
The new XO requires a 5.7mH inductor, which I had planned to recycle from the 6.0mH in original XO. Unwinding an inductor was made easy with an LCR meter. But it also meant there was no going back to the original without ordering a new 6.0mH from Madisound. So be it.
It took about three hours on Sunday morning to determine the optimal layout of the new components on a 20cm x 30cm board. I used MS-Paint to replicate the components in life-size, and tried a number of configurations. Once I was satisfied with the layout, I transfered it with a white marker to a cut board, and drilled the holes required for the soldering turrets, cable ties and such like.
Assembly began in earnest at around mid-day Sunday, and wasn't finished until midnight. To be fair, I had to take a breather in between inhaling the solder fumes to walk the dogs, wash the car and cook dinner, but it was a fairly intensive time. I estimate around 8 hours for the build, a full day's work. In contrast, the CA15/M15 drivers were swapped out in less than 30 minutes.
So how do the revised E-IIIs sound?
Pretty damn good, actually. With direct reference to the new E-IXs, the E-III mk2 sounds altogether more substantial. It is an effortless loudspeaker that now seems a lot more even handed in its tonal balance. It is a fine line between having enough presence and showing a bit of glare, and between sounding dynamic and being overly forward. With the new M15 driver, I think the balance is nicely struck. The human voice contains rich harmonics that can sound sibilant, screechy, piercing or just plain wrong when reproduced incorrectly particularly in the higher registers. Yet, mute it too much and it just sounds lifeless. Similarly, the lower vocal registers need to have body without sounding chesty or woody. The E-III mk2 does not favour Eva Cassidy any more than it does Leonard Cohen. They can make them sound angelic and moody with equal aplomb.
Playing the E-III mk2 in anger quickly reminded me why large loudspeakers stomp all over little ones. As good as the new E-IXs are in portraying music in a general sense with enthusiasm, vitality, and solid rhythmic integrity they simply do not give the same sense of scale and gravitas as the E-IIIs. There can be no substitute for cubic inches, no matter how many little turbos you bolt on.
Its safe to say the original E-III is now history. However much I wax lyric over them, it doesnt compare to what others say. So Ill wait for others to come around and tell me what they really think. Its good to have choices, and even better when I can craft my own. I'm seriously chuffed.
James
The new XO requires a 5.7mH inductor, which I had planned to recycle from the 6.0mH in original XO. Unwinding an inductor was made easy with an LCR meter. But it also meant there was no going back to the original without ordering a new 6.0mH from Madisound. So be it.
It took about three hours on Sunday morning to determine the optimal layout of the new components on a 20cm x 30cm board. I used MS-Paint to replicate the components in life-size, and tried a number of configurations. Once I was satisfied with the layout, I transfered it with a white marker to a cut board, and drilled the holes required for the soldering turrets, cable ties and such like.
Assembly began in earnest at around mid-day Sunday, and wasn't finished until midnight. To be fair, I had to take a breather in between inhaling the solder fumes to walk the dogs, wash the car and cook dinner, but it was a fairly intensive time. I estimate around 8 hours for the build, a full day's work. In contrast, the CA15/M15 drivers were swapped out in less than 30 minutes.
So how do the revised E-IIIs sound?
Pretty damn good, actually. With direct reference to the new E-IXs, the E-III mk2 sounds altogether more substantial. It is an effortless loudspeaker that now seems a lot more even handed in its tonal balance. It is a fine line between having enough presence and showing a bit of glare, and between sounding dynamic and being overly forward. With the new M15 driver, I think the balance is nicely struck. The human voice contains rich harmonics that can sound sibilant, screechy, piercing or just plain wrong when reproduced incorrectly particularly in the higher registers. Yet, mute it too much and it just sounds lifeless. Similarly, the lower vocal registers need to have body without sounding chesty or woody. The E-III mk2 does not favour Eva Cassidy any more than it does Leonard Cohen. They can make them sound angelic and moody with equal aplomb.
Playing the E-III mk2 in anger quickly reminded me why large loudspeakers stomp all over little ones. As good as the new E-IXs are in portraying music in a general sense with enthusiasm, vitality, and solid rhythmic integrity they simply do not give the same sense of scale and gravitas as the E-IIIs. There can be no substitute for cubic inches, no matter how many little turbos you bolt on.
Its safe to say the original E-III is now history. However much I wax lyric over them, it doesnt compare to what others say. So Ill wait for others to come around and tell me what they really think. Its good to have choices, and even better when I can craft my own. I'm seriously chuffed.
James
Sounds encouraging. It appears you may have addressed the important area where I thought they came up short against to the Dynaudio Countour 1.8 Mk2s I tested them directly against, although bettering them in most other aspects, and of course by inference the E-Vs which I ultimately found even better than the Dynaudios in this area.
Looking forward to a listen.
I know, if it was me however, I would also be looking to build a crossover, even using less than top quality parts, to gauge how much of the change was to do with the driver and how much was the XO design. It seems to me that knowledge would provide a fundamental input to your future loudspeaker designs.
I don't believe the E-IX is your last design. Sooner or later you will need another fix.
Steve
Looking forward to a listen.
I know, if it was me however, I would also be looking to build a crossover, even using less than top quality parts, to gauge how much of the change was to do with the driver and how much was the XO design. It seems to me that knowledge would provide a fundamental input to your future loudspeaker designs.
I don't believe the E-IX is your last design. Sooner or later you will need another fix.
Steve
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
Steve,
James
That sounds like way too much hard work. I don't use expensive parts either. For comparison, the tweeter cap is a 6.8uF Solen that costs a paltry USD3.60. I could have used a Hovland Musicap for 10x the cost, or a Mundorf Supreme Gold/Silver in Oil cap for about 30x the cost. A good design is far more important than expensive componentry. There are so many design variables that I don't think I'd learn anything that is directly transferable to a future design other than key principles.
James
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
I like taking two steps in one. I'm not sure I'm up to taking a step back just to prove one thing over another. I have enough surplus inductors and caps that I don't really wish to add to the pile with a 'learning exercise'. Can we apportion the change 50/50 between the two primary changes and call it quits?
James
James
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
Mr Tibbs,
You should know me and my abilities by now.
You didn't hear the E-IIIs before you invested in all that effort, did you? I'm 99% certain that the new XO I've designed for the CA15RLY version will improve the E-III's midrange. But we'll never know until it is implemented. Regretably, I have absolutely no need to try that particular configuration.
Another option to consider (I have 20/20 hindsight) is the MCA15RCY midrange unit, which is reputed to be very close in performance to the M15CH001. I could redesign the E-III around that driver and see if I can get the phase to line up with fewer componentry in the way. But again, you would have to build it and satisfy yourself that it is better than your current configuration.
On a side but related note, have you reinstated the E-IIIs and compared it directly with the ES14 recently? Steve will be around on Sunday to conduct his assessment.
James
You should know me and my abilities by now.
You didn't hear the E-IIIs before you invested in all that effort, did you? I'm 99% certain that the new XO I've designed for the CA15RLY version will improve the E-III's midrange. But we'll never know until it is implemented. Regretably, I have absolutely no need to try that particular configuration.
Another option to consider (I have 20/20 hindsight) is the MCA15RCY midrange unit, which is reputed to be very close in performance to the M15CH001. I could redesign the E-III around that driver and see if I can get the phase to line up with fewer componentry in the way. But again, you would have to build it and satisfy yourself that it is better than your current configuration.
On a side but related note, have you reinstated the E-IIIs and compared it directly with the ES14 recently? Steve will be around on Sunday to conduct his assessment.
James
That goes without saying, James.
I have, and that's mostly the reason for me being a bit more cautious than I'd normally be. Going back to the IIIs made me realise they actually have very little in common with the ES14s. Of course, some of what the IIIs do is very obviously better than the 14's, but the opposite is also blindingly obvious I'm afraid. TBH I'm now almost certain it would take a pair of M15s to get the midrange into the same ballpark as the 14s, such is the difference. That's why I'm very interested to hear all available opinions on the E-III Mk IIs!
Mr Tibbs
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
Mr Tibbs,
Can you pin-point exactly how you think the E-III midrange comes short of the ES14? Is it a matter of tonality (frequency anomalies), clarity (transparency), definition (articulation, pitch, dynamics) or coherence (integration with woofer/tweeter)? If it is not the latter, I'll see if I can effect a simpler change.
James
Can you pin-point exactly how you think the E-III midrange comes short of the ES14? Is it a matter of tonality (frequency anomalies), clarity (transparency), definition (articulation, pitch, dynamics) or coherence (integration with woofer/tweeter)? If it is not the latter, I'll see if I can effect a simpler change.
James
