I can't say I really understood that. I know the woofer inductance matters. Below 0.25mH, I reckon. It's because the Zobel network has a root LC resonance too. Don't worry. I'm on it. 🙂
I posted a question . What does woofer inductance tell us. It is a reflection of the driver frequency response to a certain degree. There will be arguments over that. It tells us the impedance at the given frequencies the woofer is operating at.
What is impedance? Impedance changes in frequency? We are talking about a time varying electric current relative to the given frequencies.
The time of the frequencies is corrected in these types of crossovers. You have to understand how they work..
What is impedance? Impedance changes in frequency? We are talking about a time varying electric current relative to the given frequencies.
The time of the frequencies is corrected in these types of crossovers. You have to understand how they work..
speakerman, I'm on your side. I fully understand how linear circuits work. I've got a bit of insight into non-linear circuits too. Think Feigenbaum and those fascinating fractals. 🙂
Unfortunately a speaker is a non-linear circuit due to eddy-losses in the voice-coil and magnet. It's our job to look into the factors and do our best to get it linear.
I'm going to do this flippin' math and get us more solidly grounded. Cause you are just being ENIGMATIC! 😀
FWIW, impedance is not a constant, but it IS a function of frequency in a LINEAR circuit. That's how it works.
Unfortunately a speaker is a non-linear circuit due to eddy-losses in the voice-coil and magnet. It's our job to look into the factors and do our best to get it linear.
I'm going to do this flippin' math and get us more solidly grounded. Cause you are just being ENIGMATIC! 😀
FWIW, impedance is not a constant, but it IS a function of frequency in a LINEAR circuit. That's how it works.
Last edited:
I am asked questions. I do not understand why the question is being asked
If they understood how these designs work they would not be asking the question.
I try and give an answer because I think they may have meant something else?
I think in series not parallel. It is a waste of energy.
If they understood how these designs work they would not be asking the question.
I try and give an answer because I think they may have meant something else?
I think in series not parallel. It is a waste of energy.
That's not what I meant. I don't have them, and likely a lot of other posters don't either. This doesn't mean you are the ony one who does, but posting as we do leaves out information.
Yes- listening is the final proof. However, if this SPL meter does not have flat response or been verified to match that of a reference meter, then it's frequency results can be inferior to actual response. This is called a 'calibration file'. The Radio Shack meters are not flat, and there are charts to 'correct' them on line if you weren't aware of that.
Diffraction is a reference to the width of the baffle and how the sound will roll off the vertical edges of the baffle, and bounce off the front wall of the room, and then to the listener. Baffle Step refers to the sound emission from the tweeter being very directional in the top and the woofer being omnidirectional in the bottom, and the spacial transition of this change from 2pi to 4pi radiation as the frequency gets lower. This causes a suckout below the frequency of baffle width, with a peak centered on that frequency before it normalizes just above there.
To not compensate for BaffleStep, means you will lack the fullness of the midbass region in general. This is not measurement, this is not simulation, this is fact and clearly audible. This secondary coil is how BS is compensated for in a SXO, typically between 0.75 and 2.0mH in value. If you added the TL subwoofer in the design you speak of to compensate for the lack of bass, then you now have bass, but likely not midbass.
This is a DIY forum, so this is not likely.
Don't know what this is in reference to, but some drivers are made with a frame that slopes to the baffle surface, requiring a surface-mount. Otherwise, who wouldn't?
I've done it by ear, by math, by simulation, and by measurements. There are many ways to design a quality speaker, but some take more time than others. Formulas are good, and represent things as they should be typically in an ideal world. Without complex derivatives (phase), and using some multivariate calculus, one cannot include all of the variables that go into a design. A lot of computer programs have this inherent to the processes, and everything is accounted for if one knows what they are doing. If one has no grasp of electrical theories, one cannot design speakers that will sound great. If one knows these things, then it is highly possible with acoustic theory backing the process.
How the woofer rolls off naturally, and about where that will occur. It does not however tell you if there is energy storage, breakup, or other issues that occur before the driver actually does roll off.
That most of them do not have any inductive rise of impedance in the range of human hearing, and that they will typically (baffle/edge/diffraction issues aside) extend in frequency response beyond human hearing. The inverse of the mH value of tweeters to find a capacitor value, will actually be above human hearing most of the time.
Impedance = varying resistance with regard to frequency. Le cannot tell you about energy storage and other detrimental products of drivers that will vary the impedance. This can really throw an impedance off of the natural inductive curve.
'Time of the frequencies'?? Frequency is a number n of cycles with relation to frequency, typically in seconds. The link you provided states nothing of relation to time. Are you referring to acoustic-phase or electrical-phase relationships? I think the problem I have most is with the jargon you use in your comments. We are on different terms and their applications sometimes, and this can put a strain on the conversation.
I understand how SXO's work. I understand the threory of the xover networks involved, and what each piece actually does. The reason most people do not use SXO's in general, is because the info that is out there in the public domain is not that prevalent in comparison to the parallel topologies. I was into speakers for about 2-3 years before I even heard of them, and now I'm at ~14 years. The internet has shed alot of light on the subject and how they are used.
Another issue WRT SXO's is that the 'mantra' of the SXO user is to use smooth wideband drivers that have no issues to speak of to compensate for. To me- this is the same thing as FR enthusiasts advocating no xover or contour network. This other side of the coin thought process of using more difficult drivers with SXO's (as I have done) is not promoted often, but is very realistically accomplished.
Thirdly- the issue of SXO's is that one component change can make you revise others to get back to where you were in another place in the frequency response as everything is in series connection. This makes it difficult for those designers who don't like having to readapt everytime they change something.
Later,
Wolf
Well, as it goes I don't pay for access to the AES papers either. 😡
But the laws of Physics happen to be in the public domain. I know, it's annoying. You freemasons and other hangers-on don't like this situation. 🙄
I think the LIGHT universe is gonna win over the DARK SIDE. I privately think all this series crossover stuff is just so much hooey that's gonna fall flat on it's face against the inescapable law that says that time goes forwards, ringing always follows the impulse, an all that stuff relating to the cold hard equations of physics. Now just gotta prove it. And I will. 😎
But the laws of Physics happen to be in the public domain. I know, it's annoying. You freemasons and other hangers-on don't like this situation. 🙄
I think the LIGHT universe is gonna win over the DARK SIDE. I privately think all this series crossover stuff is just so much hooey that's gonna fall flat on it's face against the inescapable law that says that time goes forwards, ringing always follows the impulse, an all that stuff relating to the cold hard equations of physics. Now just gotta prove it. And I will. 😎
I likely have the AES papers amoungst the 1000s of them i have. Without you citing which specific AES papers there is no point in even trying to guess...
dave
I already know that. Did you not read my full post??
Which side is Wolf?? Because he basically just walked all over this thread.
Last edited:
Lets do a few examples. Scan Speak 2010 tweeter.
The tweeter has a .08mh voice coil inductance. Depending on which slope you want to use many observations can be made. First you have see what the tweeter is capable of. handling.
Wolf-teeth .75mh to 2.0 mh do not work in these designs.
L= R/tt x fc
.796 mh = 3200hz. is the tweeter mh
C= 1/Rx2ttFc
6.22mfd = 3200hz
I think I will only correspond with System7 if he wants to learn the design. None of you understand it your loss. You have to look at the drivers from many points of reference.
ScanSpeak Classic D2010/8513 20 mm Dome Tweeter: Madisound Speaker Store
The tweeter has a .08mh voice coil inductance. Depending on which slope you want to use many observations can be made. First you have see what the tweeter is capable of. handling.
Wolf-teeth .75mh to 2.0 mh do not work in these designs.
L= R/tt x fc
.796 mh = 3200hz. is the tweeter mh
C= 1/Rx2ttFc
6.22mfd = 3200hz
I think I will only correspond with System7 if he wants to learn the design. None of you understand it your loss. You have to look at the drivers from many points of reference.
ScanSpeak Classic D2010/8513 20 mm Dome Tweeter: Madisound Speaker Store
Actually I would not want to use any midbass driver that has a voice coil inductance above .8mh crossed to a tweeter. Most of them sound horrible.
System7 now you are changing your mind. I thought you were on the right track.
System7 now you are changing your mind. I thought you were on the right track.
Is not the back EMF generated at the same frequencies as those that generate it? (Lenz's Law)
With that true, then shouldn't the back EMF be shunted past the tweeter by the HP inductor.
dave
Yes, but where the system has non-linearities (as it would) intermodulation would be introduced, spreading those frequencies.
The generated back EMF is simply a function of the VC motion. The resulting voltage appears as a voltage source in the equivalent circuit model. You have to analyze the entire circuit to see what it does. What ever appears across the tweeter's terminals will only be one branch in that circuit. It will have a current component through that loop. The rest of the circuit will have another current component.
Looking at this simple 1st order series crossover
http://web.archive.org/web/20040217201647im_/http://www.geocities.com/kreskovs/p17d25schem.gif
imagine that the tweeter (or woofer, or both) is replaced by a voltage source. Now, place the amplifier's output impedance between the input and ground. Then analyze the circuit to see what the current through each branch is.
Has the thought occured to any forum users to design drivers where the voice inductnance of the woofer and the tweeter are very close to being equal for their use in a 2 way. It has been done.
I mentioned RC circuits which have been around since the late 70's used my many companies.
I mentioned RC circuits which have been around since the late 70's used my many companies.
AllenB when using that tweeter in the plans. You can get away with the C1 value because of the L1 is so small. If you were to use a larger L1 you would need an RC circuit to shelve the low end of the tweeter.
The man said every speaker is a work in progress. That is why there have been more then one crossover plan for each design using the same tweeter and midbass driver.
The man said every speaker is a work in progress. That is why there have been more then one crossover plan for each design using the same tweeter and midbass driver.
Allen B look at this plan in a series configuration and compare to other plan.
RC circuit used in late 70's. The tweeter mh is .09 not shown on those specs.
It was the elite tweeter back in those days.
http://5426967677425606982-a-180274...DEGiDPhVIMsC-gS5NSxadJNPX6cg==&attredirects=0
http://5426967677425606982-a-180274..._DiPyQ9LQ5yCCc_4pzzu6rFVCl5A==&attredirects=0
RC circuit used in late 70's. The tweeter mh is .09 not shown on those specs.
It was the elite tweeter back in those days.
http://5426967677425606982-a-180274...DEGiDPhVIMsC-gS5NSxadJNPX6cg==&attredirects=0
http://5426967677425606982-a-180274..._DiPyQ9LQ5yCCc_4pzzu6rFVCl5A==&attredirects=0
Hi,
No and why would it ? It is just stupid.
As is the statement "It has been done".
Anyone who prefers to not use simulators in case it shows that
they are full of the proverbial, simply are not worth listening to.
rgds, sreten.
Tools are tools, the skill is in using them properly.
Used properly, they model reality, as best as you can.
Last edited:
Sreten I have the plans to prove it which you will never have.
Even if you had the plans you would not know where to get the woofers.
I have no need to design and build any more speakers.
I like to discuss the theory.
I have enough oem drivers and access to more.
I thought you were done here.
A wise man does not criticize something he does not understand.
Even if you had the plans you would not know where to get the woofers.
I have no need to design and build any more speakers.
I like to discuss the theory.
I have enough oem drivers and access to more.
I thought you were done here.
A wise man does not criticize something he does not understand.
Last edited:
If a soil conservation engineer designs a drainage system for storm water runoff nothing needs to be simulated. The engineering design princiiples are used to determine the design.
Hi,
Yes well stick to drainage systems in that case. You seem to be
a self appointed "know it all" about series x/o's whereas in fact
you seem clueless about issues regarding loudspeaker design.
How you understand something you don't isn't very interesting.
"Conifer pathology research for disease resistant strains in rhabdocline"
= research into fungi resistant fir trees, and you've got the wording wrong,
the last "in" should be "for" presumably, to make any real sense.
rgds, sreten.
The astute will realise all engineering is modelling and a simulation.
Its empirically tested of course to confirm the model and simulation.
Yes well stick to drainage systems in that case. You seem to be
a self appointed "know it all" about series x/o's whereas in fact
you seem clueless about issues regarding loudspeaker design.
How you understand something you don't isn't very interesting.
"Conifer pathology research for disease resistant strains in rhabdocline"
= research into fungi resistant fir trees, and you've got the wording wrong,
the last "in" should be "for" presumably, to make any real sense.
rgds, sreten.
The astute will realise all engineering is modelling and a simulation.
Its empirically tested of course to confirm the model and simulation.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.