Optimum crossover frequency? - Page 3 - 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 17th February 2013, 06:05 PM   #21
balerit is offline balerit  South Africa
diyAudio Member
 
balerit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South Africa
2-way system 2500 Hz.
3-way system 500 and 4500 Hz.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2013, 08:04 PM   #22
forr is offline forr  France
diyAudio Member
 
forr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Next door
My way to determine the optimum crossover frequency was based on physiology. In the medium-treble zone, for non coincident drivers, there is failure of human perception in the direction of sounds around 1800 Hz. Years ago, I discovered that speakers having a crossover around 1900 Hz give a very precise stereo image. So I am currently using 2000 Hz, the tweeter being a ScanSpeak resonating et 500 Hz.
For the bass, I found that, using a sine generator, there quite a change of the nature of sound under 140 Hz (which seems to belong to bass zone) and over 160 Hz (which seems to belong to the medium zone). After having set the crossover at 140 Hz for long, I changed to 160 Hz. The medium driver is a ScanSpeak 17 cm Revelator resonating at 50 Hz in a quite big box and the bass driver is a Peerless 31 cm XLS where an accident in the frequency response at around 450 Hz should be sufficiently attenuated.
Crossover sloped are 18 dB/o and the hi-pass behaviour of the drivers is taken in account.
I mainly choose my drivers according to the crossover frequencies which I think to be the best for the human perception. It's quite the contrary of the usual way, choosing the drivers first, and then looking for the optimal crossover frequencies.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2013, 08:44 PM   #23
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
I would say the best way to go about it is to determine what type of directivity you want in your speaker. IMO the only options to consider right now are:

1) True omni
2) True dipole (more like Note 2 RS not Orion)
3) CD e.g. Synergy horn or Autotech OS waveguide

Then from there you know which types of drivers you need to use based on the requirements of the directivity, and in what ranges.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2013, 09:26 PM   #24
tvrgeek is offline tvrgeek  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
Quote:
Originally Posted by 454Casull View Post
I would say the best way to go about it is to determine what type of directivity you want in your speaker. IMO the only options to consider right now are:

1) True omni
2) True dipole (more like Note 2 RS not Orion)
3) CD e.g. Synergy horn or Autotech OS waveguide

Then from there you know which types of drivers you need to use based on the requirements of the directivity, and in what ranges.
Your options assume an environment where such speakers can be used. Quite the modern thought, but not everyone has that luxury. Not really part of a crossover point selection guideline though.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2013, 09:39 PM   #25
tvrgeek is offline tvrgeek  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
forr,

Selecting the drivers that meet your design goals is one of the few really smart things said in 24 posts. THEN design the crossover that is optimum for those drivers.

I don't quite get your correlation with physiology and crossovers. Have you done these same tests with many different drivers, or for these drivers that is where your perception tells you they are happy? For the drivers you mention, these seem very reasonable values, but if you were to try the listening tests with say, Vifa XT-25, you may find a very different result in they really do not like being used that low.

My most "precise" imaging speakers cross over at 2600. (Dayton/Seas). The original tweeters were Vifa's at a 1650 crossover and they were horrid. No imaging, and just plain ugly sounding. Miss-use of a less than optimum tweeter trying to avoid woofer breakup issues. My bad. All better now.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2013, 11:32 PM   #26
OllBoll is offline OllBoll  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
Not really part of a crossover point selection guideline though.
Indirectly it is, since the crossover point(s) should be the lowest + highest point that still approximates the directivity pattern goal of the speaker.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2013, 12:21 AM   #27
tvrgeek is offline tvrgeek  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllBoll View Post
Indirectly it is, since the crossover point(s) should be the lowest + highest point that still approximates the directivity pattern goal of the speaker.
I respect your focus on something that is all too frequently not addressed, probably because it is hard. You are absolutely correct that poor decisions in the crossover can make it impossible to meet a design goal. But I suggest it is equally or more important to temper those goals with keeping away from breakup regions, resonance problems, energy decay, harmonic distortion, power compression and the rest. If you can't find happy ground with all the parameters, you will not be happy with the result. Pick a new design or different drivers. Sometimes, you just plain can't do what you want to.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2013, 01:23 AM   #28
OllBoll is offline OllBoll  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
I respect your focus on something that is all too frequently not addressed, probably because it is hard. You are absolutely correct that poor decisions in the crossover can make it impossible to meet a design goal. But I suggest it is equally or more important to temper those goals with keeping away from breakup regions, resonance problems, energy decay, harmonic distortion, power compression and the rest. If you can't find happy ground with all the parameters, you will not be happy with the result. Pick a new design or different drivers. Sometimes, you just plain can't do what you want to.
Of course, optimizing for directivity assumes that the drivers can operate in the crossover region without any major issues.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2013, 02:19 AM   #29
Jay is offline Jay  Indonesia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jakarta
Quote:
Originally Posted by markusA View Post
I would like to focus on finding the optimum crossover frequency taking into account human hearing and perception.
You seemed to know the issues(?), but then your question is strange. So should we assume that the designer is 100% capable and the drivers are 100% perfect? Then may be the right answer for the question is that you can cross over at any frequency that you want.

But wait, then you will find out that each driver have their "sweet spot". But what if the driver is so 100% perfect so that every frequency is sweet spot?

BTW, as a rule of thumb, my style is to focus on the sweet spot, and try very hard to solve all problems associated with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markusA View Post
What are the optimum crossover frequencies one should aim fore and why?
Let's make life difficult and start with a 2-way speaker.
Life is difficult only if you don't make too much assumptions. In general, with 2-way, common issue is that woofer cannot go too high and tweeter cannot go too low. Then you choose your compromises. And there you have your style.

First assumption is that everyone know that it is good to simulate two drivers before purchasing them, so to ensure better match. But we cannot know fully 100% without hearing them, so that is where I based on my decision to choose the optimum Fx.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markusA View Post
Obviously the drivers will post limits but lets assume we start with the crossover points and choose drivers to match.
Drivers can match in any frequency points or bands. If you limit your frequency to say 2K4 (or any frequency for reasons you are finding out, which I don't know the answer for) you may have difficulty to find a match drivers. Just buy the flattest drivers then (which are expensive), if you think that matching is an easy thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markusA View Post
Fletcher-Munson curves and the theory behind it talk about hearing sensitivity dependant on frequency. Where will the crossover be most detectable to the human hearing and where is it easier to get away with?
Then you must try to cross as low as possible, with the consequence of having to buy expensive tweeter. The higher you cross, the harder it is to do it right (in general), but the benefit is you can get good sound with cheap tweeter.


Quote:
Originally Posted by markusA View Post
How do you do it?
Where do you actually start?
What is the best target frequency for the crossover?
Is there a way to have it all?
What are the compromises?
Do every options in computer. Purchase the driver, do a quick examinations of the drivers real capability. Do every options again by prototyping. Choose your poisons/compromises.

A nice case example is an XT25. You cannot easily see how bad this tweeter handles low frequency from simulation. But once you know its character, then it is your call how do you want to cross this tweeter. I have never paired an XT25 with big woofer (such as 8"). The tweeter has limitation below 3K, but the woofer will usually have limitation above 2K. So pick the best of the bad conditions.

I think, there are too many issues that choosing frequency is not the right thing to do as the first step in building a speaker. But of course it can be part of anyone design style to avoid issues from the first place. More likely if we have less confidence in recognizing and solving the issues.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2013, 08:12 AM   #30
lolo is offline lolo  France
diyAudio Member
 
lolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: somewhere by the border..
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenB View Post
Narrow directivity isn't thought to be as important at 500Hz as we aren't as sensitive down here. An omni pattern (as most speakers will either have or be moving towards) will still support reflections that cause colourations, but we all deal with those.
Really? Check the sensitivity curves, you will be surprised.. It's not because some people have done some proeminent research in some fields that everything they say is true. The 100-500 area is VERY important.. The people who say the opposite have an agenda. Have you seen a waveguide managing 200hz? It's possible, but it would be huuuuuge. Not practical, difficult to sell..
BTW, where is the research saying that the highs need beaming? I believe the large Archimedes project held in Denmark 20 years ago came to the exact opposite conclusion..

Last edited by lolo; 18th February 2013 at 08:16 AM.
  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
Numerical Solving Techniques for Optimum Crossover Design thadman Multi-Way 5 21st May 2009 05:29 AM
Optimum frequency response curves in the bass range The golden mean Subwoofers 8 30th June 2008 05:22 PM
Crossover Frequency Ironhead Multi-Way 14 17th June 2008 09:12 PM
crossover frequency Laufer Multi-Way 2 22nd October 2003 06:52 PM
crossover frequency ray Multi-Way 1 10th September 2001 06:31 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:35 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