What Xover order is better? - 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 20th March 2006, 01:44 AM   #1
caenot is offline caenot  Brazil
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: São Paulo
Default What Xover order is better?

I have seen a lot of people suggesting 4th order L-R for Xover. While I don't have an issue with this suggestion, I found that the number of Xover parts gets quite large if you use 4th order --> and if you translate this to Mundorf, Hovland or Crescendo, you are getting a huge bill.

Who is using 2nd order Xovers? Any good results? I have seen some commercial products, but not so sure about Xover order.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2006, 03:47 AM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
sdclc126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
I'm not sure you should just be asking for a comparison between one crossover design and another, without including what kind of speaker you want to build. Crossover topology is dictated by speaker drivers, enclosure, design goals etc.

Also, it would be good to tell those in the know here if you have any loudspeaker measuring equipment/software and/or crossover design software.
__________________
Soft Dome
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2006, 07:20 AM   #3
lndm is offline lndm  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: nsw
My personal choice is the first order slope. It is the only naturally transient perfect response, but there is a transient perfect second order scheme out there, it requires a little EQ.

The slope is of course a combo of the drivers natural slope and the crossover. The crossover will probably look like a first order on paper but may be completely different. First order is demanding of the drivers. It works for me though.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2006, 07:56 AM   #4
AndrewT is offline AndrewT  Scotland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scottish Borders
Hi indm,
I thought that single pole (first order) filters were automatically Butterworth.

If this is the case then these do not have excellent transient ability. Although second only to Bessel.

I think you need Bessel to achieve that excellence.

I'm guessing here, but I think you cannot achiveve Bessel with a single pole filter.
__________________
regards Andrew T.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2006, 08:08 AM   #5
lndm is offline lndm  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: nsw
I agree Andrew, you can't achieve bessel with a single pole - in theory. I stretch it in practice. With the text book first order, the drivers are down 3dB at the crossover point. I often design a crossover by simulating the tweeter with a capacitor dominating the crossover region, and working the mid/woofer to match phase, and 6dB down points.

I don't think this is standard, but I like it.

P.S., isn't as easy as it sounds
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2006, 08:29 AM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: SIUE, Illinois, USA
it doens't make too much sense to call 1st order filters by butterworth/bessel/ect... its just not that complex.

filters like bessel and butterworth are actually defined fairly generically mathmatically. its up to the designer to chose what "cutoff" is. for some apps you might choose -3dB, for others -1dB or -10dB.

1st order is great if you can get away with it. but speaker locations and other issues with the speakers themselves always seem to pop up.
__________________
if only it could be used for good, not evil...
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2006, 10:36 AM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Switzerland
1st order is indeed the only "natural" crossover that is transient-perfect per se. But in practice you will end up with a 3rd order (at least !) electro-acoustical transfer function. There are higher-order symmetrical and asymmetrical crossovers possible which are transient perfect - but they have to be active and they have some disadvantages like large overlap, humps (though summing flat) and transitions that are even flatter than those of 1st order crossovers.

If you want the lowest THD, IMD and the least lobing for given drivers you are better off with higher-order crossovers. But they are a no-no if you want transient perfect response. Now you'd have to pick your poison !

Regards

Charles
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2006, 12:33 PM   #8
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Default Re: What Xover order is better?

Quote:
Originally posted by caenot
I have seen a lot of people suggesting 4th order L-R for Xover. While I don't have an issue with this suggestion, I found that the number of Xover parts gets quite large if you use 4th order --> and if you translate this to Mundorf, Hovland or Crescendo, you are getting a huge bill.
Who is using 2nd order Xovers? Any good results? I have seen some commercial products, but not so sure about Xover order.
Hi,

Acoustic 4th order L-R crossovers do not always use as many parts as you think.

e.g. http://www.zaphaudio.com/audio-speaker17.html

/sreten.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2006, 12:35 PM   #9
rabbitz is offline rabbitz  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
rabbitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Newcastle, Australia
I have noticed that B&W have gone for 1st order on the tweeter to mid and tweeter to midwoofer on their 800 series. The development paper makes an interesting read.
__________________
No longer DIY active
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2006, 12:45 PM   #10
diyAudio Moderator
 
pinkmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chatham, England
There is no best order for crossovers, just like there is no best amplifier or loudspeaker driver. They all have limitations, and you need to understand how and what they do to be able to choose the appropriate one for your use.
__________________
Rick: Oh Cliff / Sometimes it must be difficult not to feel as if / You really are a cliff / when fascists keep trying to push you over it! / Are they the lemmings / Or are you, Cliff? / Or are you Cliff?
  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
1st order Passive Line Level Crossover + 2nd order Highpass? alexclaber Multi-Way 11 4th January 2008 08:15 PM
2nd order LR series xover formulae PeteMcK Multi-Way 30 9th June 2007 08:27 AM
!st order series xover between 5"FR and woofer?? johnmark Full Range 1 2nd May 2005 01:40 AM
does lower order xover have any advantages? andy2 Multi-Way 3 20th November 2004 04:57 PM
2nd Order Xover question johninCR Multi-Way 7 10th August 2004 09:15 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:51 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