Obtaining power response through the crossover using a simulator
 User Name Stay logged in? Password
 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
 5th June 2012, 06:29 AM #1 diyAudio Member   Join Date: Oct 2008 Obtaining power response through the crossover using a simulator I'd be looking for criticism of this technique... A crossover is designed using the acoustic phase of the drivers measured on the listening axis, but the response associated with each driver is swapped as needed between its response on the listening axis, and the magnitude of the driver power response calculated from measured SPLs. In this case the speaker can be designed for flat power, but the power of the drivers will sum incorrectly. So, making the following assumptions: an in-phase style crossover with 6dB summing is used, the power will be down 3dB compared with the SPL in the middle of the crossover, and reasonable phase matching is achieved in the design before continuing. Then shift one driver to force quadrature between them and achieve quasi power summing?
 5th June 2012, 10:43 PM #2 diyAudio Member   Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Brighton UK Hi, I'd read up on Linkwitz/Riley crossovers, and why they are now ubiquitous. Note that the electrical function of a x/o is not its acoustic function, usually. rgds, sreten. __________________ There is nothing so practical as a really good theory - Ludwig Boltzmann When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail - Abraham Maslow
 5th June 2012, 11:00 PM #3 diyAudio Member     Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Toronto I believe it is true, if the drivers are not close together, that an artificially forced quadrature summing would represent the power response. If they are close together then the random summing that 90 degrees represents may not occur. There was a thread a while back where I helped a guy who was plotting constant in phase and constant out of phase summing to plot the envelope of the extremes of off axis response variation. You could add the 90 degree sum to the mix. David
diyAudio Member

Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA, MN
Quote:
 Originally Posted by AllenB I'd be looking for criticism of this technique...
I think Jeff Bagby's PCD can do a simulated power response plot?
__________________
Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works. --Carl Sagan
Armaments, universal debt, and planned obsolescence--those are the three pillars of Western prosperity. —Aldous Huxley

 5th June 2012, 11:45 PM #5 diyAudio Member   Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Md SoundEasy
diyAudio Member

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ron E I think Jeff Bagby's PCD can do a simulated power response plot?
Yep, the main plot shows sim'd power response overlay.

Boxsim as well, I think.

Both are free.

 6th June 2012, 01:38 PM #7 diyAudio Member     Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: City Of Villans Blog Entries: 1 boxsim does power response and directivity index plots, and will accept .zma and .frd files too, im probably stating nothing new here. __________________ It still amazes me every time I get something right
diyAudio Member

Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ron E I think Jeff Bagby's PCD can do a simulated power response plot?
Taking a look at this it seems to be able to show the equivalent of power from an axial slice. Can this be used to create a full radiation power plot?

I've haven't used Boxsim. Often freeware from a commercial source is limited, looks like I should try this though.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sreten Note that the electrical function of a x/o is not its acoustic function, usually.
Do you mean the response is not always proportional to the voltage seen at the terminals?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by speaker dave I believe it is true, if the drivers are not close together, that an artificially forced quadrature summing would represent the power response. If they are close together then the random summing that 90 degrees represents may not occur.
I'm not in a position to predict this with accuracy. If a waveguided HF driver's primary wave acts as a point source, its other modes both distributed and displaced, and a piston woofer.

I'm just trying to predict the directivity index around a crossover without resorting to further measurement, or coding which I'm only partially confident of the result of. Like the example screenshot below (DI at the bottom), the crossover is between 1-2k. If the crossover is pushed higher with the same flat power (ignore the common peak at 1k), then DI at the crossover region would decrease but the hole at 2k would fill.

At this level though I need better resolution than a guess. One other technique I was using was to create target Butterworth responses on the power magnitudes, match phase throughout, export this and mow the peak flat in a text editor.
Attached Images
 1.gif (26.0 KB, 56 views)

diyAudio Member

Join Date: Oct 2008
A 6dB drop in SPL should relate to a 3dB drop in power where radiation gain was a factor.

I verified that using a power plot in a crossover sim can work by recalculating the driver(s) power response after applying the transfer function of a sample crossover to each axis and comparing the result to the original calculated power response. The only reason I feel it would be valid is because the axial responses used for the power calc don't coincide and radiation gain wouldn't apply.

Quote:
 if the drivers are not close together, that an artificially forced quadrature summing would represent the power response.
...and maybe if the sources are very close and in phase? (point being no lobing issues either very close or very far?)

[I'm labouring under a few quiet refreshments this evening, there's a question coming, I promise ]

So where the drivers are crossing, radiation gain may apply and so I feel I should extract the "filtered" powers and add them as powers rather than let the sim deal with it?

Is it also valid to survey the lobing cancellations and convert that to an across the board, crossover region, power response modifier?

@Sreten, I'm seeing your point now.

 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 OffTrackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are Off Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post s3tup PC Based 11 22nd November 2012 06:03 PM RockLeeEV Multi-Way 15 7th February 2012 08:07 PM Richard Moon Multi-Way 96 16th October 2009 07:20 PM macgyver Multi-Way 4 31st July 2003 12:56 PM f4ier Multi-Way 7 18th August 2002 02:47 PM

 New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:33 PM.