안녕하세요 여러분.
모두 잘 지내고 계시길 바랍니다.
저는 4방향 패시브 크로스오버 네트워크를 설계했으며, 제 디자인에 대한 전문가의 피드백과 제안을 부탁드리고 싶습니다.
다음은 시스템에 대한 간략한 개요입니다:
드라이버 유닛
- 트위터: Accuton C25-6-158
- 중간 범위: Accuton C90-6-079
- 미드우퍼: Accuton C173-6-191E
- 우퍼: Accuton C173-6-191E (second unit)
- 우퍼: 370Hz 이하
- 미드우퍼: 390Hz ~ 707Hz
- 중간 범위: 681Hz ~ 2.8kHz (매끄러운 핸드오프)
- 트위터: 2.8kHz 이상의 자연스러운 확장
디자인 접근 방식
- 크로스오버 포인트는 고전적인 LC 필터 이론을 기반으로 계산되었습니다.
- 기울기, 임피던스 보정(조벨 네트워크) 및 구성 요소 값의 미세 조정은 AI(ChatGPT) 상담을 통해 지원되었습니다.
- 부드러운 주파수 응답, 위상 일관성, 왜곡 최소화 및 고급 성능 특성을 달성하는 데 중점을 두었습니다.
추가 참고 사항
- 증폭기의 임피던스 평탄화와 더 나은 부하 동작을 보장하기 위해 필요한 경우 Zobel 네트워크를 적용했습니다.
- 목표는 정밀도, 자연스러운 음색, 그리고 오디오 애호가 수준의 해상도를 결합한 시스템을 만드는 것입니다.
시간과 전문 지식을 제공해 주셔서 대단히 감사합니다!
Last edited:
I see no Zobel network for amplifier load consideration, despite saying there is. Can we assume you had AI write your post?
I’d like to help but there is minimal indication of your acoustic conditions and no measurements of them. Advice from this point may either have to be general in nature or guessed.
I’d like to help but there is minimal indication of your acoustic conditions and no measurements of them. Advice from this point may either have to be general in nature or guessed.
Thank you for your feedback — I really appreciate you taking the time.
To clarify: Zobel networks are included for each driver, but they might not have been clearly visible in the schematic. They are placed across the driver terminals (woofer, midwoofer, midrange, and tweeter) to flatten the impedance at higher frequencies.
Regarding the post, I used AI (ChatGPT) as a tool to assist in organizing my design notes and theory, but all component selections and final design decisions were made manually by myself.
You are right that I haven’t posted acoustic measurements yet — I’m still in the process of completing the physical build. Once measurements are available, I’ll be happy to share them for better evaluation.
Thanks again for your helpful comments. I truly look forward to improving the project with advice from experienced members like you.
I am currently preparing a newly refined crossover design, developed through discussions with AI, starting from the original circuit as the foundation.
Quick question >
What program did you use to draw your schematic diagram ? It's nice & clear 🙂
What program did you use to draw your schematic diagram ? It's nice & clear 🙂
Do you have measurements and impedance runs in the actual cabinets and sub-enclosures you plan on using? Not sure how you can do the crossovers without the cabinets built and the drivers mounted in them?
Rob 🙂
Rob 🙂
Robh3606
Thank you for your valuable feedback.
I currently have an existing speaker system, and I am working to improve and modify the crossover with the help of AI (ChatGPT).
Since I am still a beginner, I may not be able to spot all the mistakes or missing details by myself.
That’s why I posted here — I sincerely wanted feedback from more experienced members to catch anything I might have overlooked.
I truly appreciate your patience and advice. Thank you again for taking the time to help.
First off, use of ChatGPT to design a crossover is a recipe for failure. It is an search script with language based answers, and it's easy to get taken in by the language, but the actual answer lacks any real understanding of crossover design (or of most technical subjects).
Crossovers are specific to the combination of individual drivers, baffle layout and enclosure. This means that any crossover designed by AI will be useless, since it does not implement those inputs in such design. It is most likely that any changes you make in your speaker will have a worse result than what is already there, unless that crossover was also similarly designed.
Driver impedance isn't a number, it's a reactive component and changes with frequency. AI does not know this. Drivers react differently depending on where the driver is positioned on the baffle. AI does not know this either. Boxes have their own radiation pattern, and ports have gain and resonances. AI does not have this information either. Would I like an AI tool to be able to design a crossover properly? Yes. Does it exist? No.
There are a number of stickies at the top of this forum you should read before starting on this journey. I'm pointing out the specific ones that are designed to help newbies get started, please do read them thoroughly before asking more specific questions.
I would also urge you to use AI only as a translation tool, and then only if you have zero English skills. We can clearly see when text is written by AI and it isn't a welcome sight. It makes everyone sound and read the same, and it encourages dullness.
Crossovers are specific to the combination of individual drivers, baffle layout and enclosure. This means that any crossover designed by AI will be useless, since it does not implement those inputs in such design. It is most likely that any changes you make in your speaker will have a worse result than what is already there, unless that crossover was also similarly designed.
Driver impedance isn't a number, it's a reactive component and changes with frequency. AI does not know this. Drivers react differently depending on where the driver is positioned on the baffle. AI does not know this either. Boxes have their own radiation pattern, and ports have gain and resonances. AI does not have this information either. Would I like an AI tool to be able to design a crossover properly? Yes. Does it exist? No.
There are a number of stickies at the top of this forum you should read before starting on this journey. I'm pointing out the specific ones that are designed to help newbies get started, please do read them thoroughly before asking more specific questions.
I would also urge you to use AI only as a translation tool, and then only if you have zero English skills. We can clearly see when text is written by AI and it isn't a welcome sight. It makes everyone sound and read the same, and it encourages dullness.
Last edited:
Sangram
Thank you very much for your honest and detailed advice.I completely understand your point.
I am using AI more as a brainstorming tool, not as a substitute for real measurements and understanding. I fully agree that proper crossover design must be based on actual drivers, baffle layout, and enclosure measurements.
At this stage, I’m simply trying to learn the principles and get better at the design process before moving on to the real measurement and fine-tuning phase.
I will definitely take your advice seriously, read the sticky posts thoroughly, and make sure to approach this project properly.
Thank you again for your guidance — I truly appreciate it!
The parts marked in red boxes are circuits that were suggested by AI (ChatGPT) during the design discussion.
These elements (mostly additional capacitors and Zobel networks) were not present in the original crossover design, but were proposed by AI to improve impedance stability, frequency response, and phase alignment.
I am still learning and carefully considering each suggestion before final implementation.
Your expert feedback would be greatly appreciated to verify whether these additions make sense in a real-world application.
A simple active-passive hybrid. The active part might not even have to be truly active (with op-amp gyrators), but could use a passive RC network that is buffered and driven by a pre-amp.
I would avoid adding a zobel network unless you are certain that it is necessary. Even then, try to make it global, away from each individual speaker, as its purpose is to flatten the total impedance seen by the amplifier.
Isn't zobel network supposed to linearise driver impedance so that the preceding filter section sees a flat impedance and hence, can do its work according to the textbook?
//
//
Probably, but it's a moot point, as the impedance is dynamic, changing with things like voice coil temperature, and programme material, so I wouldn't overthink it. What I had in mind was keeping the impedance flat for the amplifier.
abstract
Thank you for your valuable feedback.Actually, I already have an existing passive speaker system that I am currently trying to improve.
The crossover was originally designed for these drivers and enclosures, but now I am in the process of refining it with the help of AI suggestions.
I fully understand that crossover design requires specific acoustic measurements and impedance curves taken in the real cabinet environment.
However, as a beginner, it’s very difficult for me to measure and analyze them properly at the moment.
That’s why I asked for advice — to identify potential mistakes that AI might have made and to learn from experienced members like you.
My goal is to gradually upgrade and optimize the system step-by-step, with your professional guidance.
I sincerely appreciate any advice or corrections you can offer.
Thank you again for your time and support!
AI doesn't have the slightest idea of x-over design.
Don't think AI can save you from learning.
Loudspeaker development is not a trivial task - it's a complex process.
I suggest you read through some threads here to learn about the basic principles.
Why are you not going for a 3.5 way design in order to improve low-end headroom ?
Regards
Charles
Regards
Charles
Yes, I saw them. They are not the same type that AI described.
The Zobel network was popularised with long distance telephone circuitry last century. It now refers to impedance conjugation in general.
phase_accurate
Thank you for the great question!Actually, I did consider a 3.5-way design to maximize low-end headroom.
However, my current approach is closer to a 4-way system, where each C173-6-191E driver has a more strictly defined frequency range.
One woofer is dedicated purely to the lowest frequencies (below ~370 Hz), and the second C173-6-191E covers the low-mid region (~390–700 Hz).
This was done to improve clarity and separation between the bass and lower midrange, and to maintain tighter control over cone excursion.
In the future, I am open to trying a 3.5-way alignment as well, especially if I find that the current system could benefit from even more bass headroom or smoother integration.
I really appreciate your suggestion — it makes me think about alternative tuning strategies!
I'm confused. Why are you not doing a 3.5 way? In the least, it'll be easier to implement than a 4 way.