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

Filter recommendation (using Hypex Software Design)
Filter recommendation (using Hypex Software Design)
Filter recommendation (using Hypex Software Design) 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 18th December 2019, 10:37 AM   #21
AllenB is offline AllenB  Australia
diyAudio Moderator
 
AllenB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Filter recommendation (using Hypex Software Design)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geertidow View Post
would LR2 on 2000 Hz be to extreme?
Speaking broadly, a second order rolloff starting at 2k will cut anything below 1kHz more than a single capacitor filter set for 4kHz would. In other words more power in above 1k, less below. It is often an acceptable tradeoff.

For what it's worth, I used to run typical domes around 1k5, sometimes lower with only a capacitor, a resistor and a resonant peak impedance filter. I'm not suggesting you do that, simply that it has been done before.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2019, 10:40 AM   #22
AllenB is offline AllenB  Australia
diyAudio Moderator
 
AllenB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Filter recommendation (using Hypex Software Design)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wintermute View Post
If there are issues with breakup on the mids,
As yourself, I also would use a reasonably substantial filter. I wasn't implying earlier that I thought breakup would be a problem, especially when crossing lower. I wa thinking about beaming.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2019, 10:41 AM   #23
Geertidow is offline Geertidow
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Tony that would be great.
I did test 240/2000 hz in both lr2 and lr4 and lr2 was a clear winner. I'll measure the timing when I get home.

LR2 frequency response was more flat and sounded better (of course, subjectively).

Last edited by Geertidow; 18th December 2019 at 11:03 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2019, 11:02 AM   #24
wintermute is offline wintermute  Australia
just another
diyAudio Moderator
 
wintermute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney
Filter recommendation (using Hypex Software Design)
Hi Allen yes I assumed you were concerned about beaming. I was just generalising I haven't actually looked at the drivers in this speaker as yet.

Tony.
__________________
Any intelligence I may appear to have is purely artificial!
Photography (another hobby)
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2019, 11:08 AM   #25
YSDR is offline YSDR  Hungary
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
If you not know the individual drivers natural frequency responses which is combined with the LR2 and LR4 filters, then you can't say that you made a proper LR2 and LR4 multiway loudspeaker crossover.
So you can't say either that LR2 response is better than LR4, because you don't know what the final acoustical responses are.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2019, 11:16 AM   #26
Geertidow is offline Geertidow
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Quote:
Originally Posted by YSDR View Post
If you not know the individual drivers natural frequency responses which is combined with the LR2 and LR4 filter you can't say that you made a proper LR2 and LR4 multiway loudspeaker crossover.
So you can't say either that LR2 response is better than LR4, because you don't know what the final acoustical responses are.
I think I understand that. Given my limited understanding, I tested the 'natural' frequency response of all drivers without any filters in place. The response of the tweeter is shown above (i used a sweep from I think 400 Hz to 22,000 Hz or so, not exactly sure on the digit). The result is shown in the purple line.
Is my conclusion correct? I did not test the i individual drivers with the filters intact. I did measure the freq response of all drivers with LR2 and LR4 filters on various crossovers and the frequency response curve was flattest using an LR2 filter, regardless of tweeter crossover.

I then listened using presets (fast switching between filters) in various test settings and I liked the sound of 240/2000 Hz using LR2 filters the most, although the lower crossover mattered little (240, 300 and 350 Hz).

However, one small misstep in this iterative process could have led to a wrong setup.
I'm just trying to find the optimal sounding settings without ruining my speakers. I don't mind abandoning B&W's intended filter settings, for I'm not sure if loudness was involved in their decision making. I live in a not too big appartement so that's rather a non issue for me.

Thanks for all the help so far, I really appreciated it.

Last edited by Geertidow; 18th December 2019 at 11:19 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2019, 11:21 AM   #27
YSDR is offline YSDR  Hungary
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
I don't know that mid driver frequency response but i guess that rigid suspension, edgeless cone are not able to produce a good LR2 response at 240Hz either if one simply apply LR2 240Hz in the DSP.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2019, 11:24 AM   #28
Geertidow is offline Geertidow
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Based on your judgment, what settings seem most logical too you (using DSP)?
Because I can easily build that filter and measure it (I just have to wait a week to do that).
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2019, 11:28 AM   #29
YSDR is offline YSDR  Hungary
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Again, with DSP at your hands, you can correct the drivers frequency response to be flat without the crossover filters over a wide bandwidth. If you do so, you can get the same flat combined frequency response with both LR2 or LR4 or LR8 or whatever in-phase crossover you apply.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2019, 11:34 AM   #30
Geertidow is offline Geertidow
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Quote:
Originally Posted by YSDR View Post
Again, with DSP at your hands, you can correct the drivers frequency response to be flat without the crossover filters over a wide bandwidth. If you do so, you can get the same flat combined frequency response with both LR2 or LR4 or LR8 or whatever in-phase crossover you apply.
Yes, but given that an LR2 measures nicely and that I seem to like the sound, is it a bad way to go?

Because maybe when using LR4 I need to correct for the timing better.
I'll remeasure all the natural frequency responses when I'm home and post them.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Filter recommendation (using Hypex Software Design)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
Hypex AS2.100 not discovered by Hypex Filter Design software rskriver Software Tools 0 24th July 2019 04:31 PM
Hypex DSP Design software and data files eriksquires Class D 0 1st January 2016 10:04 PM
Active filter design software lochness Tubes / Valves 25 11th July 2008 01:04 AM
design software for active filter dick van nierop Chip Amps 7 20th March 2006 05:25 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:12 PM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 14.29%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2020 diyAudio
Wiki