Weird after crossover frequency estimation - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Design & Build > Software Tools
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Gallery Wiki Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Software Tools SPICE, PCB CAD, speaker design and measurement software, calculators

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
Old 27th December 2012, 04:47 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sofia
Send a message via Skype™ to Mario Pankov
Default Weird after crossover frequency estimation


Farfield measurement, 1m distance from woofer, used JustMLS. Looks fine when into the optimiser ( upper graph ) but once a simple 2nd order electrical crossover is attached, there`s a weird spike at 4.5Khz. Measured with the crossover, the woofer exibits no such spike. What is the reason LSPCad to interpret the posterior response like it is shown? It makes a simple crossover construction a nightmare and can`t get rid of it, what am I doing wrong?
Also, once all steps have been taken ( following the manual ) the Start button for the automatic optimisator does not do anything. Any ideas why?
Click the image to open in full size.

Uploaded with

Last edited by Mario Pankov; 27th December 2012 at 05:04 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2012, 06:26 PM   #2
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member RIP
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Hi, I'd guess a silly number entered as the driver's inductance, rgds, sreten.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2012, 07:52 PM   #3
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sofia
Send a message via Skype™ to Mario Pankov
Hi Sreten,

This is done through LSPCad 6.2, no option to enter T/S there, at least I couldn`t find one As far as I can tell, it only required frequency response/phase + impedance plot. No issues with tweeter simulation.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2013, 08:39 AM   #4
DrBoar is offline DrBoar  Sweden
diyAudio Member
DrBoar's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Stockholm
Is there any kind of smoothing in the graphs? If so there could be a one of numercal value in response or impedance plot that is an order of magnitude larger or smaller than all other. Such an outlier could throw of the calculations without showing up if there is smoothing.

So if you look at the textfile of numerical data how does it look around 4800 Hz?
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd January 2013, 10:36 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sofia
Send a message via Skype™ to Mario Pankov
Went back to using Holm impulse and completed ( almost ) the project already I looked at this and I think it is some crossover high Q peak combined with the frequency bump of the driver which does not happen in reality ( when measured ). No idea why simulated this way, have checked the values multiple times one by one.
  Reply With Quote


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
Weird frequency response measurements. joaoveludo Multi-Way 6 10th August 2012 05:47 AM
combining different speaker wires (weird external crossover problem) Ang Everything Else 2 19th January 2007 08:55 PM
Weird 2 way Crossover ]|[ GorE Multi-Way 12 13th June 2006 05:47 AM
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 03:55 PM.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2017 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2