Hi Charles,
Are you saying I can go out and buy a component with the functionality above? Or are you saying it is possible to design such a component but there isn't anything I could just purchase?
Thanks,
Chris
Hi Chris
Yes, basically you will have to design those by yourself. Like all crossover topologies it must be designed with the drivers responses in mind. There is no way around that.
Well - I do of course use new technology by using a DSP to develop an analog crossover. Nothing is more convenient to use than these sorts of things.
Regards
Charles
Yes, basically you will have to design those by yourself. Like all crossover topologies it must be designed with the drivers responses in mind. There is no way around that.
Well - I do of course use new technology by using a DSP to develop an analog crossover. Nothing is more convenient to use than these sorts of things.
Regards
Charles
If you have the knowledge/skill and energy then no drawback at all. Money is usually the bottleneck.
Don't get me wrong Jay! I'm not a technology geek. I still use tube gear and design my own.
Tube is old too, but it has satisfied a lot of people. Active analog, I doubt that even Linkwitz is satisfied
If you are starting from scratch (building speakers) then the cost differential may not be what you think. Chipamps (class D or otherwise) are remarkably affordable and, if build into the speaker you save the large cost of a nice box to put it all in.
Oddly speaker builders who go active are far more open to this than Amplifier builders who want to dabble with speakers. It's a deep routed belief problem, along with 'can't have opamps in the signal path'
It is possible to design a system including many components that could do this... but you'll have to understand how to implement this first! And know why you want it to use those features...
Thanks guys. That's what I was trying to understand. Whether the average DIYer can go buy a box and configure this type of functionality, like you can with a DSP, or if it requires much deeper understanding/education to implement.
-Chris
There are easily controllable analog active crossovers out there that the pro market used before they went digital, or the marchand kits, but from a speed to get dangerous point miniDSP is worth it to prototype as you can sell it for little loss even if you end up down a different route. To me it is a vital part of the toolkit unless you are so skilled you can simulate and get a passive right first time or your name is mouser Mcdigikey and you have hundreds of parts on your shelf just waiting to be used.
My view is that, the more tools in your toolbox, the better end result you can get.
I don't know. I general when something satisfy me i use it and don't really care about why (no, no, that's a lie: i get interested in it try to understand how it's done and why, get schematics,... I'm curious!).
When something doesn't satisfy me i just don't use it.
I don't have preference for any technology: i really like tubes at some stage in a recording chain (mic/preamp/compressor and passive eq with tube makeup gain), i like transistors when used the right way (mic, pre, eq,comp, amplifier) and i really like opamp based unit when well implemented (same suspects as before!). I like digital for the same reason...
All in all it is just a matter of what you want to hear/features you need and how it's done/executed.
Chris: sofware/dsp is the most easy way to go for active filtering especially if your a first timer.
You'll need a mic and a soundcard (as for passive anyway) and a soft or a hardware unit, the amp needed and as Bill stated you can make all that cheap enough and easily resell ( well it depends... but for a mini dsp or something from their offer this is true).
One thing we hadn't told you about amp is that usually you'll need much lower power that what we given in the example.
Just go back to the start of the thread and read the 2/3 first pages incuding links you'll many of the answers you ask yourself.
Guys, how about an experiment? I did this one some years ago, when I was deciding if DSP would suit my system better than my analog/active crossover. I built the original crossover from the old Linkwitz schematic, using the best opamps available at the time. I was satisfied with it for years. . .
A few years ago, I came across an article about how to do the crossover using free software in a computer. Having several old computers not in use, I decided to try it.
Using the same source files, the same computer, and the same crossover point and slope, I was able to compare the two different approaches.
The analog route included all analog after the DAC, including volume control. The DSP route eliminated the pre-amp, and is all digital through the DAC, and only analog from there through the amps and speakers.
Results? Better imaging, clarity, and user satisfaction due, I believe, to better adherence to the desired crossover point and slope from calculating rather than depending on part tolerances. I've kept the all-digital DSP system, now with an OrangePi running it.
A few years ago, I came across an article about how to do the crossover using free software in a computer. Having several old computers not in use, I decided to try it.
Using the same source files, the same computer, and the same crossover point and slope, I was able to compare the two different approaches.
The analog route included all analog after the DAC, including volume control. The DSP route eliminated the pre-amp, and is all digital through the DAC, and only analog from there through the amps and speakers.
Results? Better imaging, clarity, and user satisfaction due, I believe, to better adherence to the desired crossover point and slope from calculating rather than depending on part tolerances. I've kept the all-digital DSP system, now with an OrangePi running it.
Chris: sofware/dsp is the most easy way to go for active filtering especially if your a first timer.
You'll need a mic and a soundcard (as for passive anyway) and a soft or a hardware unit, the amp needed and as Bill stated you can make all that cheap enough and easily resell ( well it depends... but for a mini dsp or something from their offer this is true).
One thing we hadn't told you about amp is that usually you'll need much lower power that what we given in the example.
Just go back to the start of the thread and read the 2/3 first pages incuding links you'll many of the answers you ask yourself.
Thanks. I was asking more as a general question than for myself though. I ordered the MiniDSP U-DAC8 last week and bought JRiver Media Center to use for the DSP. I built the first of two sealed 15" subs in 120 liter enclosures over the last two weekends. I'm going to start my build by getting those integrated with my old tower speakers using JRiver to do the crossover and any room correction.
I've owned a Dayton UMM-6 USB measurement microphone for a couple years now. I used it and REW to tune the DSP I run in my car for the 3-way plus subwoofer full active system I built. I used a Rockford Fosgate 3SIXTY.3 for the DSP there.
In the car I run a 1000 Watt RMS mono amp for my subwoofer in the custom enclosure I modeled with WinISD and built from fiberglass.
The Scanspeak mids and tweeters in my doors are also in fiberglass pods I modeled in WinISD and built from fiberglass. I power those and the Dayton RS225 8" midbass I have in each door with a Zed Audio Leviathan 6 channel amp.
So I do know some stuff.
-Chris
Yes, apologize you already said all that in another thread i just remember!
No worries and no need for apologies. I even have some electronics background but it's been 20 years. I'm a not so proud graduate of the ITT Tech electronics program but I quickly got into computers and software after that so I don't remember 80 percent of it.
I still remember all the DC theory and the basic stuff like how capacitors and inductors actually work and why they have the effects they do on an AC signal, and the difference between pure resistance and impedance, etc. I'm sure I could still build a really crude high or low pass filter pretty easily but would have to study up to remember how to create the different common slopes.
But I'm learning a ton from you guys and I sincerely appreciate all the responses and advice you have given.
-Chris
Last edited:
was asking becouse i thought that there was some drawback with active that i wasnt aware of ,what happens almost always.actualy i went with LR4th few years back and never looked back, even those 14 opamps dont bother me at all, now made prototype pcb for use in active unit and will test that soon when it gets here, active biamp is useful for me becouse skipping problems becouse no changing speakers,pick speakers ,set once and make for that speakers, and forget its there. sorry for my bad english ,had long day and sleepy.
To me the only real drawback is that you can do what you want to rather than what you should do. This is why people complain that some primers on active crossovers seems to say 'LR4, 3dB of BSC, jobs a goodun'. Sometimes that works but often it doesn't.
For example and I know I have posted this link before Zaph|Audio . This is a speaker there is probably no point in going active with. It works with a simple LR2 acoustic crossover (aka first order electrical or one cap for tweeter). Case study in how sometimes things just fall into place
You're right Bill, assumption that some magic recipe will work (LR2/4 and x dB of BSC) is asking for trouble.
But another dangerous assumption is one you have just made:
Assuming that 2nd order acoustic is the result of a 1st order electrical network.
Perhaps it is in the single Zaph project you link.
More often than not it isn't.
There is also no reason why a 2nd or 1st order filter shouldn't be accomplished actively - it certainly isn't the case that there is nothing to gain. Moreover it's the perfect situation to use a line level passive filter...
Going back to the Zaph design:
The Minimalist crossover while acceptable, is nothing like as effective as the Perfectionist design. I know which design would be the logical choice for me, all else being equal (which in this case they are)...
But another dangerous assumption is one you have just made:
Assuming that 2nd order acoustic is the result of a 1st order electrical network.
Perhaps it is in the single Zaph project you link.
More often than not it isn't.
There is also no reason why a 2nd or 1st order filter shouldn't be accomplished actively - it certainly isn't the case that there is nothing to gain. Moreover it's the perfect situation to use a line level passive filter...
Going back to the Zaph design:
The Minimalist crossover while acceptable, is nothing like as effective as the Perfectionist design. I know which design would be the logical choice for me, all else being equal (which in this case they are)...
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.