Hi,
maybe the misunderstanding lies in different parameter specification?
fs: resonance in free-air
fb: Resonance of built-in driver
Qts: Q-factor in free-air
Qtb: Q-factor of built-in driver
So now assume that You want to xover at say 50Hz.
If You choose the volume small enough such that the Fb is just around or even above 50Hz then the Qtb doesn´t play a role anymore, as the Q-factor only plays a role at fb.
It´d be counterproductive to choose the cabinet volume so high that fb is within the working frequency range.
It would only require more cabinet volume to sink the Qtb to the desired lower level without any advantage in sonic performance.
*loool* my design data stems from proven practical implementations, as You may see on my website.
And these implementations are exctly compatible to the application of the threadstarter, whereas Your simulation is at time just that ... a theory a generalization.
So ... who is generalizing or theorizing?
Me??*looool* good one, but try again 😀
The Linkwitz transformation may be used here and its already implemented in some DSP filters.
It should be noted though that the low bandwidth of the filtered subwoofer only results in a small range of correction and it requires additional Subsonic-filtering.
If the LT is not implemented, it will be fully sufficient to use a high-Q highpass (Q>1) of 2nd or 3rd order as variable Bassboost and Subsonicfilter at the same, accompanied by a lowpass (Q<1) for the xover -freq at the upper end.
jauu
Calvin
maybe the misunderstanding lies in different parameter specification?
fs: resonance in free-air
fb: Resonance of built-in driver
Qts: Q-factor in free-air
Qtb: Q-factor of built-in driver
So now assume that You want to xover at say 50Hz.
If You choose the volume small enough such that the Fb is just around or even above 50Hz then the Qtb doesn´t play a role anymore, as the Q-factor only plays a role at fb.
It´d be counterproductive to choose the cabinet volume so high that fb is within the working frequency range.
It would only require more cabinet volume to sink the Qtb to the desired lower level without any advantage in sonic performance.
*loool* my design data stems from proven practical implementations, as You may see on my website.
And these implementations are exctly compatible to the application of the threadstarter, whereas Your simulation is at time just that ... a theory a generalization.
So ... who is generalizing or theorizing?
Me??
*looool* good one, but try again 😀The Linkwitz transformation may be used here and its already implemented in some DSP filters.
It should be noted though that the low bandwidth of the filtered subwoofer only results in a small range of correction and it requires additional Subsonic-filtering.
If the LT is not implemented, it will be fully sufficient to use a high-Q highpass (Q>1) of 2nd or 3rd order as variable Bassboost and Subsonicfilter at the same, accompanied by a lowpass (Q<1) for the xover -freq at the upper end.
jauu
Calvin
I'm going to read that later, I don't have the time now. NPI 🙂
Please don't be upset. Your experience should be a lot valuable.
and...
*loool* my design data stems from proven practical implementations, as You may see on my website.
And these implementations are exctly compatible to the application of the threadstarter, whereas Your simulation is at time just that ... a theory a generalization.
So ... who is generalizing or theorizing?
Me??
The Linkwitz transformation may be used here and its already implemented in some DSP filters.
It should be noted though that the low bandwidth of the filtered subwoofer only results in a small range of correction and it requires additional Subsonic-filtering.
If the LT is not implemented, it will be fully sufficient to use a high-Q highpass (Q>1) of 2nd or 3rd order as variable Bassboost and Subsonicfilter at the same, accompanied by a lowpass (Q<1) for the xover -freq at the upper end.
jauu
Calvin
(how does that - your experience - helps the OP?)
As I said before (my first post) I agree with you, you mention the drivers LMS-U, LMS-R and the Epic but then you fail to show the solution, besides criticizing my posts or alignments for the speaker. If I can see your solution on paper maybe I can agree with it or not. In thesis, it's not enough for me, I didn't see it yet. 😀
What you say might be correct, but then show that, for the driver you or the OP wants or the benefits of them, not with words only. If you have a second solution, don't be shy - saying to look at your implementations at your website - please be my guest, and provide it here.
Hi,
you may want to reread #17 and earlier posts.
Its all there and has been said before. 😉
jauu
Calvin
you may want to reread #17 and earlier posts.
Its all there and has been said before. 😉
jauu
Calvin
We agree on both (just small calibrations are different like about 5-10L). I mention in my post #40 a calibration to but not exceeding 0.8Q. So we must be talking in agreement. (Your Fb = my Fc.) Best Regards. 🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.