The COMPARE_BELTS_RESPONSES macro is dedicated for CoreXY machines where it can help you to diagnose belt path problems by measuring and plotting the differences between their behavior. It will also help you tension your belts at the same tension.
Before starting, ensure that the belts are properly tensioned. For example, you can follow the Voron belt tensioning documentation. This is crucial: you need a good starting point to then iterate from it!
Then, call the COMPARE_BELTS_RESPONSES macro and look for the graphs in the results folder. Here are the parameters available:
| parameters | default value | description |
|---|---|---|
| FREQ_START | 5 | Starting excitation frequency |
| FREQ_END | 133 | Maximum excitation frequency |
| HZ_PER_SEC | 1 | Number of Hz per seconds for the test |
| KEEP_N_RESULTS | 3 | Total number of results to keep in the result folder after running the test. The older results are automatically cleaned up |
| KEEP_CSV | 0 | Weither or not to keep the CSV data files alonside the PNG graphs |
On these graphs, you want both curves to look similar and overlap to form a single curve: try to make them fit as closely as possible in frequency and in amplitude. Usually a belt graph is composed of one or two main peaks (more than 2 peaks can hint about mechanical problems). It's acceptable to have "noise" around the main peaks, but it should be present on both curves with a comparable amplitude. Keep in mind that when you tighten a belt, its peaks should move diagonally toward the upper right corner, changing significantly in amplitude and slightly in frequency. Additionally, the magnitude order of the main peaks should typically range from ~500k to ~2M on most machines.
Aside from the actual belt tension, the resonant frequency/amplitude of the curves depends primarily on three parameters:
- the mass of the toolhead, which is identical on CoreXY, CrossXY and H-Bot machines for both belts. So this will unlikely have any effect here
- the belt "elasticity", which changes over time as the belt wears. Ensure that you use the same belt brand and type for both A and B belts and that they were installed at the same time: you want similar belts with a similar level of wear!
- the belt path length, which is why they must have the exact same number of teeth so that one belt path is not longer than the other when tightened at the same tension. This specific point is very important: a single tooth difference is enough to prevent you from having a good superposition of the curves. Moreover, it is even one of the main causes of problems found in Discord resonance testing channels.
If these three parameters are met, there is no way that the curves could be different or you can be sure that there is an underlying problem in at least one of the belt paths. Also, if the belt graphs have low amplitude curves (no distinct peaks) and a lot of noise, you will probably also have poor input shaper graphs. So before you continue, ensure that you have good belt graphs or fix your belt paths. Start by checking the belt tension, bearings, gantry screws, alignment of the belts on the idlers, and so on.
The belt graph is created by doing diagonal movements designed to stimulate the system using only one motor at a time. The goal is to assess the behavior of each belt in order to compare them but it's not that straightforward due to a couple of factors:
- Diagonal movements can be split into two distinct sub-systems: the toolhead moving left-to-right along the X linear axis and the movement of the couple toolhead and X linear axis moving in a front-to-back direction. Essentially, instead of a singular harmonic system, we're observing two intertwined sub-systems in motion. This complexity might lead to two resonance frequencies (or peaks) in the belt graph. But since both subsystems utilize similar belts, tension, etc... these peaks can sometimes merge, appearing as one.
- The toolhead is continuously linked to the two belts. When doing a diagonal movement to stimulate only one belt, the other belt stay static and serves as an anchor. But given its elasticity, this belt doesn't remain rigid. It imparts its unique traits to the overall system response, which may introduce additional noise or even a second peak.
The following graphs are considered good. Both of them have only one or two peaks, and they overlap pretty well to form a single curve. If you get something like this, you can continue with the Axis Input Shaper Graphs.
| With only a single peak | With two peaks |
|---|---|
 |
 |
The following graphs show the effect of incorrect or uneven belt tension. Remember that if you have to make large adjustments, always check your belt tension between each step and make only small adjustments to avoid breaking your machine by overtightening the belts!
| Comment | Example |
|---|---|
| The A belt tension is slightly lower than the B belt tension. This can be quickly remedied by tightening the screw only about one-half to one full turn. |  |
| B belt tension is significantly lower than the A belt. If you encounter this graph, I recommend going back to the Voron belt tensioning documentation for a more solid base. However, you could slightly increase the B tension and decrease the A tension, but exercise caution to avoid diverging from the recommended 110Hz base. |  |
If there's an issue within the belt path, aligning and overlaying the curve might be unachievable even with proper belt tension. Begin by verifying that each belt has the exact same number of teeth. Then, inspect the belt paths, bearings, any signs of wear (like belt dust), and ensure the belt aligns correctly on all bearing flanges during motion.
| Comment | Example |
|---|---|
| On this chart, there are two peaks. The first pair of peaks seems nearly aligned, but the second peak appears solely on the B belt, significantly deviating from the A belt. This suggests an issue with the belt path, likely with the B belt. |  |
This chart is quite complex, displaying 3 peaks. While all the pairs seem well-aligned and tension ok, there are more than just two total peaks because [1] is split in two smaller peaks. This could be an issue, but it's not certain. It's recommended to generate the Axis Input Shaper Graphs to determine its impact. |
 |
| This graph might indicate too low belt tension, but also potential binding, friction or something impeding the toolhead's smooth movement. Indeed, the signal strength is considerably low (with a peak around 300k, compared to the typical ~1M) and is primarily filled with noise. Start by going back here to establish a robust tension foundation. Next, produce the Axis Input Shaper Graphs to identify any binding and address the issue. |  |
The integration of LIS2DW as a resonance measuring device in Klipper is becoming more and more common, especially because some manufacturers are promoting its superiority over the established ADXL345. It's indeed a new generation chip that should be better to measure traditional "accelerations". However, a detailed comparison of their datasheets and practical measurements paints a more complex picture: the LIS2DW boasts greater sensitivity, but it has a lower sampling rate and produce significant aliasing that results in a "lightshow" effect on the spectrogram, characterized by multiple spurious resonance lines parallel to the main resonance, accompanied by intersecting interference lines that distort the harmonic profile.
For the belt graph, this can be problematic because it can introduce a lot of noise into the results and make them difficult to interpret, and it will probably tell you that there is a mechanical problem when there isn't.
| ADXL345 measurement | LIS2DW measurement |
|---|---|
 |
 |