Marchand XM46 good idea? - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 18th April 2007, 07:05 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
audiobomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sudbury, Ontario Canada
Default Marchand XM46 good idea?

I have a pair of BESL S5-MTM monitors crossed over to a pair of Rocket subs at 80 Hz. The crossover is a Marchand XM44, with 12dB BW slope for high pass and 24 dB L-R for low pass. I'm not unhappy with the XM44, but it isn't quite on the same level as my Meitner amps. Would changing out the XM44 for an XM46 passive be likely to improve the sound of my system?

I'm a little leery of passive devices after experimenting with a passive preamp. It was wonderfully transparent, but lacking in musical drive (pace and rhythm) compared to active. Maybe the XM46 would have a similar problem?

It would seem to me the XM46 would be sensitive to load. My amps have an input impedance of 22K and the sub amps are 15K. That would probably need to be incorporated in the design? Also would there be any problem with using 20-foot interconnects?
__________________
Dan
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2007, 01:35 AM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
audiobomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sudbury, Ontario Canada
I meant to say XM46 in the title, not XM44.

I want to maximize the quality of my crossover, because it's in the middle of my system. Any suggestions? opinions? experiences? rumours? anyone?

I've learned more about what counts in audio here than anywhere, by far. Don't let me down now.
__________________
Dan
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2007, 03:59 AM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sydney
Unlikely.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th July 2007, 05:37 AM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
audiobomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sudbury, Ontario Canada
Just in case anyone cares, I did buy a Marchand XM46, but I bought the XM46SB, which just has two channels. The two channels are connected ahead of my main amp left and right channels. -3dB @ 80 Hz, second-order BW. The passive XM46SB replaced the active XM44 on the high pass only, I left the active crossover on the woofers, -3dB @ 80 Hz, third-order BW, which results in LR4 slopes for both. I wasn't sure about going all passive because of the long run of cable to my sub amps.

I love the XM46SB, it's as transparent and invisible as anyone could want. The XM44 was not invisible, it definitely left a thumbprint on the high pass, and was compromising my amps. I don't know how the XM46 would be as a low-pass, with the signal having to travel through the humungous inductor, but as a high-pass filter, it's as close to ideal as practically possible. And at a great price.... Highly recommended.
__________________
Dan
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th July 2007, 05:01 PM   #5
poldus is offline poldus  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
poldus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: basque country
The passive marchand crossover is excellent. As audiophile as it gets. I complemented the low pass with Marchandīs BASSIS as an equalizer (itīs intended for sealed bass boxes) and am very satisfied. I recomend it. The bassis has op-amps and there is a trace of hiss that disappears by placing the low pass filter after the active circuit.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th July 2007, 05:21 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 12km off the alaska highway in northern BC
Quote:
I'm not unhappy with the XM44, but it isn't quite on the same level as my Meitner amps.
how so?


I had several marchands (of the active type), and run with behringer dcx now. I could not detect any "audio quality" difference between the marchand and the behringer except that there is more noise from the marchands, while the behringers are totally silent.


BTW - to me the terms "pace and rythm" are the product of audiophile scoundrels like those at stereophile. They are a quality of the music, not of the equipment.
The approbriate terms for equipment imho are: attack, sustain and decay, distortion and frequency response. The prat stuff is claptrap.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th July 2007, 06:09 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canandaigua, NY USA
Ditto on "pace and rhythm". Marchand is not very far from me; I use his active crossovers and think his stuff is as good as you could ask for, not to mention priced very reasonably. You can put whatever opamps you want in the active units, and the passive ones should be fine save for interconnect length. IMO, a passive preamp or crossover system should be kept extremely compact. More than a few feet, and I'd go active.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2007, 09:49 AM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Holland, The Hague
I also own a XM44 (2 way, 150 hz 4 order LR). Was planning to experiment a bit with a PLLXO sometimes in the future (for the high pass part).

One way would be to use a second order PLLXO that coincides with the normal roll off of the mid sections (6.5" CQuenze in 12 l sealed). Probably around 110 hz). The low pass would remain on the XM44 (cant imagine those active sections do a lot of harm here, bass amp is a Crown K2).
Of course using this XM46SB might also be possible. Is it possible to change the frequenty, or is it only suitable for one?

A completely different direction is to go digital (eg with something like the Ground Sound, the new DCN28 if it is available) and also do some room corrections (probably only on the low channels).
__________________
Is that all there is?
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd October 2007, 09:43 PM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
audiobomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sudbury, Ontario Canada
I didn't realize anyone had posted to this thread. I thought because I started the thread I was automatically subscribed. Clearly not.

Quote:
Originally posted by audio-kraut
how so?

I had several marchands (of the active type), and run with behringer dcx now. I could not detect any "audio quality" difference between the marchand and the behringer except that there is more noise from the marchands, while the behringers are totally silent.

The Marchand XM44 (active) is not transparent enough in my system because I can hear slight degradation in the handling of sibilants and a bit of treble grain compared to the running the speakers full-range. I can hear the XM46SB (passive) too, but it's much less noticeable. I've ordered a single Auricap to replace the two caps in the XM46SB and I expect that will help. One thing for sure, the XM46SB allows for a more relaxed sound with the BESL MTM's.


Quote:
Originally posted by audio-kraut

BTW - to me the terms "pace and rythm" are the product of audiophile scoundrels like those at stereophile. They are a quality of the music, not of the equipment.
The approbriate terms for equipment imho are: attack, sustain and decay, distortion and frequency response. The prat stuff is claptrap.
I believe that Pace Rhythm and Dynamics was the term originally coined and defined by Martin Colloms, who is as credible and honourable as anyone in the audio field. Why is describing a musical quality not acceptable? What is the intended use of your system, playing impulses or music?

I fully understand what Colloms means in his description. I have heard these effects many, many times. There's nothing wrong with using commonly accepted audiophile terms if they are mutually understood. Audio is not pure engineering, it is also art. Are you doubtful that some components or systems play rhythm better than others? Or that some make the sound subjectively appear to drag or race? When I bring home a preamp to try, and it makes music a chore to listen to instead of grabbing my attention, I only care in a theoretical way whether it's due to poor attack and decay. It doesn't replay music the way I want to hear it, that's what I care about. I don't know of any distortion, FR or impulse test in a competently designed amp that will tell how it will play music. It's either there or it isn't.

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/23/
__________________
Dan
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd October 2007, 10:14 PM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
audiobomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sudbury, Ontario Canada
Quote:
Originally posted by Conrad Hoffman
IMO, a passive preamp or crossover system should be kept extremely compact. More than a few feet, and I'd go active.
That was one reason I kept the active XM44 for the low pass. What do you think about running the preamp signal through a pair of inductors with values of several farads (yes, farad, not microfarad). Hard to believe that would be transparent.
__________________
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is this a good idea? Nolantor19 Multi-Way 3 12th August 2009 01:36 AM
Is this a good idea? AC439 Multi-Way 0 30th December 2008 08:48 PM
Seems a good Diy idea !! sivan_and Everything Else 1 12th November 2006 08:44 AM
Who said it was a good idea to try pentode! alexmoose Tubes / Valves 19 27th July 2006 03:57 AM
is this a good idea??? dmh Solid State 16 24th February 2005 04:47 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Đ1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2