Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Filter theory question for speaker crossovers
Hi All,
Something that I've been thinking about for a while with the design of speaker crossovers, but don't have the necessary knowledge to calculate or figure out, is this: If you were to take, for example, an 18dB/oct Butterworth high pass/low pass crossover for a two way system, could you synthesize the same summed electrical response (and therefore the on axis response) in terms of amplitude and phase response if you were to lower the Q of the high pass section, and raise the Q of the low pass section from their standard 0.707, without changing anything else ? (In practice you would do this by altering the L/C ratio of the crossovers in opposite directions by a certain factor) Why would anyone want to do this ? Recently I've come to the slow realization of what may be one of the big downsides of having a crossover in the first place, when doing listening/measurements between a full range driver, and that same full range driver crossed over normally with a tweeter. Some classes of high pass and low pass filter have ringing at their crossover frequency whose phase is opposite to their complementary filter - so for example a symetrical high pass/low pass filter can have quite bad ringing at the crossover frequency if you take only one section on its own, but when the output of the two filters are summed together (accoustically) the ringing is largely negated. (My filter theory isn't strong enough here to know WHICH kinds of filter this applies to so hopefully someone can butt in here and correct me) It occurs to me that this cancellation of ringing only occurs on axis, and that even to the side on the horizontal axis this cancellation effect will be incomplete due to the different horizontal dispersion of the large driver vs the small one it is crossing over to. The end result, particularly if there is a large difference in dispersion between the two drivers as is often the case, is that the on axis response may contain very little ringing at the crossover frequency, and sound fine, but the ambient sound field in a typical reflective/reverberant room due to the off axis power response of the speaker near the crossover frequency will be predominately that of the high pass section, as the smaller driver has the widest dispersion. With the output from the low pass section unable to balance the output from the high pass section in these off axis directions, the ringing will not be canceled. The ambient sound field may contain undesirable artificats of ringing and in fact I think I can sometimes hear this characteristic in some of the tests I've done. Assuming that making the dispersion of the drivers more similar is not an option, it occured to me why not make the Q of the high pass section lower, so that the output of the high pass section which is dominating the ambient sound field near the crossover frequency is free of ringing, (or reduced) and then increase the Q (and/or do whatever other correction is necessary) of the low pass filter to give the same or nearly the same summed on axis response. Because the driver connected to the high pass section is bound to have much wider dispersion, you're not going to have a situation where the higher Q low pass section is heard on its own - at any angle you can hear that significantly, the output from the highpass will be audible too. Has anyone tried something like this ? Any gaping holes in my idea ? Regards, Simon |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Wow, that's quite a mouthful! ...but how can we be concerned about
this when we got this "am I going to heaven?" issue to mull over??? Just kidding, ya. I'm looking forward to hear some responses to your topic, as well. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Hi All, Something that I've been thinking about for a while with the design of speaker crossovers, but don't have the necessary knowledge to calculate or figure out, is this: If you were to take, for example, an 18dB/oct Butterworth high pass/low pass crossover for a two way system, could you synthesize the same summed electrical response (and therefore the on axis response) in terms of amplitude and phase response if you were to lower the Q of the high pass section, and raise the Q of the low pass section from their standard 0.707, without changing anything else ? No. While you can play with Q's to get small areas of the response curve with similar slopes, over the ranges required, the basic properties of the filters come to the forefront. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On 20 May 2005 17:11:51 -0700, wrote:
Has anyone tried something like this ? Any gaping holes in my idea ? http://www.aes.org/publications/preprints/search.cfm, search for preprint #5010, from the 107th Convention, in 1999. Greg Berchin |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Hi All, Something that I've been thinking about for a while with the design of speaker crossovers, but don't have the necessary knowledge to calculate or figure out, is this: If you were to take, for example, an 18dB/oct Butterworth high pass/low pass crossover for a two way system, could you synthesize the same summed electrical response (and therefore the on axis response) in terms of amplitude and phase response if you were to lower the Q of the high pass section, and raise the Q of the low pass section from their standard 0.707, without changing anything else ? No. While you can play with Q's to get small areas of the response curve with similar slopes, over the ranges required, the basic properties of the filters come to the forefront. I'm not sure that you follow what I'm asking. I'm not asking for the individual responses of the filters to be the same, as that is obviously impossible - if they're different, they're different. What I'm asking is if there is a way to achieve the same summed response from a different combination of high/low pass filters, where ONE of the individual sections has a better transient response at the expense of the other. My example was to take an 18dB/oct Butterworth, and alter things so that the high pass section has an improved transient response at the expense of a worse transient response for the low pass section, but with the same (or similar) transient response as the original design for the summed response. Surely this is not so different from a subtraction based crossover where one half is a standard filter and the other slope is derived from a difference signal ? (Although admitedly, that approach is limited to active designs...) Any takers ? Regards, Simon |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Greg,
Since those preprints are not free to download, can you tell me in what way it is relevant to my question ? Or whether it is just vaugely related. Regards, Simon |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Berchin wrote: On 29 May 2005 21:28:41 -0700, wrote: Since those preprints are not free to download, can you tell me in what way it is relevant to my question ? Well, I figured that the title -- "Perfect Reconstruction Digital Crossover Exhibiting Optimum Time Domain Transient Response in All Bands" -- would be a good hint. Hi Greg, My apologies, I didn't realise that YOU were the author of the paper you were refering to ;-) Somehow I didn't connect 2 and 2 together...thanks for your email, I'll give the article a good read. In your original post, you said: could you synthesize the same summed electrical response (and therefore the on axis response) in terms of amplitude and phase response if you were to lower the Q of the high pass section, and raise the Q of the low pass section from their standard 0.707, without changing anything else ? [...] Some classes of high pass and low pass filter have ringing at their crossover frequency whose phase is opposite to their complementary filter [...] It occurs to me that this cancellation of ringing only occurs on axis, [...] With the output from the low pass section unable to balance the output from the high pass section in these off axis directions, the ringing will not be canceled. In the AES paper, I address exactly this problem. First, the lowpass and highpass filters are perfectly complementary -- that is; their responses sum to unity magnitude and linear phase (pure delay) at all frequencies. Second, their responses are in-phase at all frequencies, so there are no off-axis anomalies. Third, ringing is eliminated because the filter upon which this system is based is Gaussian (or a Bessel approximation to Gaussian). I don't see how being in phase at all frequencies could eliminate off-axis anomolies ? Surely going off axis vertically will introduce a time delay that will cause problems no matter what type of filtering you use. Or are you only refering to the effects of horizontal off axis response where the drivers are still equidistant from the listener, but the narrower dispersion of the larger driver causes an additional change in the response that causes incomplete summing of the response. (Which is what my original post was about) (Note: I havn't read your article yet) Has anyone tried something like this ? Any gaping holes in my idea ? Basically, it lends itself only to digital signal processing, because there are time delays inherent in the technique. Implementing pure delay in analog electronics is difficult. Yes I kind of suspected that at the very least it could only be implemented using an active filter, or possibly even only a digital filter. Regards, Simon |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
MS mic theory, dumb question (maybe) | Pro Audio | |||
CLC: More | Vacuum Tubes | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) | Car Audio | |||
Bridging an amp... Circuit theory question??? | Car Audio | |||
Low pass filter question... | Car Audio |