Hi,
How about steeper slope than LR24 on a tweeter in order to use it in the octave above Fs and still protect him enough from disto, please ?
Do such filter needs offset in the cabinet like a LR2 or any trick ? How about phase with the mid with such filter an transcients ?
Also : is it possible to apply to cells ? first : a cap and a shunt coil with a ultra steep slope, then a secon seried cell with a more traditional 2 order electrical slope and still get good sounding results ?
The idea behin is to use a Seas 22 TAF/G withh a 1300 hz Fs and that has only 0.2 mm Xmax at seing te datasheet and withh an acoustical filter in the 2000 hz to 2200 hz for a MTM arrengement.
Yeah I know, not wise...
Many thanks if any idea or if you are aware about eleptical on line calculator for passive eliptical filter or the ones looking like a notch maybe in spite of ?
How about steeper slope than LR24 on a tweeter in order to use it in the octave above Fs and still protect him enough from disto, please ?
Do such filter needs offset in the cabinet like a LR2 or any trick ? How about phase with the mid with such filter an transcients ?
Also : is it possible to apply to cells ? first : a cap and a shunt coil with a ultra steep slope, then a secon seried cell with a more traditional 2 order electrical slope and still get good sounding results ?
The idea behin is to use a Seas 22 TAF/G withh a 1300 hz Fs and that has only 0.2 mm Xmax at seing te datasheet and withh an acoustical filter in the 2000 hz to 2200 hz for a MTM arrengement.
Yeah I know, not wise...
Many thanks if any idea or if you are aware about eleptical on line calculator for passive eliptical filter or the ones looking like a notch maybe in spite of ?
Thanks Allen,
Can I sim it after measuring its spl and disto at 2.83 v . I assume I test it step by step with such a filter by increasing the voltage and looking the disto on the screen (Arta, Vituix).
Wonder if h5 at -60 db is still low enough if at only around half an octave from the cut off with such filter?
Not sure I still listen to more than 100 db at max transcient these days.
Can I sim it after measuring its spl and disto at 2.83 v . I assume I test it step by step with such a filter by increasing the voltage and looking the disto on the screen (Arta, Vituix).
Wonder if h5 at -60 db is still low enough if at only around half an octave from the cut off with such filter?
Not sure I still listen to more than 100 db at max transcient these days.
Maybe. After you take into account real music, and the variable audibility of distortion.. you may only have a guideline.
The thing is that with some crossovers the bass is using up significant excusion, and then when you cross steep the passband is using more excursion. When you extend the passband downward, you can't get any more worthwhile benefit by reducing the bass.
The thing is that with some crossovers the bass is using up significant excusion, and then when you cross steep the passband is using more excursion. When you extend the passband downward, you can't get any more worthwhile benefit by reducing the bass.
Edit: beaten to it, but keeping as-written anyway 
One other point (as has been alluded to re there being only so far you can go): as far as excursion goes, LR4 is about the best compromise in terms of HP power-handling -a little better than most of the higher order slopes. Maximum excursion occurs above the XO point for anything > 2nd order, & for a given crossover frequency & target response, the higher the order, the lower & flatter you're forcing the tweeter to run before it rolls off. There was a fairly lengthy discussion on this about 15 years ago over at Madisound & elsewhere, & you can do some excursion modelling to confirm. So really, you're in the 'name your poison' region, since you may be sacrificing that, along with greater GD / phase rotation depending on implementation, for the possible advantages elsewhere.
I like LR6 myself for low-cross 2-ways -mainly 'just because' (and because I can usually hit the desired alignment with a conventional ladder type without resorting to notched / Cauer / Type II Chebyshev / whatever you feel like calling them filters. Useful to have up the old sleeve of course. The 22TAF/G should be fine LR4 at 2KHz if you're not really pushing it.
One other point (as has been alluded to re there being only so far you can go): as far as excursion goes, LR4 is about the best compromise in terms of HP power-handling -a little better than most of the higher order slopes. Maximum excursion occurs above the XO point for anything > 2nd order, & for a given crossover frequency & target response, the higher the order, the lower & flatter you're forcing the tweeter to run before it rolls off. There was a fairly lengthy discussion on this about 15 years ago over at Madisound & elsewhere, & you can do some excursion modelling to confirm. So really, you're in the 'name your poison' region, since you may be sacrificing that, along with greater GD / phase rotation depending on implementation, for the possible advantages elsewhere.
I like LR6 myself for low-cross 2-ways -mainly 'just because' (and because I can usually hit the desired alignment with a conventional ladder type without resorting to notched / Cauer / Type II Chebyshev / whatever you feel like calling them filters. Useful to have up the old sleeve of course. The 22TAF/G should be fine LR4 at 2KHz if you're not really pushing it.
FWIW, this is an MTM with the 22 & the 15w/8434 that I've been fooling about with for a little while. Crossover is 1.9KHz, asymmetric LR4, partly aping the Canalis Anima in that sense; pair of drivers of course & a different target response, but IIRC Joachim used BW3 which puts greater demands on the tweeter as it's only 3dB down at the crossover rather than -6dB, so we know from that & some basic modelling it can handle it, albeit firmly in the 'ambitious' end of how you'd be running the 22. In a sense, this is also me hybridising it with Lynn Olson's Ariel, as I'm using a very mild Gundry / Harwood style midband EQ and a slight 2dB declining response trend. Work in progress (amongst a round million other projects and the square root of jack budget) but has potential, assuming I can ever get it finished. Modelled rather than measured nearfield spliced in @ just under 300Hz as I haven't finished the box load yet (it's a hybrid TL & being a bit of a pain to tune), so ignore the LF, it's there just as an approximation so the rest is visually balanced.
In a sense, this is also me hybridising it with Lynn Olson's Ariel, as I'm using a very mild Gundry / Harwood style midband EQ and a slight 2dB declining response trend. Work in progress (amongst a round million other projects and the square root of jack budget) but has potential, assuming I can ever get it finished. Modelled rather than measured nearfield spliced in @ just under 300Hz as I haven't finished the box load yet (it's a hybrid TL & being a bit of a pain to tune), so ignore the LF, it's there just as an approximation so the rest is visually balanced.Attachments
Last edited:
the project is going slowly too here for some reasons.
Thanks for the tip. That models very good, wow!
It should be more rock and roll amplitude on my side cause paired with two NE149W-08 down to 300 hz territory with the Faital 12PR320 in a separated cab below... around 77L à la OSMC or Faital WC-12. All these drivers have some sounding potential alone but of course all is about the loudspeaker design and that difficult MTM choice non talking about the passive choice for the filter. Maybe it can work if not too much spl output needs because this tweeter (and I'm in a flat)
The two 5.5" will be tried with a pipe vented load à la Campbel/Holtz 's Finalist but different front baffle.
Thanks for the tip. That models very good, wow!
It should be more rock and roll amplitude on my side cause paired with two NE149W-08 down to 300 hz territory with the Faital 12PR320 in a separated cab below... around 77L à la OSMC or Faital WC-12. All these drivers have some sounding potential alone but of course all is about the loudspeaker design and that difficult MTM choice non talking about the passive choice for the filter. Maybe it can work if not too much spl output needs because this tweeter (and I'm in a flat)
The two 5.5" will be tried with a pipe vented load à la Campbel/Holtz 's Finalist but different front baffle.
Last edited: