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

Is it possible to cover the whole spectrum, high spl, low distortion with a 2-way?
Is it possible to cover the whole spectrum, high spl, low distortion with a 2-way?
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 2nd July 2019, 05:17 AM   #1151
camplo is offline camplo
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Quote:
Originally Posted by docali View Post
what you asked for still existed since decades. Look at Klangfilm or Voice of the Theatre. In the same way these Designs work with low Power amps. The very high end beyond 15k is not so important imho as less Musical Information is contained in this range. Therefore a 2way or 2.5 way is a more than appropriate approach.
About the 15khz and beyond. You have to consider that these speakers are meant to be reference monitors. That means if itís there I need to hear it. Itís really a matter of subjective opinion but rather, a matter of honest replication of the source.

The enclosure would be more simple if just one open cavity vs two....are there any other benefits to a single space vs 2 separate?
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2019, 05:49 AM   #1152
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Quote:
Originally Posted by camplo View Post
The 630hz xover is interesting. I didn't know it was a happy median of sorts. I just copied the jbl xover point of the 4722, wisely I might say.
Random idea; I was thinking of creating a multi slot port (8) copying the Onken in a round about way. Maybe some of the benefits will transfer. A true onken requires a 22 cbft box for one driver. Way too big.
It's just one of many since it's based on the 1/2 acoustic power point of a given BW. Sound expands exponentially [1/f], so to find the 1/2 power point [Fm] of a desired BW is Fm = [Fl*Fh]^0.5, hence for 20-20 kHz: [20*20,000]^0.5 = ~632.456 Hz. Based on this, the 4722 calcs ~775 Hz, so 800 Hz normally, but obviously there's other things to consider too.

The pioneers chose 500 Hz since the power response of a 75 piece orchestra peaked at 10 acoustic Watts [AW] [130 dB] in the 250-500 Hz BW, dropping to 'only' 2 AW [123 dB] , petering away to 'only' 0.3 AW [114.77 dB] out to ~18 kHz.

Another speaker design 'rule' that's fallen by the wayside is tonal balance, i.e. [Fl*Fh] = ~500,000. Presumably this is based on an orchestra's piano lowest note [~27.5 Hz] to the violin's highest notes [18+ kHz].

Re Onken; better to use n = 5.7 [the pioneer's Vas/1.44], which will be 'only' ~217 L/7.66 ft^3 + vents, bracing, etc..

Works for me, the original reflex patent used [13] tube vents surrounding the driver: https://patentimages.storage.googlea.../US1869178.pdf

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.

Last edited by GM; 2nd July 2019 at 05:52 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2019, 01:06 PM   #1153
mark100 is offline mark100  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by GM View Post

Another speaker design 'rule' that's fallen by the wayside is tonal balance, i.e. [Fl*Fh] = ~500,000. Presumably this is based on an orchestra's piano lowest note [~27.5 Hz] to the violin's highest notes [18+ kHz].

GM
Interesting..never heard that one. I've always just used hearing based 400,000 for the tonal balance target.

My favorite form of tone control, for a system that has truly flat frequency and phase response, is a see-saw EQ that has it's fulcrum at around center ie about 630 Hz.
So it's really nothing more than a downward linear tilt to frequency response, very bottom to very top. Only the tilt/slope changes.
Seems to fix more program material, easily, than any other tone control method I've found.
Only problem is implementation... needs EQ presets of various tilts since no 'see-saw' filter type yet exists (that I've found).

Due to the hassle of making/implementing various see-saw slope presets,
I often use a workaround that gives section section of a 4-way its own level control (all jointly controlled by a master level control). The 4-way has roughly equal octave span per section, and uses steep linear phase crossovers. So phase remains flat even as frequency response changes.
I just adjust the 4-sections by ear, and it almost always reflects a frequency response tilt that look like a see-saw...only in 4 steps
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2019, 01:33 PM   #1154
SubSoniks is offline SubSoniks  Wales
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wales
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark100 View Post
Interesting..never heard that one. I've always just used hearing based 400,000 for the tonal balance target.

My favorite form of tone control, for a system that has truly flat frequency and phase response, is a see-saw EQ that has it's fulcrum at around center ie about 630 Hz.
So it's really nothing more than a downward linear tilt to frequency response, very bottom to very top. Only the tilt/slope changes.
Seems to fix more program material, easily, than any other tone control method I've found.
Only problem is implementation... needs EQ presets of various tilts since no 'see-saw' filter type yet exists (that I've found).

Due to the hassle of making/implementing various see-saw slope presets,
I often use a workaround that gives section section of a 4-way its own level control (all jointly controlled by a master level control). The 4-way has roughly equal octave span per section, and uses steep linear phase crossovers. So phase remains flat even as frequency response changes.
I just adjust the 4-sections by ear, and it almost always reflects a frequency response tilt that look like a see-saw...only in 4 steps

Something along the lines of what you describe:
Quad 34 preamplifier | Stereophile.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2019, 05:17 PM   #1155
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark100 View Post
Interesting..never heard that one. I've always just used hearing based 400,000 for the tonal balance target.

So it's really nothing more than a downward linear tilt to frequency response, very bottom to very top. Only the tilt/slope changes.
Seems to fix more program material, easily, than any other tone control method I've found.
At some point in time after the '60s, folks [my SWAG is the '70s audiophool journalists] arbitrarily 'upgraded' it the 20*20,000 Hz = 400,000 as opposed to using a real world musical frequency response range, but narrows up the BW, so chose to ignore it.

Hmm, if EQing with pink noise [as you should], then 'flat' sound power is actually falling at 3 dB/octave, so are you saying you're using other than pink noise and/or need more tilt than 'flat' to sound tonally balanced?

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2019, 06:29 PM   #1156
mark100 is offline mark100  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by GM View Post
At some point in time after the '60s, folks [my SWAG is the '70s audiophool journalists] arbitrarily 'upgraded' it the 20*20,000 Hz = 400,000 as opposed to using a real world musical frequency response range, but narrows up the BW, so chose to ignore it.

Hmm, if EQing with pink noise [as you should], then 'flat' sound power is actually falling at 3 dB/octave, so are you saying you're using other than pink noise and/or need more tilt than 'flat' to sound tonally balanced?

GM
Yeah man, I hate to think about all the audiophool spewing I swallowed back then (and probably into the mid 90's )

Yes, I tune speakers flat using pink.
The see-saw EQ, or my 4-way volume control, is just my version of combining a house curve with a variable tone control for program material.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2019, 07:29 PM   #1157
camplo is offline camplo
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
You only use a pink noise signal to render flat if using a 1/3rd octave meter....btw. For the other FFT, white noise is the correct signal to use in order to create a flat curve.

Then if you were speaking tuning by EAR, pink noise would be the choice for that...
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2019, 08:10 PM   #1158
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Correct, never used FFT, will have to research it to see why a rising response noise is used. For sure, me and everyone I've known use[d] it.

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2019, 08:52 PM   #1159
Audio Elite is offline Audio Elite  South Africa
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
So nice to see things back on track
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd July 2019, 09:01 PM   #1160
mark100 is offline mark100  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by camplo View Post
You only use a pink noise signal to render flat if using a 1/3rd octave meter....btw. For the other FFT, white noise is the correct signal to use in order to create a flat curve.
Hi, I don't understand why a FFT would need white noise to render a flat curve.....assuming the flat curve we are interested in, is the usual pink noise flat.
Seems like it's just a small math conversion to translate between white and pink.

Dual channel FFT's like Smaart typically use use pink noise for generating transfer functions, but can really use any dense full range signal, even music.

I'd sure hate to have to use, and listen to, white though
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Is it possible to cover the whole spectrum, high spl, low distortion with a 2-way?Hide 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
cascode distortion Spectrum. mashaffer Tubes / Valves 34 22nd January 2017 09:37 PM
6av5ga distortion spectrum enzoastro Tubes / Valves 14 30th January 2013 06:01 PM
Distortion spectrum vs feedback artosalo Tubes / Valves 62 7th December 2011 11:51 PM
What do you look for in the distortion spectrum? keantoken Solid State 13 13th May 2009 12:06 AM
Tailoring distortion spectrum syl Solid State 14 25th March 2002 07:32 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:31 PM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 14.29%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2019 diyAudio
Wiki