I presume that's a simulated anechoic on-axis measurement; a single measurement that includes reflections is usually less than useless. At best the on-axis response paints an incomplete picture. And, "on" which axis? Microphone distance and/or height can make a significant difference in the measurement.
It's quite possible that the on-axis dip is just above the crossover frequency. If so, it could be evidence of intelligent juggling of trade-offs. You see, the designer may have compensated for the wider radiation pattern of the tweeter (relative to the midrange, in the crossover region) by introducing a dip at the lower end of the tweeter's passband, which will actually result in more balanced in-room sound.
When working on a design, I take many measurements from different angles and distances, with different types of processing involved, all in the hopes of coming up with a "picture" that correlates with perception. A single curve is extremely unlikely to adequately convey what a loudspeaker is doing.
Imho, of course.
Duke
dealer/manufacturer
It's quite possible that the on-axis dip is just above the crossover frequency. If so, it could be evidence of intelligent juggling of trade-offs. You see, the designer may have compensated for the wider radiation pattern of the tweeter (relative to the midrange, in the crossover region) by introducing a dip at the lower end of the tweeter's passband, which will actually result in more balanced in-room sound.
When working on a design, I take many measurements from different angles and distances, with different types of processing involved, all in the hopes of coming up with a "picture" that correlates with perception. A single curve is extremely unlikely to adequately convey what a loudspeaker is doing.
Imho, of course.
Duke
dealer/manufacturer