yamaha ns1000 l-pad removal

Is there any way you can overlay your before and after plots? It's hard to compare as they are but they look identical.

5k is the crossover point, so you've increased the level on one driver, slightly, or increased the overlap which has the same compound effect.

This sounds much better, If you cover the tweeter, there's an immediate loss of atmosphere but the tweeter now sounds far better blended.

I've since done one final tweak to raise the HF a smidgen, perhaps 1 or 2dB.

For anyone who would like to replace their switches (which is to be recommended!) the L-Pad values I've adopted for the smoothest response are:

Mid: Series 5R1; Parallel 4R7
Tweeter: Series 3R3; Parallel: 6R

This provides a close match to anechoic flat or HF down around 8dB from LF peak and Mids down a little less. The HF then rises again by 5dB by 11KHz which offers some needed F-M compensation for average listening levels. If you adopt these values you help restore better phase relationships between drive units, especially bass to mid which I suspected was out when I saw some on-line measurements and confirmed on listening tests. Bass sounds cleaner and tauter now (Bass inductor DCR reduced from 0.4 to 0.25R and power handling before saturation increased). It is also lifted wrt mids and HF which makes the speakers sound more lively in the bass region now.

The plots aren't showing level Martin, they show impedance and phase.

There's no such thing! 

I might venture inside mine to fit them this weekend. Prolly not though, got loads of cad to do a paradise psu to build.

No possibility to saturate and I guess lower resistance.

The whole point isn't to just place a "boutique" part inside a crossover and say "that'll sound grrrreat!". I don't design like that and don't condone such practices. I have fairly extensive experience with the NS1000 design now and have analysed through listening and measurement the original design, and found a few areas where improvements are easily had. This is normal for many factory speakers as they have to make a profit and make them marketable so corners are cut (whether folk understand that or not) where you and I might not wish that.

As a result, most designs leave room for improvement and these were no exceptions.

Measurements revealed a slight phasing issue with the highpass part of the crossover, the mid response, and overall balance. I trialled lower DCR inductors in the bass section, gained an improvement in phase matching and in damping factor. What's not to like? I then at the behest of owners, not from my own marketing initiative I'll quickly add, agreed to design new inductors which would get the best from them and ended up with the E&I cores shown here. They are over rated so will never saturate, have lower distortion, zero hysteresis (unlike originals) and their inclusion more than doubles damping factor. This, together with bypassing or removal of the adjustable pots which do not act as true L-pads (so screw up phase and proper matching) make a serious improvement in sound quality. I have already converted one pair, externalising the new crossover which mimics the original except for the tweak in the highpass as mentioned and specc'd a properly designed L-pad for the mids and HF which linearise FR, improve pair matching and result in a better overall balance. They sounded fabulous once done and were a notable improvement on factory.

I know my business David .

I have checked integration and have improved it on the set I modified.  I'm perfectly happy that my objective measurements and my listening are proof enough that there's improvements to be had and that those were achieved,  measurably and audibly without wrecking anything!  I think I'm well enough qualified and experienced to make these judgements my friend.

I have measured step response, integration, acoustic slopes, phase, frequency response, coupling fields (within crossovers), cap values, cap esr (which most diyers wont have the kit to test), tolerance, sensitivity matches.  Your assertion that they were over damped has nothing to do with the crossover and more likely to do with the internal stuffing tuning the system "Q".  I am referring to electrical damping and it's a fallacy that you can overdo damping factor, a total urban myth, but you can leave room for improvement.  In theory, designers are looking for infinitely high damping factor for maximising both control and efficiency but make compromises for various reasons, usually space and cost reasons.

High power certainly helps drive but has nothing whatsoever to do with electrical damping which is simply determined by an amp's output impedance and the additional sum of crossover losses divided into the lowest system impedance in the bass portion of the system response.  Power is not related to this figure.  

As for Tannoys, I think I'm also more qualified than most to comment and don't need to be told  what to take into account.  Too many people spouting rubbish when it comes to those, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at as clearly you don't have that understanding yourself, having used "apparently" in your sentence.  Come on Dave, no need for this agenda of yours.  You tried it on other forums, please don't spoil things by doing the same thing here.

Thank you Alan. I wouldn't use the term "guru" but speaker design and construction has been my business for a long time now.

Paul, please don't accuse me of having an agenda. As regards your self acknowledged and self promoted speaker skills, maybe you could provide more objective evidence for us to read about please? In this case, you're taking a classic monitor worth quite a bit on its own in stock form and basically wiping out any collector's value by all these mods. How much can modded NS1000's be sold for outside of a handful of forum disciples? Same with all the Lenco bodges I AM well familiar with. A very limited market to sell to when this year's fave rave needs to be moved on to the next one. Maybe up north, where it all happens these days, is a more lucrative and willing market for diy projects - it used to be I remember.

I say 'apparently' as I'm minded of a certain solicitor chappie who spends much time putting people to rights on the way they say things and who trolled me mercilessly elsewhere in the past. Apparently, I stated things as facts (they were to me and provable by others) when I should say that they're my experiences or opinion for others to ignore.

I was questioning the way some people seem to want to change the originals often just for the sake of doing it without knowing what they are doing and I was deliberately not getting personal. On the turntable side, I see it all the time and it's sad really, although their own money to burn.

If you think you have a good hang on how speakers actually work and why things were done the way they were in the first place, then good luck to you once this awful thing has passed. I close by wishing Jamie all the very best and hoping he gets the sonic improvements he's hoping for.

What dsjr knows about any technical matters regarding music replay can be written on the back of a stamp.

Enlighten us dsjr how many speakers have you stripped down, measured all the drivers on and recalculated crossovers for? What's your understanding of electronics, circuits, layout? Wheres all your test and measurement kit and from whom did you learn how to use it?

Just because you've not been sat on Paul's shoulders while he's been putting the book and bench work in on his own education for a number of years doesn't mean he hasn't earned his stripes.

If you knew a bit more about the topic youd realise how much he does know. But because you dont know, you dont know.

Not everyone wants shop hifi, the fact I've sold 33 paradise at 2k a pop should alert you to the fact that people are prepared to pay for quality, whether it comes from a brand or a one man band.