Steve, that is why the transfer function of my active crossover from woofers to MTM's looks like the attached (actual measurement of the crossover). It looks odd, but when applied to the drivers results in a 4th order bessel acoustic slope.
Not expensive just tricky
designed passively using the usual tools and implemented actively. Every time I see someone espousing the virtues of active vs passive, but completely ignoring how that LR2 or LR4 canned slope they are applying to the speakers actually interacts with the driver, I have a little bit of a chuckle Tony.
Attachments
My shade tree 2p... (hey it rhymes)
Some of the concerns with 2 way systems are providing adequate bass and managing beaming and breakup issues with the larger cones that producing bass typically requires.
A 3 way will add complexity in crossing between drivers but should allow a freer choice of drivers, drivers size and cone materials with greater space to work the crossover points and slopes.
For an extra ST2p, if watching movies and needing very deep bass, add a large subwoofer and high pass the 3 way. Making a 3.1.
J.
Some of the concerns with 2 way systems are providing adequate bass and managing beaming and breakup issues with the larger cones that producing bass typically requires.
A 3 way will add complexity in crossing between drivers but should allow a freer choice of drivers, drivers size and cone materials with greater space to work the crossover points and slopes.
For an extra ST2p, if watching movies and needing very deep bass, add a large subwoofer and high pass the 3 way. Making a 3.1.
J.
It is hard to get good vocal when cheap op-amps are used. The steeper the slope (e.g. moving to 24dB) the more op-amps you put in series, the worse the situation becomes.
Actually only cheap active systems will use quad op-amps. Every op-amps perform differently in different job, hence it is better to have different op-amp for different jobs, and not using a quad op-amp, where 4 identical op-amps are doing probably 4 different jobs.
One option to improve the vocal is probably replacing the quad with something better, especially those with "better" midrange. What is your op-amp BTW, TL074? Better quads are LF347, MC33079, OPA404, OPA4134...
I see it the way Coytee does, if I'm able to paraphrase him correctly next....
....one fullrange point source driver with the desired acoustic output across the whole spectrum, is the theoretical ideal.
But real drivers have limited freq response and acoustic output. (did I get all that right ?) ......
And to add, invariably the higher the acoustic output, the more limited the freq range of a driver.
So, if we want loud across the spectrum, we have to start thinking multi-way, with increasing number of driver sections for increasing SPL...
Then, with all the SPL we want, we get the trivial tasks of level matching, crossovers, time alignment, pattern control/transition, etc, etc,
....one fullrange point source driver with the desired acoustic output across the whole spectrum, is the theoretical ideal.
But real drivers have limited freq response and acoustic output. (did I get all that right ?) ......
And to add, invariably the higher the acoustic output, the more limited the freq range of a driver.
So, if we want loud across the spectrum, we have to start thinking multi-way, with increasing number of driver sections for increasing SPL...
Then, with all the SPL we want, we get the trivial tasks of level matching, crossovers, time alignment, pattern control/transition, etc, etc,
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.