Yamaha NS1000M Crossover
- Thread starter neil
- Start date
torstoi
pfm Member
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/member.php?u=5740
Mark has quite some experience in this & has also a lengthy and very interesting thread
about the complete refurbishment & improvements on his pair
at the AudioFlat Homepage.
Probably worthwhile asking for access there and read the related article.
I found it quite impressive even before owning the NS myself.
I don't know if I recall it exactly correct, but I think for some reason he seemed to prefer not to go the Troels route exactly.
And by the total effort he went into I do not think the cost was the issue.
Mark has quite some experience in this & has also a lengthy and very interesting thread
about the complete refurbishment & improvements on his pair
at the AudioFlat Homepage.
Probably worthwhile asking for access there and read the related article.
I found it quite impressive even before owning the NS myself.
I don't know if I recall it exactly correct, but I think for some reason he seemed to prefer not to go the Troels route exactly.
And by the total effort he went into I do not think the cost was the issue.
torstoi
pfm Member
Yep, if I recall it right he devided it up to run treble and mids separately from the bass.
But I think it's still passive, so basicly the location, inside or outside the cabinet doesn't technically matter much, apart from the fact he can acess easier.
It's been a while for me too, but by memory I think he was not convinced enough by Troel's way of crossover design to go the same way exactly.
My impression is he put quite some thoughts into that, so taking a closer look at it again - or simply ask him- is no harm for sure..
But I think it's still passive, so basicly the location, inside or outside the cabinet doesn't technically matter much, apart from the fact he can acess easier.
It's been a while for me too, but by memory I think he was not convinced enough by Troel's way of crossover design to go the same way exactly.
My impression is he put quite some thoughts into that, so taking a closer look at it again - or simply ask him- is no harm for sure..
YNWOAN
100% Analogue
Hi guys, in essence the above statements are all correct. I was aware of the Troels G design but decided, on balance, not to pursue it. The primary reason was that, despite all the mods I made, I didn't want the speakers to become different things and the Troels crossover is based on the original, but fundamentally different in a number of ways. Having said that, if it appeals to you, it isn't actually bad value for money considering the components and the Jantzen parts are very good quality (I chose to use Jantzen inductors as do many high-end manufacturers).
My own crossovers are the exact same circuit of the original Yamaha's but, a/ removed from the speaker (largely for convenience), b/ divided into seperate top, mid, bass sections (again for convenience and electrical elegance) and, c/ bespoke component choice, though the component values are all per original spec.
I had this in my mind at the time but separating the sections of the crossover has meant that I have since been able to bypass the bass section which is now actively driven by its own active crossover and amplifier (this can be easily reversed if so desired).
All the details, values, etc, can be found in the threads mentioned above.
I still absolutely love mine - utterly brilliant speakers!
My own crossovers are the exact same circuit of the original Yamaha's but, a/ removed from the speaker (largely for convenience), b/ divided into seperate top, mid, bass sections (again for convenience and electrical elegance) and, c/ bespoke component choice, though the component values are all per original spec.
I had this in my mind at the time but separating the sections of the crossover has meant that I have since been able to bypass the bass section which is now actively driven by its own active crossover and amplifier (this can be easily reversed if so desired).
All the details, values, etc, can be found in the threads mentioned above.
I still absolutely love mine - utterly brilliant speakers!
PigletsDad
My intelligence test came back negative.
The key difference between Troels design and the stock one is how the rising response of the woofer is dealt with. See http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Yamaha-NS1000.htm for details.
The stock crossover is electrically second order, but gives acoustic response is close to LR4, except the woofer, which has about 10dB too much output at 1kHz. Troels includes extra roll-off, so the acoustic output is much closer to the LR4 target. This should make a difference to behaviour in the midrange region, especially the integration between woofer and mid-dome.
I've never heard this mod, and love the stock design, so have a lot of sympathy for YNWOAN feeling he doesn't want to fix something that is very much not broken. But on paper it looks like it would be a step forward, and extend that uncanny, electrostatic-like clarity across more of the spectrum.
The stock crossover is electrically second order, but gives acoustic response is close to LR4, except the woofer, which has about 10dB too much output at 1kHz. Troels includes extra roll-off, so the acoustic output is much closer to the LR4 target. This should make a difference to behaviour in the midrange region, especially the integration between woofer and mid-dome.
I've never heard this mod, and love the stock design, so have a lot of sympathy for YNWOAN feeling he doesn't want to fix something that is very much not broken. But on paper it looks like it would be a step forward, and extend that uncanny, electrostatic-like clarity across more of the spectrum.
YNWOAN
100% Analogue
To be fair to Troels, when I went active in the bass I did change the crossover at that point to third order and altered the roll off frequency.
Edit: The active crossover I use on the bass operates in the digital domain and so it is very easy to make a range of quick adjustments and save them as separate pre-sets - one can then switch between them with ease. When doing this the standard crossover between the mid and bass did sound a bit full and the steeper (and slightly earlier) slope of the third order active slope did make the lower mid sound significantly more open and less congested.
Edit: The active crossover I use on the bass operates in the digital domain and so it is very easy to make a range of quick adjustments and save them as separate pre-sets - one can then switch between them with ease. When doing this the standard crossover between the mid and bass did sound a bit full and the steeper (and slightly earlier) slope of the third order active slope did make the lower mid sound significantly more open and less congested.