So I'm wanting to go to an active xover, mostly to play around with and give me more flexibility. I'm talking about something like the behringer dcx2496 programmable crossover, EQ, etc. So I got to thinking about the speakers.
Wouldn't the best possible design here be to put each drive in its own "box" best for that particular drive (woofer, mid)? Then possibly use one of those "new" external "mega" standalone tweeters with their own external connections already built on? (I know I've seen these in Voice Coil or somewhere).
In that case you could program the active xover to perfectly between drivers which were all in their "perfect" cases. Am I missing something here, or wouldn't this be the best possible configuration?
PS- I'd like to keep the amp discussion out of it, let's assume I'm using high-end monobloks (actually, I'm thinking more of something like lm3875 or Tripath chip-based as watts per channel in this config should IMO not need to be very high, 100W tops), but again, let's keep the amp part out.
Am I dreaming here, or would this not only be a fairly easy construction, but also allow incredible flexibility (could place each section of frequency range in just the right position/direction)?
Wouldn't the best possible design here be to put each drive in its own "box" best for that particular drive (woofer, mid)? Then possibly use one of those "new" external "mega" standalone tweeters with their own external connections already built on? (I know I've seen these in Voice Coil or somewhere).
In that case you could program the active xover to perfectly between drivers which were all in their "perfect" cases. Am I missing something here, or wouldn't this be the best possible configuration?
PS- I'd like to keep the amp discussion out of it, let's assume I'm using high-end monobloks (actually, I'm thinking more of something like lm3875 or Tripath chip-based as watts per channel in this config should IMO not need to be very high, 100W tops), but again, let's keep the amp part out.
Am I dreaming here, or would this not only be a fairly easy construction, but also allow incredible flexibility (could place each section of frequency range in just the right position/direction)?
I've been playing with active crossover(DCX2496/PC) and DIY speakers that were designed with a spirit towards modular design. I can swap mid's and tweeters in and out fairly easily because they are in separate boxes.
So far, the benefits of using active crossover are outweighed by the extreme expense of the crossover and additional amplifiers.
In hindsight, I am thinking I should have ditched the active crossover in favor of passive. This allows me to use a single amp, but the best amp I can afford rather than many smaller and cheaper amps.
I am starting to see that even expensive poly/teflon caps that you might be tempted to use in your passive speaker level crossover are still cheap compared to buying 2 or 4 more amps.
So far, the benefits of using active crossover are outweighed by the extreme expense of the crossover and additional amplifiers.
In hindsight, I am thinking I should have ditched the active crossover in favor of passive. This allows me to use a single amp, but the best amp I can afford rather than many smaller and cheaper amps.
I am starting to see that even expensive poly/teflon caps that you might be tempted to use in your passive speaker level crossover are still cheap compared to buying 2 or 4 more amps.
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.
Your idea sounds like it could look like the Focal/JMlab Utopia line. I like the look.
You could save some expense and building time by making your baffles removable, and just replace the baffle when you change drivers. Make the largest box needed by the drivers you are considering and then fill with solids as needed - bricks, wood blocks, etc. as needed.
Digital crossovers sound like a good solution, but for now I am using analog active crossovers. How close you can get to perfect depends on the crossover and its processing power as well as your ability to measure performance.
I'm with MJK - I am more likely to keep at it and get the crossover really right when it doesn't cost a small fortune to tune it. I can stuff an active crossover with high quality polypropylene caps (or even polystyrene) for less than the cost of a single "audiophile" cap. Changes usually amount to just changing resistors.
I have a pair of Pass/Thagard A75s, a 4 channel Leach and a Hafler DH-500 in my stable. Usually I have the A75s in the main system with the Hafler covering the subs. Now that I have the amps it is easy to justify active systems. I wouldn't go back, except systems for friends without the budget to buy everything.
You could save some expense and building time by making your baffles removable, and just replace the baffle when you change drivers. Make the largest box needed by the drivers you are considering and then fill with solids as needed - bricks, wood blocks, etc. as needed.
Digital crossovers sound like a good solution, but for now I am using analog active crossovers. How close you can get to perfect depends on the crossover and its processing power as well as your ability to measure performance.
I'm with MJK - I am more likely to keep at it and get the crossover really right when it doesn't cost a small fortune to tune it. I can stuff an active crossover with high quality polypropylene caps (or even polystyrene) for less than the cost of a single "audiophile" cap. Changes usually amount to just changing resistors.
I have a pair of Pass/Thagard A75s, a 4 channel Leach and a Hafler DH-500 in my stable. Usually I have the A75s in the main system with the Hafler covering the subs. Now that I have the amps it is easy to justify active systems. I wouldn't go back, except systems for friends without the budget to buy everything.
MJK,
How are you controlling the volume?
An active crossover with opamps and a single preamp could work.
Unfortunately, in my situation I am doing the crossover with either a DCX2496 or PC. In those cases, I need to be able to control volume on 6 or 8 line level channels.
It might be possible for me to control volume entirely in the digital domain. If someone knows of a VST plugin that will take 16-bit audio and simply shift it into 24-bits I'd be interested. Then I could control volume in the digital world. The downside would be that I am stealing the unused resolution from my DAC's for volume control. I do have a few SACD/DVD Audio disks that I'd actually be losing resolution with.
Im not sure this is possible. It seems that ASIO on a PC assumes that the sound card's inputs and outputs are all running the same sample rate and bit depth.
BobEllis, have you compared the A75's to any of the singleended Pass Alephs? I have a Threshold T200 and still like it better than the Aleph30.
How are you controlling the volume?
An active crossover with opamps and a single preamp could work.
Unfortunately, in my situation I am doing the crossover with either a DCX2496 or PC. In those cases, I need to be able to control volume on 6 or 8 line level channels.
It might be possible for me to control volume entirely in the digital domain. If someone knows of a VST plugin that will take 16-bit audio and simply shift it into 24-bits I'd be interested. Then I could control volume in the digital world. The downside would be that I am stealing the unused resolution from my DAC's for volume control. I do have a few SACD/DVD Audio disks that I'd actually be losing resolution with.
Im not sure this is possible. It seems that ASIO on a PC assumes that the sound card's inputs and outputs are all running the same sample rate and bit depth.
BobEllis, have you compared the A75's to any of the singleended Pass Alephs? I have a Threshold T200 and still like it better than the Aleph30.
I haven't built any of the Aleph series yet - still on my to do list. I like the A75s better than the Leach bu a small margin. Low level detail is better.
As for volume control you could use a relay based stepped attenuator, like the Twisted Pear guys make or for a remote control version look up dantimax.
As for volume control you could use a relay based stepped attenuator, like the Twisted Pear guys make or for a remote control version look up dantimax.
I'm on the active train also. I use a HTPC with kxdrivers to send SPDIF optical out to three separate DAC's then on to three separate amps.
I think it was worth every penny and I will never go back to using passive XO's in my main setup.
After playing with what is basically an on-the-fly infinitely variable crossover; I have noticed how even very small changes in the XO point can dramatically effect the sound. Building passive XO's can be a "best guess" type of scenario at times and It takes way too much effort and tweaking to get the same type of precision you can get with an active setup.
I do my volume control with a simple 6 gang 10k ALPS motor pot and an IR control board.
I think it was worth every penny and I will never go back to using passive XO's in my main setup.
After playing with what is basically an on-the-fly infinitely variable crossover; I have noticed how even very small changes in the XO point can dramatically effect the sound. Building passive XO's can be a "best guess" type of scenario at times and It takes way too much effort and tweaking to get the same type of precision you can get with an active setup.
I do my volume control with a simple 6 gang 10k ALPS motor pot and an IR control board.
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.
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.
In your work with sound reinforcement systems, are you working with high end home audio speakers or workhorse professional PA types of speakers? I don't disagree that you can get better then these two "budget" components, but I am not convinced yet that they are limiting in a home audio set-up.
With my Lowther two way OB system, I have heard the same driver as a single full range speaker with a passive BSC circuit in my ML TL enclosure. When I compare the sound of this full range speaker system with the two way OB I don't hear a significant change in the characteristics of the Lowther's sound. What the dBx allows is the addition of a strong bass presence in the overall presentation by going with an active two way.
With my Lowther two way OB system, I have heard the same driver as a single full range speaker with a passive BSC circuit in my ML TL enclosure. When I compare the sound of this full range speaker system with the two way OB I don't hear a significant change in the characteristics of the Lowther's sound. What the dBx allows is the addition of a strong bass presence in the overall presentation by going with an active two way.
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.
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,
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,
salas said:
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.
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.
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.
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 $$$ for real deal processors and you need measuring equipment so to utilise well their power benefiting the room interface factor on top of precision crossing. And you can't skimp on amps quality or cabling. Such a concept is king, but I know of no king without a budget so to put it in a nutshell.
On the other hand, a guy who is experimenting and has no confidence in his deep loudspeaker know how, offcourse must base his system on an efficient no pain tool. I.e. a cheap digital management processor. This guy gonna yeld much more of a result by free play, plus education. I use such tools for quick setup of crossover points, antiresonance notching and envelope determination of a loudspeaker system in early developement.
Now, if we are looking for best concept in best of means. Yes! multiamp active with full digital control is BETTER by definition. You need $$$ 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.
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.
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.
m0tion said:
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...
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...
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?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.