|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| 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 |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
Some audio “purists” abhor the use of tone controls or equalization because they cause phase shift.
As it turns out, frequency response problems are usually accompanied by phase shifts, fix one and you fix the other. The shots below show a 5” full range speaker, raw response is about +/-6 dB from 90 to 10K, phase response is +150 to -35 degrees or so over that range. EQd to +/- 3dB from 60-16K the phase response smooths out considerably, and the speaker sounds much better. Although I am not a big fan of “full range” speakers, the flat phase response over a wide range is compelling. Phase response as smooth as this cheap speaker is very difficult to achieve with passive multi-way systems. |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Las Vegas Nevada
|
Yup. If your measurement screen will unwrap the phase response and the propagation delay is correctly calculated, the portion of the response that is linear phase or not changing rapidly will be a mirror image of the magnitude response and is correctable with EQ.
Since time and frequency are recipricals of one another an aberration in one domain gives a disturbance in the other and so stands to reason that a correction in the frequency domain will also show an improvement in the time domain. It's odd how sharply and often that fact is denied. All the best, Barry. |
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
Quote:
The speakers were originally used in pairs directly behind driver and passenger's head in an electric car, at about 6 inches from each ear (Texas headphones )they were plenty clean when EQd similar to the above curve at a loud level.With that much boost, they would distort at a fairly low level for normal size room use, I'd only use them with a sub below. It would be more work than it is worth to break out the harmonics, as I don't have a dedicated distortion analyzer, I'd have to run discreet tones, and look at the harmonics on Smaart's RTA, then have to hear how that method is bogus Art |
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Trying for a near flat response from 80hz to 17khz | MREM | Multi-Way | 9 | 7th March 2011 02:02 PM |
| Flat response, headphones, and Godel's theorem | bentoronto | Multi-Way | 59 | 26th February 2011 04:11 PM |
| Why the emphasis on flat speaker response? | jmikes | Multi-Way | 30 | 20th November 2004 05:18 AM |
| Transient response on underdamped sub with EQ | mikee12345 | Multi-Way | 13 | 24th June 2004 11:41 PM |
| Doubts on Phase Response and Frequency Response | dumrum | Multi-Way | 11 | 5th April 2004 10:39 AM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.08097 seconds (73.68% PHP - 26.32% MySQL) with 11 queries |