Hello everybody .
I wonder if the thing I thought has a foundation and is feasible but above all if it offers advantages over other methods, sorry if I explain it in spans.
let's consider a bridge amp with the two perfectly identical branches, these work in polarity opposition.
let's pass the signal intact on the branch1, the branch2 we can use it to do EQ, but how? .
could one way be to do it digitally? I can store in a memory how much the signal passing in branch2 must be attenuated which, added to the signal passing in branch1, equalizes me.
I imagine that each digital line that goes to the DAC and then to branch1 must be matched with a line that goes to another DAC which then goes to branch2.
I also imagine that you have to memorize all the frequency response from which to fish what you need to match the signal to be equalized.
at each zero crossing of the current on the loudspeakers the branch1 and branch2 functions are inverted.
i am not expert on this subject so i don't know if you can understand or if i wrote some errors.
What do you think ?
I wonder if the thing I thought has a foundation and is feasible but above all if it offers advantages over other methods, sorry if I explain it in spans.
let's consider a bridge amp with the two perfectly identical branches, these work in polarity opposition.
let's pass the signal intact on the branch1, the branch2 we can use it to do EQ, but how? .
could one way be to do it digitally? I can store in a memory how much the signal passing in branch2 must be attenuated which, added to the signal passing in branch1, equalizes me.
I imagine that each digital line that goes to the DAC and then to branch1 must be matched with a line that goes to another DAC which then goes to branch2.
I also imagine that you have to memorize all the frequency response from which to fish what you need to match the signal to be equalized.
at each zero crossing of the current on the loudspeakers the branch1 and branch2 functions are inverted.
i am not expert on this subject so i don't know if you can understand or if i wrote some errors.
What do you think ?
Last edited:
It is unclear to me what you want to do. If you have a signal going through a DAC, and the DAC has a balanced output, then you have the two polarities for branch 1 and 2.
if you want to eq the signal in the digital domain, that is normally done before the DAC, before the signal goes balanced out analog to the two branches.
There is no need to handle the branches separately.
Does that answer the question?
Jan
if you want to eq the signal in the digital domain, that is normally done before the DAC, before the signal goes balanced out analog to the two branches.
There is no need to handle the branches separately.
Does that answer the question?
Jan
the loudspeaker just sees the voltage between the amp's outputs: (V1 - V2)
if you consider the amps to be identical but inverted, the impact of the filter included in only one amp "branch" as the loudspeaker "sees" it will be halved.
you will have to consider amplitude and phase, of course.
if you consider the amps to be identical but inverted, the impact of the filter included in only one amp "branch" as the loudspeaker "sees" it will be halved.
you will have to consider amplitude and phase, of course.
with respect to branch1 the voltage on branch2 can be smaller or larger. that's what i mean
obviously in opposition of sign
obviously in opposition of sign
Not if it is properly balanced, it will be more or less the same, you probably have two amplifier branches with the same gain.
And it does not even matter if it is not, the load/speaker sees V(branch1) - V(branch2), it does not know that you have two branches or if you have 1 branch and ground.
What is the problem you try to solve?
Jan
Arivel, are you by any chance trying to implement subtractive crossover (or similar EQ) using two bridge amplifiers. That is, for example, considering Amp1 being driven with the regular signal and Amp2 with a lowpass-filtered version of the same signal, you would be expecting high-pass filtering at the speaker due to the subtractive action of the bridge-tied load.
Is that what you're trying to do ?
Is that what you're trying to do ?
I didn't have anything in mind but you gave me an idea to talk about a problem that could occur in some speakers.
correct me if i'm wrong, all EQ methods work by subtraction?
let's take an example, it could happen to have around 200Hz a huge downward peak that goes far below the usual 90 dB.
(I may not have completely understood how a moving coil speaker works) do I solve the problem by increasing the voltage level of the signal applied to the speaker on that frequency?
Yes, that's equalisation and can be done in multiple ways. However, note that the amplifier is more stressed due to the EQ.
Its also true that speaker imperfections can only be partially corrected with EQ and time delays. Choosing good drivers and good cabinet design first, then using minimal DSP may give a more preferred sound than trying to EQ lesser drivers, etc., into submission.