Analogue v digital XOs

rick57 · 24th April 2007, 05:02 AM

It was suggested to me today that comparing analogue v digital XOs is like analogue v digital sources, ie analogue sounds smoother . .

As possible context, this guy has a long broadcasting studio background, who has made or played around with systems including Peerless, the 2nd top Scan tweeters, Aurum Cantus; Bryston, etc – he only uses audiophile drivers in hos home.

He implemented his home three way with a passive two way (tweeter & mids), then splits the bass to the sub off with a digital XO. This is even though his digital XO (a dbx driverack) is capable of doing all three. He claims that the (2nd top Scan) tweeter sound smoother that way.

Anyone think that a digital XO can add harshness?

Thanks

rick57 · 24th April 2007, 10:18 AM

or maybe the harshness/ edginess was from the Bryston?

rick57 · 25th April 2007, 10:05 AM

Has no one ever compared analogue v digital XOs .

.

cotdt · 25th April 2007, 10:18 AM

analogue has lower distortions!

rick57 · 25th April 2007, 10:25 AM

You could well be right, but do you have any epxeiences ir measurments to support this . .

thanks

CONVERGENCE · 25th April 2007, 03:46 PM

The main difference would be with latency. The digital processor has to convert the analogue signal into digital and back. We're talking if mili seconds.

As for the rest there is no sonic difference.

.................................................. .....................

wigginjs · 25th April 2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

analogue has lower distortions!

Quote:

The main difference would be with latency.
...
As for the rest there is no sonic difference.

I feel like both of these statements are really short sighted. The two approaches (analog and digital) are fundamentally different.

CONVERGENCE · 25th April 2007, 04:59 PM

We are talking ACTIVE analogue vs digital crossover right?

What's the fuss ?

Depending on quality of unit there should be no difference.

Just like Analogue 48 track Dolby sync VS Digital 48 track Studer
Recorders.

...........................................

Wingfeather · 25th April 2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Depending on quality of unit there should be no difference.

Well no, not really.

Properly done, digital crossovers are essentially distortion free and have exceptionally low noise. Cascading many digital processes is possible in situations where cascading the same set of analogue processes would result in too much noise and/or distortion.

Digital crossovers are also much more flexible and can do things not possible with analogue circuits. Examples of that are pure time delay and linear-phase filtering.

Badly-implemented digital processing (common in cheap equipment) can have nasty distortion signatures and can sound very bad. But of course the same is true of analogue.

Both types are capable of excellent performance. It just depends on what you want to do.

CONVERGENCE · 25th April 2007, 10:13 PM

I agree There are lot's of models on the market. If for example you need time alignment , and parametric equalizing . You need
a digital XO. DPS systems are used in cinemas with RTA evrywhere.

If it's for a two way home system a Rane with time alignement analogue can do the trick.

But what I want to Warn you guys against is the cheap ones.

The converter is one of the most important component of these units.

So if you go with Behringer take their top of the line at 300$.

As for DBX ,Klark Teknik ,TC ELECTRONICS AND SYMITRIX . These
are more dependable.

I could go on and on . There are so many different applications.

Cinema, Touring, Disco. Home intertainment.

So to conclude I'll give you in a nut shell the prices range : 20,000$ for a Dolby Cinema Theater Processor to 150$ for a Behringer.

.................................................. .........

24th April 2007, 05:02 AM	#1
rick57 diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: dry ol Melbourne Australia	Analogue v digital XOs It was suggested to me today that comparing analogue v digital XOs is like analogue v digital sources, ie analogue sounds smoother . . As possible context, this guy has a long broadcasting studio background, who has made or played around with systems including Peerless, the 2nd top Scan tweeters, Aurum Cantus; Bryston, etc – he only uses audiophile drivers in hos home. He implemented his home three way with a passive two way (tweeter & mids), then splits the bass to the sub off with a digital XO. This is even though his digital XO (a dbx driverack) is capable of doing all three. He claims that the (2nd top Scan) tweeter sound smoother that way. Anyone think that a digital XO can add harshness? Thanks

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Analogue vs. Digital RIAA	Netlist	Analog Line Level	40	21st August 2010 04:27 PM
Analogue and digital supply/ground coupling	mojo-chan	Power Supplies	3	12th April 2008 06:26 PM
Digital vs. Analogue Equalizer	ak_47_boy	Everything Else	0	20th January 2007 02:40 AM
Recording analogue to digital	MoJ	Everything Else	1	6th May 2006 02:48 PM
Different diodes for analogue/digital PS?	float	Digital Source	0	16th May 2005 12:55 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	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

24th April 2007, 10:18 AM	#2
rick57 diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: dry ol Melbourne Australia	or maybe the harshness/ edginess was from the Bryston?

25th April 2007, 10:05 AM	#3
rick57 diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: dry ol Melbourne Australia	Has no one ever compared analogue v digital XOs . .

25th April 2007, 10:18 AM	#4
cotdt diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2005	analogue has lower distortions!

25th April 2007, 10:25 AM	#5
rick57 diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: dry ol Melbourne Australia	You could well be right, but do you have any epxeiences ir measurments to support this . . thanks

25th April 2007, 03:46 PM	#6
CONVERGENCE diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2007	The main difference would be with latency. The digital processor has to convert the analogue signal into digital and back. We're talking if mili seconds. As for the rest there is no sonic difference. .................................................. .....................

25th April 2007, 04:59 PM	#8
CONVERGENCE diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2007	We are talking ACTIVE analogue vs digital crossover right? What's the fuss ? Depending on quality of unit there should be no difference. Just like Analogue 48 track Dolby sync VS Digital 48 track Studer Recorders. ...........................................

25th April 2007, 10:13 PM	#10
CONVERGENCE diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2007	I agree There are lot's of models on the market. If for example you need time alignment , and parametric equalizing . You need a digital XO. DPS systems are used in cinemas with RTA evrywhere. If it's for a two way home system a Rane with time alignement analogue can do the trick. But what I want to Warn you guys against is the cheap ones. The converter is one of the most important component of these units. So if you go with Behringer take their top of the line at 300$. As for DBX ,Klark Teknik ,TC ELECTRONICS AND SYMITRIX . These are more dependable. I could go on and on . There are so many different applications. Cinema, Touring, Disco. Home intertainment. So to conclude I'll give you in a nut shell the prices range : 20,000$ for a Dolby Cinema Theater Processor to 150$ for a Behringer. .................................................. .........