Can I run this x-over past folks? Esotar + Volt

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Ok, well I do now have enough channels to try active but completely different amps! Some ice200asc monos (recently bought, not tried them yet), some valve 150W monos and some meridian 605 monoblocks. All completely different design types!

With regard to the m560d, the Confidence 5s specs state cross-over points at 1080 and 4000 Hz - so only one point in the range you gave. I can see that if the m560d was ostensibly designed to match the T330 tweeter then you've got a great tweeter/mid paring which can mate to many suitable smaller bass drivers. Of course all drivers and their usable frequency ranges are about compromises - if Dynaudio has decided to focus on a particular set of strengths which aren't the usual focus in driver design, then they will appear odd to what many are used to. My uneducated guess is that moving a mid to cover much lower ranges will compromise it's speed and increase it's propensity to resonate.

By all sonic acounts, as opposed to Dynaudio's own claims (whatever they might have been), the original esotars seem to be all about speed and detail with very low resonance. Should make them a great match to the Volt B2500.1

So, if I try active with a hotch-potch of amps, will I have any hope in hell of re-creating Dynaudio's own impedance correcting (if that matters in active), phase aligned, time aligned 1st order cross over ? My guess at the answer to that is I'd need a lot more knowledge than I have now and from research the Behringer is ruled out although the miniDSP can do 1st order.. some say though that it is a little noisy. And then there's the issue that it only runs at 48KHz sample rate?

Sadly my main use for these if they sound as good as they could, would be for home/project studio and will be recording and monitoring in a minimum of 24/96 and desire to at least try out 192, 352KHz PCM and some DSD recording/playback. I can't find any digital active system which will cover that...

So the only use for miniDSP would be for getting things running in the immediate term (which would be great) and then for working out a cross-over before having a set of analogue cards made in the future.

I was going by the xover frequencies you gave at the beginning of this thread and they do make sense in some aspects because above 2k the M560D gets a bit directional ie 30º off axis it starts dropping off from there. On axis it remains flat out to 5k.
So you can use it higher up at the expense of a uniform power response.

If you run them active you do not need impedance correction. At least not for transistor amps but there might be a case for it if you use a very fussy valve amp. I know next to nothing about valve amps in the replay chain as I don't like them there since I find them lacking in fidelity. This 'lack' makes them exceedingly good as instrument amplification though.

If you use a digital crossover like the Behringer, miniDSP or any other perfect time (and thus phase) alignment is just a few button or mouse clicks away. No need for Zobels or all-pass networks which in my opinion are a cure that's worse than the disease (I really dislike inductors in the signal path).
You will however notice that there are practically none that do more than 96k sample rate (I know of one but it is not all that cheap). Reason being that there is not much point to do so as they provide no audible improvements and just increase how hard your computer has to work. For recording a good case can be made for 24/96 but as a delivery format 16 or 24bit, 44.1 or 48K is perfectly fine. Most DAWs run higher bit rates than 24 internally anyway.

DSD is an odd one as it is only really usable as a replay/consumer format. You can't do anything with them but replay. EQ and any other editing requires DSD signals to be converted to PCM, then you do what you need to and have to convert back to DSD. A lot of unnecessary conversion and on top of that true 1bit DSD has quite high distortion compared to other digital formats.
I have no idea why some audiophiles rave about it so much, may be the distortion is euphonic. Or may be they deem it better purely because it sounds different.
 
I discounted the behringer only because it apparently doesn't do 1st Order.. that's only because I'm thinking it's the base for their special sauce on which I can add my own chef's special spices to suit the, err meal.

Overall there is the issue of the digital limitations, sample rate which also discounts many DSP solutions for the long term.. A PC/software solution might be the better bet with many 8 output cards being relatively cheap..
 
I think a lot of DSD's appeal is down to the impulse response, not necessarily any better resolution coming through. Accuracy and speed of leading edges seem to be what makes something sound alive and real and with that more air, tonal 'bite' and realistic transients. That's my theory anyway.

Impulse response of PCM doesn't compare until 352(DXD) or 384 kHz.

Obviously the rest of a system needs to be able to portray that too..
 
So... what exactly is a first order xover? Are the same qualities avaliable by other means within many DSP settings?

Those xover points at the beginning of the thread were from the original owner of these speakers (passed away) and who also later went active but I wasn't aware of that when I bought them else would asked his son (who was selling the hifi) for anything resembling an active xover.

They were powered by 3 Audio Research D130s..
 
I discounted the behringer only because it apparently doesn't do 1st Order.. that's only because I'm thinking it's the base for their special sauce on which I can add my own chef's special spices to suit the, err meal.

Overall there is the issue of the digital limitations, sample rate which also discounts many DSP solutions for the long term.. A PC/software solution might be the better bet with many 8 output cards being relatively cheap..

Why do you want to use 1st order crossovers?

The reason I hear is that 1st order filters introduce the least phase shift which is not an issue anymore with DSP so higher orders can be used.
XTA make DSP crossovers with a 6dB option:
5 Series - XTA

4 Series - XTA

They run at 24/96 but spec better than this one which runs 32/192:

dB-Mark DP4832 4 in 8 out Digital Speaker Management System with Digital I/O 1700.00

There is a cheaper version without the digital input option.

The DSP crossover with the highest internal resolution I've come across so far is made by GroundSound and runs 76bit internally.

Ground Sound
 
Thinking in the passive domain as I had been originally - the idea of active I'd previously dismissed as too complicated and too many barriers before reviving this thread - it is simply the x-over that Dynaudio has spent a lot of R&D over for these particular pair of drivers. It would seem silly for me to reject that expertease and think that I could do better myself seing as I have no knowledge in this area. They used 1st order, so that's the reason. If it had been 2nd or 4th I would be asking about that instead.

As you can see, I'm going back and forth in terms of whether passive with this Dynaudio Confidence 5 xover (which is already designed and known to work incredibly well in a particular system) or starting completely from scratch with active is the best, most economic (time AND cost) way to procede with the fewest barriers to entry (poor phrase) such as learning curve etc..

How about this idea:

Create a tweeter/mid section with same baffle width etc as the Confidence 5 with its 1st order xover. Then add an active bass section with DSP - like a stereo active sub but extending to the 1000kHz region? The bass section is the only unknown (I'm not even sure if the Confidence 5 has a special bass arrangement internally..) ?

Surely that would be easy to implement and to spend time matching the Volt enclosure to the mid (and my room).
 
Last edited:
Perfectly normal for any of us to ponder the alternatives. But if you you spend $150 for a Behringer, you need no other bits and pieces (except a bunch of XLR connectors from eBay). You can fool with it endlessly and wonderfully and time align and learn a lot about audio and your room and tweak all you want and if you aren't happy, sell it for $145.

Otherwise, you have a bag of expensive parts to wire up which will sort of always work sort of and you are stuck.

I've been a fan of sharp slopes for a long time. Many good reasons to segment your bands sharply and not have all speakers playing much of the music compass all the time. I think it is more a matter of conviction and how gracious the curves look to your eyeballs than to your ears. BTW, 6dB crossovers cost the manufacturer a lot less money to make.

Ben
OK, the Behringer instructions are perfectly accurate and complete... the 18th time you read them. But it has a very nice, if small display panels that notes and illustrates exactly what you've dialled in for crossovers, EQ, time, etc. as you tweak each page.
 
Last edited:
BTW, 6dB crossovers cost the manufacturer a lot less money to make.

Dynaudio crossovers are substantially more complex than a simple 6dB cap'n'coil job. I don't believe they save anything on those compared to higher order ones.

Once passives include L pads, Zobels etc they are way beyond my comfort zone.
There are reasons I prefer active and that is one of them.
 
Dynaudio crossovers are substantially more complex than a simple 6dB cap'n'coil job. I don't believe they save anything on those compared to higher order ones.

Once passives include L pads, Zobels etc they are way beyond my comfort zone.
There are reasons I prefer active and that is one of them.

You are right. But still possibly a good savings over the comparably complex 12dB slope if they had gone there.

The famous early mini-box Rogers/BBC two-way had 18 elements, if I recall correctly. And that's a reason it was so good. But with a Behringer, all and much more can be accomplished readily by twisting knobs.

Ben
 
You are right. But still possibly a good savings over the comparably complex 12dB slope if they had gone there.

The famous early mini-box Rogers/BBC two-way had 18 elements, if I recall correctly. And that's a reason it was so good. But with a Behringer, all and much more can be accomplished readily by twisting knobs.

Ben

The 18 elements are quite probably the reason I never liked them. :D
I do however like the Rogers DB101 but their crossovers are extremely simple with only 5 elements, one of which is a light bulb and one a resistor.

You can do a lot with the Behringer except 6dB slopes.
The XTAs do that but for the price of one of them you can buy nearly 20 Behringers!
 
The 'light bulb' only does anything when you overpower the speakers when it heats up and thus raising its resistance and saving the woofer in the process.

Other than that I've narrowed it down over the years: The passive components I really do not like in my signal path are inductors. The fewer of them there are the better I tend to like what comes out of the speakers. Active crossovers have no inductors at all and I don't mind opamps or digital convertors nearly as much as inductors.
Tannoy once introduced a coil-based all pass filter the get their monitors time aligned.
Sound quality suffered substantially because of it and the best modification is to just remove it altogether. Even Tannoys engineers said that the addition of the all pass was a purely marketing driven decision and against their best advise.
 
Other than that I've narrowed it down over the years: The passive components
I really do not like in my signal path are inductors. The fewer of them there are
the better I tend to like what comes out of the speakers.

Nothing wrong with inductors per se. Human factor is what makes it sound like
rubbish. After all, speaker units have one in themselves and some were built
in the way that they don't require additional one in the filter. It is great that we have
multiple choices so everyone can be happy.
 
yeah im a believer in simple networks esp in the power train e.g. post PA.
model a speaker driver and the 1st order LP effects are Re & Le, I often wonder how much it can be relied upon in the large signal domain, moving about the central resting point from which it was measured. The other primary HF effects are acoustical, e.g. cone shapes and pole pieces. I never understood the cone attachments, domes and conical pole shapes used to extend the responses beyond the breakup mode in modern multi-way drivers esp woofers and mid-bass units. edit> Use the drivers natural response to an advantage, not to complicate the networks LPF filters with notches higher nd order networks. look at concave cone shapes. notice the on axis and off axis coincide more often that not, this is good news for low order designs where power response is accounted for!
 
Last edited:
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.