I just modeled a passive crossover in LspCAD. I think I have it to the point where it looks good. I also have a Behringer DCX2496 that I’ve not yet had a chance to use. I thought there was a way I could connect my PC and DCX2496 in order to have the DCX2496 run the modeled crossover. But I’m not seeing how that’s done. After reading the manuals, looking through the software, etc. I’m now thinking that LspCAD cannot dump a passive crossover model into the DCX2496. It will only work with a modeled active crossover. Is that all correct? Or is there a way I can try out my passive crossover model in the DCX2496? Thanks!
-Jon
-Jon
Jon,
You need to have a knowledge of the DCX2496 crossover possibilities before you tweak your LSPCAD models. There is quite a range of crossovers but you need to be aware of what is avaliable and then force the LSPCAD model to adopt what is possible on the DCX2496.
I would have a play with the 2496 and then go back to your model.
You need to have a knowledge of the DCX2496 crossover possibilities before you tweak your LSPCAD models. There is quite a range of crossovers but you need to be aware of what is avaliable and then force the LSPCAD model to adopt what is possible on the DCX2496.
I would have a play with the 2496 and then go back to your model.
Thanks. That's the impression I was getting. I see how the DCX2496 can do various crossover points, slopes, etc. But that's all pretty simple stuff. What about mimicing a more complicated passive circuit? SomehowI thought that you could send that all into the DCX2496. But, like you say, after playing around with it some, it doesn't look to be the case. Oh well. I think I'll try and simulate my crossover by getting a bunch of caps, inductors, and resistors. Clip them together and see how that sounds.
Correct.
You cannot directly "dump" a passive crossover network model into the DCX 2496.
But what you can do (in lspCAD 6) is modelling the network directly on basis of the DCX crossover possibilities. In my experience, the DCX has enough possibilities to facilitate almost any transfer function.
OR you could export the transfer functions from your passive network model to .frd-files and then use those as target curves for the DCX optimization. Still requires version 6, though.
Both methods are definitely different processes than modelling with coils and caps. Generally: when modelling with DCX you have less flexibility on filter slopes and filter q values - but more flexibility on notch/peak filters, level settings and phase correction.
Espen
You cannot directly "dump" a passive crossover network model into the DCX 2496.
But what you can do (in lspCAD 6) is modelling the network directly on basis of the DCX crossover possibilities. In my experience, the DCX has enough possibilities to facilitate almost any transfer function.
OR you could export the transfer functions from your passive network model to .frd-files and then use those as target curves for the DCX optimization. Still requires version 6, though.
Both methods are definitely different processes than modelling with coils and caps. Generally: when modelling with DCX you have less flexibility on filter slopes and filter q values - but more flexibility on notch/peak filters, level settings and phase correction.
Espen
Thanks Espen. Yes, I'm using LspCAD version 6.
When my speakers are complete, I want to run them passive, not with the DCX2496. I could now put the simple aspects of my crossover into the DCX2496- things like what the crossover point is, what the slopes are, etc. (I'll definitely try that.) But I will not get all the smaller details I spent time modeling into my passive crossover.
So if what I am after is a passive crossover, how much effort would you say to put into testing with the DCX2496 before switching over to trying out variations with real caps, inductors, and resistors?
-Jon
When my speakers are complete, I want to run them passive, not with the DCX2496. I could now put the simple aspects of my crossover into the DCX2496- things like what the crossover point is, what the slopes are, etc. (I'll definitely try that.) But I will not get all the smaller details I spent time modeling into my passive crossover.
So if what I am after is a passive crossover, how much effort would you say to put into testing with the DCX2496 before switching over to trying out variations with real caps, inductors, and resistors?
-Jon
Hi Jon -
if a passive filter is what you're after, I personally would not put much effort into modelling a DCX-based crossover with lspCAD, but rather start modelling with passive components directly.
In my view the two approaches are so different that modelling/experimenting with the basic crossover concepts (ie: frequencies, slopes) in the DCX doesn't help you much when designing/modelling a passive network.
Espen
if a passive filter is what you're after, I personally would not put much effort into modelling a DCX-based crossover with lspCAD, but rather start modelling with passive components directly.
In my view the two approaches are so different that modelling/experimenting with the basic crossover concepts (ie: frequencies, slopes) in the DCX doesn't help you much when designing/modelling a passive network.
Espen
I am using the 2496 to develop some active cross-overs so I am restraining myself to use the standard crossovers offered. This makes it easy to implement the hardware. I suppose you could do the same with passive crossovers but this would not allow optimisation.
Behringer should make the crossover filters with adjustable Q though, so that you could have underdamped or overdamped filters and hence could cope with the optimisation LSPCAD allows.
Behringer should make the crossover filters with adjustable Q though, so that you could have underdamped or overdamped filters and hence could cope with the optimisation LSPCAD allows.
Thanks guys. I have the DCX2496 around, so I played with it a little last night. Got my drivers (Scanspeak 6600 tweeter and 18W/8531 woofer) in ugly, sharped edged boxes just for measurements and testing. I did a very rough estimation of my passive crossover (2500 Hz, 3rd order both sides) and it didn't sound great. But when I moved the crossover point up or down a lot, it sounded worse. 4th order slopes sounded a little better, maybe. Then I tried some quick things like what I did with the passive crossover- dropped the tweeter level and boosted the bass around 150 Hz. That made it sound a little better. But it never sounded too good.
Interesting, but it's now probably time to play with real caps, inductors, and resistors.
Interesting, but it's now probably time to play with real caps, inductors, and resistors.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.