My approach depends on personal taste, and I like simplicity. I prefer shallow slopes because all the speakers I prefer have shallow slopes. But it's not all about filters and topology, the selection of good drivers is more important.
I aim to have a flat FR on axis with a good PIR and SP responses, so I choose drivers, xo frequencies and filter slopes accordingly, starting from the point that the midrange must have a very good extension (250-2500Hz).
Basically, I use the optimiser to set up my intended filter, like this
e.g., Midrange: red is measured FR, blue is with filter applied, gray is with filter and PEQ/shelving applied.
Do the same for all the drivers and then optimise all the blocks to get a good compromise between on axis, polar FR, PIR and SP.
Last edited:
Will you be measuring again at the church?
How repeatable are your SPL levels during measurements? For example, my AVR volume is usually set to the same number for sweeps. I think I use ten in REW, and seventy on the AVR. The exact numbers don't matter, but it allows me to go back and check something later.
How repeatable are your SPL levels during measurements? For example, my AVR volume is usually set to the same number for sweeps. I think I use ten in REW, and seventy on the AVR. The exact numbers don't matter, but it allows me to go back and check something later.
I may do another try in the church or maybe outdoors. I do like how much cleaner the measurements come out.
Yes, I took a note of gains n the chain: REW(-17dB), computer (max) and Hypex (0dB) during the church session. The mic distance was also measured at 1m +/- 3cm.
Yes, I took a note of gains n the chain: REW(-17dB), computer (max) and Hypex (0dB) during the church session. The mic distance was also measured at 1m +/- 3cm.
So, you can mix and match measurements from each session. That's an advantage. You have a lot of good data, but part of it is not so good. (The last mid measurements above 1k for example.. But the measurement below 1k is excellent.)
Do you see the baffle step in the measurements of both the mid, and woofers? There's a rise in both starting at about 500hz and increasing to 1k.
Do you see the baffle step in the measurements of both the mid, and woofers? There's a rise in both starting at about 500hz and increasing to 1k.
Last edited:
No, I'm wrong about the mid measurement.
Take a very close look at the low end of the mid and woofer measurements taken at the church. They are virtually the same! I suspect that the woofers were playing during the mid measurement. I would not use that mid measurement at all.
Take a very close look at the low end of the mid and woofer measurements taken at the church. They are virtually the same! I suspect that the woofers were playing during the mid measurement. I would not use that mid measurement at all.
With that software, can you select a target response, and just show the target and raw response together on the same graph? Then can you manually make filter changes?
The magenta target response is the one you can create with the Optimizer tool by setting the various filter values (Type, slope, Fc, etc.) in the relative window.
Beside you can import all the FR you want as overlays (dash-dotted lines) and use those as target responses. Then you manually choose the component and its relative value in the crossover tab.
The big advantage is that you do not have to open a new window to modify the parameters (you select the component by clicking on it and use the mouse wheel to modify its value). All the values modifications are shown on the graph in real time.
You can also use the Optimizer tool to automatically get a desired target response but I am not good at it.
Beside you can import all the FR you want as overlays (dash-dotted lines) and use those as target responses. Then you manually choose the component and its relative value in the crossover tab.
The big advantage is that you do not have to open a new window to modify the parameters (you select the component by clicking on it and use the mouse wheel to modify its value). All the values modifications are shown on the graph in real time.
You can also use the Optimizer tool to automatically get a desired target response but I am not good at it.
@Juhazi , could you please help to take this advice in:
- how to I generate a view like this? this is REW, right? or is this VCAD?
- how do I interpret the M and T delays from this? I do not see where the 100us comes from and why.
Would appreciate.
In a few days I will do the 4th attempt at consistent measurments and will do VCAD simulation and filters/EQ set up based on these.
This view is from the Impulse response window in REW.
- Open Impuls response window
- Uncheck everything except the Step Response graph. (optional but this will give you only step response)
- Change y-axis to % (top left control on the graph).
- Zoom in.
I don't know for sure, but I think you may have significantly underestimated the number of parameters... 😉
Why would it be "louder"? Can you please elaborate a little?
Maybe the much narrower transition band between the high- and low-pass sections had something to do with that? Therefore, the response above and below the crossover frequency is less affected by the response of the complementary driver.
Last edited:
So would it be a good idea to measure at, or very close to, the intended listening distance from the loudspeaker? That would also include setting the microphone on a suitable driver's axis, such as that of the tweeter. Raising the speaker some way off the floor (e.g., halfway between floor and ceiling) would tend to delay the measured response of the first sound reflection from the floor and/or ceiling. This would make the gated measurements quite accurate at higher frequencies, allowing proper driver integration in the crossover design.
I guess the question to ask is how far away from the speakers will the listening position be? Will it be like that in a typical domestic room or far away in the stands of a stadium?
Because there is more output from each driver - as each works through a wider band, as slopes are less steep - and these outputs add up where drivers overlap. The overlap areas are wider when slopes are shallower.
I still don't follow. The complementary low-pass and high-pass sections of LR2, LR4, and LR8 filters all sum to unity magnitude. The two sets of outputs add up to give a flat response. How would one be louder than another?
LR2 vs. LR4.
I have attenuated Mid and TW a bit to get the same balance.
The xo Fc are the same of the LR2 version and the notches parameters are unchanged.
Hypex HFD has presets, just try both versions and choose the one you prefer.
Consider the timing and polar effects of cabinet diffraction relative to the direct sound. Once you begin to get into the cabinet farfield they begin to stabilise in form. For this reason 2m can be better than 1m, but improvements will begin to diminish with further distances again.
If the LR2 preset sounds louder it's because the response is different.
- You might just need to adjust overall level
- Tonal balance might be different
- Off axis response is certainly different, so even if your on axis response is identical, room reflections can make it sound different