hello everybody,
i have found a tqwt, it the one of diy blast 2000 with the radio shack driver. Its a tall colum,
how can i transform it in an folded, what conversions do i have ta make.
thanx
i have found a tqwt, it the one of diy blast 2000 with the radio shack driver. Its a tall colum,
how can i transform it in an folded, what conversions do i have ta make.
thanx
Are you referring to this? You should be able to use Martin King's MathCAD worksheet for ML-TQWT and enter Herb's measurments to get started.
Here's a link to an Excel spreadsheet for creating a folded pipe. I haven't found this to be very accurate but it gives you an idea of what's involved.
Here's a link to an Excel spreadsheet for creating a folded pipe. I haven't found this to be very accurate but it gives you an idea of what's involved.
Attachments
i have downloaded the mathcad explorer 8 version and also the files from mr Martin J. King. But i cant do anything.
so what got i to do ?
i press f9 which would make it run,
bu i have seen that there are some formulas in red, and when i pass over it with the mouse, it says : variable not defined,
and off course i don't get any output, i looked at it for one hour, still no solution, somebody please help me,
i wanna simulate the fostex 167e en 200 so i can get an idea of all the relevant things in a tqwt, (mass loaded or not)
thanx allready
so what got i to do ?
i press f9 which would make it run,
bu i have seen that there are some formulas in red, and when i pass over it with the mouse, it says : variable not defined,
and off course i don't get any output, i looked at it for one hour, still no solution, somebody please help me,
i wanna simulate the fostex 167e en 200 so i can get an idea of all the relevant things in a tqwt, (mass loaded or not)
thanx allready
I suggest you have a look at this thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19013&highlight=
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19013&highlight=
I´m only the dwarf - standing on the shoulders of giants (like MJK, GM et al.) 🙂)
But honestly: I had my own share of trouble before I learned about the windows scripting thing.
By the way:
Did you know that the Ported Box worksheet does the same as the TQWT sheet - but with the additional feature of free placement of the port?
have a nice day
But honestly: I had my own share of trouble before I learned about the windows scripting thing.
By the way:
Did you know that the Ported Box worksheet does the same as the TQWT sheet - but with the additional feature of free placement of the port?
have a nice day
nope i didnt know, than it is something like a ML tqwt, ill take a look at it.
i m trying to simualte an tqwt (or ml tqwt) with the fostex fx 200, so hopefully i get the going of it.
thanx
bye
i m trying to simualte an tqwt (or ml tqwt) with the fostex fx 200, so hopefully i get the going of it.
thanx
bye
hello everybody, i have runned martin king mathcad software.
i wanna make an ml-tqwt, but as rudolf noticed, you can run better the ported box.
So thats what i did, the specs are these from the fostex fx200, only the lvc is not correct, didnt found it. But what do you think of the speaker, the dimensions, port size and placing of port and driver and off course how could you improve the frequency response ?
thanx a lot
i wanna make an ml-tqwt, but as rudolf noticed, you can run better the ported box.
So thats what i did, the specs are these from the fostex fx200, only the lvc is not correct, didnt found it. But what do you think of the speaker, the dimensions, port size and placing of port and driver and off course how could you improve the frequency response ?
thanx a lot
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
hello guys, i have done some further modeling.
a little question before i go further. Does stuffing changes clarity. I have red something about it on the internet. Because i can get the graphs even better going to 0.3 stuffing instead of 0.2, is this an option, or is it fine like this. I mean, i can get the theoretical model better but would that also be in real life ? i mean not all the specs of a driver are exactly what they says they are.
another question: what is baffle step correction (bob brines speaks about it).
Is this ml-tqwt not to long ? i have red on this forum somewhere something about it, but didn't understand it. 100 cm corresponds with 33hz, (it was GM that said that) but how it is calculated i don't know.
oh yeah, is there a metric software version of it, those inches are killing me. hahah
thanx a lot
here are the graphs
a little question before i go further. Does stuffing changes clarity. I have red something about it on the internet. Because i can get the graphs even better going to 0.3 stuffing instead of 0.2, is this an option, or is it fine like this. I mean, i can get the theoretical model better but would that also be in real life ? i mean not all the specs of a driver are exactly what they says they are.
another question: what is baffle step correction (bob brines speaks about it).
Is this ml-tqwt not to long ? i have red on this forum somewhere something about it, but didn't understand it. 100 cm corresponds with 33hz, (it was GM that said that) but how it is calculated i don't know.
oh yeah, is there a metric software version of it, those inches are killing me. hahah
thanx a lot
here are the graphs
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
😕
You want to make a TQWT or a BR? If you're making a TQWT you need to change your So measurement. This should be the area at the top of the line. Sometimes around 1/7th the area of the SL.
You want to make a TQWT or a BR? If you're making a TQWT you need to change your So measurement. This should be the area at the top of the line. Sometimes around 1/7th the area of the SL.
It will not be a BR just because So=Sl. You can see by the Drive/Terminus output graph -- two more graphs south -- that you are getting quarter-wave action.
The reason your pipe is so short is that it is highly inductively loaded at the port. I generally wind up with a 40"-45" pipe and f3 in the 30's.
You don't have to live with English units. Just use the units of your choice -- mm, cm, you get the picture. And, you can mix or match as you see fit.
Bob
The reason your pipe is so short is that it is highly inductively loaded at the port. I generally wind up with a 40"-45" pipe and f3 in the 30's.
You don't have to live with English units. Just use the units of your choice -- mm, cm, you get the picture. And, you can mix or match as you see fit.
Bob
waauuw,
hello mr brines himself,
thanx very much. I have read a lot at your site. But still some questions.
I wanna make a ML-TQWT just like yours, i dont know which driver im gonna use, the fe164 or fx200 (i can get them cheap)
but if im gonna use the baffle-thing, it is reducing the efficency. At 91db for the 164 and to 89 for the fx200, both can have 15 watt at max, the total spl wont be very high, what do you think of this, can it fill easily a room of at least 30 square meter ? or has it problems with this.
thanx for the information, i thought that i did it right. (i have red the text about : a tqwt is not a bass box)
what do you think about the stuffing problem ?
thanx very much
hello mr brines himself,
thanx very much. I have read a lot at your site. But still some questions.
I wanna make a ML-TQWT just like yours, i dont know which driver im gonna use, the fe164 or fx200 (i can get them cheap)
but if im gonna use the baffle-thing, it is reducing the efficency. At 91db for the 164 and to 89 for the fx200, both can have 15 watt at max, the total spl wont be very high, what do you think of this, can it fill easily a room of at least 30 square meter ? or has it problems with this.
thanx for the information, i thought that i did it right. (i have red the text about : a tqwt is not a bass box)
what do you think about the stuffing problem ?
thanx very much
>a little question before i go further. Does stuffing changes clarity.
====
Yes, but it depends on several variables as to whether it is detrimental. As the driver's Qts goes up, the amount of stuffing required can be increased proportionately, and can actually improve clarity in some cases. Still, for drivers best suited for vented, if you need >0.5lbs/ft^3 to get it reasonably smooth, then it is time to rethink your design IMO.
====
>I have red something about it on the internet. Because i can get the graphs even better going to 0.3 stuffing instead of 0.2, is this an option, or is it fine like this. I mean, i can get the theoretical model better but would that also be in real life ? i mean not all the specs of a driver are exactly what they says they are.
====
Stuffing required in a sim is often just a starting point, so I try to get it ~ +/-1dB at 0.2-0.3lbs/ft^3 so there's some tolerance if folks want to add more or take a little out and still be close to the sim.
Then again, some folks stuff them like a rag doll and think they sound great, so as always YMMV. 😉
====
>another question: what is baffle step correction (bob brines speaks about it).
====
The sim gives you an FR plot as if the speakers are mounted in a super large wall. Once you move out away from this 1/2 space assumption, WLs that are long compared to the baffle size fall away towards the wall so the BW that is smaller than the baffle must be attenuated to get a ~flat FR or it will sound 'forward'/'bright'.
====
>Is this ml-tqwt not to long ?
====
No, some of my designs for this driver are much longer. My 'short' design for this driver is 45.25" 😉 You know it is too long when there is peaking at Fb even with the driver down at its optimum position due to too strong a pipe action.
====
> i have red on this forum somewhere something about it, but didn't understand it. 100 cm corresponds with 33hz, (it was GM that said that) but how it is calculated i don't know.
====
Not me. A 100 'inches' is a 1/4WL of ~33.9Hz though, so I guess this is what you are referring to. For cm: WL = ~34442.4cm/100 = ~344.4Hz. Since TL/ML-TL are 1/4WL resonators, a 100cm long pipe = ~344.4cm/4 = ~86.1Hz.
====
>oh yeah, is there a metric software version of it, those inches are killing me. hahah
====
Yes, and no. 😉 Just as you can change the dimension fields, you can double click on the inches (in) or feet (ft) fields and change them also to (cm) and (m) or whatever you prefer and Mathcad will automatically do all the conversions.
Unfortunately, the demo version doesn't allow you to save the changes, but if you ever get a licensed copy you can change them (and lots of other stuff too) and do a 'save as' to a metric 'default' worksheet to use from then on.
Anyway, your FR looks good if your room is small or the speakers will be close to a wall or corner. Also, here's some measured specs that are a little bit different to see how they work in your design:
Fs = 33.44Hz
Re = 7.5 ohms
Lvc = 1.75mH
Bl = 7.2388
Sd = 201cm
Vas = 82.3L
Qed = 0.48
Qmd = 7.0
Note that for a 38Hz Fs, Bl = a calculated 6.7906, not 7.2388, which will change the FR slightly, as will the higher Le.
Here is a couple of designs that according to the builders perform ~as predicted:
L = 45.25"
SO/SL = 111.125"^2
driver = 17.375"
port = 42.25"
rp = 1.5"
Lp = 2.5"
density = 0.2lbs/ft^3
L = 50.25"
SO/SL = 141.125"^2
driver = 19.375"
port = 47.25"
rp = 1.5"
Lp = 1.75"
density = 0.2lbs/ft^3
Since the driver is shifted down to get the best tradeoff between gain and smoothness, the actual cab ideally needs to be made longer and the cavity filled with kitty litter/sterile sand/whatever to add some mass loading. Doing the same at the top is a good idea also, though it doesn't need to be but a few inches thick, or you can add a heavy potted plant/marble top/whatever. I also recommend using this screw load adjuster: http://melhuish.org/audio/images/press-screw.gif
HTH,
GM
====
Yes, but it depends on several variables as to whether it is detrimental. As the driver's Qts goes up, the amount of stuffing required can be increased proportionately, and can actually improve clarity in some cases. Still, for drivers best suited for vented, if you need >0.5lbs/ft^3 to get it reasonably smooth, then it is time to rethink your design IMO.
====
>I have red something about it on the internet. Because i can get the graphs even better going to 0.3 stuffing instead of 0.2, is this an option, or is it fine like this. I mean, i can get the theoretical model better but would that also be in real life ? i mean not all the specs of a driver are exactly what they says they are.
====
Stuffing required in a sim is often just a starting point, so I try to get it ~ +/-1dB at 0.2-0.3lbs/ft^3 so there's some tolerance if folks want to add more or take a little out and still be close to the sim.
Then again, some folks stuff them like a rag doll and think they sound great, so as always YMMV. 😉
====
>another question: what is baffle step correction (bob brines speaks about it).
====
The sim gives you an FR plot as if the speakers are mounted in a super large wall. Once you move out away from this 1/2 space assumption, WLs that are long compared to the baffle size fall away towards the wall so the BW that is smaller than the baffle must be attenuated to get a ~flat FR or it will sound 'forward'/'bright'.
====
>Is this ml-tqwt not to long ?
====
No, some of my designs for this driver are much longer. My 'short' design for this driver is 45.25" 😉 You know it is too long when there is peaking at Fb even with the driver down at its optimum position due to too strong a pipe action.
====
> i have red on this forum somewhere something about it, but didn't understand it. 100 cm corresponds with 33hz, (it was GM that said that) but how it is calculated i don't know.
====
Not me. A 100 'inches' is a 1/4WL of ~33.9Hz though, so I guess this is what you are referring to. For cm: WL = ~34442.4cm/100 = ~344.4Hz. Since TL/ML-TL are 1/4WL resonators, a 100cm long pipe = ~344.4cm/4 = ~86.1Hz.
====
>oh yeah, is there a metric software version of it, those inches are killing me. hahah
====
Yes, and no. 😉 Just as you can change the dimension fields, you can double click on the inches (in) or feet (ft) fields and change them also to (cm) and (m) or whatever you prefer and Mathcad will automatically do all the conversions.
Unfortunately, the demo version doesn't allow you to save the changes, but if you ever get a licensed copy you can change them (and lots of other stuff too) and do a 'save as' to a metric 'default' worksheet to use from then on.
Anyway, your FR looks good if your room is small or the speakers will be close to a wall or corner. Also, here's some measured specs that are a little bit different to see how they work in your design:
Fs = 33.44Hz
Re = 7.5 ohms
Lvc = 1.75mH
Bl = 7.2388
Sd = 201cm
Vas = 82.3L
Qed = 0.48
Qmd = 7.0
Note that for a 38Hz Fs, Bl = a calculated 6.7906, not 7.2388, which will change the FR slightly, as will the higher Le.
Here is a couple of designs that according to the builders perform ~as predicted:
L = 45.25"
SO/SL = 111.125"^2
driver = 17.375"
port = 42.25"
rp = 1.5"
Lp = 2.5"
density = 0.2lbs/ft^3
L = 50.25"
SO/SL = 141.125"^2
driver = 19.375"
port = 47.25"
rp = 1.5"
Lp = 1.75"
density = 0.2lbs/ft^3
Since the driver is shifted down to get the best tradeoff between gain and smoothness, the actual cab ideally needs to be made longer and the cavity filled with kitty litter/sterile sand/whatever to add some mass loading. Doing the same at the top is a good idea also, though it doesn't need to be but a few inches thick, or you can add a heavy potted plant/marble top/whatever. I also recommend using this screw load adjuster: http://melhuish.org/audio/images/press-screw.gif
HTH,
GM
woehoe, thanx a lot GM, i love this forum, so much information for a starter like me, is just great.
a)Allright the pipe is a little bit to short, okay, ill look at it again.
b)But still the SPL is an issue, i want an fx200 or fe164 because they full range, or almost (the fx200 would probably an supertweeter around 15000) but the sound must be great, just because its simplicity. But plays it loud enough to fill a livingroom ?
c)i get the problem with the BSC. I m looking for a new speaker, i thought of the ciare in open baffle so(ciare 250: im thinking about it, the driver does weird things on 3 and 5khz) this knowledge comes in handy for understanding the BSC-thing. But today i was thinking: i have an NAD 3100 integrated amp; its not super but still satisfying for a student(well
), the sound is rather clean, rather musical for an transistor 🙄 , but two advantages : it has a lot of power (65 watt RMS per channel) and most of all the preamp and the power amp are connected externally, so is it possible to put the BSC between this ? so the single driver would be connected direct to the power amp?
d) can the BSC circuit for the speaker be copied into the active filter, or is this something compleet different, (is this is possible than the active filter got to be cheaper because the power flowing through the components is much less; but i don t know a lot of this, still i think that there will be problems with the impedance, so maybe buffers will be needed at the end of the active filter, i will start reading about it.
thanx everyone
a)Allright the pipe is a little bit to short, okay, ill look at it again.
b)But still the SPL is an issue, i want an fx200 or fe164 because they full range, or almost (the fx200 would probably an supertweeter around 15000) but the sound must be great, just because its simplicity. But plays it loud enough to fill a livingroom ?
c)i get the problem with the BSC. I m looking for a new speaker, i thought of the ciare in open baffle so(ciare 250: im thinking about it, the driver does weird things on 3 and 5khz) this knowledge comes in handy for understanding the BSC-thing. But today i was thinking: i have an NAD 3100 integrated amp; its not super but still satisfying for a student(well
), the sound is rather clean, rather musical for an transistor 🙄 , but two advantages : it has a lot of power (65 watt RMS per channel) and most of all the preamp and the power amp are connected externally, so is it possible to put the BSC between this ? so the single driver would be connected direct to the power amp? d) can the BSC circuit for the speaker be copied into the active filter, or is this something compleet different, (is this is possible than the active filter got to be cheaper because the power flowing through the components is much less; but i don t know a lot of this, still i think that there will be problems with the impedance, so maybe buffers will be needed at the end of the active filter, i will start reading about it.
thanx everyone
Hey man,
I´m impressed. You are really doing fine. It took me much longer to get such smooth FR plots from the worksheets.
Regarding d)
Thats a perfectly coherent idea. Look for it with google. "active baffle step correction" should give you same useful explanations.
The discussion about what action should be taken to eliminate the baffle step is somewhat controversial. If you are trying to get a linear response on axis under room conditions, you will simultaneously load more bass energy into the room - possibly resulting in a boomy bass response overall.
Putting the speakers close to the wall will preserve most of the 1/2 space condition.
Bipole- and Dipole speakers are other ways to get around BSC.
So try to find out more about the baffle step thing before you decide whether to correct it or not.
Rudolf
who is "forced" to stay from work tomorrow , because carnival has taken over in Germany. 😀
I´m impressed. You are really doing fine. It took me much longer to get such smooth FR plots from the worksheets.
Regarding d)
Thats a perfectly coherent idea. Look for it with google. "active baffle step correction" should give you same useful explanations.
The discussion about what action should be taken to eliminate the baffle step is somewhat controversial. If you are trying to get a linear response on axis under room conditions, you will simultaneously load more bass energy into the room - possibly resulting in a boomy bass response overall.
Putting the speakers close to the wall will preserve most of the 1/2 space condition.
Bipole- and Dipole speakers are other ways to get around BSC.
So try to find out more about the baffle step thing before you decide whether to correct it or not.
Rudolf
who is "forced" to stay from work tomorrow , because carnival has taken over in Germany. 😀
GM pretty well answered all of your questions, so there is not much for me to add.
GM makes an issue of peaking at Fb, which is correct. However, GM and I come from different mind sets. I try to design speakers that have an F3 ato or beow 40Hz. This provides a one driver solution that will cover the entire range of "normal" instruments, including the double bass bottom note of E=42Hz. (Ok, I know that orchestral basses often are extended to C=32, but give me a break!) To get there, I often have te except a couple of dB's of peaking to get down that low. As with everything else, with compromises come consequences, and I have to accept a couple of dB's of sag around the third harmonic. As a packege, though, I think it works.
With the smaller full-range driver, it is not posssible to force the speaker down to 40Hz and a sub becomes a requirement. Then, it makes no sense to accept any peaking. You just have to go where the driver will let you go.
BTW, any peaking at Fb can be handled with a little stuffing near the port.
Bob
GM makes an issue of peaking at Fb, which is correct. However, GM and I come from different mind sets. I try to design speakers that have an F3 ato or beow 40Hz. This provides a one driver solution that will cover the entire range of "normal" instruments, including the double bass bottom note of E=42Hz. (Ok, I know that orchestral basses often are extended to C=32, but give me a break!) To get there, I often have te except a couple of dB's of peaking to get down that low. As with everything else, with compromises come consequences, and I have to accept a couple of dB's of sag around the third harmonic. As a packege, though, I think it works.
With the smaller full-range driver, it is not posssible to force the speaker down to 40Hz and a sub becomes a requirement. Then, it makes no sense to accept any peaking. You just have to go where the driver will let you go.
BTW, any peaking at Fb can be handled with a little stuffing near the port.
Bob
>woehoe, thanx a lot GM, i love this forum, so much information for a starter like me, is just great.
====
You're welcome! I don't mind helping those who are willing to put in a bit of effort, it's the ones who get on-line and expect us to do a complete design for free so all they have to do is cut wood, etc..
====
>a)Allright the pipe is a little bit to short, okay, ill look at it again.
====
It's not short per se, it all depends on your performance goals. Do what best fits your performance goals within the limitations of the driver(s). Unless I'm designing for a specific app., the ones I post are well proven standard T/S alignments that have been ~maximized using mechanical resonant theory, but the tradeoff is the driver is shifted down further than most other's designs so often requires the additional chamber or a stand to get the driver to the right elevation if tilting the baffle isn't an option.
====
>b)But still the SPL is an issue, i want an fx200 or fe164 because they full range, or almost (the fx200 would probably an supertweeter around 15000) but the sound must be great, just because its simplicity. But plays it loud enough to fill a livingroom ?
====
Not knowing anything about your listening habits, the room, etc., I don't have a clue whether these will meet your performance requirements, but since you're a student, this implies that you can't play them very loud, so they may be fine (for now).
I design these as wide a BW as the driver's specs ~naturally allows because that's what folks seem to want with FR drivers, but 99.9% of them won't come close to meeting my minimum performance requirements if 'forced' to reproduce the LF/midbass BW, but then I don't live in an apt. or condo where neighbors are an issue, nor have I ever had any SAF problems WRT audio.
====
>c)i get the problem with the BSC. I m looking for a new speaker, i thought of the ciare in open baffle so(ciare 250: im thinking about it, the driver does weird things on 3 and 5khz) this knowledge comes in handy for understanding the BSC-thing. But today i was thinking: i have an NAD 3100 integrated amp; its not super but still satisfying for a student(well ), the sound is rather clean, rather musical for an transistor , but two advantages : it has a lot of power (65 watt RMS per channel) and most of all the preamp and the power amp are connected externally, so is it possible to put the BSC between this ? so the single driver would be connected direct to the power amp?
====
Correct.
====
>d) can the BSC circuit for the speaker be copied into the active filter, or is this something compleet different, (is this is possible than the active filter got to be cheaper because the power flowing through the components is much less; but i don t know a lot of this, still i think that there will be problems with the impedance, so maybe buffers will be needed at the end of the active filter, i will start reading about it.
====
Right, lower power requirements in active filters translates into smaller, and usually cheaper, parts.
I don't have any experience designing active filters, but just like with a line level filter, BSC would be either a separate filter to work in conjunction with the XO or adjust the XO's component values depending on how wide the baffle is WRT the XO point.
I prefer to not use electrical BSC and position speakers up against a wall or corner and do whatever is required to get good performance through room treatment, or if placed further out in the room, then add a second driver so I don't have to give up the efficiency.
Some folks just make a severely underdamped (ringing/boomy) alignment to give them the desired BSC, but with rare exception it is not something I recommend if good performance is a goal, though certain manufacturers have made a fortune selling zillions of them so WTFDIK.
HTH,
GM
====
You're welcome! I don't mind helping those who are willing to put in a bit of effort, it's the ones who get on-line and expect us to do a complete design for free so all they have to do is cut wood, etc..
====
>a)Allright the pipe is a little bit to short, okay, ill look at it again.
====
It's not short per se, it all depends on your performance goals. Do what best fits your performance goals within the limitations of the driver(s). Unless I'm designing for a specific app., the ones I post are well proven standard T/S alignments that have been ~maximized using mechanical resonant theory, but the tradeoff is the driver is shifted down further than most other's designs so often requires the additional chamber or a stand to get the driver to the right elevation if tilting the baffle isn't an option.
====
>b)But still the SPL is an issue, i want an fx200 or fe164 because they full range, or almost (the fx200 would probably an supertweeter around 15000) but the sound must be great, just because its simplicity. But plays it loud enough to fill a livingroom ?
====
Not knowing anything about your listening habits, the room, etc., I don't have a clue whether these will meet your performance requirements, but since you're a student, this implies that you can't play them very loud, so they may be fine (for now).
I design these as wide a BW as the driver's specs ~naturally allows because that's what folks seem to want with FR drivers, but 99.9% of them won't come close to meeting my minimum performance requirements if 'forced' to reproduce the LF/midbass BW, but then I don't live in an apt. or condo where neighbors are an issue, nor have I ever had any SAF problems WRT audio.
====
>c)i get the problem with the BSC. I m looking for a new speaker, i thought of the ciare in open baffle so(ciare 250: im thinking about it, the driver does weird things on 3 and 5khz) this knowledge comes in handy for understanding the BSC-thing. But today i was thinking: i have an NAD 3100 integrated amp; its not super but still satisfying for a student(well ), the sound is rather clean, rather musical for an transistor , but two advantages : it has a lot of power (65 watt RMS per channel) and most of all the preamp and the power amp are connected externally, so is it possible to put the BSC between this ? so the single driver would be connected direct to the power amp?
====
Correct.
====
>d) can the BSC circuit for the speaker be copied into the active filter, or is this something compleet different, (is this is possible than the active filter got to be cheaper because the power flowing through the components is much less; but i don t know a lot of this, still i think that there will be problems with the impedance, so maybe buffers will be needed at the end of the active filter, i will start reading about it.
====
Right, lower power requirements in active filters translates into smaller, and usually cheaper, parts.
I don't have any experience designing active filters, but just like with a line level filter, BSC would be either a separate filter to work in conjunction with the XO or adjust the XO's component values depending on how wide the baffle is WRT the XO point.
I prefer to not use electrical BSC and position speakers up against a wall or corner and do whatever is required to get good performance through room treatment, or if placed further out in the room, then add a second driver so I don't have to give up the efficiency.
Some folks just make a severely underdamped (ringing/boomy) alignment to give them the desired BSC, but with rare exception it is not something I recommend if good performance is a goal, though certain manufacturers have made a fortune selling zillions of them so WTFDIK.
HTH,
GM
- Status
- Not open for further replies.