In a series circuit the drivers are parallel to the currrent. C1 and L1 are in series to the current
R1 and R2 required for tweeter. Some designs done without a zoebel. I prefer the Zoebel.
L1 using a 6db cut off should not be that hard to figure out. C1 using a 6db cut off should be higher frequency then L1.
On R1 an RC sometimes gives a flatter response. It all comes down to the drivers. Voice coil centers separation distance another factor. Flat baffle or sloped front.
R1 and R2 required for tweeter. Some designs done without a zoebel. I prefer the Zoebel.
L1 using a 6db cut off should not be that hard to figure out. C1 using a 6db cut off should be higher frequency then L1.
On R1 an RC sometimes gives a flatter response. It all comes down to the drivers. Voice coil centers separation distance another factor. Flat baffle or sloped front.
It's not vodoo audio. Buying kits is how I obtained the plans. Some of these plans are on the internet.. Do enough research. You won't find them by searching for series crossovers. Some of them are in the most obvious places if you know where to look. Read the previous mentioned articles . All the formulas are there. Every work done is a piece in the puzzle. Only a few commercial designers many who have passed completed the puzzle.
I haven't got time for puzzles or cryptic crosswords really! 
I find the slightly more complicated looking LCR series crossover interesting. That's where you have an inductor on the treble and a resistance and a capacitor on the woofer. You're really combining a woofer and midrange combined, with a tweeter. That's also a valid solution for constant voltage aka 3 way allpass characteristic. But you're doing it with two drivers and a shallower slope on the woofer.
Know anything about that?
I find the slightly more complicated looking LCR series crossover interesting. That's where you have an inductor on the treble and a resistance and a capacitor on the woofer. You're really combining a woofer and midrange combined, with a tweeter. That's also a valid solution for constant voltage aka 3 way allpass characteristic. But you're doing it with two drivers and a shallower slope on the woofer.
Know anything about that?
No voodoo.Just an observation. I am not married to series or parrallel, i actually try to avoid XOs all together.
With a parallel network you can create a 2-way XO (to exaggerate) a LP of 500 and a highpass of 1.5kHz. Reconfigure the XO into series and the XO point for LP = HP
In some simple instances they are the same,as you get more complex & leave the world of resistors thepotential for differences is amplified.
dave
No, I was thinking more of the resistors that Troels Gravesen puts in his series crossover:
SEAS CNOcost no object
Is that just equalisation, or are they doing something more profound, albeit smaller values than I'd expect for a noticeable added midrange effect? And the first leg to second leg ratio, well, I'm not getting a grip on the third order crossover here at all.
Series XOs & Parallel XOs have the samenumber of parts... typically thou a series design will not be as complex as any part change affects the entire speaker, whereas in a parallel network it only affects that branch.
dave
That I do not know I have seen some Wilson crossover copies. All in parallel. Fried used sloped front giving proper time delay. Planet10 thinks Fried got the idea from him. Flat baffle designs have time delay with this type of circuit.
I think I have read every article on series topology None of values used resemble what Fried did. Using 8ohm tweeters in parallel or series a 15ohm R2 flattens impedance. Constant voltage transfer function achieved by the correct resistance in the circuit.
If you take as flat as possible 6db parallel and wire in series they do sound different. I have done many comparisons.
I think I have read every article on series topology None of values used resemble what Fried did. Using 8ohm tweeters in parallel or series a 15ohm R2 flattens impedance. Constant voltage transfer function achieved by the correct resistance in the circuit.
If you take as flat as possible 6db parallel and wire in series they do sound different. I have done many comparisons.
Series and Parallel filters amount to the SAME THING. No magic sauce here.
Game, set and match to ol' Norton here, and an end to the argument, I'd say!
Hi,
Its not so simple, the above only considers resistive loads.
Get your circuit simulator out or thinking hat on and consider the following :
Say 1st order series vs 1st order parallel for a typical two way :
How easy it it to add BSC to the bass unit ?
How easy are assymetric electrical x/o points to account for driver responses ?
How does the mid/bass unit inductance interact with the two topologies ?
(very differently ...)
How does a large tweeter impedance peak interact with the two topologies ?
(very differently ...) (say assume it occurs at 1/3 of the x/o point frequency.)
What is the effect of compensating the tweeter impedance peak in both cases ?
What is the effect of zobelling both drivers inductance in both cases ?
Ist order series guarantees the voltage sum across the two drivers at all times
will equal the input voltage, in this good ? bad ? it depends ?, meaningless ?
2nd order series c/o versus 2nd order parallel, same cases as above ....
(And to keep it simple assume a L/R choice of x/o values.)
The astute will realise if you work your way through the examples
again a role reversal has occurred regarding how series and parallel
2nd order x/o's interact with real driver impedance rises and peaks.
It reverses again for 3rd order and again for 4th order.
Zobels do make the two near equivalent, but is that a good or
bad thing ? Similarly compensating impedance Fs peaks makes
them more similar but is that always good ?
A further typical example to consider is FAST (full range assisted).
Say a small driver, say Fbox = 130Hz, crossed over 1st order to a
bass unit of higher sensitivity (4 to 6dB) at the midpoint of the
baffle step, say 300Hz, for automatic baffle step compensation.
Using typical driver parameters how will first order series compare
to first order parallel in this arrangement ? Its not the same, at all ....
rgds, sreten.
FWIW anyone can post papers they claim agree with them
until the cows come home, it won't make any difference.
Misinterpration / misrepresentation of information
is not bolstered by presenting the information.
Last edited:
Series and parallel in practice will "never" (may be in one out of a thousand) amount to the same thing, soundwise.
In simple filter, the difference is so small, but when it gets more complex it gets bigger, as Dave already noted.
The problem with parallel filter is that the two drivers are not automatically "blended" or "matched" like they are in series network. For a certain driver combo, we have to match them by looking for the correct xo frequency, slope order, etc.
Based on the above, a working simple series filter (most or all of the time) will not work when it is transformed to its "equivalent" parallel filter.
Which one is better, series or parallel, depends on a few circumstances. Each type has its strength (series filter with its electronically matching characteristics and parallel filter with its superior "sonic").
The challenge with parallel filter is to match the drivers, which is not an easy thing. And especially for complex filter, what you can achieve with series, usually can also be achieved with parallel, with parallel has more benefit. You may disagree, but I will stand for this:
For any complex design such as the CNO, given the same driver combo, when you make a speaker building competition (which means that designers with sufficient expertise will enter), a parallel filter will win. Who wants to try a parallel with the excels?
That's just my bet. In reality speaker design is about to find the right speaker combo with the right slope, frequency, enclosure, etc etc...
The more components in a circuit the more distrtions and colorations. This is one reason to eliminate conjugate circuits if possible.
Compare tube amps to solid state in guitar amps. Professional musicians prefer tubes. My son is a tour manager and all of the bands he is associated with use tube amps.
Compare tube amps to solid state in guitar amps. Professional musicians prefer tubes. My son is a tour manager and all of the bands he is associated with use tube amps.
No, not really, Get the same transfer functions and they will sound the same. With modern CAD and measurement techniques, that's easily accomplished. Choice of one or the other will depend more on how many components it takes to implement.
Again, not really. Conjugate circuits can be a useful tool in design, but CAD and measurement will tell you if it's appropriate for your particular set of drivers and target transfer functions. There's lots of examples of highly complex crossovers that yield a lower distortion than simple ones.
Spend a few hours with Soundeasy or something like that and you'll see exactly what those chances are.
Now, indeed, using textbook crossovers with assumed resistive loads is unrealistic, but no-one has had to do that for a couple of decades.If the transfer function is the same, the sound is the same, unless you want to invoke voodoo or ethereal waves.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.