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 20th February 2013, 02:00 PM   #21
AllenB is offline AllenB  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltersys View Post
Whether they match the acoustic response of the original crossover is unknown without seeing the individual response of the low and high driver output of using the passive crossover.

Duplicating the electrical response of a passive crossover ignores the speaker parameter interaction, one really needs to measure the acoustical response to duplicate the acoustical response curves.
When compared to directly driving a driver with a flat voltage, the relative level presented across the speaker terminals after being crossed will represent the relative acoustic level, passive or active.

The voltage presented after a passive crossover has the current taken in to account. How would the impedance change by any significant amount?
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2013, 09:30 PM   #22
terry j is offline terry j  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
you're not going to do any measurements?? I think you need to get what is required (cheap really) but then you gotta learn it I guess, not so cheap timewise.

Now I understand you're not going to measure, the question makes more sense! However, in those cases of not measuring..perhaps that is why they say 'copy an established design'.

In your case (making it active whilst trying to duplicate the passive) you won't even be able to check to see if you duplicated it!

And, if you could measure, then why duplicate passive with active? Why limit what you can do to the limitations of passive? (as but one example, you can lower the tweeter by steeper slopes-all time aligned etc-which then stops the need of the woofer to go higher simply to protect the tweeter yet introduces off axis anomalies) You don't HAVE to lower the xover point, twas just an example.

No measuring gear? Then you can't even take advantage of eq in the bass region (after the speakers have been built, done in room).

I'd urge you to consider being able to take some sort of measurements, even (at worst) some sort of RTA mobile phone app. You can at least find out how much to pad the tweeter down in minidsp that way.

You need some sort of basic measurements. Reckon the guys who designed the passive did it by ear?
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2013, 11:26 PM   #23
soren5 is offline soren5  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post
You need some sort of basic measurements. Reckon the guys who designed the passive did it by ear?
No, of course not. I believe that's why many of you in the DIY speaker community advice beginners to start with a proven design. Because there are experienced people out there who knows what and how to measure and simulate, and based on this can design a crossover that integrates instead of ruins an otherwise good driver combo. I get what you're all saying. And now I realize that active XO apparently isn't the best option for newbies since it doesn't allow for building most of the proven designs out there.

It would be nice though if designers started to include an "active filter suggestion" in their XO designs in the shape of e.g. a biquad filter. Class-D amps with integrated DSP are becoming more and more popular, and I think we'll only see more active XOs in the future of DIY speaker building.

BTW I do have a measurement microphone, but so far I've only used it for (sub)woofer room-EQ. I guess it's time to get learning

Last edited by soren5; 20th February 2013 at 11:35 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st February 2013, 12:12 AM   #24
Jay is offline Jay  Indonesia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jakarta
Quote:
Originally Posted by soren5 View Post
Class-D amps with integrated DSP are becoming more and more popular, and I think we'll only see more active XOs in the future of DIY speaker building.
When you do a DIY, often you'll end up with wanting the best sound. It is just too hard and expensive to get the best from class-D and active XO.

Imagine a $100 MiniDSP. Do you think I want to use the DAC and opamp inside of a $100 machine?? Some others build their own software but mostly this requires computer as part of the music system, which is not yet my preference.

I have been more than a year stopping building passive system. But I'm still in the analog domain, not yet going digital. I have been building popular analog active crossovers from the internet while designing my own. So far, I have decided that I will reject any opamp based systems. Now I'm going with discrete. There is a chance for good sound but not as flexible as digital system I guess. An analog active system specialized for certain speaker drivers (combined with passive element)
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st February 2013, 12:16 AM   #25
AllenB is offline AllenB  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Perhaps you should build the speaker with the passive crossover? You don't have much to lose by doing it this way. The DSP can still be useful handling other aspects of the build.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st February 2013, 12:41 AM   #26
Jay is offline Jay  Indonesia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jakarta
The DSP for subwoofer function?
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st February 2013, 06:13 AM   #27
terry j is offline terry j  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by soren5 View Post
No, of course not. I believe that's why many of you in the DIY speaker community advice beginners to start with a proven design.
For sure, all the measuring and confirmation has already been done.



Quote:
Because there are experienced people out there who knows what and how to measure and simulate, and based on this can design a crossover that integrates instead of ruins an otherwise good driver combo. I get what you're all saying. And now I realize that active XO apparently isn't the best option for newbies since it doesn't allow for building most of the proven designs out there.
I am not sure I am quite saying that. All I was saying is that as you are trying to DUPLICATE an existing passive with an active where there is nothing to translate it for you (the whole point of your thread) then it does devolve to (hopefully) intelligent guesswork, at least initially.

To CONFIRM that you have duplicated the passive actively, then you need a means to do that. Measurement.

I was most certainly NOT saying active is not an option for newbies. If you are going active, then 'forget the passive' and just start active. You can bypass all these transference problems, forget also having to learn the arcane art of passive design (I could not design a passive network if my daughters life depended on it) and just cut to the chase.

Yes, you will have to learn some programs (and why not rew), and just buy the same drivers (if that is what your heart is set upon) and start a new build thread. Get the help that way.

Quote:
It would be nice though if designers started to include an "active filter suggestion" in their XO designs in the shape of e.g. a biquad filter. Class-D amps with integrated DSP are becoming more and more popular, and I think we'll only see more active XOs in the future of DIY speaker building.

BTW I do have a measurement microphone, but so far I've only used it for (sub)woofer room-EQ. I guess it's time to get learning
I'd imagine it would be a rare thing for many to do what you have proposed. Most would either build the published design or build an active. Yours would be unique I'd suspect. In other words, very little call for them to do what you have proposed. You have extrapolated your unique desire into a general thing! No, I suspect the truth is just that, yours is a unique request.

Yep, you can never lose from learning!
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st February 2013, 07:19 AM   #28
AllenB is offline AllenB  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post
the arcane art of passive design
Geez Terry, it's not that bad

OK, the load is not a resistance like with a conventional active filter. It's an impedance, and this can be a lot to wrap ones head around but all other aspects of a crossover design are the same. Although an active filter can be like a computer in a way...easy to make big mistakes at a fast rate
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st February 2013, 08:02 AM   #29
terry j is offline terry j  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
ha!

maybe you can teach me when you turn up at the next gtg...that will be me in the corner, nodding off with a confused look on his face.

Anyway, my point, if there was one, is that if you are getting into building your own speakers, either you learn how to do it passively (if you will end up passive) or learn to do it actively (if the final product will be active).

I can go thru the motions actively, passively-forget it. None of this is saying one approach is better than the other, simply that which ever way you go you gotta learn it.

See you in oct allen??
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st February 2013, 09:32 AM   #30
soren5 is offline soren5  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenB
Perhaps you should build the speaker with the passive crossover? You don't have much to lose by doing it this way.
Yes, I think this is what I'll do. Start with a proven passive design and then see if I can make it as good, or even better, with an active XO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j
All I was saying is that as you are trying to DUPLICATE an existing passive with an active where there is nothing to translate it for you (the whole point of your thread) then it does devolve to (hopefully) intelligent guesswork, at least initially. [] If you are going active, then 'forget the passive' and just start active.
My initial question in this thread has been answered. Active and passive XO designs work differently and each have their own advantages and drawbacks, I see that now. So duplicating a passive design with an active doesn't make much sense I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j
Most would either build the published design or build an active.
But shouldn't we begin to see more active proven designs then? I mean, there will always be DIY'ers out there with superior measurement equipment and XO designer skills, who will make great filter designs, passive or active. And if more people in the DIY speaker community are going active, then active proven designs should start to show up, no? (Maybe they already are and I just haven't noticed )

I will for sure experiment with some bookshelf TM and definitely try the active route. I'll probably start a new thread when that time comes. Perhaps this can be the beginning of a "proven" active XO design
  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
DAC output filter...passive or active? soundnovice miniDSP 4 14th June 2012 10:05 AM
active filter from rod elliot and sub filter questions wuffer Parts 0 2nd October 2005 01:12 PM
dB loss by using passive crossovers? Active vs Passive and 1st vs 4th order Hybrid fourdoor Multi-Way 3 11th July 2004 09:16 PM
passive filter for sub moi Multi-Way 34 28th July 2003 02:12 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30 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