Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

refining my crossover (HELP NEEDED)

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by johnny45 View Post
    ive updated my design concet ...
    ill be going with a singal planar in vertical at 20watts at 8ohm with a 12db Attenuation crossed at 400hz with 280watts at 2ohm for the lows

    this is what im aiming for
    Click image for larger version  Name:	the new god 6666.jpg Views:	0 Size:	361.8 KB ID:	1469756
    im really new to this espeacily in Xsim
    the drivers ill be using are per cab with twin rads are

    one GRS PT6825-8 8" Planar Mid/Tweeter 8 Ohm

    an one Dayton Audio RSS265HO-44 10" Reference HO DVC Subwoofer (wired to 2ohms)

    if anyone can design this correctly to get this fq response id be greatful
    once designed iv got a guy that can build it for me
    I think the 0.4mH inductor on the woofer and the 99uF capacitor on the mid+tweeter doesn't do much, and the 300ohm resistor on the tweeter does less (maybe drops the tweeter response 1/2db?) you might want to see how similar/different your simulation looks without those parts....and it looks like ChrisRoemer's XO has a smoother frequency response in the SIM (+/-2db VS +/-3.5db).

    It's also a good idea to look online or wherever you're planning to buy the crossover parts from, then see what's actually available. Often they won't have those exact uF and mH value parts, so you'll probably need to find the most similar parts available and then re-try the simulation with those parts. Sometimes you'll have to readjust the crossover to balance it with the parts you can find.

    Glad to hear you've decided to use a single mid+tweeter instead of pairs for each speaker box.
    My first 2way build

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by LOUT View Post
      I think the 0.4mH inductor on the woofer and the 99uF capacitor on the mid+tweeter doesn't do much, and the 300ohm resistor on the tweeter does less (maybe drops the tweeter response 1/2db?) you might want to see how similar/different your simulation looks without those parts....and it looks like ChrisRoemer's XO has a smoother frequency response in the SIM (+/-2db VS +/-3.5db).

      It's also a good idea to look online or wherever you're planning to buy the crossover parts from, then see what's actually available. Often they won't have those exact uF and mH value parts, so you'll probably need to find the most similar parts available and then re-try the simulation with those parts. Sometimes you'll have to readjust the crossover to balance it with the parts you can find.

      Glad to hear you've decided to use a single mid+tweeter instead of pairs for each speaker box.
      Agreeing with a lot of what's been said, but, maybe ... wait to order parts after the box is built, drivers are mounted, and measurements are taken. Even then, it would be advisable to have extra parts on hand.
      http://techtalk.parts-express.com/fo...khanspires-but
      http://techtalk.parts-express.com/fo...pico-neo-build
      http://techtalk.parts-express.com/fo...ensation-build

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by johnny45 View Post
        ill be going with a singal planar in vertical at 20watts at 8ohm with a 12db Attenuation crossed at 400hz with 280watts at 2ohm for the lows

        one GRS PT6825-8 8" Planar Mid/Tweeter 8 Ohm
        an one Dayton Audio RSS265HO-44 10" Reference HO DVC Subwoofer (wired to 2ohms)
        What are you planning to drive these with? And if these are the surrounds - what are you running for your mains? Why are you wanting to run a 2ohm subwoofer in a two-way surround speaker? As mentioned by others several times now, surround channels simply don't need a dedicated subwoofer - in home theatre the dedicated subwoofer channel is sent the low end content - even when all channels are set to "large" or "full range".

        Perhaps you're thinking this is really epic and unique and will result in a new kick arse level of surround sound that no one's done before - but honestly there is literally no benefit in, or a way to make use of, what you're theoretically attempting to achieve with this setup in a surround speaker. You're complicating your integration, amplification requirements, and I'm guessing but likely screwing with the matching up of the sonic signatures of the speakers in the system, not to mention tackling an overly difficult design in the first place.

        I'm not here to condemn creativity - but I just get a sense that there might be a disconnect here between expectation and reality

        Comment

        Working...
        X