A good tweeter to match 5" SB Acoustics Magnesium Woofers

[dlr]

Btw, super powerful sprinkling resistors and caps around and cheap. C across l creates zero, usually bigger c vs l for same product of the two increases Q, increase inductor L or add resistor to make zero less deep (the two methods don’t produce identical results which is a problem with pcd).

Have you tried this in WinPCD? I added dcr for inductors in all traps and a resistor element option in the cap section of parallel layout traps. WinPCD emulates PCD in the filter sections available, only a single series trap after XO, but with a trap before XO, your circuit can be modeled since it has no main XO section use. Actually, your XO topology is rather unique, I don't think that I've seen anyone else do it this way. I like it.

dlr

[donradick]

You guys made me use windows and learn Xsim to confirm what I am referring to, without the 10 ohm resistor "bypassing" the 23 uF cap,
it is very similar to not having the 2 split coils/caps. Great design and thank you for clarifying the friendly transfer function on the tweeter.

(If the resistor was not required in the transfer function, it could have basically been done with 2 caps and coils instead of 4,
a good study in filter design)

Xmax -
XSIM runs fine on Ubuntu using Playonlinux utility. No need for Windows

[augerpro]

LOL, that's actually pretty funny. I was bored, sue me.

Just seemed like the sort of stream-of-consciousness I get when I take Ambien. My friends told me they won't answer my phone calls after 10pm or they'll hear some crazy talk

[humphreyblowdart]

Xmax -
XSIM runs fine on Ubuntu using Playonlinux utility. No need for Windows

It also runs well-enough on OS X (and presumably Linux) using Wine. Hornresp, too.

[DDF]

Have you tried this in WinPCD? I added dcr for inductors in all traps and a resistor element option in the cap section of parallel layout traps. WinPCD emulates PCD in the filter sections available, only a single series trap after XO, but with a trap before XO, your circuit can be modeled since it has no main XO section use. Actually, your XO topology is rather unique, I don't think that I've seen anyone else do it this way. I like it.

dlr

Once Xsim came out, I've stuck with that. Beyond Xsim's greater flexibility, I also didn't like the inaccuracy from the excel version of PCD since it doesn't account for inductor resistance in parallel traps. In one design, it over-predicted loss at 750Hz by 0.5 dB (inductor R was 0.29ohms, for 0.75mH). I'm sure finer gauge inductors would have had even more error. Good idea to improve that in WinPCD.

[xmax]

It also runs well-enough on OS X (and presumably Linux) using Wine. Hornresp, too.

I bought a LG Gram laptop for CNC and BassBox, Xover Pro etc and I kind of like it...

It looks like Xsim is pretty great software and will get you as far as any sim. Now I need to look into getting
accurate models of drivers into it to play around with it more.

[dcibel]

Xsim just has no off-axis capabilities which is a big part of my design process, and I believe xmax as well as I recall "power response is everything".

As unintuitive as the UI of SoundEasy is, I'm not disappointed in it, it does everything I want and more all in one software package.

[DDF]

Xsim just has no off-axis capabilities which is a big part of my design process, and I believe xmax as well as I recall "power response is everything".

As unintuitive as the UI of SoundEasy is, I'm not disappointed in it, it does everything I want and more all in one software package.

Xsim requires loading off axis each time you want to sim that axis. I asked Bill if he ever intended to add multiple curves for different observation points. He asked me for a family of on and off axis measures to use maybe a year ago, and I sent him a zip file but that was the end of the conversation. He must be happily enjoying retirement too much

xmax, what do you need to model for drivers? Isn't better to just measure them?

[xmax]

I kinda think power response is the limit for accurate simulations, that's where the hard work comes in.

[xmax]

Xsim just has no off-axis capabilities which is a big part of my design process, and I believe xmax as well as I recall "power response is everything".

As unintuitive as the UI of SoundEasy is, I'm not disappointed in it, it does everything I want and more all in one software package.

Power response is kinda everything, otherwise I would not be laying down the insane cake for the Volt 3" domes, I tried getting it
right with all sorts of high end cone mids and it' not the same, that said the Volt mid is a handful to get right too, but I think I am there
with a combination passive and active filters they are starting to drop panties and give goose bumps.

[DDF]

I kinda think power response is the limit for accurate simulations, that's where the hard work comes in.

You're not gonna get that from any driver modeler because the break up behaviour affects the off axis response so much. You'd need a FEM package similar to what driver designers use to even get close. You're better off taking off axis measurements.

[dcibel]

Power response is kinda everything, otherwise I would not be laying down the insane cake for the Volt 3" domes, I tried getting it
right with all sorts of high end cone mids and it' not the same, that said the Volt mid is a handful to get right too, but I think I am there
with a combination passive and active filters they are starting to drop panties and give goose bumps.

That's quite the word salad you put together there. I haven't the energy to try and understand what you're on about this time, life's too short.

If we can come back to reality with our underwear on, have you tried the Scan 10F in your list of "all sorts of high end cone mids"?

ATC 3":


Scan 10F:

[dcibel]

You're not gonna get that from any driver modeler because the break up behaviour affects the off axis response so much. You'd need a FEM package similar to what driver designers use to even get close. You're better off taking off axis measurements.

Once you implement a crossover that utilizes drivers in their passbands rather than breakup region, I think the power response generated by taking an average off-axis of many points is actually rather close to reality.

[DDF]

Once you implement a crossover that utilizes drivers in their passbands rather than breakup region, I think the power response generated by taking an average off-axis of many points is actually rather close to reality.

I've never seen a comparison of the a model of a driver's directivity (usually the model assumes a rigid piston and not a cone or dome) vs the actual directivity of a rigid driver before breakup, so I don' know how useful a model would be. Is there data in the public domain making some comparisons?

[xmax]

That's quite the word salad you put together there. I haven't the energy to try and understand what you're on about this time, life's too short.

If we can come back to reality with our underwear on, have you tried the Scan 10F in your list of "all sorts of high end cone mids"?

ATC 3":
[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1361117[/ATTACH]

Scan 10F:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1361118[/ATTACH]

A scan glass fiber mid, not that one though, looks nice. The Volt is a whole different animal the wave guide is quite different
from the ATC. you would have to hear it.