Grant, It looks like you have been busy at the research........I checked out the link you posted, and it looks interesting, I will have to study it further........Are you gonna try to implement it?The Speaker Workshop learning curve is certainly daunting, however, seems you are progressing. I saw the rabbitz post about the TDFC and from what I have read Zaph say about it runs along the same lines as far as its' durability.......Part of the reason, I think, is due to its' Ferrofluid, plus it's probably simply a well made tweeter. I chose 12dB for a few reasons,some of which I may be wrong, however, here goes: With its ferrofluid, it is already being "slowed down" in its' transient response a bit. Perhaps a 6dB rolloff may slow it down a bit more in terms of transients, thereby increasing "ringing" and sibilance? Also, at times I do play my music loud, though the tweeter does get a smaller portion of the total amplifier power, 75% goes to the woofer..............With the woofer 12dB is definately the way to go, for me, as I believe it will tame the 92dB SPL a little bit more, helping to bring it closer in line with the CA15RLY which already is lower in SPL, Again this is only supposition.............The CA may benefit from a 6dB rolloff, however, creating a bit of overlap in the midrange...........The FRD, ZMA file concept of modelling is definately a new light, compared to my original way of designing a crossover, and I have been studying it intensely. Bit by bit I am beginning to see its' value and will continue down that path. Bagbys' crossover designer5.1 makes use of these files and the FRD consortium information and tools look simpler to use, the more I study them. I have downloaded the programs and hopefully will proceed accordingly....................For Sreten, I have a question or two which may seem premature to ask at this time, however I am going to inquire anyways........ With the FRD consortium tools, once the FRD and ZMA files are processed, using those tools, then imported into a crossover similator, will adding a Zobel into the mix alter response results? It seems to me the addition of the Zobel would. Or is it inserted AFTER crossover is similated or during the design phase of the crossover?..........How are crossover component values determined in order to insert into the model?....................Grant, I look forward to sharing and comparing results as we move through our designs. That's what this forum is all about. I very much enjoy our communication.........Respectfully........Omni...............Where's TINITUS ........ I miss reading your thoughts...............
Hi Omni, many thanks for your comments.
My reason for liking the idea of a 6db/O network for each driver (if at all possible) is the low parts cost. A 'full' LR2 xo with quality air-core inductors would probably cost more than tweeters and mids combined. So I have to make compromises. Use iron-cored where necessary and suffer any distortion. Also, I was not aware of the 'slowing down' factor you mentioned, thanks for that. It would be interesting to find out how significant it is.
I guess I could try the 6dB option initially using limited volume and upgrade the xo later when funds become available. Probably the 6dB option won't be acceptable, but I don't know till I try it.
Re: audiotester. It looks good but after scanning the 'doco' it may be limited to 30 days. So, I don't think I'll pursue it.
I still haven't progressed much with SW and 'consortium' tools ( I'm trying to get my elderly mum into aged care). I'm interested in the frd/zma concept and believe they need to be renamed to .txt?
in some circumstances, but I still haven't got that far yet. Re: enjoying communication - *ditto*
thanks Omni, grant
My reason for liking the idea of a 6db/O network for each driver (if at all possible) is the low parts cost. A 'full' LR2 xo with quality air-core inductors would probably cost more than tweeters and mids combined. So I have to make compromises. Use iron-cored where necessary and suffer any distortion. Also, I was not aware of the 'slowing down' factor you mentioned, thanks for that. It would be interesting to find out how significant it is.
I guess I could try the 6dB option initially using limited volume and upgrade the xo later when funds become available. Probably the 6dB option won't be acceptable, but I don't know till I try it.
Re: audiotester. It looks good but after scanning the 'doco' it may be limited to 30 days. So, I don't think I'll pursue it.
I still haven't progressed much with SW and 'consortium' tools ( I'm trying to get my elderly mum into aged care). I'm interested in the frd/zma concept and believe they need to be renamed to .txt?
in some circumstances, but I still haven't got that far yet. Re: enjoying communication - *ditto*
thanks Omni, grant
Hi,
A crossover simulator based on SPICE will use the zma files only.
It will give you the electrical levels at the driver terminals.
A more advanced simulator will also use the frd files, if these are
measured in the final boxes at a a reasonable distance you should
get a fairly accurate response.
for the given 3-ways I'd recommend a series 1st order c/o bass/mid,
this frequency chosen to give accurate baffle step compensation.
(Depending on the box baffle this may not be possible, you may
need to go 2nd order on the bass unit to shape its response
correctly, but this will not be a "textbook" alignment.)
Generally you don't need to Zobel the bass unit for a 1st order series.
The mid / treble is harder to say without playing with it.
Possibly 1st order series also or 2nd order parallel.
An exercise in Basta :
Model the mid unit in a small box with various settings of an L-pad attenuator.
Try the same with various values of series capacitors.
This is the same as a 1st order parallel c/o.
🙂/sreten.
A crossover simulator based on SPICE will use the zma files only.
It will give you the electrical levels at the driver terminals.
A more advanced simulator will also use the frd files, if these are
measured in the final boxes at a a reasonable distance you should
get a fairly accurate response.
for the given 3-ways I'd recommend a series 1st order c/o bass/mid,
this frequency chosen to give accurate baffle step compensation.
(Depending on the box baffle this may not be possible, you may
need to go 2nd order on the bass unit to shape its response
correctly, but this will not be a "textbook" alignment.)
Generally you don't need to Zobel the bass unit for a 1st order series.
The mid / treble is harder to say without playing with it.
Possibly 1st order series also or 2nd order parallel.
An exercise in Basta :
Model the mid unit in a small box with various settings of an L-pad attenuator.
Try the same with various values of series capacitors.
This is the same as a 1st order parallel c/o.
🙂/sreten.
Hi Omni,
I've just been trying to get the frd file (by editing .txt values) from my woofer's 20year old spec-sheet graph, which is all I have to go by. And the result looks reasonably close for a first attempt, but a little 'peaky', by 1dB maybe.
(I gave up on SPLTrace - too hard!) Its nice to 'play' with this after driving 200+k's every day to see mum.
So, it looks like I'll have all the frd/zma files. Now for some serious SW study, time permitting of course. I just thought you might be interested, so here is the graph (attached)....
Are you at the xo design stage yet? Hope your enclosures look great! ...best wishes, grant
I've just been trying to get the frd file (by editing .txt values) from my woofer's 20year old spec-sheet graph, which is all I have to go by. And the result looks reasonably close for a first attempt, but a little 'peaky', by 1dB maybe.
(I gave up on SPLTrace - too hard!) Its nice to 'play' with this after driving 200+k's every day to see mum.
So, it looks like I'll have all the frd/zma files. Now for some serious SW study, time permitting of course. I just thought you might be interested, so here is the graph (attached)....
Are you at the xo design stage yet? Hope your enclosures look great! ...best wishes, grant
Attachments
Hi Sreten, many thanks. Please excuse my ignorance.....
From what you said, (correct me if I misunderstood) series and parallel can be combined for different drivers? Have I read you correctly here? If yes, this is another revelation for me!
You know that I'm 'out-of-my-depth' on a lot of things, but, hey, I have to learn somehow. And thanks!
I had at one stage read Tony Gee and Argos (Andy Graddon, I think) and others, re series, but I didn't get to comprehending the 'zeta' factor'! May now have to re-visit it.
I have no idea what a series 1st order bass/mid combined with a parallel 2nd order mid/tweet circuit would look like? Way beyond cookbook stuff! Also, unfortunately my Basta has expired. grant
From what you said, (correct me if I misunderstood) series and parallel can be combined for different drivers? Have I read you correctly here? If yes, this is another revelation for me!
You know that I'm 'out-of-my-depth' on a lot of things, but, hey, I have to learn somehow. And thanks!
I had at one stage read Tony Gee and Argos (Andy Graddon, I think) and others, re series, but I didn't get to comprehending the 'zeta' factor'! May now have to re-visit it.
I have no idea what a series 1st order bass/mid combined with a parallel 2nd order mid/tweet circuit would look like? Way beyond cookbook stuff! Also, unfortunately my Basta has expired. grant
grantnsw said:
Hi,
The response appears to measured in a box so that graph includes
the baffle step response of the box, accounting for 6dB of the rise
between 100Hz and 1kHz.
🙂/sreten.
grantnsw said:
Hi,
Imagine a 2-way speaker box with 2nd order parallel crossed
over to a subwoofer that wired as a series 1st order crossover.
🙂/sreten.
Sreten, I read your 'bio' that you are an Elect. Engineer.
I also did 4 years of that in the early 70's! but thats ancient stuff now, besides, long forgotten eg: FFT, Kirchoff etc.. also got ham licence then VK2...(still current) Went on to other things....
So, I respect/acknowledge your advice! , grant.. and many thanks!
I also did 4 years of that in the early 70's! but thats ancient stuff now, besides, long forgotten eg: FFT, Kirchoff etc.. also got ham licence then VK2...(still current) Went on to other things....
So, I respect/acknowledge your advice! , grant.. and many thanks!
Grant, greetings from the US at 1:45 am ! I just got done making traces of my Peerless Woofer zma and frd in the trace program and don't know if I did it right but I guess I will find out. I have downloaded the CA and 27TDFC zma and frd files and am getting ready to put them into processing...............Sreten, Have you ever used TRACE? If so, here are a few questions: on settings for registering amplitudes and frequency values, how and where do you choose to set these? For the woofer I used the freqencies of 20Hz and 500Hz, but I am not sure this is right. For the amplitudes I am not certain I did it right. I set them just above and below the highest and lowest points of the plotted curve that was on the grid of the charts from manufacturer. Is this right?......................Grant....My cabinets are coming along SLOWLY........I am having trouble getting the baffle painted the way I want it. I am using a paint that reticulates and am having trouble getting the pattern consistent...........Being the graphic artist that I am, I still have not been able to totally "let go" of my perfectionism...............I will be attempting another spray today. Part of the delay has to do with allowing drying time between coats..............it's costing me days, then I will be ready for the clear coats.............HOPEFULLY...........then mount the baffle, finish sealing it up, put my damping material in, and finish installing the backs, then install the drivers ready for the crossovers. In the meantime, I will be playing with Unibox, FRD Baffle diffraction simulator, FRD Combiner to process these files, then off to SpeakerWorkshop AND Bagbys Crossover simulator/Designer programs..............Grant..........if you haven't checked it out yet, check out Bagbys Crossover Designer 5.1. To me, it looks a bit more user friendly than SW. Also, it has graphs which show responses, and allows for modelling by changing components for tweaking. I'll have more input on this in the next few days, after I have played with these tools...........Sreten,, Please stay in touch..........you never know when I may need you to help me land the plane......................Respectfully.............Omni
Hi Omni,
I saw a link at the end of the SW tutorial to another tutorial by 'JK Andreasen' which briefly covered setting up SPLTrace. But I'm not sure if it covers amplitude/frequency setup in sufficient detail.
Re: slow progress on cabinets. I'm sure your 'perfectionism' will be very worthwhile when they're done!
I just re-read the FRD Combiner pre-amble again, and it still went way over my head. Is it necessary for me to use this, I wonder, given its complexity and my P25 untested frd/zma's? (which are slowly becoming reasonably close to makers specs - for what thats worth!).
I have d/l'd the Bagby designer and manual, now just have to find someone who has Excel.
Hi Sreten,
You are indeed correct, I just noticed the small print on the P25 FR graph: "Box 50 Litres"
I saw a link at the end of the SW tutorial to another tutorial by 'JK Andreasen' which briefly covered setting up SPLTrace. But I'm not sure if it covers amplitude/frequency setup in sufficient detail.
Re: slow progress on cabinets. I'm sure your 'perfectionism' will be very worthwhile when they're done!
I just re-read the FRD Combiner pre-amble again, and it still went way over my head. Is it necessary for me to use this, I wonder, given its complexity and my P25 untested frd/zma's? (which are slowly becoming reasonably close to makers specs - for what thats worth!).
I have d/l'd the Bagby designer and manual, now just have to find someone who has Excel.
Hi Sreten,
You are indeed correct, I just noticed the small print on the P25 FR graph: "Box 50 Litres"
G'day Omni!
I think I had a bit of luck with SW today. After a little playing in menus and trying different things, it doesn't seem to be so daunting after all (c.f. Photoshop)! I even got my very first attempt at a simulated 1st order response (attached). Briefly, what I did:
* setup 2 Litre closed box for CA15, defined the CA, and input Zaph's driver parameters,
* setup vented box for P25 with round port and input Vifa's parameters,
* imported Calypso frd and zma's for CA15 & TDFC (many thanks to the author!),
* imported my own 'eyeball' frd/zma files for P25 (which now look very close to spec sheet),
* associated each driver with its respective files in the Properties - Data Tab,
* setup each drivers network individually (using initially Vance D. values) and calculated response,
* used the big 'red + button' to combine graphs and get a 'ballpark' result.
Result: I didn't like the graph much using Cookbook values, so modified all component values, some quite a lot. Eventually attenuated tweeter 8dB and mid 3dB. Maybe I should have attenuated first? That may have been a better idea? Also, I used 'on-axis', but I think 45deg off-axis would be better, especially for the mid. Not sure how to include baffle-step. I assume it can be done in SW?
(BTW, its interesting to see how changing component values together with attenuation affects response).
As a very first attemp, for a full 1st Order it may (or may not) look feasible? I'm not sure. So I really don't know whether or not its worth trying yet. But the result does look a little encouraging? Unfortunately, I haven't worked out how to get a summed response just yet. So the graph could very well be, err, trash.
The 27TDFC seems to be almost 30dB down at resonance 550Hz - so it might be OK 'power-wise'?
I need to read the doco more fully as I didn't know what to input for Box Leakage and Box Damping Q's? Also Port Q for P25 - no idea!. For the Drivers Tab: Inductance L1? (I just used Le) and Series Resistance R1? ( I just used Re). Could be why the CA has a peak near resonance? I'm sure SW will become very intuitive - when I better get the hang of it. Omni, I know you're trying a lot of different simulators at the moment - I don't know how you do it! Lol. I get 'brain-fragged' on one package! But FRDCombiner? Whoa!
Thats seriously complex stuff.
Ooops, I'm raving on again. Hope I haven't bored you senseless! Hope your paint finally dries!
Hi Sreten, hope you're still here! best regards to you both, grant
I think I had a bit of luck with SW today. After a little playing in menus and trying different things, it doesn't seem to be so daunting after all (c.f. Photoshop)! I even got my very first attempt at a simulated 1st order response (attached). Briefly, what I did:
* setup 2 Litre closed box for CA15, defined the CA, and input Zaph's driver parameters,
* setup vented box for P25 with round port and input Vifa's parameters,
* imported Calypso frd and zma's for CA15 & TDFC (many thanks to the author!),
* imported my own 'eyeball' frd/zma files for P25 (which now look very close to spec sheet),
* associated each driver with its respective files in the Properties - Data Tab,
* setup each drivers network individually (using initially Vance D. values) and calculated response,
* used the big 'red + button' to combine graphs and get a 'ballpark' result.
Result: I didn't like the graph much using Cookbook values, so modified all component values, some quite a lot. Eventually attenuated tweeter 8dB and mid 3dB. Maybe I should have attenuated first? That may have been a better idea? Also, I used 'on-axis', but I think 45deg off-axis would be better, especially for the mid. Not sure how to include baffle-step. I assume it can be done in SW?
(BTW, its interesting to see how changing component values together with attenuation affects response).
As a very first attemp, for a full 1st Order it may (or may not) look feasible? I'm not sure. So I really don't know whether or not its worth trying yet. But the result does look a little encouraging? Unfortunately, I haven't worked out how to get a summed response just yet. So the graph could very well be, err, trash.
The 27TDFC seems to be almost 30dB down at resonance 550Hz - so it might be OK 'power-wise'?
I need to read the doco more fully as I didn't know what to input for Box Leakage and Box Damping Q's? Also Port Q for P25 - no idea!. For the Drivers Tab: Inductance L1? (I just used Le) and Series Resistance R1? ( I just used Re). Could be why the CA has a peak near resonance? I'm sure SW will become very intuitive - when I better get the hang of it. Omni, I know you're trying a lot of different simulators at the moment - I don't know how you do it! Lol. I get 'brain-fragged' on one package! But FRDCombiner? Whoa!
Thats seriously complex stuff.
Ooops, I'm raving on again. Hope I haven't bored you senseless! Hope your paint finally dries!
Hi Sreten, hope you're still here! best regards to you both, grant
Hi Sreten,
If you have any comments on that last 'un-summed' graph, I would
really very much appreciate it, thanks. The component values are, in some cases very different to V. Dickason. I'm just wondering if this is feasible? (values need adjusting?) As of now, I don't have enough knowledge to pursue your recommendation for the series woofer.
But am reading the links....Many thanks , grant
If you have any comments on that last 'un-summed' graph, I would
really very much appreciate it, thanks. The component values are, in some cases very different to V. Dickason. I'm just wondering if this is feasible? (values need adjusting?) As of now, I don't have enough knowledge to pursue your recommendation for the series woofer.
But am reading the links....Many thanks , grant
Grant,it looks like you are making some headway............This is a totally different approach than plugging into formulas, and it certainly constitutes a leap of faith..................As of now, I have been going down the path of the FRD consortium,downloading the recommended programs and attempting to follow them step by step in the 7 page tutorial. Right now I have the Woofer FRD and ZMA files processed in Unibox, and have started experimenting in Baffle Diffraction Simulator, but run into a few snags there. I will also need to process the CA in Unibox, then all 3 drivers in BDS,..............then all 3 drivers in the Frequency Combiner program, before I get them into crossover simulation..........Tedious, time consuming, and filled with uncertainty.................I did another spray on the baffles yesterday.............no dice................gotta sand down 1 more time, however, I think I got the problem solved for my next attempt.........It's difficult to get a lot of uninterupted time to do this computor stuff, so my progress is only coming about at a snails pace..................I hope your mum is doing well, as I understand the time committment you need to spend with her. Recently my dad passed, and I had the opportunity to spend a great deal of time with him before, and it was worth it. Sometimes we only realize this in retrospect...................Keep in touch..................Regards...............Omni...........
Hi,
IMO plugging numbers numbers into cook book formula's is a leap of
faith. But as said something that churns out graphs you don't really
understand also seems to be a leap of faith. all I can say is you keep
doing it until you get some consistency and understand whats going
on.
All I can say is cross checking with other designs should build
confidence with each tool and help with what each tool means.
I'll note that as a far as I know G. does not have a zma or frd file
of the bass/mid unit in its enclosure (the calypso is in a large vented
box) so proceed with caution interpreting the results. There should
be no reason to attenuate the mid - and this will increase Qtc of the
mid in its enclosure. 5dB on the tweeter sounds right for 86dB/W/m.
would I trust c/o values a Sim told me if they are diifrent to cookbook
values ? after cross checking yes I would, cookbooks are simply wrong.
🙂/sreten.
IMO plugging numbers numbers into cook book formula's is a leap of
faith. But as said something that churns out graphs you don't really
understand also seems to be a leap of faith. all I can say is you keep
doing it until you get some consistency and understand whats going
on.
All I can say is cross checking with other designs should build
confidence with each tool and help with what each tool means.
I'll note that as a far as I know G. does not have a zma or frd file
of the bass/mid unit in its enclosure (the calypso is in a large vented
box) so proceed with caution interpreting the results. There should
be no reason to attenuate the mid - and this will increase Qtc of the
mid in its enclosure. 5dB on the tweeter sounds right for 86dB/W/m.
would I trust c/o values a Sim told me if they are diifrent to cookbook
values ? after cross checking yes I would, cookbooks are simply wrong.
🙂/sreten.
Sreten: I loved your latest post, and in my latest experience, I believe what you say is correct. I have been working diligently on the FRD Consortium tools and am about half way finished.........in the baffle diffraction program now...............I did however, just for the fun of it, import some frd and zma files into Bagbys' 5.1 to get a little experience simulating some stuff............Although the files are not completely processed through FRCombiner, I wanted to get a feel for the crossover simulation. Though the results are probably not as accurate as I hope them to be after completely processing these files I did start to get an idea of how to proceed...................Neat stuff !....................One confirmation that I did achieve from viewing some of the resultant graphs was that it appears that my processing of the Peerless SLS woofer seems to be correct.............So maybe I did it right in the Trace program...........Grant: The experimenting I did in Bagbys' 5.1 has a learning curve, and it required a great deal of point and click, and I am sure that with enough tenacity, it is doable............However............I read the Speaker Workshop tutorial on crossover simulation in that program, and it seems like it may be a bit simpler than Bagbys' program. I am gonna continue to check that out as I proceed. So Sreten, you mention cross checking. That's exactly what seems to be happening here...........I will keep you posted......................Grant: hey man, If you want, I would be delighted to Trace your woofer for you to create some FRD and ZMA files..............You would need to make your graphs available and I could e mail you the files.................Just a thought.....................Respectfully..........Omni................Grant, I just reread your post about the various programs, and they do seem a bit daunting. They are at first, but what I have found is it gets alot easier to understand that the main issue boils down to understanding that it's basically an exercise in file naming and organization...................Once I realized this, it seemed to become less overwhelming............however, I am sure I will still run into some roadblocks along the way, but as Sreten mentioned, I am becoming a bit more confident as I go along.............Omni......... again 😉
Hi Omni,
Many thanks for your update. You are being much more systematic and methodical than me. I'm doing my 'design' "on a wing and a prayer"! Some big assumptions, lack of knowledge and a large dash of guesswork. But I find this absorbing, and its a delight when some pieces of the puzzle fit together.
Some very casual observations on SW:
the apply button doesn't seem to work,
if individual xo's for each driver are used - the combine command gives spurious results,
the network optimizer seems to have some drawbacks in some cases, and
I don't know how to get the L1 & R1 values.
Otherwise it seems brilliant and there are several links to more good tutorials in the SW doco.
BTW, I ended up with a 1st order xo which was +-1.5dB from 200 to ~16kHz on the chart, but the response below 200 was only marginally better than the Calypso! So hardly worth the effort! But that of course assumes I have done everything correctly, lol.
Yes, like you, my time is now very limited. Very sorry to hear about your dad, but glad you could spend the time. I'm trying to do the same with mum. best regards , grant
Many thanks for your update. You are being much more systematic and methodical than me. I'm doing my 'design' "on a wing and a prayer"! Some big assumptions, lack of knowledge and a large dash of guesswork. But I find this absorbing, and its a delight when some pieces of the puzzle fit together.
Some very casual observations on SW:
the apply button doesn't seem to work,
if individual xo's for each driver are used - the combine command gives spurious results,
the network optimizer seems to have some drawbacks in some cases, and
I don't know how to get the L1 & R1 values.
Otherwise it seems brilliant and there are several links to more good tutorials in the SW doco.
BTW, I ended up with a 1st order xo which was +-1.5dB from 200 to ~16kHz on the chart, but the response below 200 was only marginally better than the Calypso! So hardly worth the effort! But that of course assumes I have done everything correctly, lol.
Yes, like you, my time is now very limited. Very sorry to hear about your dad, but glad you could spend the time. I'm trying to do the same with mum. best regards , grant
Hi Sreten, thank you for your comments. Only if you're not too busy ---->
Yes, I'm trying to get a 'handle' on things by experimentation. When I get a little more time, I'll try modelling one of Zaph's 2ways in SW. Doing that might clarify a few things for me?
Re: the P25 & CA frd/zma's in my specific boxes. Your'e right - I don't. So for this reason alone, my project is probably pointless. The Calypso data was measured in an 11 Litre vented box, Zaphs CA test was on an infinite baffle, and Seas was in a 20 Litre closed box. (The P25 Vifa data was measured in a closed 50 Litre box).
This is the only info I have to go by, unfortunately. I was under the misguided assumption that the FR at 300Hz xo (and upwards) would not be significantly affected by the different Qb/Qtc's resulting from the above measurements. But I am probably very wrong! I will have a look at the CA responses above, and try to figure it out. Impedance is another issue. I also assume, baffle step has inherently been included in all the above measurements.
Yes, it seems pretty senseless to attenuate the mid.
Re: Leap of faith: assuming cookbook values are wrong, and I would like to try a full LR2 (Q=0.49), is there any preferred way to arrive at component values other than trial and error?
(I'm still learning the SW network optimizer).
Can I assume the cookbook formula for Q derived from L,C and Z is correct? This would give me good start if I had either L or C. I apologise for so many very specific questions!
best wishes, grant
Yes, I'm trying to get a 'handle' on things by experimentation. When I get a little more time, I'll try modelling one of Zaph's 2ways in SW. Doing that might clarify a few things for me?
Re: the P25 & CA frd/zma's in my specific boxes. Your'e right - I don't. So for this reason alone, my project is probably pointless. The Calypso data was measured in an 11 Litre vented box, Zaphs CA test was on an infinite baffle, and Seas was in a 20 Litre closed box. (The P25 Vifa data was measured in a closed 50 Litre box).
This is the only info I have to go by, unfortunately. I was under the misguided assumption that the FR at 300Hz xo (and upwards) would not be significantly affected by the different Qb/Qtc's resulting from the above measurements. But I am probably very wrong! I will have a look at the CA responses above, and try to figure it out. Impedance is another issue. I also assume, baffle step has inherently been included in all the above measurements.
Yes, it seems pretty senseless to attenuate the mid.
Re: Leap of faith: assuming cookbook values are wrong, and I would like to try a full LR2 (Q=0.49), is there any preferred way to arrive at component values other than trial and error?
(I'm still learning the SW network optimizer).
Can I assume the cookbook formula for Q derived from L,C and Z is correct? This would give me good start if I had either L or C. I apologise for so many very specific questions!
best wishes, grant
- Status
- Not open for further replies.