Hi,
Check posts earlier on.
1) In most cases where I considered and tried series X-Overs they do not give usable results.
2) In ONE recent case (the Speaker I'm discussing) I found a speaker where series filters work much better than parallel ones and the results are excellent.
3) It was not my dog who ate my homework, but instead all files (measurements, simulations, driver data files) where sans backup and on a Laptop stolen from me last year and I'm not redoing it all.
4) The Speakers are still in my living room and work and sound great and have a tendency to impress visitors, not with stunt bass (Stuns small animals! Makes you loose bowel control!), with "detail" or any such, but with how "lifelike" they sound.
So, series crossovers CAN work most excellently, if certain conditions are fulfilled, in different circumstances they work very poorly.
In the case of my particular example all the drivers are distinctly unusual and not easily comparable with common "High End" Speaker drivers in use these days.
My point is that series crossovers are one of the tools we have available and they are worth considering.
Ciao T
Well, I guess I somehow misundertood your earlier post. You extolled the virtues of series xo's in your experience and then you write that last sentence that said the opposite. Confusing indeed
Check posts earlier on.
1) In most cases where I considered and tried series X-Overs they do not give usable results.
2) In ONE recent case (the Speaker I'm discussing) I found a speaker where series filters work much better than parallel ones and the results are excellent.
3) It was not my dog who ate my homework, but instead all files (measurements, simulations, driver data files) where sans backup and on a Laptop stolen from me last year and I'm not redoing it all.
4) The Speakers are still in my living room and work and sound great and have a tendency to impress visitors, not with stunt bass (Stuns small animals! Makes you loose bowel control!), with "detail" or any such, but with how "lifelike" they sound.
So, series crossovers CAN work most excellently, if certain conditions are fulfilled, in different circumstances they work very poorly.
In the case of my particular example all the drivers are distinctly unusual and not easily comparable with common "High End" Speaker drivers in use these days.
My point is that series crossovers are one of the tools we have available and they are worth considering.
Ciao T
The problem that most of us agnostics on the sidelines have is when "worth considering" and "can work most excellently" get blown into having magical properties and are superior to parallel crossovers.
It is clear throughout the discussion that series crossovers can be made to work.
They will frequently (with the right values) give identical results to parallel filters. The will sometimes suit a given driver combo very well. They might have some slight advantages (I'm thinking of the ESP comment on offsetting errors due to section impedance variation, also quasi second order response).
At the same time, if your drivers aren't perfect, if you need asymmetric filtering, higher Q or anything with a higher level of complexity, you seem to have more options with parallel filters. Only parallel filters will give independence between sections during the design phase. And parallel filters can give any shape that series filters will (no one has yet shown otherwise).
It seems to me that those who favor series filters are really an offshoot of the "first order is better" brigade, as they seem to be leaning towards first order series. Nothing wrong with that as long as we acknowledge the pros and cons of first order filters.
Again, series filters are fine, just don't try to convince me that they are somehow superior.
I ain't buying it.
David S.
It is clear throughout the discussion that series crossovers can be made to work.
They will frequently (with the right values) give identical results to parallel filters. The will sometimes suit a given driver combo very well. They might have some slight advantages (I'm thinking of the ESP comment on offsetting errors due to section impedance variation, also quasi second order response).
At the same time, if your drivers aren't perfect, if you need asymmetric filtering, higher Q or anything with a higher level of complexity, you seem to have more options with parallel filters. Only parallel filters will give independence between sections during the design phase. And parallel filters can give any shape that series filters will (no one has yet shown otherwise).
It seems to me that those who favor series filters are really an offshoot of the "first order is better" brigade, as they seem to be leaning towards first order series. Nothing wrong with that as long as we acknowledge the pros and cons of first order filters.
Again, series filters are fine, just don't try to convince me that they are somehow superior.
I ain't buying it.
David S.
I think those extolling SXO's as the best thing since sliced bread are in an extreme minority here. The rest of us are indeed aware SXO's require special drivers as a starting point, but also realize they offer the opportunity for simple xo's that on many occasions, can provid quite pleasing results.
Exactly. As long as you measure your drivers frequency and phase and do a good design with the box you are placing them in, using software along the lines of PCD and then measuring again the final design, then who cares what type of crossover you use AS LONG as you verify your results with MEASUREMENTS, Guessing and "say so" doesn't cut it anymore. SHOW YOUR WORK people. That's what I learned in school and PLEASE stop claiming that series crossover are in any way better than parallel when facts show that they are way harder to implement.
You probably are not buying since the Reference model is 20'000 U.S. dollars. I guess many forum users should have advised another world reknown designer that only has a Phd. not to use series crossovers in his designs.
I would like to thank Jack Caldwell for his post. I will have to make time to read more of your work.
AudioMachina
Pearls | AudioMachina
Sales | AudioMachina
I would like to thank Jack Caldwell for his post. I will have to make time to read more of your work.
AudioMachina
Pearls | AudioMachina
Sales | AudioMachina
You may be wrong.
There are some very valuable and useful design concepts for which it is difficult and prohibitively EXPENSIVE to use a parallel crossover. In these cases it is safe to pretty categorically assert a series implementation is better.
Here's one example which seems pretty difficult to argue with:
Cross over a 10" woofer in a standard vented enclosure to a satellite/mini-monitor (reminds me of an old Fried system, surprise, surprise), with a first order network to preserve proper time/phase. We want the xo to happen as low as possible to keep the localization focused on the mini-monitors.
Let's try something like this:
Le: 2.57 • Impedance: 8 ohms • Re: 6.7 ohms • Fs: 39 Hz • SPL: 89 dB 1W/1m • Vas: 90 liters • Qms: 4.05 • Qes: 0.420 • Qts: 0.40 • Xmax: 8 mm (There are a number of bass drivers that come pretty close to this)
In a standard vented enclosure, the tuning freq and f3 are going to be right around 40Hz, and the impedance saddle will happen at 40Hz, with peaks at about 18Hz and 70Hz (your sims may show some small variance from this, but this is close enough for the example)
The bass driver's 89dB sensitivity is into 2pi, into 4pi its actually 83dB.
So for the mini-monitor, a Scanspeak 7" type 18WU/8741, in a sealed 20 liter (0.7cu ft) minimonitor box would match up fairly well for efficiency, including baffle lift..... fs=31Hz, Vas=48L, Qts=0.33. The in-box performance would then be about fb=57Hz, Qb=0.608 (close to ideal for transient response) and the resonant peak would be at 57Hz with f3 around 65Hz.
With the vented bass enclosure rolling off at 40Hz (4th order) and the satellite at 57Hz (2nd order, Q=0.61) the lowest crossing freq we could use so that the acoustical phase angles of the drivers are close through the crossing region: about 150Hz.
So for the parallel xo the woofer inductor is going to be about 7.5mH
IF you feed that inductor straight into the vented driver without impedance conjugates, the reactance of those peaks around the saddle are going wreak absolute havoc with the response. You'll wind up with a HUGE peak at 70Hz and almost nuthin below 55Hz. So, conjugates are needed; let's look at that, parts-list wise:
- Qty 1 standard zobel for the woofer inductance, R=7ohms, C=52uF
- Qyty 2 conjugate tank networks, running in parallel with the woofer terminals, to flatten out the impedance from the resonant peaks in the bass response, one near 20Hz, and the other at 70Hz.
Yup, that's TWO tight tolerance tank networks, very carefully tuned to the specific driver, and both with high Q values. OOOPS!!!
Suddenly you're looking at BIG inductors and BIG capacitors, and they have to be right on the money to neutralize those impedance bumps.
Along with the 7.5mH choke, we're up to 9 parts, 6 of which are going be really, really large and expensive. (R, L and C). That's 9 parts just for the woofer section!
Then for the hi-pass, that cap feeding the satellite is gonna react with the impedance peak, so much so that instead of attenuating the bass by about 13+dB at 57Hz, it's only going to attenuate by maybe only 3dB!! So, we've gotta use a parallel tank conjugate network and a zobel. That's 5 more parts, 3 of which again, are going to be large, tight tolerance and expensive.
So for this setup, we count: 6 large, expensive, very tight tolerance parts for the woofer's twin peaks, and 3 large, expensive parts for the satellite's impedance bump.
Did we mention large?
Did we mention expensive?
Did we mention CUSTOM values that require maybe 1% or better tolerance, CUSTOM tuned to EACH of the woofer cabinets?
Did we mention EXPENSIVE, EXPENSIVE, EXPENSIVE?
The above example, gentlemen, is why most pro-audio people resort to using ONLY active crossovers.
Now, let's look at the parts list for the series version shall we?
OK, Zobels for each driver to make' em look mostly resistive. 4 relatively inexpensive parts, 10% tolerance works fine.
A 7.5mH choke in parallel across the terminals of the satellite, and a 80 uF cap bank across the terminals of the woofer, 5% tolerance is great, but if you want to save money you could use even 20% and still get away with it.
The results? In both cases a very good transfer function, close to ideal. But one of these solutions is almost prohibitive in expense and size, using 15 parts, 9 of which are custom made and HUGE, and UBER-expensive, whereas the other one, uses only 6 moderate cost and tolerance parts.
In cases such as this, not only is the series xo easier to implement, it actually is the only practical one to implement if you want to do it passively.
Now, some here may want to argue about the example I chose, thinking that higher order filters are better, but that's fodder for a different post. In some ways they do make life easier, but IMO a good 1st order design always sounds more like the real thing. Thiel is a very good example of a good 1st order design approach. And yes, they use series, or parallel, or combinations of both to achieve their design objectives.
If you want to take it up a notch from the Thiels, then you can look at what we've done on the HolisticAudio H3's. Using DEQX and and omni-radial point source design, with a 1200 Hz xo point, we get time-coherent performance at all points in a 360 degree circle, and 140 degree vertical window. That's floor to ceiling time-coherent response, 360 degrees all around. +/- 0.5dB , at 30Hz to 20KHz. It can be done. At a cost.
But the last two paragraphs are relatively irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The example I gave is pretty irrefutable evidence that for certain types of design, the parallel network is impractical due to cost considerations, especially when you consider that the much less complex and expensive series solution yields close to ideal response.
Now lest I be accused of being "series biased", 70 percent of the time I wind up using parallel networks, because for many designs, series networks simply will not work. And lately, I've been working more and more with digital FIR active systems, because they are so easy to use AND generally sound much better AND they allow steep slope filters which ARE really great to reduce beaming and comb-filter interference patterns. (BTW: Do not underestimate the added clarity that can be obtained by direct amp to speaker interface. It can be HUGE.)
In sum: I would say your comment is only about 70% true.
Don't believe me? Do the sims on the above example and check it out.
in essence, I just gave you facts that show:for a very useful type of design applications, it is the parallel network approach that is the impractical one. Only, I backed it up with a fairly clear and solid example.
But please, don't take me at my word: run the sims on the above example and THEN see if you're still in the mood to state that parallel is always easier to implement.
It isn't.
All the best.
Yo Dude! That's pretty categorical. Allow me to illustrate a different point of view, and back it up with an example.
There are some very valuable and useful design concepts for which it is difficult and prohibitively EXPENSIVE to use a parallel crossover. In these cases it is safe to pretty categorically assert a series implementation is better.
Here's one example which seems pretty difficult to argue with:
Cross over a 10" woofer in a standard vented enclosure to a satellite/mini-monitor (reminds me of an old Fried system, surprise, surprise), with a first order network to preserve proper time/phase. We want the xo to happen as low as possible to keep the localization focused on the mini-monitors.
Let's try something like this:
Le: 2.57 • Impedance: 8 ohms • Re: 6.7 ohms • Fs: 39 Hz • SPL: 89 dB 1W/1m • Vas: 90 liters • Qms: 4.05 • Qes: 0.420 • Qts: 0.40 • Xmax: 8 mm (There are a number of bass drivers that come pretty close to this)
In a standard vented enclosure, the tuning freq and f3 are going to be right around 40Hz, and the impedance saddle will happen at 40Hz, with peaks at about 18Hz and 70Hz (your sims may show some small variance from this, but this is close enough for the example)
The bass driver's 89dB sensitivity is into 2pi, into 4pi its actually 83dB.
So for the mini-monitor, a Scanspeak 7" type 18WU/8741, in a sealed 20 liter (0.7cu ft) minimonitor box would match up fairly well for efficiency, including baffle lift..... fs=31Hz, Vas=48L, Qts=0.33. The in-box performance would then be about fb=57Hz, Qb=0.608 (close to ideal for transient response) and the resonant peak would be at 57Hz with f3 around 65Hz.
With the vented bass enclosure rolling off at 40Hz (4th order) and the satellite at 57Hz (2nd order, Q=0.61) the lowest crossing freq we could use so that the acoustical phase angles of the drivers are close through the crossing region: about 150Hz.
So for the parallel xo the woofer inductor is going to be about 7.5mH
IF you feed that inductor straight into the vented driver without impedance conjugates, the reactance of those peaks around the saddle are going wreak absolute havoc with the response. You'll wind up with a HUGE peak at 70Hz and almost nuthin below 55Hz. So, conjugates are needed; let's look at that, parts-list wise:
- Qty 1 standard zobel for the woofer inductance, R=7ohms, C=52uF
- Qyty 2 conjugate tank networks, running in parallel with the woofer terminals, to flatten out the impedance from the resonant peaks in the bass response, one near 20Hz, and the other at 70Hz.
Yup, that's TWO tight tolerance tank networks, very carefully tuned to the specific driver, and both with high Q values. OOOPS!!!
Suddenly you're looking at BIG inductors and BIG capacitors, and they have to be right on the money to neutralize those impedance bumps.
Along with the 7.5mH choke, we're up to 9 parts, 6 of which are going be really, really large and expensive. (R, L and C). That's 9 parts just for the woofer section!
Then for the hi-pass, that cap feeding the satellite is gonna react with the impedance peak, so much so that instead of attenuating the bass by about 13+dB at 57Hz, it's only going to attenuate by maybe only 3dB!! So, we've gotta use a parallel tank conjugate network and a zobel. That's 5 more parts, 3 of which again, are going to be large, tight tolerance and expensive.
So for this setup, we count: 6 large, expensive, very tight tolerance parts for the woofer's twin peaks, and 3 large, expensive parts for the satellite's impedance bump.
Did we mention large?
Did we mention expensive?
Did we mention CUSTOM values that require maybe 1% or better tolerance, CUSTOM tuned to EACH of the woofer cabinets?
Did we mention EXPENSIVE, EXPENSIVE, EXPENSIVE?
The above example, gentlemen, is why most pro-audio people resort to using ONLY active crossovers.
Now, let's look at the parts list for the series version shall we?
OK, Zobels for each driver to make' em look mostly resistive. 4 relatively inexpensive parts, 10% tolerance works fine.
A 7.5mH choke in parallel across the terminals of the satellite, and a 80 uF cap bank across the terminals of the woofer, 5% tolerance is great, but if you want to save money you could use even 20% and still get away with it.
The results? In both cases a very good transfer function, close to ideal. But one of these solutions is almost prohibitive in expense and size, using 15 parts, 9 of which are custom made and HUGE, and UBER-expensive, whereas the other one, uses only 6 moderate cost and tolerance parts.
In cases such as this, not only is the series xo easier to implement, it actually is the only practical one to implement if you want to do it passively.
Now, some here may want to argue about the example I chose, thinking that higher order filters are better, but that's fodder for a different post. In some ways they do make life easier, but IMO a good 1st order design always sounds more like the real thing. Thiel is a very good example of a good 1st order design approach. And yes, they use series, or parallel, or combinations of both to achieve their design objectives.
If you want to take it up a notch from the Thiels, then you can look at what we've done on the HolisticAudio H3's. Using DEQX and and omni-radial point source design, with a 1200 Hz xo point, we get time-coherent performance at all points in a 360 degree circle, and 140 degree vertical window. That's floor to ceiling time-coherent response, 360 degrees all around. +/- 0.5dB , at 30Hz to 20KHz. It can be done. At a cost.
But the last two paragraphs are relatively irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The example I gave is pretty irrefutable evidence that for certain types of design, the parallel network is impractical due to cost considerations, especially when you consider that the much less complex and expensive series solution yields close to ideal response.
Now lest I be accused of being "series biased", 70 percent of the time I wind up using parallel networks, because for many designs, series networks simply will not work. And lately, I've been working more and more with digital FIR active systems, because they are so easy to use AND generally sound much better AND they allow steep slope filters which ARE really great to reduce beaming and comb-filter interference patterns. (BTW: Do not underestimate the added clarity that can be obtained by direct amp to speaker interface. It can be HUGE.)
In sum: I would say your comment is only about 70% true.
Don't believe me? Do the sims on the above example and check it out.
in essence, I just gave you facts that show:for a very useful type of design applications, it is the parallel network approach that is the impractical one. Only, I backed it up with a fairly clear and solid example.
But please, don't take me at my word: run the sims on the above example and THEN see if you're still in the mood to state that parallel is always easier to implement.
It isn't.
All the best.
Hi,
Series crossovers are neither harder or easier to implement than parallel ones in general. For specific problems we may find that either parallel or series crossovers are "easier" to implement.
The point is that we need to understand when and where one kind or the other is the better choice. Polemic and repeating false dogma does not help the situation at all.
I would suggest it is time to focus on the specific problems and implementations.
One problem I have with conjugates to flatten driver resonances is the simple fact that most drivers lack sufficient in series consistency, so whatever is the published conjugate, there is a good chance it does not fit the driver you actually have at hand.
First order series crossovers generally allow the conjugates to be dispensed with, just as 2nd order parallel ones often allow the same.
Before someone has a go at first order crossovers, please remember that acoustical slopes include drivers rolloff, so many "first order" crossovers are actually asymmetric crossovers with a first order lowpass and a third order highpass. Each time we make the slope steeper we accumulate groupdelay and impulse distortion.
If drivers absolutely need a higher order crossover to be protected from out of band signals, then that is what we need to do, but it is not always a given fact that this must be so.
Ciao T
Series crossovers are neither harder or easier to implement than parallel ones in general. For specific problems we may find that either parallel or series crossovers are "easier" to implement.
The point is that we need to understand when and where one kind or the other is the better choice. Polemic and repeating false dogma does not help the situation at all.
I would suggest it is time to focus on the specific problems and implementations.
One problem I have with conjugates to flatten driver resonances is the simple fact that most drivers lack sufficient in series consistency, so whatever is the published conjugate, there is a good chance it does not fit the driver you actually have at hand.
First order series crossovers generally allow the conjugates to be dispensed with, just as 2nd order parallel ones often allow the same.
Before someone has a go at first order crossovers, please remember that acoustical slopes include drivers rolloff, so many "first order" crossovers are actually asymmetric crossovers with a first order lowpass and a third order highpass. Each time we make the slope steeper we accumulate groupdelay and impulse distortion.
If drivers absolutely need a higher order crossover to be protected from out of band signals, then that is what we need to do, but it is not always a given fact that this must be so.
Ciao T
That is a ridiculous example. Does anyone do that today?You cherry pick one method to validate using a series crossover and blah blah blah the virtues on and on. Big whoop.A 1st order lowpass at 150 Hz is only going to be 6dB down at 300 Hz, you want voices coming from your woofer? I used to have an active lowpass of 12dB at 100Hz and could hear the low notes of voices at times. Switching it to a 24dB at 80 Hz solved the problem.Do a series 1st order using common mids and tweets and show how they are better than parallel. Have fun trying to get the two to give a proper flat frequency response along with baffle step compensation.I think you misread what I was saying earlier, sure BOTH types can be used to good effect, I was just tired of seeing certain people saying that series are way better than parallel for how many pages now in this thread? I think a few examples would have sufficed and leave it at that.
Last edited:
I disagree with that. It only took you what 15 years to implement one to your satisfaction? That says plenty.
YES YES YES BOTH have their virtues, I just don't like reading where some one goes on and on and on how series are grand and better than parallel either. So lets stop bashing each and show the virtues AND the faults honestly. Just spouting "I heard this or that" and "Have you listened to a series crossover?" means little without some basic facts included. Having a decent frequency response regardless of the circuit type is important.Claiming one or the other "sounds better" is hyperbole and foolish. Might as well start talking about power cables next.
David, cool down. Technical arguments, not personal invective.
I forgot to tell AllenB that croossover plan did not include the Zobel of 2mfd and 10ohm Re on the midbass driver. It is used with truncated pyramid t-line enclosures the company use to sell. I apologize for not stating it earlier.
Jack is a wealth of knowledge from his experience. Using t-lines also flatten the peaks unlike helmholtz resonators.
Even though a Zobel flattens the impedance peaks crossing over drivers higher then their voice coil mh is introducing resonated frequencies that have been flattened but still resonate in nature.
Jack is a wealth of knowledge from his experience. Using t-lines also flatten the peaks unlike helmholtz resonators.
Even though a Zobel flattens the impedance peaks crossing over drivers higher then their voice coil mh is introducing resonated frequencies that have been flattened but still resonate in nature.
Hi,
Passive 4th order crossovers into real drivers are a non-trivial implementation. Not everyone wants active Sub's (like me - I did not).
Ciao T
Passive 4th order crossovers into real drivers are a non-trivial implementation. Not everyone wants active Sub's (like me - I did not).
Ciao T
Hi,
Yes, it says plenty. It says for example that I did not happened to understand under which conditions they work, thanks to a lack of information.
Let me give you an example. I am more than passingly familiar with the russian semi-automatic .57 calibre sniper rifle (It actually started out in WW2 as anti tank weapon).
If you do not know under which circumstances to employ it and how to safely operate it the recoil will break your shoulder, you will not hit any target and you will be left with the impression that it is a useless, heavy, bulky and overhyped piece of junk.
If you know how to use it, you may find that you can shoot a target placed behind a solid outer brick or concrete wall (or inside an armoured personnel carrier) which for example may represent an enemy sniper (I never fired on other humans). And while you may have bruises, your shoulder will not be broken. Then you may be left with the impression that it is an incredibly useful piece of hardware to have, if you are in a suitably tight spot.
What is there to talk? There are very good electrical reasons why power cables can have significant impact on equipment performance and the problems are readily measurable... In fact, in Pro-Audio this whole subject is well understood (and dealt with sometimes by other means), look up "pin 1 problem").
Ciao T
Yes, it says plenty. It says for example that I did not happened to understand under which conditions they work, thanks to a lack of information.
Let me give you an example. I am more than passingly familiar with the russian semi-automatic .57 calibre sniper rifle (It actually started out in WW2 as anti tank weapon).
If you do not know under which circumstances to employ it and how to safely operate it the recoil will break your shoulder, you will not hit any target and you will be left with the impression that it is a useless, heavy, bulky and overhyped piece of junk.
If you know how to use it, you may find that you can shoot a target placed behind a solid outer brick or concrete wall (or inside an armoured personnel carrier) which for example may represent an enemy sniper (I never fired on other humans). And while you may have bruises, your shoulder will not be broken. Then you may be left with the impression that it is an incredibly useful piece of hardware to have, if you are in a suitably tight spot.
What is there to talk? There are very good electrical reasons why power cables can have significant impact on equipment performance and the problems are readily measurable... In fact, in Pro-Audio this whole subject is well understood (and dealt with sometimes by other means), look up "pin 1 problem").
Ciao T
So now we are talking about WW2 rifles and power cables.........okay I've had enough......have fun guys. I have better things to do than argue with a brick wall
Hi,
It is. Or more precisely, rebuild and accurised examples equipped with the usual warpac 'scopes. That was long ago when I was in the East German paramiliary (whatever you want to call this - it was youth program run by the secret police). They where arguably not for every day use, but they have very serious uses, especially for covered / insurgency / counterinsurgency operations.
I never fired a 1oz rifle slug from a 12 Gauge, but I am familiar with most of the warpac and a bit of the Nato smallarms arsenal. Nothing comes close. And it already has extra shock absorbers build into the buttstock. The bullet weight over 2 ounces and has a muzzle velocity of around 1000m/s. You can work the kick out from that. Here a video showing it...
PTRS anti-tank rifle - YouTube
Ciao T
It is. Or more precisely, rebuild and accurised examples equipped with the usual warpac 'scopes. That was long ago when I was in the East German paramiliary (whatever you want to call this - it was youth program run by the secret police). They where arguably not for every day use, but they have very serious uses, especially for covered / insurgency / counterinsurgency operations.
I never fired a 1oz rifle slug from a 12 Gauge, but I am familiar with most of the warpac and a bit of the Nato smallarms arsenal. Nothing comes close. And it already has extra shock absorbers build into the buttstock. The bullet weight over 2 ounces and has a muzzle velocity of around 1000m/s. You can work the kick out from that. Here a video showing it...
PTRS anti-tank rifle - YouTube
Ciao T
I don't understand, how do we calculate this frequency, and what are the components/influences involved in this resonance?
Thick, eh?
A brick wall you say? How ironic that you would state it that way.
Head-bashing against brick walls can have the unintended consequence of discovering that the brick walls in question are actually self-imposed.
When faced with a specific example which clearly refuted your brashly worded postulate, you attempted to deny it by implying it is a useless example not used in "modern" design technique. Wrong again!
I hate to burst your bubble, but MANY very well-regarded engineers STILL use the series approach for both cost AND performance reasons in LF xo applications. And many of them also use parallel topologies. And in breaking news, this just in: some of us actually COMBINE series topologies in one section with parallel in the other.
Good Heavens! What kind of heresy is that???
And this can also apply for the upper mids to HF xo, but I don't see where spending another hour on illustrating this with another example is going to help you open your mind, so that'll be for another time.
When it becomes clear your position is not entirely accurate and is not garnering popular support, well then you retreat, all the while muttering about brick walls. Well, OK then. That's really smart.
What is this, a political forum, where we somehow believe the votes on the merits of topologies can somehow supersede a whole branch of well established circuit design and engineering practice? I hope not.
This debate shouldn't be about our viewpoint, keep it to the technical level and back it up with some actual knowledge instead of pompous proclamations.
But, of course, anyone here is always welcome to go play in their own private sandbox where private beliefs will go unchallenged even if they are partially or completely erroneous.
Happy trails on your path to discovery. Brick walls? Indeed !
So now we are talking about WW2 rifles and power cables.........okay I've had enough......have fun guys. I have better things to do than argue with a brick wall
A brick wall you say? How ironic that you would state it that way.
Head-bashing against brick walls can have the unintended consequence of discovering that the brick walls in question are actually self-imposed.
When faced with a specific example which clearly refuted your brashly worded postulate, you attempted to deny it by implying it is a useless example not used in "modern" design technique. Wrong again!
I hate to burst your bubble, but MANY very well-regarded engineers STILL use the series approach for both cost AND performance reasons in LF xo applications. And many of them also use parallel topologies. And in breaking news, this just in: some of us actually COMBINE series topologies in one section with parallel in the other.
Good Heavens! What kind of heresy is that???
And this can also apply for the upper mids to HF xo, but I don't see where spending another hour on illustrating this with another example is going to help you open your mind, so that'll be for another time.
When it becomes clear your position is not entirely accurate and is not garnering popular support, well then you retreat, all the while muttering about brick walls. Well, OK then. That's really smart.
What is this, a political forum, where we somehow believe the votes on the merits of topologies can somehow supersede a whole branch of well established circuit design and engineering practice? I hope not.
This debate shouldn't be about our viewpoint, keep it to the technical level and back it up with some actual knowledge instead of pompous proclamations.
But, of course, anyone here is always welcome to go play in their own private sandbox where private beliefs will go unchallenged even if they are partially or completely erroneous.
Happy trails on your path to discovery. Brick walls? Indeed !
Hi,
I posted in this thread ages ago that series first order is far better for
passive sub/sat x/o's than parallel first order (which doesn't work),
and BTW it doesn't need zobels on the drivers to work well, at all.
I've also described previously situations where the same sort
of issues come into play for simple series versus parallel.
rgds, sreten.
A synopsis : For simple first order electrical series is often better
than parallel unless electrical assymetry is needed (often is). Second
order electrical series is nearly always worse than parallel and usually
need zobels. Third order electrical series is a rare beast, so is fourth.
What matters finally is the acoustic slopes, not the electrical.
I posted in this thread ages ago that series first order is far better for
passive sub/sat x/o's than parallel first order (which doesn't work),
and BTW it doesn't need zobels on the drivers to work well, at all.
I've also described previously situations where the same sort
of issues come into play for simple series versus parallel.
rgds, sreten.
A synopsis : For simple first order electrical series is often better
than parallel unless electrical assymetry is needed (often is). Second
order electrical series is nearly always worse than parallel and usually
need zobels. Third order electrical series is a rare beast, so is fourth.
What matters finally is the acoustic slopes, not the electrical.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.