Yes, the speakerwizard calc you suggested does what I was looking for, I can play with the values....
Gee, wasn't that simple....
Thank you very much...😉
Being old and lazy, and living in a world where computers rule, I thought I'd take advantage of the technology to get me close...
I do own a signal generator and a good ol' scope (which yes, I know how to use), a LCR meter, as well as a RTA with a calibrated mic for real world testing...
Sorry, but just find it funny all hoopla over a simple question from a PA guy...🙄
JohnR
Gee, wasn't that simple....
Thank you very much...😉
Being old and lazy, and living in a world where computers rule, I thought I'd take advantage of the technology to get me close...
I do own a signal generator and a good ol' scope (which yes, I know how to use), a LCR meter, as well as a RTA with a calibrated mic for real world testing...
Sorry, but just find it funny all hoopla over a simple question from a PA guy...🙄
JohnR
Last edited:
Mike, no prob with your reference to the new guy....
Just download XSim, and this is more what I was looking for...
But just like other electronic design simulators I've used, it validates the design, but as they say, the proof is in the pudding...
JohnR
Just download XSim, and this is more what I was looking for...
But just like other electronic design simulators I've used, it validates the design, but as they say, the proof is in the pudding...
JohnR
That's right, there is more to it than is being shown. A crossover simulator does a specific job and it's up to us to know where that begins and ends.
I know some guys that design some nice speakers using Xsim. I think the final tweaks come after the speaker and crossover are built and the speakers remeasured, tweaked, remeasured, etc.
I'm trying to do the same thing but avoid buying piles of $$ inductors & 100 vac capacitors.
That Micka.de program looks useful, but doesn't detail the format the sound pressure and impedance files are supposed to be input with.
I've been given simple simulators assuming speaker is 8 or 4 ohms resistance. I'm given inductance & resistance of actual woofer products on a large wall into another room. I'm given db response to 2.83 vac input at a frequency sweep installed in that wall. The one I bought has big hump 1000-2000 hz where it should be beaming. I don't want beaming. I want to cross 1200. Since what RLC sim available to linux users has been fairly useless (like wrong answers) I intend to calculate each proposed crossover from kirchoff's laws and vector algebra, assuming 20log(magnitude of voltage on speaker/2.83) predicts sound pressure. I intend to produce a voltage the opposite of the big sound hump my purchased 15" driver has from 1000 hz up. I will use spreadsheet software to examine voltage on speaker at various frequencies for each impedance equation. I'm assuming 20log(V1/v2) produces a decible plot of the curve I want, opposite speaker response. Since spreadsheets are a known good software product for linux users.
Tweeter response is less well documented for the tweeter I have chosen.
As a closer approximation, I intend to measure the woofer in the target box, with frequency sweep coming from a PC. Haven't found frequency sweep software (or sweep .wav track), nor software to take audacity recording of response microphone and correlate in time to exitation sweep. I have an open field to measure in, quiet at times. There is electricity near that field. As the speaker will be installed 1' from a plaster wall, I intend to measure 1' from a cinder block wall and avoid the whole baffle step compensation disaster. Speaker will never be used alone in middle of an anechoic room: the standard test setup. 2nd run I will taylor the response of the speaker with a graphic equalizer appliance before the power amp, to flatten the response and determine what db (voltage) contour achieves the response I desire. Then I can calculate RLC network to approximate that equalizer response curve. I will not use a DSP; I don't have or want a smart phone, I don't have or want windows, and software goes obsolete every 4 years anyway. I don't want to buy the same thing over & over again every 4 years.
Comments? easier way? I assume stagekraft can calculate a RLC voltage response curve. Any 2nd year physics survivor can.
Last edited:
And not everyone is looking to build the ultimate flat hi-fi speakers...
Currently I'm reworking some small stage monitors (did I say I'm the shunned PA guy?),
as they sit they have a Peavey Scorpian 12" and a piezo tweeter.
Planning to upgrade to a Dayton Audio PA310-8 12" with a PRV Audio D290Py-S 1" Compression Driver mounted to a small horn,
so I'll need a xover, and was hoping to use some parts I have here rather than spending more cash...
As mentioned, not looking for 20-20k flat.....
These are mainly used for vocals on stage for live sound events, so low lows are not needed, 200Hz on up, I like a bit of a peak in the 3.15-4k region
and these PRV drivers go up to around 17k for some high sibilance so they cut through the other muck going on...
Everyone has their own needs and goals...
JohnR
Currently I'm reworking some small stage monitors (did I say I'm the shunned PA guy?),
as they sit they have a Peavey Scorpian 12" and a piezo tweeter.
Planning to upgrade to a Dayton Audio PA310-8 12" with a PRV Audio D290Py-S 1" Compression Driver mounted to a small horn,
so I'll need a xover, and was hoping to use some parts I have here rather than spending more cash...
As mentioned, not looking for 20-20k flat.....
These are mainly used for vocals on stage for live sound events, so low lows are not needed, 200Hz on up, I like a bit of a peak in the 3.15-4k region
and these PRV drivers go up to around 17k for some high sibilance so they cut through the other muck going on...
Everyone has their own needs and goals...
JohnR
I just got the formulae from this article: https://sound-au.com/lr-passive.htm
and put them into a spreadsheet to make my own calculator
and put them into a spreadsheet to make my own calculator
Hmmm, looking at this XSim program....
How do these frd & zma files relate to good ol' Theile-Small parameters, and why would we deviate from a decades old standard ??
JohnR
How do these frd & zma files relate to good ol' Theile-Small parameters, and why would we deviate from a decades old standard ??
JohnR
frd and zma files go further than Theile Small parameters in that they give the full response of the drivers they represent.
as a long time soundman and monitor tech i highly prize a flat response a peak at 3.15-4k with the likelihood that SM 58's and more likely that the Beta versions are going to be the common choice of most vocalists that sounds like a recipe for feedback....
as a long time soundman and monitor tech i highly prize a flat response a peak at 3.15-4k with the likelihood that SM 58's and more likely that the Beta versions are going to be the common choice of most vocalists that sounds like a recipe for feedback....
T/S tell you very little beyond what happens at small signal levels around tune whereas frd and zma tell you how the driver is actually operating in the intended enclosure. They provide, much more valuable information over a much wider bandwidth.
The last PA I owned, I designed and built using similar tools. You are far from the only live sound guy here.
To play around with parts values, you really do need something like Xsim which gives you instant results, I couldn't find anything simpler or as useful in weeks of 'Googling'. I'm guessing that your coils are maybe 2 - -5mH, given your XO point was 800Hz?
Your coils can be reduced in value by unwinding, if you have the right measuring instrument. Xsim or similar will let you compare graphically, if not sound-wise, when you use, say, a 3.5mH coil on the woofer instead of a 4.5 etc.
With that range of parts values and a 1,000 - 1,200 XO point, you could think of a nice WAW/FAST speaker (many threads on this topic here). You could also look at an existing project, put its parts values into Xsim and see the electrical affect of the changes, e.fg you can see the woofer roll-off, how well peaks are suppressed, the effect on dB output, etc: no calculator that I'm aware of will do that.
Small changes in parts values can have different effects on different drivers: I went from 1.3mH to 1.0mH in a bookshelf design and the difference was very obvious: a little less bass but much improved mid-range. To 'see what would happen', I swapped a 1.5mH in another project for a 2.0 and couldn't tell the difference! Xsim graphs suggested there wouldn't be much difference to either design.
Fascinating stuff: good luck!
Geoff
A really funny thread.
Guy who knows anything about speakers asks a beginner question where you can get an easy, wrong answers, or some long, complicated and correct answer.
Guy knows so much, he does not want to understand there is no easy answer, as speakers are no easy resistors.
This is exactly what I have experienced again and again, PA and HIFI do not fit under one hat. The old school PA guy does not give a s*it for linear frequency response, response under different angle and room response. Most even ignore TSP and change drivers in cabinets like it doesn't matter, as long as it's the same 15 or 18 inch class. They buy finished x-overs that work for "all the usual combinations" and are supposed to divide any speaker like at .8 and 7.5 kHz with 12 or 18 dB.
"There is nothing you can't fix in the mix..." what do you think all these equalizers and DSP's are for? They are made to cure faults, not because they look fancy.
This thread could not get productive. A good HIFI amp has no bass, tremble and loudness adjustments at all or you can completely disable them.
A PA speaker in a room can not be used with a minimum of 15-20 equalizer bands, as long as your ears work close to normal.
What exactly may be the cause for such fruitless discussions.
I have both, PA and HIFI speakers. Sick frequency response sounds sick on both animals.
Even if the whole story is much more complicated, and just a straight 0° 1W/1m measurement is not the ticket to audio heaven, a peaky speaker response is not a matter of taste, but a serious fault, until proven to do something good.
Did I just hear someone say "I smell a troll"?
PS aggression does not change the physics of speaker building. There are quite some excellent PA people I really would like to learn a thing or two from. All of these guys never use universal x-overs or universal cabinet for 15 different speakers. That is the cause they are excellent.
Guy who knows anything about speakers asks a beginner question where you can get an easy, wrong answers, or some long, complicated and correct answer.
Guy knows so much, he does not want to understand there is no easy answer, as speakers are no easy resistors.
This is exactly what I have experienced again and again, PA and HIFI do not fit under one hat. The old school PA guy does not give a s*it for linear frequency response, response under different angle and room response. Most even ignore TSP and change drivers in cabinets like it doesn't matter, as long as it's the same 15 or 18 inch class. They buy finished x-overs that work for "all the usual combinations" and are supposed to divide any speaker like at .8 and 7.5 kHz with 12 or 18 dB.
"There is nothing you can't fix in the mix..." what do you think all these equalizers and DSP's are for? They are made to cure faults, not because they look fancy.
This thread could not get productive. A good HIFI amp has no bass, tremble and loudness adjustments at all or you can completely disable them.
A PA speaker in a room can not be used with a minimum of 15-20 equalizer bands, as long as your ears work close to normal.
What exactly may be the cause for such fruitless discussions.
I have both, PA and HIFI speakers. Sick frequency response sounds sick on both animals.
Even if the whole story is much more complicated, and just a straight 0° 1W/1m measurement is not the ticket to audio heaven, a peaky speaker response is not a matter of taste, but a serious fault, until proven to do something good.
Did I just hear someone say "I smell a troll"?
PS aggression does not change the physics of speaker building. There are quite some excellent PA people I really would like to learn a thing or two from. All of these guys never use universal x-overs or universal cabinet for 15 different speakers. That is the cause they are excellent.
Last edited:
Ah, so here we go...
The Old Man is not afraid of learning new tricks...
"frd and zma files go further than Theile Small parameters in that they give the full response of the drivers they represent."
So what we are saying is that the T/S parameters are fundamental in box design, while the frd & zma are fundamental in filter design?
The golden question would be, how are these frd & zma parameters derived (and what's the difference between the two?).
I've seen references to databases that include some speakers (but not the one's I want).
Is this something someone measures in a "standard box", or must measurements be taken in the actual box being used?
I have references to a now defunct database from Parts Express, with listings like this;
295-376Z.TXT Dayton RS 225-4 0.50 43 29.5 L4 92
But what do these parameters mean???
"Your coils can be reduced in value by unwinding, if you have the right measuring instrument"
Yes, I dug out my old copy of "Handbook of Electronic Tables and Formulas" where there is the formula for Inductance of a MultiLayered Coil.
Just for funsies, I did the maths on my coils, the math results came up with 3.189 mH, while my LCR measured 3.25 mH.
(I believe the discrepancy comes from the fact the formula relies on physical dimensions assuming layers are tightly wrapped on top of each other,
while my coils have an insulating layer between wraps). Regardless, I played with the maths to see my results from removing some windings, of course
I would be inclined to go with the LCR measurement...
I certainly appreciate those who have given valid responses that lead me in the right direction....
But now, no forum can exist without that "one guy", who's opinions are self glorified as though he is a god amongst us mere mortal men.
You know, the guy who can't insert anything positive, instead insinuates that you are a complete moron, and belittles every question asked.....
"This is exactly what I have experienced again and again, PA and HIFI do not fit under one hat. The old school PA guy does not give a s*it for linear frequency response, response under different angle and room response. Most even ignore TSP and change drivers in cabinets like it doesn't matter, as long as it's the same 15 or 18 inch class. They buy finished x-overs that work for "all the usual combinations" and are supposed to divide any speaker like at .8 and 7.5 kHz with 12 or 18 dB.
"There is nothing you can't fix in the mix..." what do you think all these equalizers and DSP's are for? They are made to cure faults, not because they look fancy."
EXACTLY.... at least he gets that....
As a live PA guy, I have to build stuff that works in "all the usual combinations", been doing this for 45 years, first 15 in a professional sense,
last 30 years in more of a hobby sense, but you have to build for the unexpected....
These are not simple hi-fi speakers (pushed by a 100 watts) that sound good in your unchanging listening room, no, these are durable, ever-changing speaker systems (pushed by 1000's of watts in the daunting challenge to survive)...
Last night, I did a show in a music auditorium, 30ft ceiling, balcony 2/3rds the way back, FOH (front of house mixer) out on that balcony, 80ft from the stage.. 15 piece orchestra, 4 vocalists who took turns as the lead vocal, all with head-worn wireless mics.
the only monitors were side-fills shot across the front of the stage, containing the vocals and piano, easy peasy....
Mains were 8-15's & 4 horns per side, flying 12 ft above the stage, 4-15's in sub-boxes (electronically crossed) to 4, 1-15/HF-horn topboxes (passively crossed).
Tonight, a local dance club with a Grunge Rock band, 8ft drop ceiling, paneled walls, 4 separate monitor mixes on stage, a single sub/topbox per side sitting on the floor, FOH 40ft back along the sidewall...
Next weekend, an outdoor festival on a football field, Speaker stacks on scaffolding along side the scaffold stage, FOH a hundred feet out on scaffolding,
8 different acts throughout the day, all with their own special needs...
The goal each event, provide them with a clean articulate mix, even though the acoustic environments are all totally different....
Completely Flat, probably not... Esoteric, definitely not... but at least I'm "doing", not just "talking"....
I am sorry I came here asking a simple question (trying to take the easy way out with a calculator that would let me play with values instead of doing the maths for each scenerio), my bad I assume...
Ya'll have a good day...
JohnR
The Old Man is not afraid of learning new tricks...
"frd and zma files go further than Theile Small parameters in that they give the full response of the drivers they represent."
So what we are saying is that the T/S parameters are fundamental in box design, while the frd & zma are fundamental in filter design?
The golden question would be, how are these frd & zma parameters derived (and what's the difference between the two?).
I've seen references to databases that include some speakers (but not the one's I want).
Is this something someone measures in a "standard box", or must measurements be taken in the actual box being used?
I have references to a now defunct database from Parts Express, with listings like this;
295-376Z.TXT Dayton RS 225-4 0.50 43 29.5 L4 92
But what do these parameters mean???
"Your coils can be reduced in value by unwinding, if you have the right measuring instrument"
Yes, I dug out my old copy of "Handbook of Electronic Tables and Formulas" where there is the formula for Inductance of a MultiLayered Coil.
Just for funsies, I did the maths on my coils, the math results came up with 3.189 mH, while my LCR measured 3.25 mH.
(I believe the discrepancy comes from the fact the formula relies on physical dimensions assuming layers are tightly wrapped on top of each other,
while my coils have an insulating layer between wraps). Regardless, I played with the maths to see my results from removing some windings, of course
I would be inclined to go with the LCR measurement...
I certainly appreciate those who have given valid responses that lead me in the right direction....
But now, no forum can exist without that "one guy", who's opinions are self glorified as though he is a god amongst us mere mortal men.
You know, the guy who can't insert anything positive, instead insinuates that you are a complete moron, and belittles every question asked.....
"This is exactly what I have experienced again and again, PA and HIFI do not fit under one hat. The old school PA guy does not give a s*it for linear frequency response, response under different angle and room response. Most even ignore TSP and change drivers in cabinets like it doesn't matter, as long as it's the same 15 or 18 inch class. They buy finished x-overs that work for "all the usual combinations" and are supposed to divide any speaker like at .8 and 7.5 kHz with 12 or 18 dB.
"There is nothing you can't fix in the mix..." what do you think all these equalizers and DSP's are for? They are made to cure faults, not because they look fancy."
EXACTLY.... at least he gets that....
As a live PA guy, I have to build stuff that works in "all the usual combinations", been doing this for 45 years, first 15 in a professional sense,
last 30 years in more of a hobby sense, but you have to build for the unexpected....
These are not simple hi-fi speakers (pushed by a 100 watts) that sound good in your unchanging listening room, no, these are durable, ever-changing speaker systems (pushed by 1000's of watts in the daunting challenge to survive)...
Last night, I did a show in a music auditorium, 30ft ceiling, balcony 2/3rds the way back, FOH (front of house mixer) out on that balcony, 80ft from the stage.. 15 piece orchestra, 4 vocalists who took turns as the lead vocal, all with head-worn wireless mics.
the only monitors were side-fills shot across the front of the stage, containing the vocals and piano, easy peasy....
Mains were 8-15's & 4 horns per side, flying 12 ft above the stage, 4-15's in sub-boxes (electronically crossed) to 4, 1-15/HF-horn topboxes (passively crossed).
Tonight, a local dance club with a Grunge Rock band, 8ft drop ceiling, paneled walls, 4 separate monitor mixes on stage, a single sub/topbox per side sitting on the floor, FOH 40ft back along the sidewall...
Next weekend, an outdoor festival on a football field, Speaker stacks on scaffolding along side the scaffold stage, FOH a hundred feet out on scaffolding,
8 different acts throughout the day, all with their own special needs...
The goal each event, provide them with a clean articulate mix, even though the acoustic environments are all totally different....
Completely Flat, probably not... Esoteric, definitely not... but at least I'm "doing", not just "talking"....
I am sorry I came here asking a simple question (trying to take the easy way out with a calculator that would let me play with values instead of doing the maths for each scenerio), my bad I assume...
Ya'll have a good day...
JohnR
Really? I designed, built and ran my own PA for over 25y and that doesn't represent me at all. My system was all active and modular and I saw very few passive systems, usually only small ones that these days are serviced by the generic 15+1 active speaker on a stick. For larger systems, I don't recall seeing a passive rig in a very long time.
That is my point of view also Brett, I also built most of my amps, electronic xovers, mixers, EQ's, and well, most everything in the system. racks, patchpanels, snakes, interface cabling, and so on... (of course it helped that I worked in the industry and had access to PCB making tools, you wouldn't believe all the "one-off" projects I designed and built)....
And yes, modular... I could stack as much or little as needed, with similar response from any size system....😀
Biggest problem these days is that anybody can go out a buy a prepackaged system, controlled by an IPAD, and they think they are sound-men.
Well my modular stuff was built around the old EV TL606 design
My top boxes were a single 15 box to which I added a compartment for the HF horn.
My bottom boxes were dual 15
(dont recall if I actually had plans for the dual,
I can only find plans for the single and the quad in my archives, perhaps I halved the quad or doubled the single).
Anyway, I would stack the dual-15 box port up and two topboxes port down so the low end coupled like the quad (one full module).
2,3,4 modules stacked side by side, or two across and two up... (splay the stacks a bit to help with the comb filtering...??)
In places where I needed just a small system, A dual on end, with a topbox, maybe an extra horn box on top...
My mentor back in the 70's was an old fellow (well, 15 yr older than me, we all called him Father Sound), who once worked for Clair Bros, then ShowCo.
He ended up designing power amps and such for Heil Sound in the early 70's, then started his own PA rental company called D-Hi sound...
When I started working for him he was using some cabinets that he said were a ShowCo design.
He called them "towers", a three-way box with 2 verticle horn loaded 15's, a 2" throat JBL horn, and a row of tweets, ran 3-way active.
We'd carry 16 of those with us, and stack as many as we needed, sometimes added some old Olsen tri-fold W-bins (the refigerator boxes)...
He started building some of the EV TL stuff for smaller venues, and I guess I just followed suit when I started building stuff....
I once had 4 1-15 Martin bin copies that I built, sold those years ago, still have a couple empty 4520's sitting in my shop.
Tempted to give them away, but nobody wants them... they are worth more for the plywood in this day and age....
JohnR
My top boxes were a single 15 box to which I added a compartment for the HF horn.
My bottom boxes were dual 15
(dont recall if I actually had plans for the dual,
I can only find plans for the single and the quad in my archives, perhaps I halved the quad or doubled the single).
Anyway, I would stack the dual-15 box port up and two topboxes port down so the low end coupled like the quad (one full module).
2,3,4 modules stacked side by side, or two across and two up... (splay the stacks a bit to help with the comb filtering...??)
In places where I needed just a small system, A dual on end, with a topbox, maybe an extra horn box on top...
My mentor back in the 70's was an old fellow (well, 15 yr older than me, we all called him Father Sound), who once worked for Clair Bros, then ShowCo.
He ended up designing power amps and such for Heil Sound in the early 70's, then started his own PA rental company called D-Hi sound...
When I started working for him he was using some cabinets that he said were a ShowCo design.
He called them "towers", a three-way box with 2 verticle horn loaded 15's, a 2" throat JBL horn, and a row of tweets, ran 3-way active.
We'd carry 16 of those with us, and stack as many as we needed, sometimes added some old Olsen tri-fold W-bins (the refigerator boxes)...
He started building some of the EV TL stuff for smaller venues, and I guess I just followed suit when I started building stuff....
I once had 4 1-15 Martin bin copies that I built, sold those years ago, still have a couple empty 4520's sitting in my shop.
Tempted to give them away, but nobody wants them... they are worth more for the plywood in this day and age....
JohnR
^^ What I had and did was similar in concept to what you describe, and as it was all active and DSP controlled and I know what the individual modules did solo and combined, I could dial in a rig close by ear, and spot on with some sweeps. If I had space and time, I'd often use a bigger rig than was needed because it played cleaner and from word of the clients, that got me recommendations and return business. I owned the gear, and after some incidents hiring it out, I was the only one that used it, so having some extra cabs sitting in store were of no benefit, but putting them into the rig was. Cost me nothing but effort.