Lab 6: Filter Design Project

ENG214: Circuit Analysis Laboratory

Tim Laux, Eric Brokaw, Thomas Approvato, Alin Bojkovic

The College of New Jersey

December 11th 2014

Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Application
Requirements
Research
Calculations
Solution
Equipment
Procedure
Results
References

Application
A singular loudspeaker is generally
incapable of reproducing the entire
audio spectrum with a linear
frequency response and without
distortion.
Most professional and high-end
systems use two or more drivers,
each catering to a specific range of
frequencies.
Each loudspeaker needs to be driven
by a signal with frequencies in its
linear range of operation.

Figure 1. Three-way speaker system

Requirements
We picked out the HiVi M4N, a
commercially available driver.
After examining its frequency
response plot, we determined that
it responded linearly between
100Hz and 5kHz. This makes it a
low-midrange driver.

Figure 2. HiVi M4N

Therefore, we require a band-pass

filter which has -3dB cutoff
frequencies of 100Hz and 5kHz.

Figure 3. HiVi M4N Frequency Response

Research
There are two ways to filter audio
signals: before or after amplification
(active or passive crossovers)
Before amplification (active):
Better overall sound quality
Highly tunable
Less expensive
Smaller/lighter
Requires multiple amplifiers

Figure 4. Active Crossover

After amplification (passive):

Requires only one amplifier
Lower complexity
Potentially expensive
Bulky/heavy
Power losses and non-linearities

Figure 5. Passive Crossover

Research
We chose the active filter route.
The two popular active filter
topologies are Sallen-Key and
multiple feedback (MFB).

Figure 6. Sallen-Key

We chose the Sallen-Key topology

because of its simplicity and its
suitability for our application.
In order to pass a wide band of
frequencies, we need to cascade
two filters, one high-pass and one
low-pass.

Figure 7. Multiple Feedback

Research
There are three major responses
possible from an active filter.
o Bessel
o Butterworth
o Tschebyscheff
We chose a Butterworth response
because of its passband flatness
and its relatively sharp transition
into the stopband.
Bessel was not steep enough, while
Tschebyscheff introduces some
ringing in the passband.

Figure 8. Comparison of different

filter responses

Calculations

We used Op-Amps for Everyone by Texas Instruments to design our filter

according to our needs.

Solution
First, we used LTSpice to
confirm the design
worked.
Then, we swapped in the
closest E12 capacitor
values and the closest
E24 resistor values. We
resimulated with these
values.
We were able to achieve
acceptable performance
even with the adjusted
values.

Figure 9. Schematic diagram of the filter

Solution
Bill of materials
Op-amp
1. LM324 Quad Op-amp
Carbon film resistors
1. 12K
2. 15K
3. 22K
4. 30K
Ceramic capacitors
1. 0.1F (2x)
2. 1nF (3x)
Total cost (single quantity) : $0.98

Figure 10. Circuit on a breadboard

Equipment
HP 54645D Oscilloscope
Agilent 33220A Function
Generator

Figure 11. HP 64645D Oscilloscope

Elenco XP-581 Quad Power

Supply
Breadboard

Figure 12. Agilent 33220A

Function Generator

Procedure
1. Using sources from online about op-amps and filter design techniques,
we drew the schematic for our filter
2. We built the circuit on a breadboard
3. We tested this filter using frequencies ranging from 10Hz to 60kHz
The op amp was powered by a 12V supply
The function generator was used to create the test frequencies
The output was probed with the oscilloscope and the peak-to-peak
voltage was recorded at each frequency
4. We created the circuit using LTSpice
5. We compared our experimental data with our calculated data using
LTSpice

Results
Band-pass Filter Gain vs. Frequency

Gain (dB)

3
0
-3
-6
-9
-12
-15
-18
-21
-24
-27
-30
-33
-36

10

LTSpice

100

1000

10000

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 13. Gain vs. Frequency Plot (Simulated and Measured)

Results
The results from
LTSpice were very close
to the ideal figures.
The measured results
were close, and had
errors less than 10%.
Taking component
variations into
consideration, our
results were
satisfactory.

Ideal

LTSpice
103 Hz

Measured

Cutoff frequency 1
(-3dB)

100 Hz

107 Hz

Cutoff frequency 2
(-3dB)

5000 Hz 5010 Hz

5400 Hz

-3dB bandwidth

4900Hz

5293 Hz

4907 Hz

Figure 13. Results comparison

LTSpice

Measured

Error
(cutoff frequency 1)

2.96 %

6.76 %

Error
(cutoff frequency 2)

0.20 %

7.69 %

Figure 14. Percent error

References
Carter, B. (2001). Active Filter Design Techniques. In Op-Amps for
Everyone.
HiVi Speaker. (2006). M4N Full Frequency. Retrieved from Swan Speaker:
http://www.swanspeaker.com/product/htm/view.asp?id=83
Maxim Integrated Products. (2003, February 4). A Beginner's Guide to
Filter Topologies. Retrieved from Maxim Integrated:
http://www.maximintegrated.com/en/app-notes/index.mvp/id/1762
bibin3210. (2012, May 8). Active vs. Passive Crossovers. Retrieved from
HiFi Vision: http://www.hifivision.com/active-speakers/17925-active-vspassive-crossover.html