Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Speaker Design Question #2 - Measuring Driver Offset (z-axis) - WinPCP

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Dhar,

    My interest in passive networks is from the perspective of a Pro Audio guy ( for SR & Corporate work ) so anything that has to do with BSC ( in your above list ) is generally ignored by people such as myself ( who are typically out to balance efficiency with linearity ).

    Having said that, the ( partial list of ) outlined steps look to be correct.

    So far you've failed to mention that you're aware that all these design programs require a drivers impedance file must be loaded in the form of an .ZMA file ( as well as the .FRD file ).



    PS; The acronym in the title needs fixing
    Last edited by EarlK; 10-05-2017, 06:41 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by EarlK View Post
      So far you've failed to mention that you're aware that all these design programs require a drivers impedance file ( in the form of an .ZMA file ) must be loaded ( as well as the .FRD file ).



      PS; The acronym in the title needs fixing
      Earl,

      Ha! - I'm just noticing the mistake now lol, I don't think I have the ability to edit the title of this tread now. Maybe moderators can fix?

      In regards to the zma files, I plan on using DATs software to obtain and export files into PCD or WinPCD. That should be pretty easy.

      Comment


      • #33
        Is there a reason why PCD spreadsheet and WinPCD would yield different results? I mean - I checked over and over - same exact inputs in both applications


        I'm using the attached files.

        The following inputs were included in both applications:

        Measuring distance: 0.558meters
        Tweeter offsets - all zeros
        Woofer offset: x = 0, y = -0.160, z = -0.23
        Click image for larger version

Name:	Hivi Crossover.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	22.0 KB
ID:	1347708


        Attached Files

        Comment


        • #34
          Here were the results from the two softwares.
          Click image for larger version

Name:	PCD - Results.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	111.4 KB
ID:	1347710
          Click image for larger version

Name:	WinPCD - HiVi Results.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	267.4 KB
ID:	1347711

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Pete Schumacher View Post

            You can generate the minimum phase versions of the files by using Jeff's Response Modeler spreadsheet.
            I prefer his Frequency Response Blender. It lets you to add tails to the response to get more accuracy when you extract minimum phase. It also lets you easily and accurately combine near field and far field response including baffle affects.

            Comment


            • #36
              I'd have to boot my old XP machine to run PCD (too late tonight), but I put the data into WinPCD. I get what you show only if I leave the Polar setting inactive, meaning the offsets are ignored. When I do set Polar active, I get something closer to what you show, but still not the same as what you show for PCD. There are some peaks/dips in the crossover area.

              Compare the phase of both woofer and tweeter with the crossover in place and see how close the two are. I haven't had any feedback of major differences between PCD and WinPCD when the settings and crossover values are the same.

              Edit:
              I'm finishing some updates for behind-the-scene changes primarily and was comparing the new one to two previous versions (1.510 and 1.511). The easy way was to save the project file to import into the other versions. The summed response was different. Not seeing any obvious reason, I imported the saved project into my new version. It now is the same as others. It appears that when files are manually loaded and data set manually, the summed response is not correct. I'll have to look into it further, but for now try saving/re-loading the project to see what the difference is. The results I see are that with polar inactive, the sum is close to the PCD sum that you show. With it active, as it should be if you are using minimum-phase files, the response has some peaks/dips in the crossover area, not the large peak shown.

              I have to investigate this.

              dlr
              WinPCD - Windows .NET Passive Crossover Designer

              Dave's Speaker Pages

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by killa View Post

                I prefer his Frequency Response Blender. It lets you to add tails to the response to get more accuracy when you extract minimum phase. It also lets you easily and accurately combine near field and far field response including baffle affects.
                You can do the same thing with Response Modeler using the EQ settings and adding LP or HP filters to generate the tails.
                R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio

                Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51


                95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong

                Comment


                • #38
                  And the problem is......you have to invert the tweeter connection. It's a second order system. You must have inverted it in PCD as required for second order, but didn't in WinPCD. I've got a very sore forehead right now. This is with the Polar setting Inactive in WinPCD.

                  This reminded me to have the polarity setting color change added to the System graph. I hope to have an updated version ready soon. The big change is it will now be "responsive UI" when running the polar plots. Currently that is in the same thread as the UI so the whole program is blocked during that time. It will be in its own thread in the new version so the UI will respond.

                  dlr
                  WinPCD - Windows .NET Passive Crossover Designer

                  Dave's Speaker Pages

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Okay - back with some questions

                    This is the experiment I am running:

                    1) First, the following measurements were taken:
                    a) Tweeter measurements without crossover at 30" on tweeter axis
                    b) Woofer measurements without crossover at 30" on tweeter axis
                    c) Tweeter + Woofer, wired in parallel, measurements without crossover at 30" on tweeter axis
                    d) Woofer measurements without crossover at 30" on Woofer axis
                    e) Tweeter measurements with crossover at 30" on tweeter axis
                    f) Woofer measurements with crossover at 30" on tweeter axis
                    g) Tweeter + Woofer, with crossover at 30" on tweeter axis

                    2) All single driver measurements were exported into JB's Frequency Response Blender to extract minimum phase. New files with minimum phase were created

                    3) Measurements "1c", along with "1a + 1b" - modified to include mimimum phase, were imported into WinPCD to determine acoustic offset
                    ISSUE #1 - I think the selection of "tails" definitely impacts results - even if its way outside of the overlap region. What seemed to have the most impact on my result was whether I am using a 0db, 6db, 12db, 24db, 48db - "low-pass" tail for the tweeters upper-end response. (acoustic offset was calculated to be +0.0081, +0.0062, +0.0040, +0.0010, -0.0060, respectively)

                    4) All crossover components were measured utilizing DATS, and the exact values were included in WinPCD crossover section.

                    5) Zma files were created using DATS and included in WinPCD

                    6) First, files 1a and 1b (both modified for minimum phase) were uploaded in WinPCD

                    7) The resulting response from Step 6 was compared to the measured response in Step 1g (utilizing the "import overlay" functionality)
                    ISSUE # 2 - My mind is telling me, that if I measured every crossover component, correctly measured my FRD and ZMA files, the simulated response would match identically to measured response. Maximum variance observed was at 1,720HZ - a delta of 2.3db between measured and simulated.

                    8) Next, files 1a and 1d (both modified for minimum phase) were uploaded in WinPCD

                    9) The resulting response from Step 8 was compared to the measured response in Step 1g (utilizing the "import overlay" functionality)
                    ISSUE # 3 - Much closer than the results from Step 7 - BUT still not identical. When I compared 1f with simulated predictions, it matched perfectly. When I compared 1e with simulated predictions, the response did not match perfectly.Maximum variance observed was at 1,720HZ - a delta of 1.8db between measured and simulated.

                    So - soliciting advice again.

                    For Issue # 1 - How to you select tweeter LP tail? Positive woofer offset??!?!

                    For Issue # 2 - Shouldn't simulated response exactly meet measured response if you know all unknowns (e.g., various crossover component values, etc) - as indicated in Step 9, my woofer simulated response exactly matched my measured response - however, this was not the case for the tweeter section

                    For Issue # 3- I don't know if it helps answer my questions from an earlier post. My finding indicated that I get better results when I measure each driver on its respective axis when the idea is to minimum phase files and specifying the baffle layout and the drivers radiating diameter as oppose to utilizing the woofer's response that was captured on the tweeter axis for determining the acoustic offset. It is very subtle, but I thought I share my experience none the less.

                    Ultimately - the best response I get is if I turn off "Relative Polar Locations" and simply use the files 1a + 1b ==> this is when measured response matches pretty close to simulated response. I think less than 1db variance

                    Step 7 Results: ​
                    Click image for larger version

Name:	Step 7 Results.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	258.1 KB
ID:	1348295



                    Step 9 Results ​
                    Click image for larger version

Name:	Step 9 Results.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	286.9 KB
ID:	1348296


                    And with polar response off:
                    Click image for larger version

Name:	win polar response off.jpg
Views:	0
Size:	0
ID:	1348297

                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Here is the response with the "Polar Repose" off with all driver measurements from tweeter axis (i.e., 1a and 1b from above - modified for minimum phase):
                      Click image for larger version

Name:	win polar response off.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	258.0 KB
ID:	1348299

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Hi Dhar,

                        Point #3: What happens ( what offset do you get ) when you don't add any low-pass tail to the tweeter FR ? ( I believe that's the way most people operate )

                        Also, I think your Swan 2.2a example was designed from a listening axis mid-way between the center of tweeter & center woofer cone ( that's were I get the best summation at crossover using your files from post #33 > this is true using both WinPCD & XSim ) .

                        .

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by dkalsi View Post
                          Here is the response with the "Polar Repose" off with all driver measurements from tweeter axis (i.e., 1a and 1b from above - modified for minimum phase)
                          You use one of the files for the tweeter with the tail added and use that one only afterwards. If you follow the directions shown in the Acoustic Offset tab of WinPCD, you should be able to get a near identical match with the summed measurement of the two raw driver minimum-phase measurements (1a & 1b). After that measured results should correspond very closely to predicted unless there is an issue with the measuement setup and/or software.

                          Show the system tab of WinPCD to prevent any confusion and help others to help you. I'd like to see that vs. the line-by-line listing on page 1.

                          dlr
                          Last edited by dlr; 10-09-2017, 09:50 AM. Reason: The info I asked for is on page 1, I overlooked that.
                          WinPCD - Windows .NET Passive Crossover Designer

                          Dave's Speaker Pages

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Earl,

                            I did exactly as you said - I did not add a LP tail to the tweeter response. I am assumting the way to do this is to not specify the slope for the LP tail in Frequency Response Blender.

                            Now - the result was that I was getting an acoustic offset of +0.008m.

                            Just so I understand your comment about the design axis (as intended by the manufacturer) - right now, I was only hoping match the simulated response to the measured response. If my measured response was at the tweeter level, then is it a safe assumption to think that the simulated response (one specified to be on the 0 vertical and 0 horizontal tweeter axis) should match the measured response?


                            Dlr,

                            After using the tweeter axis file (i.e. 1a) - modified for minimum phase derived from not specifying a LP tail for the tweeter (as recommended by Earl) and file 1b - I now get the following results:
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	WinPCD - Screenshot.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	318.8 KB
ID:	1348429


                            Click image for larger version

Name:	New Response Tweeter and Woofer both at Tweeter Axis.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	264.8 KB
ID:	1348428




                            One more than I forgot to mention was that the one thing that also helps immensely is if change the "Listening / Measuring Distance" to = 2meters, as oppose to 0.775m (i.e., the distance at which the files were actually created - also with the distance where I currently measured the crossover included response as a reference to check my simulated response against). To be clear, this is in the "System" tab, and NOT the "Acoustic Offset" tab - I understand that is not something one is supposed to change from the actual distance when trying to determine the acoustic offset.

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	Simulated response utilizng a 2meter measurement distance.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	256.6 KB
ID:	1348427



                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by dkalsi View Post
                              I did exactly as you said - I did not add a LP tail to the tweeter response. I am assumting the way to do this is to not specify the slope for the LP tail in Frequency Response Blender.

                              Now - the result was that I was getting an acoustic offset of +0.008m.

                              Just so I understand your comment about the design axis (as intended by the manufacturer) - right now, I was only hoping match the simulated response to the measured response. If my measured response was at the tweeter level, then is it a safe assumption to think that the simulated response (one specified to be on the 0 vertical and 0 horizontal tweeter axis) should match the measured response?
                              Design axis means the axis on which you intend to make your design. It has nothing to do with any measurements, those are a separate issue. Typical design point is somewhere on the tweeter axis, but doesn't have to be.

                              I only now tried out Jeff's Blender. It appears that there is a default on the high end tail of -12db @20Khz.This is lower than I have found typical of tweeters. FYI, what the lowpass slope (top end tail) does is add delay, the steeper the slope, the more it delays. What this means is that for any increase in slope, there's more delay, consequently for the acoustic offset with another driver (e.g. a woofer), the offset (z-axis) will be increased correspondingly. A low enough slope could require a positive offset of a woofer to compensate for the (possibly unrealistic) amount of delay added by using a very steep slope. In the end, it doesn't matter as long as you use the same slope and Fc on any subsequent measurement file you may substitute with newly generated minimum phase.

                              One more than I forgot to mention was that the one thing that also helps immensely is if change the "Listening / Measuring Distance" to = 2meters, as oppose to 0.775m (i.e., the distance at which the files were actually created - also with the distance where I currently measured the crossover included response as a reference to check my simulated response against). To be clear, this is in the "System" tab, and NOT the "Acoustic Offset" tab - I understand that is not something one is supposed to change from the actual distance when trying to determine the acoustic offset.
                              When you are determining acoustic offset, it is best to set the distance to that which was used for the measurements to get the most accurate value. The goal is to measure at a known point (whatever point you want), make all three measurements, then determine offset at that point. The results should be a nearly identical calculated summed response overlay with the measured sum.

                              dlr
                              WinPCD - Windows .NET Passive Crossover Designer

                              Dave's Speaker Pages

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by dlr View Post
                                The goal is to measure at a known point (whatever point you want), make all three measurements, then determine offset at that point. The results should be a nearly identical calculated summed response overlay with the measured sum.
                                Duly noted Dlr - Once set, I do NOT touch the mic for all three measurements. And I do get near identical summed response when adjusting for z-offset as you indicated. I'm glad you also found that selecting different tails did result in different indications of z-offset.

                                All that being said, "z-offset" couldn't possibly have multiple values could it? Theoretically, there should be only one exact value for z-offset right? If that is the case, then I know I just need to learn more about setting "tails".

                                I was also hoping you (or others) can chime in and possibly explain why my simulated response doesn't match the measured response. If I have measured the value of each individual crossover component, if I have specified the measurement axis to be the same exact point where the measured response (inclusive of crossover) was taken, if I have specified the correct crossover layout, shouldn't simulated response = measured response? I only seem to get my simulated response to be close to the measured reference response (@ 0.775meters) when I adjust the measurement distance to 2 meters.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X