Effect of driver resonance on crossover - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 2nd December 2010, 09:31 PM   #1
Alex M is offline Alex M  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Hampshire, UK
Default Effect of driver resonance on crossover

I am designing a passive crossover for my three-way speakers, to replace the active crossover I have been using between bass and midrange, and am nearly there. I have modelled the driver response and impedance, designed impedance equalisation networks, and now have a crossover network that promises to do almost everything that I want.

The one thing that is holding me back is the predictions of the low-frequency response of the system. I'm using an Audax HM210Z0 woofer, which has an f0 of 30Hz, and am using a Linkwitz-Riley fourth-order filter at 422 Hz. Here is the low-pass filter circuit

Click the image to open in full size.

This gives a near perfect response into a resistive 6.3 ohm load.

Now I have modelled the complex impedance of the HM210Z0 to give a good approximation to the measured impedance magnitude above about 50 Hz, and calculated a compensation network which produces an impedance that only varies by about 5% across the frequency range. This plot shows the impedance compensated first for the inductance only (green dashes), and then for the inductance and the resonance (green solid line):

Click the image to open in full size.

You might think that, since the resonance frequency is less than 1/10 of the crossover frequency, its effect on the driver impedance would be negligible, and I expected that I would be able to get away with only a Zobel network to equalise the inductance, leaving the low-frequency peak untouched. However it seems to interact with the crossover to give a peak of about 4 dB at 100Hz:

Click the image to open in full size.

This surprised me when I first saw it, but actually the part-equalised impedance (the dashed green line in the second plot) has risen to 7.9 ohms at 100 Hz, or 25% higher than the nominal impedance of 6.3 ohms. The combined impedance of the series inductors in the filter at 100 Hz is about 4.2 ohms, so with hindsight this is not so surprising.

The compensation circuit which cancels the resonant peak (giving the solid green curve above) has huge component values (15 mH and 1,200 uF), and it would seem difficult to achieve these values with high-quality parts.

The thing is, I've never heard anyone mention this effect before, so I start to question whether my models are correct. I'm sure that the HM210Z0 is not particularly unusual in its parameters. Has anyone seen this before? Is there an obvious solution that I am missing?

Thanks,

Alex
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd December 2010, 10:14 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: austin, tx
There is some discussion of this in the following threads.

PRELUDE

and

HTGuide Forum - Ardent Speaker Camp

it's mentioned in post #821.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd December 2010, 10:41 PM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Orleans, France
Yes, a simple solution exists, but I cann't explain or calculate.

Forget the Zobel network. Decrease the inductors, and/or capacitors.
Cut and try. I admit this is laborious.... but it works, and very well !

Regards
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2010, 12:02 AM   #4
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kona, Hawaii
Blog Entries: 4
I suggest Jeff Bagby's most excellent "Passive Crossover Designer". It runs in MS Excel.

With imported impedance curves, you can tweak and tweak virtual crossover parts to your heart's content. You may find a combination of values that gives you just what you need.
__________________
Take the Speaker Voltage Test!
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2010, 01:56 AM   #5
bjorno is offline bjorno  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Jacobsmountain
Send a message via MSN to bjorno
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex M View Post
..The compensation circuit which cancels the resonant peak (giving the solid green curve above) has huge component values (15 mH and 1,200 uF), and it would seem difficult to achieve these values with high-quality parts.

The thing is, I've never heard anyone mention this effect before, so I start to question whether my models are correct. I'm sure that the HM210Z0 is not particularly unusual in its parameters. Has anyone seen this before? Is there an obvious solution that I am missing?..
Hi Alex,

Have a look at my picture where you will find other component values for the resonance compensation:
Note that the filter you proposed doesn't include any DCR values in series with the coil inductors but is a must when simulating real filters.

b
Attached Images
File Type: gif AudaxHM210Z0.GIF (99.0 KB, 171 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2010, 01:56 AM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
Why would anybody willingly go from active to passive crossover?

I certainly may not not know what I am talking about, but the Zobel circuit helps the amp see a constant impedance. Not sure that makes any difference.

You are looking at speaker output as if it depended on voltage input. In fact, the cone has various kinds of corrective feedback. Adding elements to the crossover impairs the damping from the amp even if it provides some kind of really sanitary (linear) drive voltage.

The aim is to get feedback to the cone to fix that weak-link element, not to "purify" the drive signal.
__________________
Dennesen ESL tweets, Dayton-Wright ESL (110-3200Hz), mixed-bass Klipschorn (28-110), and giant OB using 1960's Stephens woofer (18-110); Behringer DSP. HiFi aspirations since 1956
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2010, 03:14 AM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Having gone from 3-way passive single amp to active tri-amp and experiencing a total transformation of the sound from mush to thrilling, I agree that is seems a retrograde approach. Anyway perhaps he wants one of his amps for something else and is prepared for the inductor-mush in this system.
__________________
Ian
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2010, 05:11 AM   #8
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kona, Hawaii
Blog Entries: 4
There are lots of active crossover fans on this forum. Understandable.

But some of the very best, world class systems I've heard used passive crossovers. They just happen to have been done right. Doing it right is easier with active, that's all.
__________________
Take the Speaker Voltage Test!
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2010, 09:46 AM   #9
AllenB is offline AllenB  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Alex M,
I think you'll be OK with a cheaper high DCR inductor as there'll be a series resistor in your resonance peak filter anyway. Just subtract DCR from the needed resistance, and make sure the structure can dissipate the power that will present across this resistance.

This is where a circuit simulator of some description could come in handy, or just use your hands and feel.

You can use an electrolytic capacitor as this filter doesn't work at high frequencies, and components here won't affect the sound too much.

BTW, you may be able to get the same result without the impedance compensation using different values in your filter, but you should manage good results this way too.


bentorino, put simply would you rather have a capacitor or a transistor in your path? Then, if I didn't sound controversial enough already I doubt I'd enjoy the sound of a valve amp if damping factor was such a problem

Last edited by AllenB; 3rd December 2010 at 09:51 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2010, 10:05 AM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
OK, let's get serious.

As best as I can imagine, you look at the speaker and believe it is having too much motion at resonance. So you want to create a crossover which gives some kind of inverted input to the driver.

As people who try to similarly iron-out room resonances can tell you, the resonance is the issue and cutting the input is a fairly pale approach to taming it.

What your Zobel concept (as Wikipedia seems to indicate) brought to my mind is the right way to handle untoward cone motions: motional feedback using a model of the driver as one leg in a Wheatstone Bridge which provides the feedback voltage (which is esp. friendly to do with tube amps, if that's your inclination as it seems to be).
__________________
Dennesen ESL tweets, Dayton-Wright ESL (110-3200Hz), mixed-bass Klipschorn (28-110), and giant OB using 1960's Stephens woofer (18-110); Behringer DSP. HiFi aspirations since 1956
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question regarding closed box driver resonance thoriated Full Range 6 6th August 2010 09:19 PM
Bottom limit for driver FA resonance? bentoronto Subwoofers 9 26th September 2008 11:15 PM
port resonance above crossover i4gotmyid Multi-Way 1 29th November 2007 08:30 PM
series crossover with resonance trap for tweeter? madinoz Multi-Way 0 8th June 2005 03:03 AM
Crossover too near resonance? niacin Multi-Way 16 15th April 2004 04:32 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:56 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2