CAD is not only free-to-cheap, it's dead easy to use, even for computer-illiterate old farts like me. It's an incredibly useful tool that will save you hours of time and your results will be far, far better. If you needed to change a tire, wouldn't you rather use an impact wrench than pliers?
Very few of those links have any software. They are mostly just projects various people have done. I'm not interested in learning SPICE and it's relatives. Sorry.
Hi,
That is not remotely putting a RLC circuit across a standard
driver, you are insulting my intelligence, what is the point ?
That paper has nothing to do with RLC circuits.
Me a snob ? Tu es prétentieuse, methinks, 😉
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
I guess I didn't make my point clear enough. Apparently, Mr. Wakins and the Infinity loudspeaker company came up with the idea of flattening the bass resonance in order to extend the bass response of the woofer. So, apparently there is some merit in doing what they did. The image I attached showed a chart with 2 impedance curves, one without the filter and one with and they went on to say that this was the reason they had deeper bass response in their driver. But, this was before the advent of super fancy software and computers to run them so maybe they were completely wrong.
Hi, what is "apparent" to you simply isn't fact, its fantasy, so whats the point ? rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
This is not true in many situations. Impedance peaks in tweeters can really chew up the filter slopes without a series resonant circuit. Steeper filtering could be an alternative, but would cost more components and may be undesireable for other reasons. Same thing goes on for the rising impedance seen on the low end of many drivers. Without impedance correction, it would most likely cost you a coil and a cap for an two extra filter orders, in stead of a cap and a resistor for a Zobel.
In short, depending on the drivers, it might be possible, but this is too blanket a statement. Anyways, why still fumble around with passive filters?
vac
Hi,
The first few have links to most of the free software, and how to use it.
You come across as a self opinionated spoilt brat, wanting it on a plate.
You don't even know that Basta! fundamentally is built upon SPICE.
rgds, sreten.
SPICE isn't commonly used in crossover design.
I use a combination of CALSOD (an old DOS program with a clumsy and old-fashioned interface, but I know how to use it, so am loathe to give it up) and Soundeasy, a fairly sophisticated software package which isn't cheap. But that's a different answer than I would give for the question, "What software package should I (dirk) try?" Probably Speaker Workshop- it's free, it incorporates measurement capability so you're not slave to the driver supplier's somewhat optimistic data, and has lots of support forums to get you up the learning curve quickly and with as little pain as possible. I'm sure there are other excellent packages and other posters will no doubt contribute alternatives which may be better.
Seriously, this is something that will change your life, soundwise.
The problem is that the user most of the times doesn't use (driver and xover) phases and only makes crossovers regarding frequency output (textbook). So the problem here is the nulls and the subtractive function of phase at crossovers band. A good graphic cad should visualize both interactions what AIM Spice doesn't seem to be able to.
...and how would I know that? ...and why would I care? I'm not the designer. I do like the interface so thank you for suggesting that software.
OK, so you are saying that Mr. Watkins and Infinity were wrong, living in fantasy land, or something like that.
Thanks. I have:
WinSpkrz (very simple but not sophisticated)
TrueRTA (have all the gear also, have not learned to use all of it)
Holmimpulse (don't know how to use it. instructions are poor)
WinISD (don't like the interface but it's probably very good)
LEAP (too damn complicated for me)
WT2 (the better one I feel, and very useful but not intuitive and have not explored all of it yet)
Basta! (my favorite so far, very easy to use, and the simulations are "live")
Of course I realize that these are different kinds of programs for different purposes.
I'm not sure about exporting and importing data, etc. I just don't have the time to dig into all of these nuances of file types and other stuff. I'm not about to drag a loudspeaker outside for testing, nor am I willing to build an anechoic chamber.
Hi,
No what I'm saying is, what your saying is a misinterpretation of
the facts, the references don't say what you say they are saying.
Consequently they don't back up what you are saying.
Manipulation of the Q of dual coil woofers with one coil driven
is done by applying a (variable) resistance (down to 0) across
the other coil. LCR's are not used in this scenario.
FWIW just as you don't need to learn SPICE to use Basta!,
the same thing applies to the free Tina-Ti circuit emulator.
Different tools for different purposes, but both are very useful.
My only issue with Basta! is it lacks zma and frd file support,
which is awkward compared to the free FRD tools available,
but they are a lot less integrated than Basta!.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
That's the beauty of modern MLS and impulse measurement methods- you don't have to do that. You do a near-field measurement of the woofer, a 1 or 2 meter measurement of the whole shebang, then gate the echos out of the latter and merge the two responses. It's easier and faster than my description.
RLCs in the bass, of COURSE it makes a difference. Line level you don't need impedance correction. Speaker level you do. The only reason to do it speaker level is if you're really stuck, or are trying to use impedance based shaping, either way it's lots of big pricey parts if you want to use quality coils n caps.
Relax Don Quixote- you're setting up your own windmill (strawman) here. "If your only choice is X, then you have to use X!"
Doesn't change the fact that highpassing in the bass is much better done line-level.
Hi,
That is fine if your only investigating the bass to mid c/o point,
or if the driver is sealed. Bit more complicated if your actually
trying to measure the actual bass response of vented, TL
boxes etc, rather than trusting the bass sims to be correct.
As pointed out in FRD Consortium tools guide
even if you can measure, simulation
can be easier for bass/mid c/o.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
I guess you did not read the article I posted then.
Under the chart for the two impedance curves it says:
"second voice coil reduces resonance, allowing the amplifier to deliver more current due to lower impedance created by second voice coil. This additional current permits driver to extend lower in response."
Also, in the text to the left of that:
"A secondary motor is inserted into the magnetic field and is energized only in the low bass. The strength of this secondary motor can be adjusted separately from the primary motor and with absolutely no ill effect on the upper bass range, thus allowing unprecedented low frequency response."
It's true that there is not an RLC series notch filter in parallel with either voice coil, but they still used a notch filter of another kind in the circuit. My point is that these notch filters tuned to the resonance of a woofer can have a useful purpose. That's it. That's all I wanted to say.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.