Oops, I misread your question about conversion. My last post crossed
with Sreten, if I had read his reply first, I wouldn't have put my
'simplistic' reply here. Just trying to be helpful, lol
with Sreten, if I had read his reply first, I wouldn't have put my
'simplistic' reply here. Just trying to be helpful, lol
Hi guys,
I have had bit of knockout and breakdown
I can see theres a lot of reading I have missed, too much actually
But i can see you have been discussing simulation fore quite a while, which is good, but not my thing
Simulation is ok, but it cannot stand alone and you will still need a bit of understanding of crossover principle - which I think you have realized
Also important is to know how changes and variations SOUND
Its not sufficient to look at measurements, but ofcourse it will help a lot
Stick with original schematic - it just need adjustments, and you have the tool for that now!
What surprice me is that you find it difficult and tiresome to work with simulation - maybe I should stick with my ears
🙂'
BTW, I just discouvered HOW important it is with rythmik precission and "drive" - and I am sorry to say that it in some way contradicts with BIG and "spacy" sound - and how to measure that I dont know!
I have had bit of knockout and breakdown
I can see theres a lot of reading I have missed, too much actually
But i can see you have been discussing simulation fore quite a while, which is good, but not my thing
Simulation is ok, but it cannot stand alone and you will still need a bit of understanding of crossover principle - which I think you have realized
Also important is to know how changes and variations SOUND
Its not sufficient to look at measurements, but ofcourse it will help a lot
Stick with original schematic - it just need adjustments, and you have the tool for that now!
What surprice me is that you find it difficult and tiresome to work with simulation - maybe I should stick with my ears
🙂'
BTW, I just discouvered HOW important it is with rythmik precission and "drive" - and I am sorry to say that it in some way contradicts with BIG and "spacy" sound - and how to measure that I dont know!
Tinitus, I am glad to see you back......I have missed you, and hope things are cool for you, yes, much has transpired since your last post and I welcome your presence, as we continue this endeavor..............I think I got the basics down for the Baffle Diffraction Simulator and will be entering final numbers tonite so I can move on the the Frequency Combiner program........My approach will be to get the FRD and ZMA files whittled down to files appropriate for use in crossover simulation. Then run simulations in Speaker Workshop and possibly Bagbys 5.1 crossover designer. I will further post these results here, hopefully for some interpretation, then move on to building a crossover. Since I do not have the resources to breadboard crossovers, hopefully your input along the way as I simulate the crossover will be cool. Once crossover is made, I will probably finetune or tweak by ear. Like you, Tinitus, I will have to rely on my ears here, as I do not have microphones, etc. to do listening tests and reformat my design...............Hopefully, if original sound doesn't suit me, maybe a simple change of a capacitor or coil or both will do the trick..............Sreten..........you are correct about my baffle , it is a trapezoid truncated pyramid}, so obviously your interpretation is valid..............I will keep you posted as this progresses............Grant.................As I progress, I will keep posting. If you still want the combined files......cool, remember, they are created, using my baffle shape and cabinet volumes, which may not be the same as yours, however if you will want to play with them, thats cool. You may be able to find out some things I may overlook, with the fact that you have more experience in Speaker Workshop than I do.............Also, If you find success in this, Maybe I can create some FRD and ZMA files for your particular set up, That is, If things work out and I can do it confidently, without working in the dark.......lol............Respectfully..............Omni
Thanks Omni, I will be here to follow your work, and if possible contribute a bit - it will be interesting
Hi. Very glad to see everyone is still here. Thanks for coming back Tinitus.
Omni,
I unscrewed all the drivers for a check, and found a wiring problem to the mids! Aarrggh! Now all drivers seem ok, just needs a new xo for existing drivers (the D75 dome mids being limited) as a temporary measure until I can get the CA's/27TD(B)FC's. Btw, the 27TBFC may be a better tweeter according to Zaph? (and Roman's frd). Also, I was considering a Seas Alu mid, but the current L12/15 versions breakup mode is still too low. I note (from Zaph) that the L18 new H1224 version breakup is now out to 9kHz, so maybe a new L12 version could even go out to 12kHz? If do-able, an Alu mid would give better transient response for the critical midrange?
My comment about another re-sand was made in a good-natured way, I had no idea it was so involved. I hope all your effort now looks good.
Re: 'breadboarding crossovers': I was just going to lay-out the parts on the floor and connect with jumper leads and tweak as per Tinitus. Also, I realise your files will be inappropriate for any design
I have. It was just a suggestion to facilitate learning SW together. Thanks very much for offering to create files for me, very kind of you Omni. I guess as an interim measure, I'll now be attempting to use all of my existing drivers. Today, I got a very satisfactory SW sim based on 'eyeballed' specs, but I still have a perceived problem/misunderstanding with the network optimiser values. The Q's are still nowhere near LR2, ie 0.49. I'm still having difficulty with the 'leap of faith'! thanks Omni, grant
Omni,
I unscrewed all the drivers for a check, and found a wiring problem to the mids! Aarrggh! Now all drivers seem ok, just needs a new xo for existing drivers (the D75 dome mids being limited) as a temporary measure until I can get the CA's/27TD(B)FC's. Btw, the 27TBFC may be a better tweeter according to Zaph? (and Roman's frd). Also, I was considering a Seas Alu mid, but the current L12/15 versions breakup mode is still too low. I note (from Zaph) that the L18 new H1224 version breakup is now out to 9kHz, so maybe a new L12 version could even go out to 12kHz? If do-able, an Alu mid would give better transient response for the critical midrange?
My comment about another re-sand was made in a good-natured way, I had no idea it was so involved. I hope all your effort now looks good.
Re: 'breadboarding crossovers': I was just going to lay-out the parts on the floor and connect with jumper leads and tweak as per Tinitus. Also, I realise your files will be inappropriate for any design
I have. It was just a suggestion to facilitate learning SW together. Thanks very much for offering to create files for me, very kind of you Omni. I guess as an interim measure, I'll now be attempting to use all of my existing drivers. Today, I got a very satisfactory SW sim based on 'eyeballed' specs, but I still have a perceived problem/misunderstanding with the network optimiser values. The Q's are still nowhere near LR2, ie 0.49. I'm still having difficulty with the 'leap of faith'! thanks Omni, grant
Grant, I am definately cool with us learning SW together and when files are done , I will ship them off to you....I'll keep you posted............At this time, I am finished with the Baffle Diffraction Simulator and am ready to proceed to the Frequency Combiner.......It's weird, but it takes longer to learn the programs than to actually do em. It takes about 10 minutes to plug in the proper info into the application to get the end results, after days or weeks to simply figure it out.................At any rate, I see you are considering some different drivers?............I am certain you will make wise choices.........No offense was taken about your comment about my resand, so don't sweat it. As a matter of fact, I sincerely got a kick out of it...........Hey man, If we can't laugh at ourselves, Who can we laugh at?..lol...........Any way, the type of paint I am using for the finish on my baffles is a material that reticulates {creates sort of a crackling effect } as it settles, and dries. It is VERY dependent on how thick it is applied. An uneven thickness applied across the baffle renders an uneven pattern. My problem has been with the spray gun I have been using requiring more CFM { cubic feet per minute }of air than my compressor produces, so that by the time I get to the bottom of the baffle, the paint is coming out unevenly, as compared to when I started. My compressor has not been able to keep up...After numerous attempts, I believe I finally found a gun which will work..................I hope.........Sooner or later, I'll post pictures..........................Keep in touch................Respectfully......Omni
Hi,
I've been 'SW simming' my old drivers, and have come up with something that looks great on paper.
I'm wondering if anyone would quickly run a trained eye over it, and tell me if its a viable starting point for tweaking. (D75's now seem ok!). I would very much appreciate it as I have some concerns:
* the various HP/LP xo frequencies and Q's are 'all-over-the-shop', i.e. :
tweeter HP Fxo=4040 Hz Q=0.72; mid LP Fxo=3000Hz Q=0.6; mid HP Fxo=650Hz Q=0.56; woofer LP Fxo=490Hz Q=0.59. These seem a bit weird to me, can I assume they are valid? I did specify LR in the network optimizer, so I'm wondering why the Q's aren't closer to 0.49?
* does SW include bandpass gain?
The 'dotted' summed response looks so good, (I even get a 1dB 'BBC dip' at 3kHz, lol) that I would really like to know if its usable. Any comments greatly appreciated.
( I wasn't going to put up any more 'dodgy' schematics, but couldn't resist this one, hehe)
An AU retailer has Solen air-core 4.7mH 0.8 Ohm (s164.7) coils for one third normal price, is it possible to unwind these, I wonder?
Many thanks and also thanks for reading this, grant
I've been 'SW simming' my old drivers, and have come up with something that looks great on paper.
I'm wondering if anyone would quickly run a trained eye over it, and tell me if its a viable starting point for tweaking. (D75's now seem ok!). I would very much appreciate it as I have some concerns:
* the various HP/LP xo frequencies and Q's are 'all-over-the-shop', i.e. :
tweeter HP Fxo=4040 Hz Q=0.72; mid LP Fxo=3000Hz Q=0.6; mid HP Fxo=650Hz Q=0.56; woofer LP Fxo=490Hz Q=0.59. These seem a bit weird to me, can I assume they are valid? I did specify LR in the network optimizer, so I'm wondering why the Q's aren't closer to 0.49?
* does SW include bandpass gain?
The 'dotted' summed response looks so good, (I even get a 1dB 'BBC dip' at 3kHz, lol) that I would really like to know if its usable. Any comments greatly appreciated.
( I wasn't going to put up any more 'dodgy' schematics, but couldn't resist this one, hehe)
An AU retailer has Solen air-core 4.7mH 0.8 Ohm (s164.7) coils for one third normal price, is it possible to unwind these, I wonder?
Many thanks and also thanks for reading this, grant
Attachments
Omni, Thanks! RE:
* 'long time to learn programs' - I don't know how you manage them all!
* 'different drivers' - was just a fanciful idea, as the L12 is not suitable just yet, but the TBFC is another story. I'll probably stick with the CA when funds permit.
* 'laughing at ourselves' - glad you enjoyed it! ( whew, I worry too much.....)
* 'crackling effect paint' - I had tried to find your initial remarks 13 or so pages ago, but I do remember now. Yes, can't wait for the pics. Good news about new spray gun.
grant ....(drove 4hours today roundtrip, 40+degC outside in an un-aircon car; - might have a beer!)
* 'long time to learn programs' - I don't know how you manage them all!
* 'different drivers' - was just a fanciful idea, as the L12 is not suitable just yet, but the TBFC is another story. I'll probably stick with the CA when funds permit.
* 'laughing at ourselves' - glad you enjoyed it! ( whew, I worry too much.....)
* 'crackling effect paint' - I had tried to find your initial remarks 13 or so pages ago, but I do remember now. Yes, can't wait for the pics. Good news about new spray gun.
grant ....(drove 4hours today roundtrip, 40+degC outside in an un-aircon car; - might have a beer!)
Omni, re your baffle diffraction graph:
I'm wondering if you have clarification on the baffle chart and its interpretation? (Sreten's response was incredibly insightful, as usual! the man is a genius, how you can pick a trapezoid baffle from a graph beggars belief!) Also, I'm interested to know if your tweeter (and mid?) are mounted in Roman's 'golden ratio'? And if the baffle edges are rounded? I guess all of this is 'sorted' before painting!
I emailed Roman about my SW 'Q' concern, and received a very detailed and fast response. He is very much an advocate of the FRDConsortium tools that you are using. I definitely need to
'follow that path' too. Have to get Excel. I gave Roman this thread's link, so maybe he will chime in also. That would be great. A beginner surrounded by geniuses! Something must 'rub-off'! hehe ,grant
I'm wondering if you have clarification on the baffle chart and its interpretation? (Sreten's response was incredibly insightful, as usual! the man is a genius, how you can pick a trapezoid baffle from a graph beggars belief!) Also, I'm interested to know if your tweeter (and mid?) are mounted in Roman's 'golden ratio'? And if the baffle edges are rounded? I guess all of this is 'sorted' before painting!
I emailed Roman about my SW 'Q' concern, and received a very detailed and fast response. He is very much an advocate of the FRDConsortium tools that you are using. I definitely need to
'follow that path' too. Have to get Excel. I gave Roman this thread's link, so maybe he will chime in also. That would be great. A beginner surrounded by geniuses! Something must 'rub-off'! hehe ,grant
Grant: no clarification on my baffle graph.................It's Baffling..........lol............I couldn't even tell you for sure what it means, but I am gonna keep studying it, At any rate, my baffles are rounded 3/4 router bit, as per Zaph's recommendations on his site. I am not sure what the Golden Ratio you describe is..........Can you explain it?...........I am now continuing to study the frequency combiner and should have the files combined here shortly...........To go to Speaker Workshop.............From your latest posts, it seems you are getting a handle on that program...........A couple of things...........Will you still want me to shoot the combined files your way to play with?..............You may end up designing MY crossover...................LOL..............And I will probably be posting asking for YOUR input on this Speaker Workshop Thing...............At any rate Let's just keep having fun with this stuff.............Since I have not been studying Speaker Workshop, yet, the questions you posted here a few posts ago are completely out of my realm.............I did another paint spray tonite..........Looks OK, Not perfect, I gotta wait for daylight to see if I can live with it or not, If not, 1 more spray...................Warm regards..........Omni
Hi,
On a normal baffle mid and treble drivers should be centred at 0.6
(i.e. offset) of the baffle width to reduce ripple, the ratio of the
length being ~ 0.6 : 1. Generally you would also try to make the
distance of the mid to the to top 1.6, e.g. 10" baffle the mid is
~ 4" from one side, ~ 6" from the other and 10" from the top.
This leaves enough room for the tweeter, which is mounted ~ 0.6
of 0.6 from the top, = above ~ 2.5" = basically very near the top.
The above all assumes you want to minimise ripple.
For a tapered baffle offsetting the drivers should smooth ripple.
Generally offsetting the the bass unit in 3-way is pointless.
The leap of ignorance is accepting the electrical values should give an apparent Q of 0.5 .
This design has acoustic LR2 response for m/t c/o,
http://www.zaphaudio.com/Waveguidetmm.html
The Q's are 0.5, the question is what Q's ?
🙂/sreten.
On a normal baffle mid and treble drivers should be centred at 0.6
(i.e. offset) of the baffle width to reduce ripple, the ratio of the
length being ~ 0.6 : 1. Generally you would also try to make the
distance of the mid to the to top 1.6, e.g. 10" baffle the mid is
~ 4" from one side, ~ 6" from the other and 10" from the top.
This leaves enough room for the tweeter, which is mounted ~ 0.6
of 0.6 from the top, = above ~ 2.5" = basically very near the top.
The above all assumes you want to minimise ripple.
For a tapered baffle offsetting the drivers should smooth ripple.
Generally offsetting the the bass unit in 3-way is pointless.
The leap of ignorance is accepting the electrical values should give an apparent Q of 0.5 .
This design has acoustic LR2 response for m/t c/o,
http://www.zaphaudio.com/Waveguidetmm.html
The Q's are 0.5, the question is what Q's ?
🙂/sreten.
Hi,
Also note when interpreting ripple graphs - its just a model.
http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=cabinets.html
One way of modelling roundovers is to increase the modelled size of the driver.
🙂/sreten.
Also note when interpreting ripple graphs - its just a model.
http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=cabinets.html
One way of modelling roundovers is to increase the modelled size of the driver.
🙂/sreten.
Sreten,
Firstly, thanks for your advice on driver placement to minimize ripple, and link to Murphyblaster on the effect of rounded baffle edges. Good stuff indeed.
Re: 'the leap of ignorance'....hmmm, maybe 'Cookbooks' should be updated at least to offer a more comprehensive theoretical explanation (preferably in laymans terms) so that beginner enthusiasts like myself don't get 'hung up on' irrelevant or otherwise spurious factors. Its hard enough to get a handle on all the complexities without unwittingly emphasizing things that may be inappropriate.. What I'm trying to say is that from my viewpoint, initial reading of a well accepted text gives a good foundation, but it
seems only to be the tip of the iceberg. Sometimes it IS very difficult to realize whats important and whats not (or what does significantly change response).
Also, it would be great to initially grasp an understanding of how significant in dB terms all these factors are. The last schematic I put up is based on lots of assumptions, its probably a very 'flawed
design' by not being conceived through all the FRD tools. The flat response is probably nothing like reality, but you never know, it might be within +-3,4,5?dB, which I must admit I possibly couldn't tell anyway! I guess my main objective is to learn as much as I can, (you have already helped me a lot, thanks so much!), and secondly to put some new life into/improve an old system at the least cost.
Ignoring my misguided 'Q question' then, and allowing for a response with a 'reasonable variance' to my ears as mentioned above, lol, I'm wondering if I could get anything satisfactory from the last circuit? I hope I haven't badly missed the point on anything (which I'm prone to do) just trying to get things into perspective.
I did read Zaph's waveguide on your earlier recommendation, but, alas, have forgotten, so I'll revist it.
Many thanks again Sreten, your advice and time is always appreciated, grant
Firstly, thanks for your advice on driver placement to minimize ripple, and link to Murphyblaster on the effect of rounded baffle edges. Good stuff indeed.
Re: 'the leap of ignorance'....hmmm, maybe 'Cookbooks' should be updated at least to offer a more comprehensive theoretical explanation (preferably in laymans terms) so that beginner enthusiasts like myself don't get 'hung up on' irrelevant or otherwise spurious factors. Its hard enough to get a handle on all the complexities without unwittingly emphasizing things that may be inappropriate.. What I'm trying to say is that from my viewpoint, initial reading of a well accepted text gives a good foundation, but it
seems only to be the tip of the iceberg. Sometimes it IS very difficult to realize whats important and whats not (or what does significantly change response).
Also, it would be great to initially grasp an understanding of how significant in dB terms all these factors are. The last schematic I put up is based on lots of assumptions, its probably a very 'flawed
design' by not being conceived through all the FRD tools. The flat response is probably nothing like reality, but you never know, it might be within +-3,4,5?dB, which I must admit I possibly couldn't tell anyway! I guess my main objective is to learn as much as I can, (you have already helped me a lot, thanks so much!), and secondly to put some new life into/improve an old system at the least cost.
Ignoring my misguided 'Q question' then, and allowing for a response with a 'reasonable variance' to my ears as mentioned above, lol, I'm wondering if I could get anything satisfactory from the last circuit? I hope I haven't badly missed the point on anything (which I'm prone to do) just trying to get things into perspective.
I did read Zaph's waveguide on your earlier recommendation, but, alas, have forgotten, so I'll revist it.
Many thanks again Sreten, your advice and time is always appreciated, grant
Hi Omni, I realise you're very busy , so I'll try to be brief (its difficult for me, lol)
Re:
* 'Its baffling'.....rolling on floor laughing....hehe
* My post on page 14, maybe you missed? ( the 'last post' on the page, link here:
http://www.rjbaudio.com/Audiofiles/tweeter diffraction.html
is Roman's very good analysys of baffle err, 'stuff', have a look...explains Golden Ratios, 2/4PI stuff, diagrams and diffraction modulation etc..(also try ESP?.com) BUT!, this needs to be considered with Sreten's latest comments - which are very valuable!
* 'still sending FRD files' - of course! Any way I could help you in this would be a pleasure! I have plenty of time and glad to help if I can. Thats what its all about here! Sharing knowledge, or possibly 'leeching' in my case, Lol! Maybe, one day, I'll know enough to help others? Re: SW, I'm a slightly confident beginner still! The learning curve doesn't seem too drastic after all, qualified by me not using any of its measurement capabilities.
* '1 more spray' - Yay! Woohoo!, bet ur happy! Almost there. Great job.
Omni, thanks! its great to chat with you here. grant
Re:
* 'Its baffling'.....rolling on floor laughing....hehe
* My post on page 14, maybe you missed? ( the 'last post' on the page, link here:
http://www.rjbaudio.com/Audiofiles/tweeter diffraction.html
is Roman's very good analysys of baffle err, 'stuff', have a look...explains Golden Ratios, 2/4PI stuff, diagrams and diffraction modulation etc..(also try ESP?.com) BUT!, this needs to be considered with Sreten's latest comments - which are very valuable!
* 'still sending FRD files' - of course! Any way I could help you in this would be a pleasure! I have plenty of time and glad to help if I can. Thats what its all about here! Sharing knowledge, or possibly 'leeching' in my case, Lol! Maybe, one day, I'll know enough to help others? Re: SW, I'm a slightly confident beginner still! The learning curve doesn't seem too drastic after all, qualified by me not using any of its measurement capabilities.
* '1 more spray' - Yay! Woohoo!, bet ur happy! Almost there. Great job.
Omni, thanks! its great to chat with you here. grant
Hi again Sreten,
My last reply was probably too verbose, it was from a perceived frustration that just when I thought I was getting somewhere, your comments made me realize that I'm not. Unfortunately, now I'm
more confused. Would you please elaborate on this 'The Q's are 0.5, the question is what Q's ?', so that I may have some chance of understanding. Maybe my ignorance is from not being able to
comprehend?
I would also really appreciate it if you could explain the validity or otherwise of this link:
http://www.solen.ca/12dblr.htm
Is it nonsense and does it have any relevance at all to your view? Much appreciated, grant
My last reply was probably too verbose, it was from a perceived frustration that just when I thought I was getting somewhere, your comments made me realize that I'm not. Unfortunately, now I'm
more confused. Would you please elaborate on this 'The Q's are 0.5, the question is what Q's ?', so that I may have some chance of understanding. Maybe my ignorance is from not being able to
comprehend?
I would also really appreciate it if you could explain the validity or otherwise of this link:
http://www.solen.ca/12dblr.htm
Is it nonsense and does it have any relevance at all to your view? Much appreciated, grant
Hi Omni,
Does the last spray look good?
Another question (for my benefit). It would be very interesting for me to SW sim your files pre and post FRD processing, i.e. before and after Combiner/BDS. Just to see what the difference in response is, if ok with you. I think it would be an interesting exercise. grant
Does the last spray look good?
Another question (for my benefit). It would be very interesting for me to SW sim your files pre and post FRD processing, i.e. before and after Combiner/BDS. Just to see what the difference in response is, if ok with you. I think it would be an interesting exercise. grant
Grant, Daylite brings fair news on the paint job.....I have a few days to decide if I want to keep this surface, or spray 1 more time. The paint needs 7 days to cure before repainting or putting on my clearcoat.........hence, all the time delays due to screwed up sprays.....................At any rate, I got the ZMA and FRD files done and have been studying crossover simulation in Speaker Workshop............So...........I can send them to you anytime........provide an E mail address.....cool..............I do have a question for you Grant, Sreten, and Tinitus............For Speaker Workshop..............3 way crossover..............300Hz.........3000HZ........12dB per octave throughout...................How do you choose the component values for the given crossover frequencies? Inductors, and capacitors? Then, if I need to tweak component values in order to optimize response, How, again, do I choose the component values?............. Grant, did you start with textbook, cookbook values?........ Then for example, If I need to change the series capacitor value, say for the tweeter, then how do I choose a new value for the shunt inductor? The tutorials I have read don't talk about this........................ What about Zobels?.......... Any input on this?........Grant, once you get the files, maybe we're in for a rollercoaster ride...................Sreten, Tinitus..............If you guys wanna play with these files too, I would be delighted to ship them your way too. It would be fun to compare notes...........World Wide...........Respectfully...........Omni
Hi Omni,
I dont recall which drivers you use ?
I thought, when you have a simulation program you could plot in any values and get a response curve ?
I always use a resistor on all paralel components and always bigger than DC resistanse of driver
I suggest you listen to each driver one at a time
Tweeter first - try different caps and listen carefully to find the best value - then ad and adjust paralel coil/resistor, listen and adjust - then ad RC, listen and adjust
When tweeter sounds sweet listen carefully how it sounds
Here comes the trick
Listen to midrange - ad crosscoil and RC, adjust carefully until you get the same sweet highs as the tweeter
Bass and mids low is the same but more tricky
When speaker is up and running, stand besides the speaker and listen to each driver - they should all sound the same, if not adjustments is needed
Finally you stand one meter from one of speaker facing it directly - you should be able to move you head up or down without any change in sound
I was once told when adjusting bass crossover, I should listen to what happens at higher frequencies - and thats the way ! 😉
I dont recall which drivers you use ?
I thought, when you have a simulation program you could plot in any values and get a response curve ?
I always use a resistor on all paralel components and always bigger than DC resistanse of driver
I suggest you listen to each driver one at a time
Tweeter first - try different caps and listen carefully to find the best value - then ad and adjust paralel coil/resistor, listen and adjust - then ad RC, listen and adjust
When tweeter sounds sweet listen carefully how it sounds
Here comes the trick
Listen to midrange - ad crosscoil and RC, adjust carefully until you get the same sweet highs as the tweeter
Bass and mids low is the same but more tricky
When speaker is up and running, stand besides the speaker and listen to each driver - they should all sound the same, if not adjustments is needed
Finally you stand one meter from one of speaker facing it directly - you should be able to move you head up or down without any change in sound
I was once told when adjusting bass crossover, I should listen to what happens at higher frequencies - and thats the way ! 😉
Omni, <rant part 1, lol>
I guess my confusion maybe arises from reading too much mis-information, like 'the book' (better not be too specific), websites and my last link above. All this stuff seems to become entrenched and now it seems, you're also encountering the same problem. That is, how DO you get initial values?
I went through a very laborious task of trying to (on calculator by trial and error) get initial values from equations for resonant frequency, then modifying to suit the 'Q'. Then yesterday, I found the Solen link. Aaarrggh! lol. Only to discover Sreten's comment, which caused a bit of angst, because it seemed like I had wasted so much time on irrelevant things.
IF my understanding is correct, then. it doesn't matter. I think this is what Sreten and Tinitus mean.
Sreten's quote: 'The leap of ignorance is accepting the electrical values should give an apparent Q of 0.5'.
Tinitus quote: 'I thought, when you have a simulation program you could plot in any values and get a response curve?'
These comments lead me to to believe that you just trust SW! Change values as you like 'willy-nilly' (keeping the total response graph open on screen) and bingo - there's the output. No need
to worry about, in our case, various 2nd order filter types. Why then all the fuss is made about various Q's, offset sensitivity, differing group delay etc etc, is beyond me!
Tinitus tweaking method seems very logical, but unless you had a stack of different coils/caps on hand it would be pretty expensive, unless you had close to optimum values initially. Which is what prompted my question back on page 14, and now your question 'How do you choose the component values for the given crossover frequencies?'
Maybe SW is the 'be all and end all' type simprog, in that order types are somehow 'compensated for', and maybe bandpass gain is included? Who knows..(the programmer would).
So, if I trust SW calcs (considering the above, and it does seem very good) then, I can proceed, the woofer&mid box sizes are right?, port also, driver baffle placement is ok, and horizontal accounted for in SW. Baffle step may be partially considered by woofer 500Hz xo? Not sure about this! Phasing looks great from SW graph. So the only thing I assume is if SW compensates for BPG. .....oh no, more in part2! lol, grant
I guess my confusion maybe arises from reading too much mis-information, like 'the book' (better not be too specific), websites and my last link above. All this stuff seems to become entrenched and now it seems, you're also encountering the same problem. That is, how DO you get initial values?
I went through a very laborious task of trying to (on calculator by trial and error) get initial values from equations for resonant frequency, then modifying to suit the 'Q'. Then yesterday, I found the Solen link. Aaarrggh! lol. Only to discover Sreten's comment, which caused a bit of angst, because it seemed like I had wasted so much time on irrelevant things.
IF my understanding is correct, then. it doesn't matter. I think this is what Sreten and Tinitus mean.
Sreten's quote: 'The leap of ignorance is accepting the electrical values should give an apparent Q of 0.5'.
Tinitus quote: 'I thought, when you have a simulation program you could plot in any values and get a response curve?'
These comments lead me to to believe that you just trust SW! Change values as you like 'willy-nilly' (keeping the total response graph open on screen) and bingo - there's the output. No need
to worry about, in our case, various 2nd order filter types. Why then all the fuss is made about various Q's, offset sensitivity, differing group delay etc etc, is beyond me!
Tinitus tweaking method seems very logical, but unless you had a stack of different coils/caps on hand it would be pretty expensive, unless you had close to optimum values initially. Which is what prompted my question back on page 14, and now your question 'How do you choose the component values for the given crossover frequencies?'
Maybe SW is the 'be all and end all' type simprog, in that order types are somehow 'compensated for', and maybe bandpass gain is included? Who knows..(the programmer would).
So, if I trust SW calcs (considering the above, and it does seem very good) then, I can proceed, the woofer&mid box sizes are right?, port also, driver baffle placement is ok, and horizontal accounted for in SW. Baffle step may be partially considered by woofer 500Hz xo? Not sure about this! Phasing looks great from SW graph. So the only thing I assume is if SW compensates for BPG. .....oh no, more in part2! lol, grant
Tinitus, this is probably a dumb question...
Re: your quote 'I always use a resistor on all paralel components and always bigger than DC resistanse of driver'
is that a resistor in series with the parallel component or parallel with it? Either way, may I ask, why is it needed? I'm showing my lack of
fundamentals here, sorry... thanks grant
Re: your quote 'I always use a resistor on all paralel components and always bigger than DC resistanse of driver'
is that a resistor in series with the parallel component or parallel with it? Either way, may I ask, why is it needed? I'm showing my lack of
fundamentals here, sorry... thanks grant
- Status
- Not open for further replies.