|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Compensation components [message #33824 is a reply to message #33821] |
Fri, 07 September 2001 20:44 |
|
Wayne Parham
Messages: 18784 Registered: January 2001
|
Illuminati (33rd Degree) |
|
|
There may be an advantage for their application, but for what we're doing, the RRC approach works best. The initial load resistor R2 provides a specific amount of damping for the splitter filter to provide an initial shelf of flat response, followed by 6dB/octave rising response above 4kHz via R1/C1 to compensate for the falling power response of the driver. A transformer would not do this. One benefit from using step-down transformers is they transform the energy rather than dissipating it, so they don't get as hot when current is high. On the other hand, I don't expect the Klipsch transformers are made to take a whole lot of power, so this might be a mute point. However, another aspect of this is the impedance transformation which effectively increases tweeter damping when a step-down transformer is used to lower the drive voltage to a tweeter. The output coil from the step-down transformer has lower impedance and is therefore a better current sink, providing better damping. Here again though, I'm not sure this is very relevant in practice because tweeters do not require a lot of electrical damping, particularly compression horns which are extremely well damped acoustically.
|
|
|
|
Re: Compensation components [message #33827 is a reply to message #33824] |
Sat, 08 September 2001 04:11 |
Art J.
Messages: 16 Registered: May 2009
|
Chancellor |
|
|
Thanks, To fully cover the subject; What do you think of variable L Pads ?They are my choice because you can further compensate for room conditions and peircing headaches.
|
|
|