Page 2 of 2

Re: Transition area vs steady state

Posted: 25 Nov 2020 12:27
by UliBru
No, thanks. Today I can see them all again.

Re: Transition area vs steady state

Posted: 25 Nov 2020 15:54
by In-Ear
Hi,

can anybody please explain to me, why it is a good target to get a different phase relation between both speakers in transition than in stady stade area?

Thanks!

Best regards,
Jörn

Re: Transition area vs steady state

Posted: 25 Nov 2020 16:05
by UliBru
Jörn,

please create e.g. a 2-way linearphase XO of your choice.
Then load the crossovers. Also generate a sinewave of the corner frequency.
Then convolve each crossover with the sinewave and inspect the transition area in the time chart. You will see the ideal behaviour and learn how it shall look like.

Re: Transition area vs steady state

Posted: 25 Nov 2020 16:10
by Dahlberg
I went from only steady state to both today. You will not regret the effort, I can promise you that. :)

Re: Transition area vs steady state

Posted: 25 Nov 2020 17:07
by In-Ear
Hi,

I will check it. But if this is the way to go, than why does a perfect time match of both pulses not do the job as well as it does in theory with both XO pulses? :roll:

I have a DBA (front mains with subs and rear subs on the wall) and if I time-align the well adjusted DBA subs with the main satellites I have to delay them for nearly the delay I put on the rear DBA subs allthough they are placed right beside the front subs...this is the result when calculating delays with the pulse peaks of the sub sum and the mains. But I have to change the polarity of the mains for best step response. I will try to match it with this method and probably end up in a more "logical" set-up..

Thank you!

Jörn