Passive Xover for Jim Griffin's new LA

Ray Collins · 16th October 2006, 08:53 PM

Jim
How about an update on the passive crossover you are designing for your new CSS WR125 based Line Array?

Ray

Jim Griffin · 17th October 2006, 02:14 AM

Ray,

I am working to complete a design package for CSS to offer a kit with the new passive crossover. I'm satisified with the sound of the passive crossover. The sound is close to the earlier active crossover version which uses the $3750 DEQX crossover.

Jim

Ray Collins · 17th October 2006, 03:12 PM

Looking forward to seeing the finished product.
Do you use power tapering in the wiring configuration?

Jim Griffin · 17th October 2006, 06:57 PM

Ray,

No power tapering on this array.

Jim

Ray Collins · 20th October 2006, 08:06 AM

Jim,

Describe the crossover configuration and the compromises you accepted when you froze the final design. How close is it to the DEQX you were using?

Ray

Jim Griffin · 20th October 2006, 01:24 PM

Ray,

Well, the passive crossover is roughly a 4th order acoustic crossover as it uses the inherent rolloff of the drivers in conjunction with the attenuation of the network. An LC trap is used on the woofer to add attenuation to the woofers out of band. Bottom line is that the network is quite simple in parts count--3 in the woofer circuit and 5 on the tweeter side.

In contrast the DEQX implementation uses an 8th order linear phase crossover (48 dB per octave) which is more brick wall than the passive crossover but it is the lowest you can do with the DEQX. With the DEQX you can go up to a 300 dB/octave crossover.

Both the passive and active crossovers were derived from measurements.

Jim

Ray Collins · 20th October 2006, 08:04 PM

Jim,
Have you noticed any significant sonic differences between the active and passive crossovers? Several weeks ago you indicated that you were very pleased with the active crossover application so I am hoping the passive application will approach it.

I assume, based on the picture, that the construction of the box will be about the same as the Linus II?

Any thoughts on a white paper for this project?

Ray

Ray Collins · 24th October 2006, 12:52 AM

Jim......are you still there?

Jim Griffin · 24th October 2006, 02:44 AM

Ray,

I still exist.

The active crossover version sounds a little better to me but it should as I can use a digital path into the DEQX box so it is a little cleaner. The passive crossover is very good though and if you had not listened to the active version, you wouldn't have a issue.

I'm working on a design disclosure and I'll send you a copy when it is ready which I hope is this week.

Jim

Ray Collins · 24th October 2006, 03:36 AM

Thanks Jim....

Ray

16th October 2006, 08:53 PM	#1
Ray Collins diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Mobile, Al.	Passive Xover for Jim Griffin's new LA Jim How about an update on the passive crossover you are designing for your new CSS WR125 based Line Array? Ray

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Passive xover question	ttako	Multi-Way	1	23rd February 2009 08:46 PM
Sharing a passive Xover	Adrianb	Multi-Way	17	26th May 2007 03:40 AM
OB passive xover w. augmenter - or BLH?	freddi	Full Range	0	16th April 2007 04:03 PM
Need to change passive xover frequency	georgehifi	Multi-Way	17	6th October 2006 12:21 PM
Passive Bi-Amp Xover Project	roddyama	Multi-Way	14	5th October 2005 08:58 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	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

17th October 2006, 02:14 AM	#2
Jim Griffin diyAudio Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Tennessee	Ray, I am working to complete a design package for CSS to offer a kit with the new passive crossover. I'm satisified with the sound of the passive crossover. The sound is close to the earlier active crossover version which uses the $3750 DEQX crossover. Jim

17th October 2006, 03:12 PM	#3
Ray Collins diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Mobile, Al.	Looking forward to seeing the finished product. Do you use power tapering in the wiring configuration?

17th October 2006, 06:57 PM	#4
Jim Griffin diyAudio Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Tennessee	Ray, No power tapering on this array. Jim

20th October 2006, 08:06 AM	#5
Ray Collins diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Mobile, Al.	Jim, Describe the crossover configuration and the compromises you accepted when you froze the final design. How close is it to the DEQX you were using? Ray

20th October 2006, 01:24 PM	#6
Jim Griffin diyAudio Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Tennessee	Ray, Well, the passive crossover is roughly a 4th order acoustic crossover as it uses the inherent rolloff of the drivers in conjunction with the attenuation of the network. An LC trap is used on the woofer to add attenuation to the woofers out of band. Bottom line is that the network is quite simple in parts count--3 in the woofer circuit and 5 on the tweeter side. In contrast the DEQX implementation uses an 8th order linear phase crossover (48 dB per octave) which is more brick wall than the passive crossover but it is the lowest you can do with the DEQX. With the DEQX you can go up to a 300 dB/octave crossover. Both the passive and active crossovers were derived from measurements. Jim

20th October 2006, 08:04 PM	#7
Ray Collins diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Mobile, Al.	Jim, Have you noticed any significant sonic differences between the active and passive crossovers? Several weeks ago you indicated that you were very pleased with the active crossover application so I am hoping the passive application will approach it. I assume, based on the picture, that the construction of the box will be about the same as the Linus II? Any thoughts on a white paper for this project? Ray

24th October 2006, 12:52 AM	#8
Ray Collins diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Mobile, Al.	Jim......are you still there?

24th October 2006, 02:44 AM	#9
Jim Griffin diyAudio Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Tennessee	Ray, I still exist. The active crossover version sounds a little better to me but it should as I can use a digital path into the DEQX box so it is a little cleaner. The passive crossover is very good though and if you had not listened to the active version, you wouldn't have a issue. I'm working on a design disclosure and I'll send you a copy when it is ready which I hope is this week. Jim

24th October 2006, 03:36 AM	#10
Ray Collins diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Mobile, Al.	Thanks Jim.... Ray

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)