|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| 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 |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sudbury, Ontario Canada
|
I have a pair of Energy 22 Reference Connoisseur speakers. I originally planned to upgrade the original crossovers and keep the same circuit (1.5kHz, 3rd-order on tweeter, 2nd-order on the woofer). However, while playing around, I found I much preferred to run the woofer full-range, and just roll the tweeter off with a 3R3 resistor and 2.7uF cap. Crossover is about 3.3kHz.
Lately I've been wondering about going with an active crossover. The only (possible) benefits would be to drop the crossover to 1.5kHz again, and get rid of the components between the tweeter and the amp. I'm thinking this would give me a puchier sound without losing the great transparency and soundstage I now have. I already have an extra amp, so I would just need a high-quality crossover. I was looking at the Marchand XM44 and XM26, two-way 4th-order. - do you think it would be worthwhile to go to active operation - which Marchand? (amps and preamp are Meitner/Museatex, updated to latest factory spec) |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Hampshire
|
Active crossovers do sound better, and aren't expensive if you have the extra amp. Give strong consideration to digital. What they are capable of simply can't be done with analog gear. Buying into anything analog at this point when there is a digital alternative well may be a losing investment in obsolete technology.
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sudbury, Ontario Canada
|
Hi Bill. I haven't seriously considered digital. I know the theoretical advantages of digital crossovers, but I balk at converting an analog signal to digital and back again. AFAIK it's not a completely transparent process.
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
|
Even if your source output is digital, you would still require D/A conversion for each amp. That is a lot of processing and many more circuits or components. Besides, there would typically be "protective" filters in the analog stage that might just as well be used to do the actually crossover-ing.
Just based on the extra part count, price/perforance on digital may not be as good as it first appears. :)ensen.
__________________
Those who claim to be making history are often the same ones repeating it. |
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Netherlands (Friesland)
|
Quote:
__________________
We will pay the price, but we will not count the cost... |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Hampshire
|
Quote:
You also want to consider compatability with other components further down the road; analog is quickly being supplanted by digital at every point of the audio chain and total digital systems are already a fact; when they will drive analog from the market is a matter of when, not if. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: North Georgia
|
Also, consider that your factory passive crossovers are probably not textbook in the sense that they compensate for the specific drivers you are using (it is acoustic response you're after, not just filter response).
The "canned" analog crossovers normally don't have the compensation flexibility of the digital crossovers. (PEQ, slope, shelf, delay, phase, etc) 4-way dipoles |
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sudbury, Ontario Canada
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |||
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sudbury, Ontario Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sudbury, Ontario Canada
|
Quote:
The "canned" analog crossovers normally don't have the compensation flexibility of the digital crossovers. (PEQ, slope, shelf, delay, phase, etc) It depends on what you buy. Marchand's have all or most of the above. |
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| active vs passive xo | howard99 | Multi-Way | 4 | 25th July 2007 12:55 PM |
| Active or Passive | bjackson | Multi-Way | 30 | 4th April 2005 10:49 PM |
| dB loss by using passive crossovers? Active vs Passive and 1st vs 4th order | Hybrid fourdoor | Multi-Way | 3 | 11th July 2004 09:16 PM |
| Passive EQ to active EQ | Nuuk | Multi-Way | 13 | 24th May 2004 07:59 AM |
| Passive vs Active I/V | HeadSh0T | Digital Source | 1 | 7th May 2003 10:12 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.13627 seconds (83.79% PHP - 16.21% MySQL) with 10 queries |