Playing with idealised drivers (FR and impedance response linearly smooth) may be nice for learning purposes. But you should not consider putting the results of such simulations into practice. Just in case this is not already clear.
I would also use simulations with data traced from data sheets at most for feasibility considerations, even before I start with the actual development.
In my opinion, there is no way around measuring.
I would also use simulations with data traced from data sheets at most for feasibility considerations, even before I start with the actual development.
In my opinion, there is no way around measuring.
Doing so creates that spike at 2k.
While you're playing around with sims, add a 1uf cap in parallel with the 2.825mH.
Or...
Add a 2 ohm resistor in series with C1.
Or...
Add a 1uf cap in parallel with the 1.413mH.
Incorrect phase matching. This can be seen in the crossover frequency: although the drivers do not add up, they do not cancel each other out perfectly either. Otherwise, reversing the polarity of the tweeter would make the whole thing look very different.
Phase diagrams of the individual drivers would also be useful, of course only if there was a timing reference during the measurements.
Phase diagrams of the individual drivers would also be useful, of course only if there was a timing reference during the measurements.
I didn't expect to even be close. I was just showing you some tricks.
Try reducing L2 to about 1mH.
Try some larger values for R5.
The frequency of the deep notch can be moved around by changing that 1uf cap value. A smaller cap moves it higher in frequency. I have some .1uf caps in my parts box, and some .22uf also.
Try reducing L2 to about 1mH.
Try some larger values for R5.
The frequency of the deep notch can be moved around by changing that 1uf cap value. A smaller cap moves it higher in frequency. I have some .1uf caps in my parts box, and some .22uf also.
Last edited: