rePhase, a loudspeaker phase linearization, EQ and FIR filtering tool - Page 32 - 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 16th January 2013, 02:27 AM   #311
pos is offline pos  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
pos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Paris
Quote:
Originally Posted by john k... View Post
But there is an advantage to using minimum phase filters (or targets) and then using phase linearizion to eliminate GD associated with the low frequency cut off of the system. That is that the individual pass bands with have causal response. Thus, there will be no pre-ringing in the individual pass bands which may become audible off axis.
Could you elaborate?
As I see it linearizing the high pass of the system (BR + optional subsonic) will give the so called pre ringing, as the impulse of the high pass will become symmetrical.
I don't see how this would prevent the other crossovers in the system to show pre ringing as well wherever the crossed-over drivers are not properly summed in phase (somewhere off axis).
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2013, 11:21 PM   #312
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Cooktown, Oz
Quote:
Originally Posted by pos View Post
As I see it linearizing the high pass of the system (BR + optional subsonic) will give the so called pre ringing, as the impulse of the high pass will become symmetrical.
Yes. But if there is nothing outside the pass band, you will not see any pre-ring. I make this point in "Is Linear Phase Worthwhile" and so does Dick Heyser & Bode.

That's why I don't mind 'linear phase' antil-aliasing filters. The frequency distribution of real life sounds means you will only see pre-ring with signals which are likely to leave you with a headache for 24hrs.

However, all reliable instances of excess phase detection have been at LF (& mid freq) so there is likely to be audible effects of "correcting" the LF phase. My instinct is to leave the LF phase alone. It will require a VERY large FIR and is unlikely to make things sound 'better'.

If anyone wants to repeat my 1980 Blind Listening Tests with better equipment & sources, I'm happy to advise.

Quote:
I don't see how this would prevent the other crossovers in the system to show pre ringing as well wherever the crossed-over drivers are not properly summed in phase (somewhere off axis).
If you 'correct' the LF phase due to the roll-off you will have pre-ringing regardless of how things sum.

If you DON'T correct the LF phase and the crossovers are Min. Phase .. they will be causal (no pre-ring) but not MP .. and this is also the case off the design axis when they don't sum perfectly.

Last edited by kgrlee; 18th January 2013 at 11:25 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2013, 01:02 AM   #313
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Melbourne
Hi,

This paper may be of some help:

http://www.bodziosoftware.com.au/Pre...And_Pulses.pdf

BeEst ReEgards,
Bohdan
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2013, 03:36 AM   #314
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Cooktown, Oz
Quote:
Originally Posted by bohdan1232000 View Post
Thanks for this Bohdan.

I personally know all the people associated with the listening tests in The Audibility of Loudspeaker Phase Distortion at Celestion and from talking to them, its obvious the test wasn't carried out properly.

I actually carried out the same test at Wharfedale with the Essex Equaliser before they did the test at Celestion. To our surprise, in my Double Blind bla bla tests, all those who could reliably tell the difference preferred the non-phase corrected version.

We traced this to the fact that the MP EQ was done with a IIR which was self-dithering, while the excess phase correction was via a FIR which wasn't.

I pointed out both these points to Greenfield & Hawkesford.

They later presented another paper On the Dither Performance of High-Order Digital Equalization for Loudspeaker Systems

I was miffed cos they didn't acknowledge that we had observed the phenomena first and told them about it.
____________________

I'm interested in your comments about what you heard with your LP EQ vs MP EQ.

What bandwidth was the 18" subwoofer you were listening on? Was this the 20Hz 4th order system?

I know from my own Blind Listening Tests that a 2ms pulse can differentiate Excess Phase but I've not been able to find musical or real life sounds which lead to reliable detection.

You might also like to look at On the Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems though I have some reservations about the speakers & headphones they used.
____________________

My $0.02
  • Excess Phase distortion as introduced by speakers is audible under some circumstances by some people.
  • The jury is still out over whether it makes things sound worse cos the very small number of people who can detect it.
  • It's probably not worth taking special efforts to correct it unless it can be done at little or no cost & complexity.
  • The benefits of 21st century DSP are better utilized to improve more traditional speaker faults like Directivity and Delayed Resonances. These are known to be audible to even the unwashed masses.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2013, 06:14 AM   #315
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Melbourne
Hi kgrlee,

Thanks for your pointers. I am familiar with Hawkesford works.

I have collected my impressions on linear phase loudspeakers and summarized them in:

http://www.bodziosoftware.com.au/Att...udspeakers.pdf

If you are specifically interested in subwoofers, they are described in:

http://www.bodziosoftware.com.au/LP_...ofer_Tests.pdf

The 18" subwoofers after HBT linearization and linear-phase are 16Hz, 4th order systems.

Best Regards,
Bohdan
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2013, 02:09 PM   #316
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Bohdan, we are on the same page.

I work with Farina's Kirkeby inverse instead of HBT correcting system responses.

Thanks for links. Yes, time domain performance is needed for realism.

In domestic listening space, room response of sub system is inseparable from room. Room is speaker.

I've aligned sub setup in room from microphone at dust cap to >2m with little change in results.

I get impression that people who talk about audibility of linear phase acoustic response pre-ringing are generating impulse response, playing it back and going "Oh, there hear that."

It's as silly as asking for interconnects with minimum phase response.

Most don't get concept of convolving continuous time program with periodic IR of transmission system to get final response.

Indeed, coupling capacitors forming low frequency high pass filters mess up phase response, and then woofer finishes it off.

A square wave is asking driver to slew rapidly between two states and then hold position. But this is suppose to be SPL. Pressure wave is moving away from driver, so driver needs to keep moving to maintain flat SPL, right up to next slewing event to opposite pressure state.


Click the image to open in full size.

Above is cardioid sub response as "U" frame stacked with sealed, corrected in room. Original post is in thread for Linkwitz inspired two-way DSP Pluto Clone.

I've linked to this in other threads here, most just don't get it at all.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2013, 10:18 PM   #317
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Cooktown, Oz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barleywater View Post
In domestic listening space, room response of sub system is inseparable from room. Room is speaker.
....
A square wave is asking driver to slew rapidly between two states and then hold position. But this is suppose to be SPL. Pressure wave is moving away from driver, so driver needs to keep moving to maintain flat SPL, right up to next slewing event to opposite pressure state.
Actually at LF, it is simple to get pressure response flat. The smaller the room, the easier it is.

There are 3 regions for EQ of speaker in rooms.
  • At HF, the speaker is sufficiently far from boundaries to enable EQ of the 'anechoic' response. This has been the focus of most Digital EQ efforts in the last decade or so. It is known to give good results.
  • At LF, when room dimensions are the same or greater then the wavelength, the room is a 'point' and very simple EQ gives good results.
  • The difficult part is the 'midrange' where there are significant reflections which can't be distinguished from the direct response but cause complicated response changes.

It is the 3rd region where I believe room & speaker EQ still needs a lot of research.

We know that speakers in anechoics sound terrible. So what are we trying to achieve? With respect to Bohdan and other workers in this field, I think the jury is still out on this question.

I have not done serious work on this for well over a decade so am interested in what others have found. This millenium, the DSP power available to us is far greater than the early 90's. But what should we be using it for?

Barley, how different are the EQs for the 2 channels on your final system? Can you post a curve(s)?

Quote:
It's as silly as asking for interconnects with minimum phase response.
You mean you can get linear phase interconnects?

All the interconnects I've measured have been Minimum Phase. They satisfy one of the necessary AND sufficient criteria.

Last edited by kgrlee; 19th January 2013 at 10:47 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2013, 10:53 PM   #318
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgrlee View Post
[*]At LF, when room dimensions are the same or greater then the wavelength, the room is a 'point' and very simple EQ gives good results.[/LIST]
You are mistaken. At such frequencies the response in in the modal region and every position in the room has a different response. At such frequencies what matters are the near field response of the woofer, the listening position, and the source to listener transfer function. This last item is a function of the room and the positions of the source and listener. Change either and the response changes. It is not possible to ever equalize a room to have more than a single point with flat low frequency response let alone linear phase.

It is only when the wave length is much greater than all the room dimensions that the SPL tends to be come uniform. But then there are a number of significant other issues which effect the response such as leakage and energy storage in the structure. Such frequencies are typically below those produce by musical instruments and are in the realm of HT LFEs.
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.

Last edited by john k...; 19th January 2013 at 10:55 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2013, 11:36 PM   #319
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgrlee View Post
You mean you can get linear phase interconnects?
It's a first order rolloff, so they sum flat in quadrature.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2013, 12:11 AM   #320
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Cooktown, Oz
Quote:
At LF, when room dimensions are the same or greater then the wavelength, the room is a 'point' and very simple EQ gives good results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by john k... View Post
You are mistaken. At such frequencies the response in in the modal region and every position in the room has a different response. ... loadsa good stuff. ...
You are right of course. It wa a typo cos i kunt reed en rite.

I should have said, "At LF, when room dimensions are similar or less then the wavelength, the room is a 'point' and very simple EQ gives good results."

Mea maxima culpa!
  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 01:24 AM
FIR filter design tool for Loudspeaker magnitude equalization ttmusic Software Tools 3 24th May 2013 08:30 PM
FIR Filtering experiences Olombo PC Based 8 10th February 2013 03:45 PM
AVX based FIR VST, crossover / EQ / DRC and delay KOON3876 PC Based 97 26th November 2012 07:18 AM
Phase EQ using FIR filters Grasso Multi-Way 2 2nd July 2003 10:37 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:53 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