You have a few options to try now, the third order should stop the tweeter from getting distressed. At the same time it gets the woofer out of the picture quickly.
Have you had a chance to do any listening to determine if you like the overall sound.
Have you had a chance to do any listening to determine if you like the overall sound.
I had to wait for my breakfast this mornnig and went a bit further in messing with this, and i made a better one. If the measurments were done right this is a full phase cohesive assymetric parallel (3th order for tweeter, 2nd for woofer with eq for the resonance peak).
You can't do this with a serial. Serial crossovers shine on low ordrer with well behaving drivers, but for this you need more complex crossovers, where parallel shine.
You can't do this with a serial. Serial crossovers shine on low ordrer with well behaving drivers, but for this you need more complex crossovers, where parallel shine.
I ordered some XO parts to try out the series.
Towards the end of the week I'll be able to give it a listen
Where does anyone get the idea that a series crossover is going to have a higher impedance than a parallel crossover?
I have seen that twice in as many days recently.
I have seen that twice in as many days recently.
Ron,
Because if you wire two speakers in series you double the impendence. In parallel you halve the impendence. Go ahead, try it
Because if you wire two speakers in series you double the impendence. In parallel you halve the impendence. Go ahead, try it
But you bypass both of those speakers with a coil and a cap so to "short" the respective driver out for a certain frequency band.
(By the way @Bmsluite, you might consider merging your several threads to help people understand your project - just a suggestion. You can ask moderators to do so)
Series xovers do not ADD impedances, and parallel xovers do not PARALLEL impedances. They remain their respective nominal impedance in their passbands unless you've done something wrong or not watched your filters' results. Normal use raises impedance in the stop-band for parallel topologies, and shorts out the other in a series topology to where the out of band driver is no longer in play enough to have much affect.
Series xovers are not required to have lower order xovers and well behaved drivers. This is a myth. I've used 4th order electrical SXO filters to achieve 6th order acoustic rolloffs. And yes- you CAN use notches in SXOs, contrary to public myth.
Series xovers are not required to have lower order xovers and well behaved drivers. This is a myth. I've used 4th order electrical SXO filters to achieve 6th order acoustic rolloffs. And yes- you CAN use notches in SXOs, contrary to public myth.
I will say that after 2 weeks of screwing with various paralel and series XOs that, in my two week experience, it is MUCH easier to end up with a higher impendence with a series XO.
This was made especially hard for me since the 4 ohm tweeter measured a measly 2.8 Re. Running a series meant I could get it high enough to use a regular amplifier. With a parallel you can get it higher but you might sacrifice a significant amount of wattage to resistors.
Most tweeters have to be padded to match the rest of the drivers. This is normal and expected due to sensitivity differences. If you are trying not to use resistors at all on tweeters you aren't doing it right.
Unless the tweeter matches the reasonably high sensitivity woofer as in your build, this shouldn't make a difference, however, BSC should have eaten 6dB of the sensitivity of your woofers and made the sensitivity match still require resistors.
Your 2 weeks of playing around just doesn't agree with my over 15 years of xover experience.
Unless the tweeter matches the reasonably high sensitivity woofer as in your build, this shouldn't make a difference, however, BSC should have eaten 6dB of the sensitivity of your woofers and made the sensitivity match still require resistors.
Your 2 weeks of playing around just doesn't agree with my over 15 years of xover experience.
OK, I will throw away everything I know about actual rigorous circuit analysis because you don't understand terminology.
Let's say you are making a first order series crossover. The high frequencies travel through the cap and tweeter, where the low frequeencies pass through the coil and woofer. The same is true for a parallel crossover. The woofer and tweeter are not in series in a series crossover. The technical term for "in series" means they "share the same current" That cannot be true when there are elements in parallel with the tweeter and woofer because current can be shared with the inductor and capacitor.
In the same way, the drivers in a parallel crossover are not im parallel because elements "in parallel", by definition, "share the same voltage".
You probably don't understand the concept of a "node", but I'll attempt an explanation: Can you find anywhere on a parallel crossover circuit where you could place a voltmeter (one lead on the negative input) where there is not a component betwween the positive tweeter terminal and the positive woofer terminal?
I don't want to be a nice but maybe you should have with held your statement before asking what the sensitivity of the drivers were...
Tweeter: 91db
Woofer: 93 db
You come off as quite arrogant for someone who doesn't have the full picture. You just assumed I was stupid and you were better? More experienced, that I will give you. I am pretty far from dumb. If you saw my day job you wouldn't be so quick to get snarky.
Ron E,
I am an electrical engineer. Nice that you're talking down to me though, really cool. I highly doubt you'd do this if we were talking in the same room.
I understand they are not in series. I was saying that most people would assume a series XO was higher impendence because if you wired drivers in series the system impendence would be higher. I explaining the reasoning from the thought and that I did actually find a series crossover to make it easier to raise the impendence. You took this statement sideways and made it something it wasn't. Again, very snarky, very arrogant.
You and Wolf should hang out and talk down to each other as you just did to me. Have you two come to consensus as to which of you are better than the other?
I am an electrical engineer. Nice that you're talking down to me though, really cool. I highly doubt you'd do this if we were talking in the same room.
I understand they are not in series. I was saying that most people would assume a series XO was higher impendence because if you wired drivers in series the system impendence would be higher. I explaining the reasoning from the thought and that I did actually find a series crossover to make it easier to raise the impendence. You took this statement sideways and made it something it wasn't. Again, very snarky, very arrogant.
You and Wolf should hang out and talk down to each other as you just did to me. Have you two come to consensus as to which of you are better than the other?
I worded my response very carefully. I know what the sensitivities are and did not even ask what they were as you infer. You did not use full BSC and use the normal process to get flat response where padding would likely still be required. I never assume, nor do I think lesser of someone starting out. You got snarky in reply when I called attention to how this should have been done and corrected what looked like inaccuracies.
Instead you listed a reason and method to raise impedance (still not impendence, which i already discussed with you. You have not changed to the correct word in any of your postings, and I feel an EE should know the right one.) via a different topology. This really has no bearing any different on the impedance than a parallel xover does.
You stated that the series topology was easier to maintain a higher impedance, and this was not misconstrued. This is what we are trying to tell you. You made it sound like they added, especially to newer builders, and misinformation should be rejected and corrected so that all are better for having the correct information.
You stated your experience level, and I stated mine in response. Nothing more, nothing less.
I do not think any less of you as a person, but you need to both a- be more succinct in your wording, and b- not jump to incorrect conclusions in areas of less experience.
Welcome to the forum, and I hope you learn a lot here.
Instead you listed a reason and method to raise impedance (still not impendence, which i already discussed with you. You have not changed to the correct word in any of your postings, and I feel an EE should know the right one.) via a different topology. This really has no bearing any different on the impedance than a parallel xover does.
You stated that the series topology was easier to maintain a higher impedance, and this was not misconstrued. This is what we are trying to tell you. You made it sound like they added, especially to newer builders, and misinformation should be rejected and corrected so that all are better for having the correct information.
You stated your experience level, and I stated mine in response. Nothing more, nothing less.
I do not think any less of you as a person, but you need to both a- be more succinct in your wording, and b- not jump to incorrect conclusions in areas of less experience.
Welcome to the forum, and I hope you learn a lot here.
Wolf was acknowledging that he knew the infinite baffle sensitivities of your drivers were close. But your woofer will lose 6dbB due to baffle step losses, unless it is near the wall. Thus, if you design with full baffle step compensation, your complete speaker will have about a 87dB sensitivity. In that case, you would have padded the tweeters down about 4dB.
You come off as snarky to me. It is not appreciated. Anytime you say "my experience is greater and so I am right" is talking down to someone. It also does not make you right. It means you have been doing it longer, possibly doing it longer wrong.
The old are not necessarily wise, they just have more experience thrawrting death.
Impendence and impedence are the same thing. Same concept, both resistance. I am not going to constantly change the autocorrect on my laptop or phone to make it spell it the way you prefer when you fully understand what I am talking about. I am sure you do not use the word "whom" in practice, because it doesn't matter and no one cars. Same concept here. Language is fluid.
I did not tell him that they added. I only showed him a series XO, in the frequency range he wanted, that went above the minimum impendence he sought.
I am sure we can get along. I will let you know that I will not let snarky responses slide. I don't in person, and I will not on the internet. If this means we cannot talk, so be it.
The old are not necessarily wise, they just have more experience thrawrting death.
Impendence and impedence are the same thing. Same concept, both resistance. I am not going to constantly change the autocorrect on my laptop or phone to make it spell it the way you prefer when you fully understand what I am talking about. I am sure you do not use the word "whom" in practice, because it doesn't matter and no one cars. Same concept here. Language is fluid.
I did not tell him that they added. I only showed him a series XO, in the frequency range he wanted, that went above the minimum impendence he sought.
I am sure we can get along. I will let you know that I will not let snarky responses slide. I don't in person, and I will not on the internet. If this means we cannot talk, so be it.
I quoted you directly in my last post. No "Electrical Engineer" would phrase it that way. Don't tell me what you were trying to say because I quoted exactly what you said , with the snarky "Go ahead, try it" comment added. I am not interested in your hurt feelings, I tried to educate you, not talk down to you. If you feel talked down to, that is 100% on you. Your defensiveness indicates your lack of depth on the subject. talk less and read more.
My question:
Your answer:
Nothing here says you understand they are not in series in a series crossover So I tried to teach you why they are not in series and why parallel crossovers are not in parallel. Do you understand?.
No, it is a different word entirely;
https://www.google.com/search?q=imp...jUuMS40LjEuMqAHo4EB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp
I guess you can just be wrong then. You have that choice, and I cannot force you. It is however not respectful to others, and does not paint you as a wiser party here. The reason it is auto corrected is because the device dictionary does not know the right word. This happens a lot in my experience, and I've added many. It's not my personal preference, just that it is the correct word. Semantics and jargon are rife in this hobby. It's not that I understand without correction. It's that other people may not without it. Be respectful to those less informed individuals trying to learn from you, me, and the majority here. The adolescent and spiteful "I don't want to, and you can't make me" kind of behavior here and in life in general will only hold you back. If you don't want to learn and or be succinct with what you do know, then your participation is not worth your effort.
I don't know how you are finding me snarky, as we've never met, and there is no body language or context to go with your claims. I read your (paraphrased) "I've been doing this for 2 weeks, and find this is so." to sound like you jumped to a conclusion without doing the proper homework, and that it sounded like you were satisfied enough to engage with others saying your newfound knowledge to be golden or sacred. There is a lot of knowledge on these boards, and not necessarily just me. Maybe you should just listen instead of lashing out at others when your credibility is questioned. Just because I have more experience does not make me wrong either. Learn from your wiser elders.
The series filter does not do as you say or inferred and neither adds nor makes it easy to keep impedance higher. It does not matter how you inferred, meant, or sidestepped after or before your comments or not. It simply and plainly does not do this.
I want to get along, but it does not appear you are willing to do so.
To restate, baffle step application will require tweeter resistance be added, and then the impedance will no longer be trending lower than desired for your tweeter, nor require one topology or the other to remedy said low impedance.
https://www.google.com/search?q=imp...jUuMS40LjEuMqAHo4EB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp
I guess you can just be wrong then. You have that choice, and I cannot force you. It is however not respectful to others, and does not paint you as a wiser party here. The reason it is auto corrected is because the device dictionary does not know the right word. This happens a lot in my experience, and I've added many. It's not my personal preference, just that it is the correct word. Semantics and jargon are rife in this hobby. It's not that I understand without correction. It's that other people may not without it. Be respectful to those less informed individuals trying to learn from you, me, and the majority here. The adolescent and spiteful "I don't want to, and you can't make me" kind of behavior here and in life in general will only hold you back. If you don't want to learn and or be succinct with what you do know, then your participation is not worth your effort.
I don't know how you are finding me snarky, as we've never met, and there is no body language or context to go with your claims. I read your (paraphrased) "I've been doing this for 2 weeks, and find this is so." to sound like you jumped to a conclusion without doing the proper homework, and that it sounded like you were satisfied enough to engage with others saying your newfound knowledge to be golden or sacred. There is a lot of knowledge on these boards, and not necessarily just me. Maybe you should just listen instead of lashing out at others when your credibility is questioned. Just because I have more experience does not make me wrong either. Learn from your wiser elders.
The series filter does not do as you say or inferred and neither adds nor makes it easy to keep impedance higher. It does not matter how you inferred, meant, or sidestepped after or before your comments or not. It simply and plainly does not do this.
I want to get along, but it does not appear you are willing to do so.
To restate, baffle step application will require tweeter resistance be added, and then the impedance will no longer be trending lower than desired for your tweeter, nor require one topology or the other to remedy said low impedance.
You asked where the idea came from, I told you.
I spend most of my waking moments with other electrical engineers. We would all phrase it that way.
Not all electrical engineering is circuitry. This is 2024. We mostly deal with automation and robotics now.
Wolf,
I think you have learned enough to think you know everything. I think this hobby is like my aerodynamics business where some people learn a bit and think they know everything where the real experts learn enough to know that they know almost nothing.
I also think you probably do not know how you come off to people through a text medium.
That is fine, I deal with crass engineers all day. I am one. You don't like my attitude and think I know nothing because I am younger? I don't like your attitude of you know everything because you are old.
One the XO topic again, for the last time, since you seem to not have read my writing it, I will state again what I said: I said "It is easier to make a series XO with a higher impendence than a parallel XO" Read the word "EASIER". When did i say it was impossible to make a parallel XO with a high impendence? Where did I write that by definition a series XO has a higher impendence?
We can get along. I am just telling you not come at me with a "I have been doing this longer so you are wrong attitude". Maybe that's why there are only like 100 people on this entire forum. I have thick skin. Most people would just leave, and probably they have. To the point where I feel like I already know 90% of the active users here. Most people do not have the technical background to even get into this hobby so if you start lording over them, and talking down to them, they will likely just quit. I see it at the race track a lot. Guys come in, want to learn, they find out they are super slow, they get discouraged, some guy yells at them for not getting out of the way of their faster car, we never see that person again. This is why I live in a city of 3 million people and see the same 200 people over and over at the track. No one else wants feel slow and get yelled at. No one here wants someone else to talk down to them and explain they have years more experience so they know nothing and are wrong.
Now, onto the simulation. You are talking about applying the baffle step to the tweeter. I do not understand this. Is the baffle step of the tweeter not already included in the far field measurements I took of the tweeter? As far as I understand it, when taking an actual far field measurement the baffle step is already applied and there is no simulation required because real life measurements trump the simulation every time. I do understand that if you are using traced data you absolutely should add the baffle step simulation.
I think you have learned enough to think you know everything. I think this hobby is like my aerodynamics business where some people learn a bit and think they know everything where the real experts learn enough to know that they know almost nothing.
I also think you probably do not know how you come off to people through a text medium.
That is fine, I deal with crass engineers all day. I am one. You don't like my attitude and think I know nothing because I am younger? I don't like your attitude of you know everything because you are old.
One the XO topic again, for the last time, since you seem to not have read my writing it, I will state again what I said: I said "It is easier to make a series XO with a higher impendence than a parallel XO" Read the word "EASIER". When did i say it was impossible to make a parallel XO with a high impendence? Where did I write that by definition a series XO has a higher impendence?
We can get along. I am just telling you not come at me with a "I have been doing this longer so you are wrong attitude". Maybe that's why there are only like 100 people on this entire forum. I have thick skin. Most people would just leave, and probably they have. To the point where I feel like I already know 90% of the active users here. Most people do not have the technical background to even get into this hobby so if you start lording over them, and talking down to them, they will likely just quit. I see it at the race track a lot. Guys come in, want to learn, they find out they are super slow, they get discouraged, some guy yells at them for not getting out of the way of their faster car, we never see that person again. This is why I live in a city of 3 million people and see the same 200 people over and over at the track. No one else wants feel slow and get yelled at. No one here wants someone else to talk down to them and explain they have years more experience so they know nothing and are wrong.
Now, onto the simulation. You are talking about applying the baffle step to the tweeter. I do not understand this. Is the baffle step of the tweeter not already included in the far field measurements I took of the tweeter? As far as I understand it, when taking an actual far field measurement the baffle step is already applied and there is no simulation required because real life measurements trump the simulation every time. I do understand that if you are using traced data you absolutely should add the baffle step simulation.