|
Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | diyAudio Store | Blogs | Gallery | Wiki | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers |
|
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#721 |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: North Notts
|
Hello forum
Having read the main elements of this thread, I am readying myself to try this method on my first 2 way speaker build. Before I go further here with the details...what is the number we use to determine tweeter attenuation level down -9db.? I have a hot tweeter and may well use BSC of -3db on the woofer. The numbers stop at 6db. Thanks |
![]() |
![]() |
#722 |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
Go to Level Calculator
Strassacker: speaker - kits - tools (it is comprised also in CRossover Calculator )
__________________
It's like learning sex during the Victorian era: you get to the wedding night and there are many things to do that you never imagined. |
![]() |
![]() |
#723 |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: North Notts
|
Thanks for that.....good link. If I use a zobel to flatten impedance do I still use the tweeter nominal Z or the new Z?
|
![]() |
![]() |
#724 |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Does your Zobel cover the whole tweeter range, or just the upper rise or lower peak? Is it after the L-pad or before? Or, if you haven't decided yet, what do you want to achieve with this Zobel?
|
![]() |
![]() |
#725 |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: North Notts
|
I am not really sure. Following your example and my tweeter is 6ohm...adding a 10R for example gives me 3.75ohm.....as in your example. So would I put 6 or 3.75 into the calculator linked above.
My tweeter has an Fs of 720Hz with a peak of 18/19ohms at this point. |
![]() |
![]() |
#726 |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
It sounds as though you are putting the resistor in parallel then wanting to add the L-pad. Can I suggest instead, just use 6 ohms in the L-pad calculator and don't worry about any of the other resistors. Ie: just the two that the calculator suggests.
Doing this will have the same effect of reducing impedance variation around tweeter resonance. |
![]() |
![]() |
#727 |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
The word Zobel is often used differently by speaker builders. In electronics it has a common meaning ie: compensating for impedance variations so that a load (eg the whole load) looks like a simple resistor.
Often with speakers it is used to describe an RC circuit, like the one used on the woofer in this thread. This is only a part of what Zobel is intended to mean, and I ask for clarification. An RC circuit does little for a tweeter the way they are normally crossed. More important for a tweeter is the impedance variation at the lower frequencies around resonance. The ultimate conjugate (makes it flat) is a series RLC circuit (bandstop, notch) across the tweeter, providing a simple platform for future tweaking. However the combination of a parallel resistor and second order filter, especially when tweaked, can bring the correct response. Last edited by AllenB; 14th November 2019 at 08:30 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#728 |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Netherlands
|
![]()
Hi,
Could the following assumption make sense? A 10" woofer with a sensitivity of 90dB A 5,5” midwoofer with a sensitivity of 86dB Mounted on a 12” (30 cm) baffle Baffle step frequency : 115/.3 = ca. 380 Hz If the woofer and midwoofer are crossed at ca. 400Hz, and the bafflestep Is taken into account, would the SPL of the midwoofer roughly match the woofer? |
![]() |
![]() |
#729 |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Thinking 'outside the box' this way saves you from attenuating the mid.
Each of the two drivers is affected by the baffle, each in more or less the same way. When you filter each you would be best to consider the effect this is already having, to subtract this from the filter you are adding. To make this easier to visualise I ran a sim. [I used 6dB difference to keep things ideal, you chose 4dB which is more practical. The difference is not clear cut which is why I avoided using 4dB for the sim.] What this shows is what each driver response should look like (darker trace), vs the amount of filter effect required to achieve it considering the baffle effect. Eg: The first (woofer) plot shows that you need to cut more to compensate for the rising response. This can mean using a larger inductor, aiming for a lower cutoff frequency than first expected. Last edited by AllenB; 15th November 2019 at 12:52 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#730 |
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Netherlands
|
![]()
hi Allen,
Thanks for your response and clear explanation. |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WinSpeakerz vs others for measurement & crossovers | rick57 | Multi-Way | 8 | 12th December 2010 11:20 PM |
Designing crossovers using Vidsonix Virtual Crossover | triode4 | Multi-Way | 0 | 28th October 2007 02:22 AM |
A brief introduction | WayneM | Introductions | 7 | 30th April 2005 02:23 AM |
Designing passive tri-mode crossovers? | Datoyminaytah | Multi-Way | 9 | 4th September 2004 01:33 PM |
Designing for guys who like designing | Sch3mat1c | Tubes / Valves | 14 | 31st August 2003 12:46 PM |
New To Site? | Need Help? |