Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Well, what can I say, there is no surprise but the more and more I went into anal-retentiveness of time-aliment the more interesting result I got. Unfortunately with my the frame of my Macondo I was not able to go at the 1/12dB precision, I was able to go there but I have difficulty to set an to maintain  my channels at this level of precision. So the collusion for the followers: think about methods of fixing and advancing the channel’s location before you do the frame.

In my situation Macondo was not something I designed from scratch (that would be fan with my currant knowledge!!!) but rather an evolutionary acoustic system, so I have to use what I have. Therefore, I decided to hard-fix channels, leaving min opportunity for adjustability. Of course the geometrical alignment did not work and  I was trying to find some kind of  “in-frame  algorithm” to monitor the alignment run-off.  Trying a few scenarios I hard-fix the tweeter, injection, fundamentals and both bass channels. The MF still have some freedom but I have means to locate it very accurately with a system of pre-calibrated marks. I would love to have MF sitting on machinist's precise single-axis fine-positioning table. In fact if I did it from scratch I would incorporate the positioning table into Mocondo. I think with positioning table I would be able to go to 1/12dB of even to 1/24dB precision.

This level of resolution is necessary only for MF and tweeter but I do not know is it is necessary in my case as the length of my water drop it is already  too compromised for the very short radios of my extreme near-filed.

Anyhow, here is one addition to Macondo's Axioms: think about the opinions of fine-positioning of your channels BEFORE you start to do anything. The higher precision the better result, the more extreme you do into near-field the more precision of time aliment you need to execute.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site