|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| 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 |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
been playing with designs in Bass Box Pro and Xover Pro (on a side what are peoples opinions of this software?) and have come up with what looks a nice design; BUT. the response has a definitel trough at the crossover point, now if it keep my woofer low passed at 3kHz and drop the high pass of the tweet to 2.4kHz (both 18dB/Oct Butterworth) I now get a response that is nice and flatthrough the crossover frequency but my relative phase response has shifted to about 10-15Degrees apart, is this a major worry? which should I go for, flat frequency and mismatched phase or frequency dip at the Xover point and a nicely matched phase response around the Xover point?
slightly confused at which way I should go? |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Hampshire
|
The way you propose to configure your crossover is precisely how the best crossover designers go about it. If it works it's right. Your ears are sensitive to response, insensitive to phase in moderation. You will get a bit more IM distortion than is desireable, but again that is not as audible as a response dip, especially one in the midrange.
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Stockholm
|
Bill,
why would you get more IM distortion by doing this? Cheers /Magnus
__________________
"Knowing what to do but not why is no use in a changing world" - The Art of Sound Reproduction |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oregon, USA
|
I've played with software simulations where I tried separating the two 3dB points further apart. I never thought about trying to make them overlap, i.e. the lowpass of the upper driver below the highpass of the lower driver. Something new to play with tonight
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Hampshire
|
IM distortion has a number of sources, one of which is having two drivers reproducing the same information; one of the advantages to high order crossovers is a minimizing of IM. This source is far less serious than, say, not isolating the midrange driver in a sub-enclosure from the woofer rear wave, but it is there. In this particular case it's definetely the lesser of two evils.
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Cruz, California
|
Quote:
Most crossovers don't look much like their ideological prototypes once they've been optimised, by the way, since drivers tend to roll off not far from their crossover points; that's why they're being crossed over in the first place! Cheers, Francois. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Stockholm
|
Since the original question has already been answered (i.e. go for flattest response) I would like to discuss the IM issue somewhat.
Bill, I can see potentially lots of IM being generated with a non-insulated mid driver in a sub enclosure. But why would two drivers operated in the same frequency range give rise to IM distortion? Assuming air as a linear medium (valid for these low SPL:s or not?) and the two drivers radiating in free space, well there is going to be spatial comb-filtering effects but why IM? And if so, why would there not be IM if they were operated at different frequency ranges? /Magnus
__________________
"Knowing what to do but not why is no use in a changing world" - The Art of Sound Reproduction |
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Quote:
__________________
"This site gives off very confusing signals, one minute highly technical discussions that leave the truly interested learners wallowing in their own stupidity and the next finds it endlessly repeating old wives tales and cockeyed theories as fact." |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Hampshire
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Stockholm
|
Bill,
are we talking the same type of IM (InterModulation) distortion here? In my world IM distortion can only be the result of a non-linear system. Well, you know the classic two-tone test for an amplifier for example were say 10 kHz + 1 kHz tones will generate sidebands at 9 kHz and 11 kHz. So unless the two drivers are affecting each other (like the mid placed in the sub) linear effects like differencies in phase and amplitude is not going to produce IM products under the assumption that air is a linear medium. If this indeed is the type of distortion you are talking about, could you point me to a reference? /Magnus
__________________
"Knowing what to do but not why is no use in a changing world" - The Art of Sound Reproduction |
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| resonant frequency of water (distilled) and how to make speaker play underwater | Audiophilenoob | Multi-Way | 100 | 20th July 2011 09:15 PM |
| do my frequency response measurements make any sense? | JLC7 | Multi-Way | 481 | 20th August 2008 03:14 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? |
| Page generated in 0.11890 seconds (81.81% PHP - 18.19% MySQL) with 10 queries |