Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Open Source Monkey Box
Open Source Monkey Box
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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Yesterday, 03:52 PM   #661
mbrennwa is offline mbrennwa  Switzerland
diyAudio Member
 
mbrennwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by BYRTT View Post
Will mean most drivers change subjective character to the better using resonance plus inductance compensation networks to linearize drivers impedance and experience is that is also the case using a active XO system, so suggest for these trials with miniDSP to find the optimal XO topology that add those components so that sonic improvement is also present for the active trial setup and those components shall be used anyway down the road, also for the subjective worry about the port such a network can make a change.
I don't understand this (I am not a native English speaker). Could you please break this down to a few short(er) sentences?
__________________
Support the Monkey Coffin!
  Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:37 PM   #662
Boden is offline Boden  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
So the assumption of Byrtt is that conjugate networks sonically improve filter loaded driver's performance.



@Byrtt : Can you back this up?
  Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:59 PM   #663
Paul Vancluysen is offline Paul Vancluysen  Belgium
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Heusden-Zolder
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boden View Post
So the assumption of Byrtt is that conjugate networks sonically improve filter loaded driver's performance.



@Byrtt : Can you back this up?
I have understood that Byrtt indicates that a digital version of a passive filter, needs to be an exact copy of the passive filter version, which means inclusive the compensation networks influence.
In our EL3 digital version, the targets were the voltage xo transfers of the passive version, it is a 1:1 copy of the passive xo, inclusive compensation networks... pfff
  Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:23 PM   #664
mbrennwa is offline mbrennwa  Switzerland
diyAudio Member
 
mbrennwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
I had a look at three different filter versions using Vituix. The attachment shows the simulation results. At the beginning I tried hard to keep the driver response curves (acoustic) as close as possible to the theoretical target curves. However, I found that I can achieve better overall system response if I allowed some flexibility (cleaner summed response at the x-over frequencies, smoother off-axis response).

The three filter versions are as follows:
  • The first six-pack shows the "20190114-EL3" version, which is a revised version of what I showed in post 607. I tweaked the part values to reduce the stop-band leakage (a lot -- note the different y-axis scale). I also achieved much smoother power response (blue curve).
  • The second six-pack shows the "20190116-EL4" version, which was derived from post 654, but tweaked some part values a bit to achieve good off-axis response and a bit better summed response at the x-over frequencies.
  • The third six-pack shows the "20190116-Conventional3rd" version, which is a conventional x-over with 3rd order slopes (acoustical) that does not use the "notch elements" of the elliptic filters. I started from the Butterworth targets and tweaked it for good overall system response.

Before we go ahead with implementing these filters in the miniDSP, I'd like get some feedback on the simulation results. What do you like about those simulations, what is not to like? Is there anything obvious that needs to be improved?
__________________
Support the Monkey Coffin!

Last edited by mbrennwa; Yesterday at 08:33 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:53 PM   #665
BYRTT is offline BYRTT  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
BYRTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Open Source Monkey Box
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Vancluysen View Post
Byrtt,

For the EL3 biquad miniDSP version I made for Matthias, the voltage transfers of the passive xo are chosen as the filter targets. In that way it is inclusive the influence of the impedance compensation networks. It was the reason we did it that way to have an exact copy of the passive filter version in the miniDSP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
I don't understand this (I am not a native English speaker). Could you please break this down to a few short(er) sentences?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boden View Post
So the assumption of Byrtt is that conjugate networks sonically improve filter loaded driver's performance.



@Byrtt : Can you back this up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Vancluysen View Post
I have understood that Byrtt indicates that a digital version of a passive filter, needs to be an exact copy of the passive filter version, which means inclusive the compensation networks influence.
In our EL3 digital version, the targets were the voltage xo transfers of the passive version, it is a 1:1 copy of the passive xo, inclusive compensation networks... pfff
Agree technically/objective miniDSP response is there now and those networks won't make any response difference for miniDSP setup as Paul points out, its all about the subjective difference that ears tell that can't be backed up on paper, although technically we can probably agree those networks damp some of the electric backwave from microphonic/loose spring oscilating behavour of transducer.

It doesn't look we agree much here : ) but also i don't know if you guys have experimented AB such networks into pure active system setup and if you haven't suggest try it out, for some woofers especially the resonance compensation network can be up to a brutal change to the better or close to night day experience, and those thirdteen components are not out of the window in they anyway is part of the final passive network.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Open Source Monkey BoxHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[Open source] TINA The total open source Audiophile Player based on Beaglebone Black DragonWar PC Based 7 18th December 2016 03:31 PM
Ultimate Open Source XMOS USB-I2S: The source to end all sources. krfkeith Digital Source 4 14th June 2013 04:54 PM
Volume / Source selector - open source project ? AuroraB Analog Line Level 22 22nd September 2012 03:21 PM
Open call for suggestions on Open Source DIY Audio Design gfergy Everything Else 1 15th April 2007 08:33 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:31 AM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 15.00%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2019 diyAudio
Wiki