Real response and impedance data is on the PE pages for the mid and woofer, and for the tweeter using SPLtrace to make data from the spec sheet will work just fine. So... use a real speaker simulator.
I'm simulating the crossover not the speakers, I know the specs and impedances just look at the circuit, I want to know if the impedance of the bandpass section can be increased.
Hi,
You can't build passive crossovers separately to not
simulating the complete speaker. Well you can but
they will be wrong, 4th order very wrong.
Your link doesn't point to a circuit.
rgds, sreten.
You can't build passive crossovers separately to not
simulating the complete speaker. Well you can but
they will be wrong, 4th order very wrong.
Your link doesn't point to a circuit.
rgds, sreten.
I must differ in saying a 4th order bass is very right with a soft-dome mid, as it goes. 😀
Celestion did it with the Ditton 66. It's because a soft-dome mid has an unusually steep near 4th order acoustic presence rise which belies the second electrical order mid filter. But I think a second order mid to treble filter works best. Because the dome mid and the dome tweeter are similarly time aligned. So perhaps Celestion should have used second order electrical tweeter in this case.
A three way with a cone mid is a very different animal from a three way with a dome mid. A cone mid often follows the second order Duelund target response. If your midrange impedance is low and bad, you should put some resistance before the mid filter rather than use an attenuator.
Celestion did it with the Ditton 66. It's because a soft-dome mid has an unusually steep near 4th order acoustic presence rise which belies the second electrical order mid filter. But I think a second order mid to treble filter works best. Because the dome mid and the dome tweeter are similarly time aligned. So perhaps Celestion should have used second order electrical tweeter in this case.
A three way with a cone mid is a very different animal from a three way with a dome mid. A cone mid often follows the second order Duelund target response. If your midrange impedance is low and bad, you should put some resistance before the mid filter rather than use an attenuator.
Attachments
Last edited:
Hi lake,
your are mistaken in believing that a certain type of electrical filter steepness
is a prerequisite for high quality sound. It's not, it's the overall integration at
XO points and the response smoothness on and off-axis. Flat baffles require
passive filters be asymmetrical to compensate for the not time aligned units.
your are mistaken in believing that a certain type of electrical filter steepness
is a prerequisite for high quality sound. It's not, it's the overall integration at
XO points and the response smoothness on and off-axis. Flat baffles require
passive filters be asymmetrical to compensate for the not time aligned units.
Your circuit is 4th order electrical (for those that can't see it you need java). If you load frd and zma files into a decent crossover simulation program you will be able to work on getting accoustic slopes not just electrical, you will end up with a simpler crossover, and you can hopefully improve the situation with the low impedance.
PCD or Xsim would be a good start.
Tony.
PCD or Xsim would be a good start.
Tony.
I agree with you in the sense that a task to design a good sounding
speaker with active or passive filters is in essence similarly hard
or for some not so hard, though active digital is way more comfortable
and faster to execute than messing around with passive stuff.
I'd love to tri amp it but that would be ridiculously expensive for 7 channels.
I'll give this passive crossover designer spreadsheet a try, are there RFD and ZMA files for the ND25TA-4 and RS52AN-8 anywhere?
I'll give this passive crossover designer spreadsheet a try, are there RFD and ZMA files for the ND25TA-4 and RS52AN-8 anywhere?
Parts express have downloads for the woofer and the mid on the pages you linked to. but not the tweeter. spltrace, or one of the other tools should handle the tweeter ok. Its a bit more than just the trace (need to extract the phase data too) I can see if I have time to trace it at lunch time.
Tony.
Tony.
Isn't one of the characteristics of an active crossover supposed to be the possibility of programming in "delay"?
Delay can be done passively as well. My point is simply not to dismiss the need to understand what needs to be achieved in a crossover regardless. The arguments for a quicker result may hold water for some, as long as what is learned isn't compromised. For me, the five minutes it takes to solder the components is insignificant compared to the required measurements and calculations.
It's your choice. Again for me the time in dealing with speaker impedance is insignificant compared to the measurements and calculations. The time needed for me to construct an analogue active filter is much greater.
Last edited:
Attached are frd and zma files for the tweeter. traced using splcopy, normalized using splview and min phase extracted using the PhaseExtractor spreadsheet.
That should be ok for loading into PCD.
Aim for a 4th order acoustic slope and you will probably find that you only need 2nd order or 3rd order electrical to achieve it.
Tony.
That should be ok for loading into PCD.
Aim for a 4th order acoustic slope and you will probably find that you only need 2nd order or 3rd order electrical to achieve it.
Tony.
I find this very true for myself too. As long as there is passive parts, that'll be
my preferred method, not to mention avoiding to pyle up electronics to power
it all. I have made a universal 3 way passive XO filter with the possibility
of creating dozens of passive solutions so I don't have to solder each time
I try a new circuit, just use the alligator clips. Any value I might need and don't
have there, I improvise.
Where in the UK does one find suitable and affordable inductors? Places like farnell and digikey dont have them with sufficient current ratings.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.