rePhase, a loudspeaker phase linearization, EQ and FIR filtering tool - Page 15 - 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 30th December 2012, 11:50 PM   #141
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgrlee View Post
Thanks for this John.

It looks like Burst Decay is an extension of Analogue Loudspeaker Measurement with 3-D Display We called those PAFplots after Peter A Fryer.

IMHO, this gives the best representation of the most important speaker 'distortions' if you consider it as a 1D transmission chain.

The theoretical difference between PAFplots & Burst Decay is PAFplots use rectangular windowing.

Simple Arbitary IIRs shows how you can use Direct Form I IIRs instead and gain loadsa efficiency. The design of such beasts is slightly more complicated than FIRs.

After all, a FIR is just a Direct Form I IIR with feedback disabled.

Gotta get my finger out and finish the JAES version.
_______________

John, are those stand-alone DSP boxes like the miniDSP integer only?

This is important if you are using FFT convolution cos you really need to dither at every butterfly stage.
_______________

CopperTop, high order xovers are evil for most speakers; whether analogue, digital, Min. Phase or Linear Phase. Richard Greenfield has an AES paper on the subject. IMHO, 4th order LR is already beyond the pale. I prefer 3rd order Arthur-Smythe xovers for the usual treble xover.
I'll have to look at that paper.

This is not stand alone dsp. It's PC based. I did not write the convolution code but it is a form of FFt overlap and add. It works very well. I worked conceptualizing how to approach the problem. I don't get my hands dirty with the details, and I don't know them either. The partnership was dissolved at my request earlier this year.

I agree with your assesment of high slope crossovers but I am not familiar with Arthur-Smythe x-o's.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2012, 01:03 AM   #142
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgrlee View Post
high order xovers are evil for most speakers; whether analogue, digital, Min. Phase or Linear Phase. Richard Greenfield has an AES paper on the subject. IMHO, 4th order LR is already beyond the pale. I prefer 3rd order Arthur-Smythe xovers for the usual treble xover.
Is this because of the evils of the filters themselves, or because it is intrinsically better to overlap drivers over a wider range? This does seem to be a point of controversy: some people are absolutely convinced that higher order is better, and others that second order is where it's at. I still have an open mind on the matter. With the best phase alignment between drivers I can manage, I can hear a slight difference between second, and say 8th order, depending on what I'm listening to, but whether one is better than the other, I can't say. If I then switch to 48th order, I can't honestly say that I am hearing much of a difference, nor do my ears bleed. Presumably I might hear more of a difference at very high volumes, where the higher order would be better for the drivers..?

With my software I am able to change filters and other settings on the fly in real time (it takes about a second to calculate new filters and load them in with barely a glitch), and I am adding other random bits and pieces as I go along, such as the 'Stochastic Interleave' function, and correction based on measurements.

Re convolution engines, I have written my own based on the fftw library, using overlap-and-add, and the PC hardly breaks into a sweat whatever size the buffer. I am aware, however, that there is a fundamentalist movement that believes that convolution must be performed directly.

Edit: the screenshot shows the audio device as Kx driver, and a sample rate of 48 kHz. This is my 'other' PC, and I'm normally using a better card than that with native 44.1 kHz.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg screenshot.jpg (126.5 KB, 183 views)

Last edited by CopperTop; 31st December 2012 at 01:11 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2012, 01:26 AM   #143
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by CopperTop View Post
With my software I am able to change filters and other settings on the fly in real time (it takes about a second to calculate new filters and load them in with barely a glitch), and I am adding other random bits and pieces as I go along, such as the 'Stochastic Interleave' function, and correction based on measurements.

Re convolution engines, I have written my own based on the fftw library, using overlap-and-add, and the PC hardly breaks into a sweat whatever size the buffer. I am aware, however, that there is a fundamentalist movement that believes that convolution must be performed directly.

Edit: the screenshot shows the audio device as Kx driver, and a sample rate of 48 kHz. This is my 'other' PC, and I'm normally using a better card than that with native 44.1 kHz.
It appears you are just using text book filters. I don't think you can make meaningful comparisons until you can match the frequency response when you make such changes. That is another feature I like about the UE. Since the system can be eq'ed to a specific target the crossovers can be changed and the system will have the identical response so you are truly listing to changes in crossover order, overlap and changes in polar response.

As far as a fundamentalist movement, they must no understand the equivalence of the different approaches. What direct convolution gets you is long latency and high demands on the CPU.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2012, 01:35 AM   #144
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by john k... View Post
It appears you are just using text book filters. I don't think you can make meaningful comparisons until you can match the frequency response when you make such changes. That is another feature I like about the UE. Since the system can be eq'ed to a specific target the crossovers can be changed and the system will have the identical response so you are truly listing to changes in crossover order, overlap and changes in polar response.
In the screenshot, the 'Correction' checkbox loads the correction based on measurements but the choice of files etc. is still hard-coded; the GUI's a bit basic at the moment...

I have a choice to use an external set of correction filters e.g. generated by REW, or to load impulse responses for each driver and apply reverse correction automatically, with hard-coded parameters such as degree of smoothing.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg screenshot with correction.jpg (128.0 KB, 182 views)

Last edited by CopperTop; 31st December 2012 at 01:38 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2012, 01:43 AM   #145
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by CopperTop View Post
In the screenshot, the 'Correction' checkbox loads the correction based on measurements but the choice of files etc. is still hard-coded; the GUI's a bit basic at the moment...

I have a choice to use an external set of correction filters e.g. generated by REW, or to load impulse responses for each driver and apply reverse correction automatically, with hard-coded parameters such as degree of smoothing.
Thanks. That seems pretty nice.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2012, 01:47 AM   #146
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by CopperTop View Post
.... With the best phase alignment between drivers I can manage........
How do you assess phase alignment?

What do you use for measurement microphone?

Have you experimented with inverse IR for driver correction?

My use of steep crossover slopes is based on improved IMD performance, power handling, and ability to get more useable bandwidth from drivers. This expands the usefulness of many drivers.


kgrlee: 'Evils' and 'most speakers' applies to many poor design choices. Specific paper? And what evil experiences do you have with steep crossover slopes?

Regards,

Andrew
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2012, 02:06 AM   #147
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Cooktown, Oz
Quote:
high order xovers are evil for most speakers; whether analogue, digital, Min. Phase or Linear Phase. Richard Greenfield has an AES paper on the subject. IMHO, 4th order LR is already beyond the pale. I prefer 3rd order Arthur-Smythe xovers for the usual treble xover.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CopperTop View Post
Is this because of the evils of the filters themselves, or because it is intrinsically better to overlap drivers over a wider range?
A speaker isn't a 1D transmission channel. It has 1D input but 3D output.

You need to consider what happens at other listening axii/positions and also what the speaker is shoving into the room.

Is Linear Phase Worthwhile? and Polar Response Errors in Digital Crossover Alignments discuss some of the issues. I don't agree with everything Dr. Greenfield says but his is a good overview.

Quote:
'Evils' and 'most speakers' applies to many poor design choices. Specific paper? And what evil experiences do you have with steep crossover slopes?
I was external examiner for some of the U of Essex papers on digital stuff including digital xovers so I've been playing with these for longer than most.

Probably the most evil factor is you don't really want the directivity of your speaker to change abruptly. This was identified as long ago as the 50's by the BBC and my own experience only confirms it.

A zillion dB/8ve xover to a sub at 80Hz in your domestic room is probably OK ... especially if you correct the phase.

Having said that, a somewhat lesser slope is OK too for "improved IMD performance, power handling, bla bla .. ".

Andrew, would you care to tell us your experiences, good or bad, with steep slope xovers?

Last edited by kgrlee; 31st December 2012 at 02:17 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2012, 02:58 AM   #148
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Melbourne
Dear All,

Regarding the comments on FFT length in Ultimate Equalizer V4 for 48kHz sampling.

The FFT length is selectable: 8192 and 16384 bins. Obviously, longer FFT will result in better low-frequency resolution. The only penalty is longer latency. 145ms for 8192 and 290ms for 16384bins in WASAPI Exclusive Mode and partitioned convolution and Linear Phase Mode.

UE4 was designed with very stringent latency requirements for linear-phase audio processing for Bluray playback. However, since HDMI-based 3D screens introduce their own video latency, the stringent requirements may not be necessary.

If you only use UE4 for audiophile stereo playback, then latency does not matter, and you can select 16384bins FFTs.

Future releases of UE software will take into account ever changing 3D video latency and perhaps extend the FFTs to 32k as well.

All above comments relate to 48kHz sampling. FFTs are twice as long for 96kHz sampling, so that low-frequency resolution is the same as for 48kHz. This is where your CPU and data bus (24bit depth) starts to prespire.


Best Regards,
Bohdan
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2012, 03:19 AM   #149
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Hi Bohdan,

Glad to see you chime in here. I'm not up to date with all the improvements to UE V4. I didn't realize that 16384 length was an option. That should go a long way toward better accuracy at low frequency.

Also, aren't the latencies you are quoting for linear phase? If phase linearization is not engaged latency still goes down in V4 as it did in V3, correct?

I have to take some tome nad get V4 up an running.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.

Last edited by john k...; 31st December 2012 at 03:24 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2012, 03:26 AM   #150
dlr is offline dlr  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canton, MA
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgrlee View Post
Probably the most evil factor is you don't really want the directivity of your speaker to change abruptly. This was identified as long ago as the 50's by the BBC and my own experience only confirms it.

A zillion dB/8ve xover to a sub at 80Hz in your domestic room is probably OK ... especially if you correct the phase.
I don't agree with an absolute assessment about a specific crossover. Maybe in the transition from woofer to sub, I do use very low order in this area, but I don't attempt linear phase in that area.

My current system crosses W/M @250HZ LR8 and M/T @1200 LR8, linear phase using the UE, confirmed via measurement on the latter. There is no abrupt change in the polar response, that was a particular design goal.

From my experience I agree with Andrew: " 'Evils' and 'most speakers' applies to many poor design choices."

Normalized M/T polar response measurements are shown below. Due to limits of the measuring environment, the woofer to mid is not shown.

250LR8-1200LR8_00-90_Deg_Polar_Normalized.gif

Below 500Hz is outside of the window, above 20K is not corrected due to tweeter breakup. Phase is linear within the passband specified. Note that at the 1200Hz M/T crossover you would not be able to identify the crossover point on any axis.

This is LR8. My old passive systems were generally crossed LR2, but when going to the UE, I found that low order crossovers (less than LR8) could not, in my testing and with my system, yield a smooth polar response. I see it as very case dependent and do not see any rule-of-thumb being applicable.

Dave
  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
FIR linear phase plugin for MiniDSP? diyjb01 miniDSP 13 7th February 2014 02:24 AM
FIR filter design tool for Loudspeaker magnitude equalization ttmusic Software Tools 3 24th May 2013 09:30 PM
FIR Filtering experiences Olombo PC Based 8 10th February 2013 04:45 PM
AVX based FIR VST, crossover / EQ / DRC and delay KOON3876 PC Based 97 26th November 2012 08:18 AM
Phase EQ using FIR filters Grasso Multi-Way 2 2nd July 2003 11:37 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:24 PM.


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