Connect with us

Q of passive audio equaliser

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Ian Bell, Jan 12, 2010.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Ian Bell

    Ian Bell Guest

    Suppose you have a simple pot divider consisting of two equal value
    resistors, say 10K each. Across the upper one you connect a series LC
    circuit that resonates at 3KHz or thereabouts. If you drive this network
    from a low impedance source and plot the response across the bottom
    resistor, the Q of the resulting peak is not the Q of the series LC but
    rather is determined by the pair of LC values. For example, choosing
    l=150mH and C=18nF gives a Q of just over 2. Choosing L= 1.5H and
    C=1.8nF gives a much higher Q.

    What I need is a simple means of calculating L and C given the pot
    divider resistor value and desired Q and f (assuming the Q of the LC
    itself is much higher).

    Cheers

    Ian
     
  2. Ian Bell

    Ian Bell Guest

    Yes, that was my first thought but that still gives the wrong Q value.

    I think you meant the second to be Rlower, but I understand what you are
    saying.
    Yes, I already realised that. What I don't understand is how the Q of
    the filter relates to the circuit values.

    I have just simulated the first example again and I suspect the problem
    arises because the 3dB points turn out not to be symmetrical about the
    resonant frequency. The simulation yields a resonant frequency close to
    3.1KHz and -3db points at about 1.1KHz and 8.5KHz which gives a Q of
    about 0.42 (assuming Q = deltaf/f). Feeding this back in to find the
    effective resistance of the RLC gives R = 6974 ohms which is rather
    higher than the expected 5000 ohms.

    I am still puzzled.


    Cheers

    Ian
     
  3. Ian Bell

    Ian Bell Guest


    Wim, I just changed Rlower to 1K which gives simulation results much
    closer to what I expected i.e Q = 3, (resonance near 3KHz, -3dB points
    at 2.5K and 3.5K respectively) and if you calculate Q from w*L/R where R
    ie 10K//1K you get Q = 3.

    Cheers

    Ian
     
  4. Ian Bell

    Ian Bell Guest

    The analysis is simple enough. Deriving the effective Q is not. That's
    what I need help with really.

    Cheers

    Ian
     
  5. Ian Bell

    Ian Bell Guest

    What I am really trying to do is to understand how to determine the
    circuit parameters of that network given R, centre frequency and the Q
    of the final response.

    I am not looking to make a passive equaliser with lots of sliders and I
    do not want a 'tone control'.

    That topology is one element at the heart of several passive audio
    equalisers that are much revered in the pro audio world (with various
    ratios of the pot divider). I want to understand them well enough to be
    able to design my own.

    Cheers

    Ian
     
  6. Ian Bell

    Ian Bell Guest


    Thanks Jim, a very elegant analysis. As you rightly point out, defining
    Q is not straightforward but in this context I mean it to be the centre
    frequency divided by the half power bandwidth of the network. So how do
    I determine Q from the circuit parameters?

    Cheers

    ian
     
  7. Tim Williams

    Tim Williams Guest

    Well, asymptotic gain is 1/2, as can be seen from the circuit or its
    transfer function. That's not the textbook case of Q, where the band edges
    drop off towards 0 asymptotically. It's also not quite a parallel or series
    resonant circuit, though textbooks can still define Q for that case.

    If you want to brute force it, of course, you can just solve for H =
    sqrt(2)/2 and see where that goes. Downside is solving the polynomial
    roots, but it's only quadratic.

    Solving for s, I got
    s = -1.103*R / L +/- sqrt(1.218*R^2 / L^2 - 1/LC)

    Using values of R = 10k, L = 1.5H and C = 1.8nF (mind the inductor may have
    as much parallel capacitance itself), I got
    s = -7353 +/- sqrt(54.13M - 370.4M)
    = -7353 +/- j17783
    Hmm, that looks more like ordinary poles than a frequency you're supposed to
    have. Maybe it's sideways? A center frequency of 18kHz with bandwidth
    +/-7.3kHz wouldn't be too unbelievable.

    Tim
     
  8. Ian Bell

    Ian Bell Guest


    LOL. I have no intention of doing either.

    Cheers

    Ian
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-