The Basilar Membrane and Crossover Distortion - Page 5 - 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 4th February 2013, 01:29 PM   #41
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottmoose View Post
As far as I can see based on this thread (I haven't had chance to look elsewhere), it seems to be an advocating taking a 1st order HP / LP & pulling them apart by x amount to introduce a large dip in the midband FR / power response. Shades of the so-called Solen-split variation on 1st order, where they've put the XO at the -6dB rather than the -3dB frequency, except there the object isn't really to cause a dip & what there is is relatively small, all other things being equal ~1.5dB.
Check out Mr. Knight's UK patent # 2445695 for a detailed explanation. I found the patent as written was dissapointing. How can one make a claim on a decades old method of calculating the mH valued on a woofer coil? How can an examiner award a patent when no utility is demonstrated? The only novelty (and that's a stretch) I found was a modified formula for calculating a tweeter's uF value included "CM" - a factor for adjusting the spread of the xover slopes.
__________________
"It's all about the music!"
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2013, 04:43 PM   #42
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
I had a few spare minutes, so I looked through the UK & US patent / applications. So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but essentially what we're dealing with is an extension of what Solen-popularised. Regular 1st order Butterworth has the XO at -3dB. Solen's 1st order variation (presumably also done by other people before them too, but a convenient handle) crosses at -6dB. And this one is at -12dB.

Quite easily re the patent grant etc. I've seen things that are a far greater stretch being patented. US Patents No. 6486750 and 6025810 for e.g. Or any patent produced by a hifi wire company come to think of it. I can't say the design philosophy advoctated here of deliberately creating an enormous hole in the midband frequency / power / amplitude / whatever response appeals to me, but live & let live.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2013, 05:19 PM   #43
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottmoose View Post
I can't say the design philosophy advoctated here of deliberately creating an enormous hole in the midband frequency / power / amplitude / whatever response appeals to me, but live & let live.
Ahh, but Mr. Knight's contention is the dip counteracts the rise in our normal hearing profile shown to increase in the 1-3 kHz (typical 2-way xo) range by Flethcher and Munson. Other claims of lower distortion in the xo region caused by the Basilar 'beating' effect go unproven other than subjective assertions. The problem is - where's the test data to proove any of his claims of sonic improvements? No doubt the method claims to produce the dip are defensible, but the rest..... not so much!
__________________
"It's all about the music!"
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2013, 06:07 PM   #44
bwaslo is offline bwaslo  United States
diyAudio Member
 
bwaslo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon!
Quote:
But, how do you keep distorsion and dispersion under control, and still manage decent SPL? Has anybody made such a driver yet?
Sort-of someone has. Have you ever heard (or heard of) a Danley Synergy horn? Acts like a single-driver point source, but with constant directivity and high SPL capability. Can even be made to have linear phase (wavecom accurate) over wide range of frequencies. There are commercial ultra high SPL models and number of more tamed-down DIY versions around. Rather an ear-opener.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2013, 06:45 PM   #45
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by speakerdoctor View Post
Ahh, but Mr. Knight's contention is the dip counteracts the rise in our normal hearing profile shown to increase in the 1-3 kHz (typical 2-way xo) range by Flethcher and Munson. Other claims of lower distortion in the xo region caused by the Basilar 'beating' effect go unproven other than subjective assertions. The problem is - where's the test data to proove any of his claims of sonic improvements? No doubt the method claims to produce the dip are defensible, but the rest..... not so much!
I know what the contention is regarding the hole in the FR / whatever you want to call it; I don't agree with it, but as I say, I take the live & let live view. As for the Basilar business, YMMV. Can't say I've ever had a problem along those lines myself, but I'll wait & see what data emerges.

Last edited by Scottmoose; 4th February 2013 at 06:52 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2013, 08:08 PM   #46
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by speakerdoctor View Post
Ahh, but Mr. Knight's contention is the dip counteracts the rise in our normal hearing profile shown to increase in the 1-3 kHz (typical 2-way xo) range by Flethcher and Munson. Other claims of lower distortion in the xo region caused by the Basilar 'beating' effect go unproven other than subjective assertions. The problem is - where's the test data to proove any of his claims of sonic improvements? No doubt the method claims to produce the dip are defensible, but the rest..... not so much!
If the goal of a speaker designer is to make a speaker that reproduces recorded music accurately, the last thing one would want to do is put a 12 dB response dip at the ear's most sensitive frequency.

It will be interesting to see how Ian defends his assertion that flat frequency response is not optimal.
Attached Images
File Type: png Inverse curve.png (97.3 KB, 88 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th February 2013, 08:15 PM   #47
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kona, Hawaii
Blog Entries: 4
Flat where, tho? At 1M, at the ears, at a mic? Somewhere in the room? As we know, it gets complicated.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2013, 09:03 AM   #48
lolo is offline lolo  France
diyAudio Member
 
lolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: somewhere by the border..
flat on axis in a semi-reverberant field is not the best. I read the patent too, well, there are a lot of subjective assertions there, it's dissapointing. Proofs, any? Also it says in case of a 3 way, same crossover applies. Really? Another dip in the mid-bass? I guess people who have active crossover facilities can try and report.. but I am far from being convinced!
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2013, 09:05 AM   #49
lolo is offline lolo  France
diyAudio Member
 
lolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: somewhere by the border..
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwaslo View Post
Sort-of someone has. Have you ever heard (or heard of) a Danley Synergy horn? Acts like a single-driver point source, but with constant directivity and high SPL capability. Can even be made to have linear phase (wavecom accurate) over wide range of frequencies. There are commercial ultra high SPL models and number of more tamed-down DIY versions around. Rather an ear-opener.
Yes, you are right. But that's a speaker, not a driver, even if it behaves as a single driver. I'd love to check one sometimes.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2013, 12:33 PM   #50
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Switzerland
The patent's text starts with an IMHO completely wrong assumption: They suggest that one should have a hole in the frequency response in the area where the ear has increased sensitivity due ear canal resonance.

Well - we are used to hear like that ! We hear all unamplified and natural sounds including this hump in the ear's response. It is nothing more than natural. It simply doesn't make sense to "iron it out" in an artificial reproduction.

One of the most important things regarding the often cited Fletcher and Munson curves is the fact that every recording has to be reproduced by a linear speaker at the correct SPL level.

Regards

Charles
  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
basilar membranes, organs of corti, and cochlear nerves peace brainerd Multi-Way 5 12th November 2009 09:49 PM
Crossover distortion - be gone! Circlotron Solid State 4 24th August 2009 01:09 PM
So, what does crossover distortion sound like? beedlo Solid State 16 24th January 2005 01:29 PM
Crossover distortion lumanauw Solid State 100 14th January 2005 01:58 AM
Crossover Distortion? Killjoy99 Multi-Way 8 30th March 2004 06:10 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:59 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