# Butterworth vs Linkwitz



## teldzc1 (Oct 9, 2009)

So I switched between BW and LR crossovers on my dsp6 abs find that the BW sounds a lot better. Both are 4th order but the BW sounds much more integrated and less like 5 separate drivers.

It seems like everything I've read says that LR is "better" (admittedly I don't fully understand all the technical details). Do I trust my ears or try and EQ the LR to sound better?


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

The electrical and acoustical slopes are two different things. Read that "the essque of 6dB filters..." thread.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## teldzc1 (Oct 9, 2009)

Thanks. I read it but I guess I don't understand the acoustic difference between the BW and LR.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

The characteristic differences in filters are described in electrical terms, however it's a combination of the electrical and acoustical extrinsic factors that lead to your final overall "acoustic" response. It's completely possible to use BW electrical filters but if you were to measure the FR of the speakers have a L-R response. I would imagine the disparity between electrical and acoustic responses will be greater with shallower slopes.


----------



## teldzc1 (Oct 9, 2009)

Okay that makes sense. I think the positioning of speakers will have a large effect on the acoustic response as well. 

So in short, use what sounds best?


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

While I understand some of the technical behind the filters, I had the same basic experience as you.

I tried the LR filters for a while...and now, after all of that, I have had the best _integration_ of the mids to the sub, using BW filters on both. It just sounds smoother...warmer (probably EQ tuning there)...and easier to dial in.

Currently at 82hz/12db slope on the mids and 75hz/24db on the sub.


----------



## teldzc1 (Oct 9, 2009)

Smoother and warmer are the words I'd use too. My eq was setup for LR so I'm thinking BW will require some changes to get the right balance.


----------



## CrossFired (Jan 24, 2008)

I've always like the Butter better. No bump at the cross point.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Butterworth is +3dB at crossover point, L-R is sums flat. I use acoustic 4th order L-R slopes between all speakers.


----------



## Libertyguy20 (Jun 6, 2012)

^ 
That is if the drivers are side by side without a significant gap in between unlike most factory locals. I use LR too though 4th order because I feel better about the no phase shift, except on my sub....LR vs BW is very car dependant as most will agree


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

Hanatsu said:


> Butterworth is +3dB at crossover point, L-R is sums flat. I use acoustic 4th order L-R slopes between all speakers.


But you're a badass.  I can't seem to get it as good using the L-R over the BW.


----------



## Jcharger13 (Jul 12, 2013)

therapture said:


> But you're a badass.  I can't seem to get it as good using the L-R over the BW.


Me too! Just switched to BW a few hrs ago. Blended better sub/mid.
Still L-R on higher freq speakers. 

Most of us only use one DSP though also. Lol!


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

therapture said:


> But you're a badass.  I can't seem to get it as good using the L-R over the BW.


Lol. My slopes are badass xD xD

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

So, Hanatsu, if I went back and tried a tune using L-R filters...being that I know considerably more than I did a few months ago (which still isn't much haha), and taking in consideration my current 82/12db mid and 75/24db sub, what would be a good starting point?

And what benefits might I receive from a re-tune using L-R filters?


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Chances are that many run L-R acoustic slopes without knowing it. The benefit is that both amplitude and phase sums flat with L-R. 



> A summary of the characteristics of a Linkwitz-Riley crossover:
> 
> 1. Absolutely flat amplitude response throughout the passband with a steep 24 dB/octave rolloff rate after the crossover point.
> 
> ...


From rane.com


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

therapture said:


> So, Hanatsu, if I went back and tried a tune using L-R filters...being that I know considerably more than I did a few months ago (which still isn't much haha), and taking in consideration my current 82/12db mid and 75/24db sub, what would be a good starting point?
> 
> And what benefits might I receive from a re-tune using L-R filters?


For L-R you need to have 2 drivers sum flat with each down -6dB at crossover. Preferably with 24dB slopes. Post a measurement and I can suggest a good starting point


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

Hanatsu said:


> For L-R you need to have 2 drivers sum flat with each down -6dB at crossover. Preferably with 24dB slopes. Post a measurement and I can suggest a good starting point


Forgive me for the next few questions...

What settings do I need to test, i.e., EQ all flat, or using my current tune?

What settings on crossover should be set for this measurement?

If you are willing to look at the data, then I want to give you good data.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

funny thing, data.

you could move the microphone 6 inches while getting the 'data' and end up with a different slope/acoustic end game, just for the sake of measurement accuracy.


in a vehicle, what works in one may not work in another, and in the same vehicle, what works for one person's seated listening axis, may not work for another's.

so, it's relative.

I will agree that acoustic crossover measurement, and not relying on published data, is best.


then again, getting that measurement in the car, at the right listening position, and using all speakers concurrently to make up for various comb filtering issues, may be the only accurate way of determining phase/slope/design concerns.


I think the variable nature of drivers, with the variable nature of car interiors, with the variable nature of crossover components, with the variable nature of various hearing mechanisms and their related ups and downs via life experience and genetics, means that giving advice as to which name branded crossover, "linkwitz/butterman" is a moot point.


you're going to ultimately have to solve the equation for a function of one.


you.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

*re*



therapture said:


> Forgive me for the next few questions...
> 
> What settings do I need to test, i.e., EQ all flat, or using my current tune?
> 
> ...


Oh, forgot to answer you. Send without any EQ applied. Each driver separate. I can model it in LEAP and send the estimated "best" crossover points.

Mail: [email protected]


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

cajunner said:


> funny thing, data.
> 
> you could move the microphone 6 inches while getting the 'data' and end up with a different slope/acoustic end game, just for the sake of measurement accuracy.
> 
> ...


Well... we should really post some guidelines and sticky it so all people asking about tuning at least perform measurements with the same method. I recommend several averages in the "head space" and lower resolution smoothing above 1kHz to get the best results, generally it's possible to make decent predictions about the outcome. Everyone have to fine-tune their systems afterwards though. It's pretty hard (impossible?) to setup a system ~fully~ by measurements only. There are lots of stuff going on in a reflective environment as a car and to correlate what we're hearing with what the microphone picks up might be a challenge. 

Measurements and tuning by ear should be used together, I mainly use measurements to get the system "close" at first, then I fine-tune by correlated bandpassed noise, center the stage. Then I measure again and look for issues, if I find any I tweak some more ^^


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

teldzc1 said:


> So I switched between BW and LR crossovers on my dsp6 abs find that the BW sounds a lot better. Both are 4th order but the BW sounds much more integrated and less like 5 separate drivers.
> 
> It seems like everything I've read says that LR is "better" (admittedly I don't fully understand all the technical details). Do I trust my ears or try and EQ the LR to sound better?


If your crossover offers the option, try varying the slope.

You can have two speakers with the same on-axis frequency response, and they will sound different depending on the slope of the crossover.

I know that most prefer steep slopes because it protects a driver from over excursion.
I personally prefer shallower slopes. Everything else being equal, a shallow slope has less phase shift.

This is one of those things you really have to experiment with though. I tend to use high efficiency drivers so it's easier for me to 'get away with' shallow slopes because I'm not using much power to begin with.


----------

