tri-amping and active xover - TOTAL SEPARATES? - Page 2 - 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 8th September 2006, 01:10 AM   #11
Salas is online now Salas  Greece
diyAudio Chief Moderator
 
Salas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
Live gig comparisons using Line Arrays with digital management in halls and in fields, and distributed reinforcement in bars and loud huge clubs. Borrowing the controllers and testing with Hi-End systems, the differences were more pronounced for timbre and less for dynamics. But even more distinct overall. Nowdays I am converting a Behringer driven 200Hz cross in a friends Hi-end multidriver bass, mid, tw system to passive since he cant stand the Beringher anymore.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2006, 01:23 AM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Default Basically agree? Disagree on quality of components?

If I read this right, what you're saying is that, conceptually, "totally separates" (woof,mid,tweee,obviously subwoof) built into their own "perfect" enclosures is the way to go, it's just a matter of how good a programmable crossover / EQ / amp (and I want to keep this OUT of the discussion as really, it shouldn't be a factor re active/passives and the letter you choose (from A to T)), is still the IDEAL way to go, it's just a matter of the quality of the xover/EQ component?

I'm with you, but the problem I have is that this applies to every aspect, starting from the microphones and mixes (which we usually don't have control over) to the qualityf of the drivers used to reproduce the original sound.

What I am trying to get feedback on is whether or not, given $X budget for drivers and programmable xover components (and I WOULD like some discussion on the latter -- the dcx2496 seems pretty dang sweet from a value perspective) is that this method, in and of itself, is the "ultimate" way to go?

We won't be able to ever agree upon the "perfection" re drivers and PC/programmable active xover/EQ's. What I am trying to determine is: Grasshopper, this is the best path to choose to create the ultimate (DIY or not) soundstage in my 20 x 60 foot space? Knowing a bit about how live performance equipment is set up and managed, it would seem to reinforce my view, but I am looking for pro/nope opinions on home implementations. Thanks,


Quote:
Originally posted by salas
I dont want to spoil it for you, but in my experience from working in sound reinfrorcement field, the Driverack PA and the DCX2496 are unatural sounding. Compared head to head with BSS and XTA its a revelation of how much they lag behind near natural.
Because both BSS and XTA are many times more expensive I would much rather go passive xo and bi or tri amping. Much better than so low grade digital as Driverack PA or Beringher.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2006, 01:34 AM   #13
MJK is offline MJK  United States
Account disabled at member's request
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Clifton Park, NY
Quote:
What I am trying to get feedback on is whether or not, given $X budget for drivers and programmable xover components (and I WOULD like some discussion on the latter -- the dcx2496 seems pretty dang sweet from a value perspective) is that this method, in and of itself, is the "ultimate" way to go?
I think it is a very good way to go for a DIYer and can yield excellent results with a minimum amount of effort/expense when compared to trying to optimize a passive crossover by combined experimentation/measurements/analysis. It is not the only way to reach the ultimate system performance and excellent results can be achieved with both passive and active crossovers. I have done both and will start all of my designs using active crossovers in the future. Others may or may not agree, which is fine.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2006, 04:11 AM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
wigginjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Columbia, SC
Quote:
Originally posted by MJK
I have come to the opposite conclusion. I bought two less expensive amps, that essentially equaled the price of the high end one I was considering, and a dBx Driverack PA crossover. I will probably step up and add a third amp soon. The less expensive amps are still quite nice, I don't feel I sacrificed that much in the way of amp quality. I believe that the final system performance and flexibility is much better then what I would have achieved with a single high end amp and passive crossovers. In the future I can design and build two or three way speaker systems and dial in the best crossover performance very quickly and make changes to account for different rooms, styles of music, or even individual recordings. I can try differnt crossover settings without soldering.

I'm also considering the DRPA. Can you give some more information on your setup? Specfically which amps and preamp you are using and how they are connected together. All of my equipment is unbalanced consumer line-level and the DRPA seems more suited for balanced pro line-level.
__________________
The Four Chairs
DIY Home Theater
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2006, 04:20 AM   #15
Daveis is offline Daveis  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Des Moines, IA
I'm not convinced that my

2 Threshold T200 amps
1 Aleph30 amp
3 Benchmark DAC1's
and PC crossover using professional RME sound card
boat loads more speaker cables and interconnects

is any better than same system using....

1 T200 amp
1 Benchmark DAC1
and $300 worth of crossover parts

The extra damping factor of the the multiple amps doesnt magically make the system sound any better. It's a bit more dynamic, 5 times the money, puts out almost 3 times the waste Class-A heat and that's about it.

It's main value was that it allowed me to do the speaker woodworking without learning about crossover design. I could just twiddle some knobs and dial in the right crossover points in a few hours.

If the amps and DAC's were dirt cheap then maybe it would have been worth it.

Regarding the DCX2496 and other budget gear.... it's great for prototyping a new speaker to determine best crossover point and slope. But it's not audiophile quality in stock form. I doubt anyone is going to convince me that listening to music through a dozen cheap opamps is better than a high quality passive crossover.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2006, 05:57 AM   #16
Salas is online now Salas  Greece
diyAudio Chief Moderator
 
Salas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
Versatility vs quality is a jugling act. I just wanted to remind with my original post that there is a threshold for striking gold. Its related to budget and technical assets. A confident engineer that knows his stuff would make a great passive crossover and avoid base level digital as long as saving in amplification quantity for quality. Such a guy would present the best and simplest result as for logical budget systems in my view.
On the other hand, a guy who is experimenting and has no confidence in his deep loudspeaker know how, offcourse must base his system on an efficient no pain tool. I.e. a cheap digital management processor. This guy gonna yeld much more of a result by free play, plus education. I use such tools for quick setup of crossover points, antiresonance notching and envelope determination of a loudspeaker system in early developement.
Now, if we are looking for best concept in best of means. Yes! multiamp active with full digital control is BETTER by definition. You need $$$ for real deal processors and you need measuring equipment so to utilise well their power benefiting the room interface factor on top of precision crossing. And you can't skimp on amps quality or cabling. Such a concept is king, but I know of no king without a budget so to put it in a nutshell.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2006, 05:58 AM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Default dbx crossovers - sans pricing

I still don't know how much these components cost, but they sure do a lot of verb-hype in describing them vs. down-to-earth stat's. I looked at what was apparently their mid-range crossover (only) and it offered ONLY the L-R xover as "the industry standard" (who are these folks trying to fool?). Looks nice and pretty, and I don't know how much it costs, but if it's more than the Behringer options, it better sound 10x better, because the features (multi-chaining, PC configuration, multiple xover options) just aren't there.

Quote:
Originally posted by m0tion



I'm also considering the DRPA. Can you give some more information on your setup? Specfically which amps and preamp you are using and how they are connected together. All of my equipment is unbalanced consumer line-level and the DRPA seems more suited for balanced pro line-level.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2006, 06:00 AM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
wigginjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Columbia, SC
Daveis:

DCX2496 != a dozen cheap opamps. Thats a Behringer CX3400.

DCX2496 = about 2 cheap ADCs, 6 cheap DACS, and a cheap Sharc DSP.


Lets be clear when we're talking about non "audiophile" quality hardware.

Your assertation, if looked at only based on the information you've posted, is ridiculous. You are under the impression that, somehow, the fact that you would only pay in the tens of cents for the individual components that compose an analog active crossover when you could pay up to hundreds of dollars for "foil inductors" and "oil filled" capacitors that this somehow denotes higher quality of the audio systems that they comprise? No doubt, if you are a very skilled passive crossover designer you can achieve wonderful things with passive crossovers, truely. But you don't need super "audiophile" crossover components to do it and there is absolutely no argument to be made what-so-ever that passive crossovers are TECHNICALLY superior to active crossovers. You can argue all day long that they subjectively sound better, but don't make the mistake that active crossovers don't have measurable technical superiority if designed correctly. Just ask Siegfried Linkwitz...
__________________
The Four Chairs
DIY Home Theater
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2006, 10:29 AM   #19
MJK is offline MJK  United States
Account disabled at member's request
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Clifton Park, NY
Quote:
Can you give some more information on your setup?
My Project 7 documents my active crossover system and some of the reasons I went in that direction.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2006, 11:25 AM   #20
Salas is online now Salas  Greece
diyAudio Chief Moderator
 
Salas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
I read your system 7. The residual hiss is coming out of the dbx. Its always hissy compared to other controllers (I have installed many in low audio budget cafes and bars). If you can pickup weird buzzes from time to time, its the dbx again, it does it depending on how much processing power is on demand (very low in your case). It has enough of EQ power (28band graphic plus some parametrics can be very useful) though steely sounding for that. Do you have a listening seat power response average 3rd octave measurement so to offset it? It will help much and you will be utilising more of its nearly idling dsp as used for just a single cross point. What kind of a measurement system do you usually employ when developing your projects?
  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
Active XO Bi-amping with Trends TA10.1 OzMikeH Class D 13 6th January 2008 12:04 PM
Behringer DCX2496 I want to try active biamping using it as the active xover. georgehifi Digital Line Level 3 15th August 2006 08:46 AM
Bi-amping with or without active cross-over? klitgt Multi-Way 11 24th December 2005 06:28 PM
bi-amping (active crossover) keyser Multi-Way 16 28th January 2005 10:03 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:26 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2