Analog active xover

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Hi all,

This is my first post in the speaker forum. I tried to get some answers about my active xover in the solid state forum, but no one replied.

What would be best, SMD resistors or normal ones that need drilling?

SMD gives a smaller layout, but are difficult for most DIY folks to get. Normal resistors are alot bigger and more easy to come by.

Is there any difference in sound?

Are PP caps ok for sound?

What about OPamps, what do you prefer?

Please look at my plan too and comment on it.

Thanks

\Jens
 

Attachments

  • visio-filterplan.zip
    69.6 KB · Views: 254
There's no advantage to SMD except size. Most people chose metal film resistors because of low thermal noise, low temperature coefficients, good stability and they're available with 1% tolerances if you need it.

What's a PP cap?

Everyone has their own favorite opamps. Check web sites for Linear Technology, Burr Brown (TI), and Maxim. Low noise and unity gain stability are things to look for. Also be aware that some are only available in SMT packages nowadays.

Nice block diagram. Looks like a big project.
 
All I can say with regards to surface mount is, if you can avoid using it then do, its just more of a faff to use SMT, also if something goes wrong with thru hole its easier to repair or fault find.

My active xovers use polystyrene layer caps with 1% metal films and they sound very very good. The op amps used are OPA627's from BB and AD6010's? surface mounts from Analog Devices. These all sound fantastic. Others to consider are the OPA2134 from BB, the AD 6020 from AD the AD's are surface mount.

The OPA627's are always priased as one of the best but only use them if you can get them for free, otherwise they are too expensive.
 
xover

Hi,

Sorry I schould be more precise, PP means PolyPropylene.

I'd like to use dual opamps due to the layout.

I'm making a PCB at the moment, two layers all leaded components.

I plan to use LM833N (ON semi) for the prototype, these are cheap and are good enough to check that the circuit is ok.

Thanks

\Jens
 
Id deffo agree with regards to size, much more compact, if you are sure that everything is as you want it in the original design and you know the design will work then by all means go for SMT. But if you intend to tweak till you get the xover perfect or you dont know if the PCB is flawless then go with thru hole.
 
Regarding op amps:

It appears that the OPA2134 is hard to beat for sound quality and specs (for audio). It seems to be the standard people measure against. Main disadvantage is price.

The LM833 appears to be a fine alternative. The LM833 gets good personal testimonials in diy crossovers and is quite cost effective. Since it is a "faster" op amp it can require some small capacitors across resistors to stop oscillation occuring from higher frequencies. Beware this oscillation can cause your amp to heat up fast even though it is not in the audio range!

I built 2 crossovers from an identical circuit. One had OPA2134 and the other LM833s. The LM833s version needed 22pF caps at a few of the resistors to stop oscillation. A phono preamp I made also needed them.

I used Dayton Film and Foil Polypropylene Crossover Capacitors
in the input and output side of the OPA1234 crossover. The LM833 version has polyester on board capacitors.

Both versions of the crossover are very clear and detailed without any descernable (by me) added noise. I cannot hear the difference between the two and I am pretty fussy.

Since the OPA2134 version was a gift to someone it was nice to know I had gone all out for good sound. The one I am using now in my setup has the LM833s.

The NE5532 also has it's supporters and like the LM833 and OPA2134 is a low noise choice very suitable for audio range and active crossovers. It does not seem to have the oscillation issues. People express that they get suprisingly warm but this does not seem to cause any failure issues.

It could be that the NE5532 would be better to work with for a prototype than the LM833 because you can avoid dealing with oscillation issues since it's behavior in this respect is more similar to the OPA2134.
 
One filter section

Hi,

I have one section of the filter for you to look at.

The jumpers across each EQ section is to bypass it if/when it's not needed.

Please comment.

thanks

\Jens
 

Attachments

  • section.jpg
    section.jpg
    49.6 KB · Views: 1,299
>2134 expensive? thats one of the reasons its soo good its >cheap??:confused

>Its the 627 thats stupidly priced.

Your point is well taken that compared to the OPA627 (~$22US) the OPA 2134 looks cheap at ~$2.60.

But the OPA2134 at ($2.60) is higher priced than the LM833 ($.80-$1.00). In a project that took 10 opamps this difference would be about $18.00. One could buy some new music with that! There is a tradeoff worth considering for some.

The $220 price for using 10 OPA627s is in another league entirely. :)
 
Hi Jens

The layout looks nice as far as one can judge without seeing the traces.
But beware of the way you want to use jumpers: If you put one in place where you intended, you will connect two outputs together, unless you put the opamps into sockets and remove the unused ones (or you don't mount them from the beginning).

Regards

Charles
 
Jumpers in the filter

Hello Charles,

Thanks for your reply. The idear is to only mount the components needed for the current speaker project. If I start a new project I'll reuse the layout, but put different components in.

The idear is to have one PCB that can be used for alot of different speakerprojects. This way I hope I will only need this layout for alle my future speakerprojects.

Btw, the PCB is double sided, plated throu holes, with groundplane on both sides and a silkscreen with component designators.

\Jens
 
OK one word of warning here, if you are using thru hole with socketed IC's then you wont have a problem. BUT if you are thinking about soldering and desoldering SMT's then dont be surprised if the copper tracks come clean away from the fiberglass.

Or (just had a brainwave) you intend to make a new board for each project!, in which case you'll be fine!

Good luck

Matt
 
With regards to SMD v's through-hole, it is best to use surface mount if you have the skill and time.

Despite some people's previous posts there are advantages to SMD - these being reduced parasitics and more compact layout. This gives an overall shorter signal path and may help reduce high frequency oscillation (due to the added parasitics of through-hole technology).

Granted, the advantages are minimal especially at audio frequency, but this is a forum for hi-fi enthusiasts so the way I see it is that if there's a gain to be had then why not?

Overall I would suggest you go surface mount if you have the patience and skill.

Hope this helps!
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.