did I say that ?
I just thought it was ok to ask
but when you are experienced with speaker design, then I dont understand why you focus on precise matching of the electronic side only
its been a while since speaker design have moved beyond that
or do people still think the active design is so superiour that they are 'in the clear'
Andrew, are you saying that you do not know much about speaker design
am I reading you correctly here
I usually make it clear in my posts between guessing and my opinion and facts and regurgitating other's observations.
If you look up Linkwitz you will find just about every EQ and crossover arrangement you could ever require.
Note particularly the difference between crossover and driver EQ.
The driver EQ must be designed and implemented for that driver. Nothing else outside that matters. Move the crossover frequency and the driver EQ stays the same.
Does that sound like I know nothing? If it does then, as I suggested earlier, sort the wheat from the chaff
If you look up Linkwitz you will find just about every EQ and crossover arrangement you could ever require.
Note particularly the difference between crossover and driver EQ.
The driver EQ must be designed and implemented for that driver. Nothing else outside that matters. Move the crossover frequency and the driver EQ stays the same.
Does that sound like I know nothing? If it does then, as I suggested earlier, sort the wheat from the chaff
you asked the question, now you have to decide. Hopefully others will come in to support or not. That makes your job even more difficult.
ah, Linkwitz, yeah, ok
driver EQ ? you mean woofer bass EQ ?
well, thats not even being considered yet
making my job even more difficult ?
yeah, surely, and why not
if I wanted it easy, I wouldnt be here at all
btw, Linkwitz is making fixed custiomised crossovers, by caculations and measurements, and not variable ones, right ?
I could choose to do that, but will focus on a variable filter
besides, the way linkwitz does it looks a bit different from what I see elsewhere
different solutions to the same thing, or ?
but Im not arguing which way is good or better, not at all
and as said, maybe it doesnt get any further than this
if its all about reading Linkwitz, and anything else just guessing, then it surely wont
if you are interested, its good
and if not, thats fine too
its not something I desperately need to do
I just thought it might interest others too
driver EQ ? you mean woofer bass EQ ?
well, thats not even being considered yet
making my job even more difficult ?
yeah, surely, and why not
if I wanted it easy, I wouldnt be here at all
btw, Linkwitz is making fixed custiomised crossovers, by caculations and measurements, and not variable ones, right ?
I could choose to do that, but will focus on a variable filter
besides, the way linkwitz does it looks a bit different from what I see elsewhere
different solutions to the same thing, or ?
but Im not arguing which way is good or better, not at all
and as said, maybe it doesnt get any further than this
if its all about reading Linkwitz, and anything else just guessing, then it surely wont
if you are interested, its good
and if not, thats fine too
its not something I desperately need to do
I just thought it might interest others too
about speaker design ?
if thats all, Im sorry to say yes
its bettert than nothing, but not really much either
Im sure you could tell me how the active filter works, in every detail
and it would all be of very high value to me
but without the understanding of how the speaker functions, it wont really be the info I need
then I could just as well buy a plug and play thing
I cannot believe fixed xo points work well with any speaker units
well, I do know its 'immune' to the usual issues with varying impedance
which is a real big issue with passive xo
but it still does not deal with frequency changes
with all properly designed passive crossovers, the acoustic slopes have top priority
but obviously not so with active xo
that xo point can be change, and xo schematic should use a buffer
yes, ESP project125, 4way xo, seems more complete
looks like plenty of options to do the xo/EQ combo thing
Project 125
big question is still how, or maybe even why
I'm not sure I am understanding this fully, but I am currently trying to make an two way active crossover where I can vary the crossover frequency and order (and therefore phase) for each way. The best setting I have so far is first order (ish) for the woofer - I think it is already rolling off first order on its own, and second order for the tweeter. This arrangement seems to get better phase between the two drivers than second order on each.
Is this something like you are trying to do?
Brian
Is this something like you are trying to do?
Brian
sure it does
just takes a few minor changes
remember, my goal is a 3way xo
with 24db high pass
and 12db low pass, with EQ
should leave plenty of room and option for that, or what ?
you got it right
but I would like just a bit more flexibilty than just switching between fixed slopes, 6db, 12db, etc
like you say, the acoustic slope mostly ends up looking different
thats why I got the idea that it ought to work with combined EQ
the strange thing is, it might be best not to use the advanced constant Q type
filter with adjustable constant Q seems better if you need sharp notches etc
and in my opinion we need the opposite, a wider and more smooth action
and thats what you get from EQ filter with varying Q
well, thats how I see it
I started out with a second order filter using 2 DIP switches and resistors to allow the cut-off frequency to be changed. Changing the switches independently seems to give better integration between the drivers, but I must admit I don't really know what is going on with regards to roll off and phase shift. I am tempted to simplify it by just having two adjustable first order filters one after the other. This would be much easier to understand.
Out of interest, I started fiddling with it because with the tweeter phase reversed, the wasn't a strong null. With the correct phase, there was a subtle null giving hole in the sound. I figured that the phase of the two drivers must be causing the problem and I had nothing to lose by changing the settings.
Brian.
Out of interest, I started fiddling with it because with the tweeter phase reversed, the wasn't a strong null. With the correct phase, there was a subtle null giving hole in the sound. I figured that the phase of the two drivers must be causing the problem and I had nothing to lose by changing the settings.
Brian.
or maybe not
having higher adjustability could also easily lead to even more troubles
and end with worse results, unfortunatelymight be the pitfall of a thing like this
but your experience tells that it might be worth a critical study
unfortunately the active xo experts dont see it this way
Personally, I'm trying to optimise a speaker cab using a crossover that will allow more/different adjustment than normal to allow for the fact that speakers tend to misbehave at the ends of their frequency response. In my case, I have a twin cone 12" speaker crossed over to a 1" dome tweeter. The 12" is capable of 5kHz but its phase is messed up by that point * making a normal crossover less than ideal. The normal way would be to go for a three way, but that seems silly for the sake of a phase correction. An alternative would be to go for a higher order crossover to minimise, but not eliminate the problem.
I think tinitus is asking a similar question, but possibly wanting to take this further and include equalisation too.
Brian.
* By messed up, I estimate that the phase is somewhere around 60 degrees.
I think tinitus is asking a similar question, but possibly wanting to take this further and include equalisation too.
Brian.
* By messed up, I estimate that the phase is somewhere around 60 degrees.
I'm confused.
Is this something you want to use to optimise a speaker cab, or as an effects unit?
optimising crossover fuction
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.