Best Loudspeaker Management System - 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 19th October 2006, 12:26 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: earth
Ok.

Thanks for all your information. I need this device for speaker building help. So i need as many function as posible not the ultimate quality.
Yes the Behringer have many functions but all of you says that it needs extra volume control. Is the integrated realy so bad.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2006, 07:07 PM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default Deqx

I wanted to answer the previous posts. My passive system is system is:
Musical Fidelity DAC a3-24
Squeezebox 3 as transport.
PS Audio PCA-2
PS Audio HCA-2 or Hypex UcD 400's i prefer my hypex monoblocks.
Spekaers are custom made by me. I have put a speakon connector on the back to allow an A-B comparison between the DEQX and my Passive crossover design.

My DEQX system is as follow:
Squeezebox 3 Feeding either the MF dac or a dcs upsampler and then into my DEQX 2.6P with full balanced outputs.
a combination of HCA-2's and Hypex Amps and then out to the speaker. I prefer the sound of the dcs upsampler using AES-EBU to the DEQX 24 bit 96khz with the new firmware.

My impression is as follows. The crossover points are the same either way but the slopes are slightly different 4th order passive vs. 8th order active

Passive Crossover: Extremely detailed and not veiled. The nuance and the realism comes across. Instuments sound real. The backround comes through much bettter

Active Crossover: Much better dynamic range and volume capacity, and slightly better center image but less of a soundstage. The sound has alot less speed and toe tapping rythem. Kind of lifeless sounding but very acurate.

Either way I don't hear the digital part come through. None of the slurred s's or smearing common to cheaper speakers and digital front ends.

For these reasons I have relegated the deqx to a fast development toy to get the cross points and find when drivers begin to distort, otherwise I use CLIO and LEAP5 together and build a passive crossover. The DEQX has a massive limitation in that if you want to correct below 400Hz you really need a wharehouse with 16' ceilings and a forklift to get the speaker in the air. Unless you have this available you are extremely limited as to the placement of the lower crossover point in a true 3 way system. With a dedicated measurement system I can splice a groundplane or near field to get the low end. The DEQX can take imported measurements, but the company cautioned me to only use the built in measureing system becasue the imported measurements don't work well for some reason.

In any case the resulting sound is more akin to an upper mid priced integrated amp with good speakers then a truely high end system that cam make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.

If you decide to go with the DEQX here's what I would recomend:

buy the P unit with 3 AES EBU outs
use TaCT s2150 amps and let them do the digital conversion.
Supply it with a high quality digital signal. Mabe the new transporter but it's pricy at 2k
I like upsamping but that's another debate.
For the speaker configuration forget a 3 way design and to a sub sat system with a nice pair of bookshelves and some sturdy subs like some peerless xxls with passive radiator.

I kind of like metal domes with the deqx, I have tried SEAS h1212 and Focal t120td5's with Sucess. The midrange driver should be sturdy and dynamic sounding. No doped paper!!! Go with plasic, composite or metal. I personally dont' like metal in this conifig, but it's been done. see NHT xD system.

TTYL, Michael
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2006, 08:00 AM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: earth
Ok another question.

What if i use instead of thouse components just a PC with apropriate sound card and software. Will this works?
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2011, 06:35 PM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Frankly, speaking as someone who has had his products favourably compared to ATC, PMC and Genelec by a pro audio reviewer(Hugh RobJohns, Omen Ra 1812 monitors), I find the comments regarding going back to passive crossovers quite laughable...sorry!!

Don't mean to sound arrogant, but just trying to put my experience (nearly 40 years in sound, live and recorded, into perspective...

This review pair was supplied with my BSS 366T Omnidrive and the Behringer Ultradrive. Which was preferred? ..the Behringer at 1/10th the cost!!

However, I agree that loudspeaker management systems are not necessarily the best you can do for Hi Fi set ups as you rely on their final D/A converters which are competent but probably not High End..(They usually have AES IN so you can avoid the first conversion stage)

My solution is to use a unit such as the Behringer Ultracurve for EQ. Stay in the digital domain all the way from the CD transport/digital out and use the Ultracurve in it's digital domain for the same reasons, avoiding the analog stages. The Ultracurve is extraordinarily transparent and neutral if used in the digital domain only...far better than you could expect for the money!!

Pass your digital signal to a DAC of your choice..anything from the Musical Fidelity up to the Benchmark..(I use Cambridge DAC magics..luv'em!) and into an analogue active crossover. THE DBX units are superb, very quiet and classically below .004% THD+N..anyway, regardless of spec, the sound is very transparent and the sound stage both deep and wide.

This way you can upgrade your DAC when you want without changing the whole system. It's my belief after hours of testing and listening that this is THE critical stage anyway.

You will need volume control of course and this will need to go either before the Ultracurve or after the DAC ..I use a tc electronics BMC-2 as a digital volume control before the "system", but may be just an analogue passive volume control may suffice after the DAC before the active crossover?

The system described should come in somewhere around your budget I think..I am in the UK so the pricing is different over here...
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2011, 07:11 PM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: u.k
Quote:
Best Loudspeaker Management System
Dolby lake, not the lab gruppen copy,the origanal version .Next question
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2011, 07:22 PM   #16
_Wim_ is offline _Wim_  Belgium
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Belgium
I use the behringer DCX with the following modifications:
- active output board from Jan Didden
- analog power supply from Jan Didden (I am not sure this makes a difference)
- replaced the AKM4393 Dacs by the AKM4396 (both are pin compatible)

This will cost you far less then 1000$, and sound is excellent. The analog board is of high quality, and the DAC chips are as good as it gets (very high priced high end DACs use the same chips).The analog output board can be remote controlled, so you have a real pre-amp (this is not the case with most of the unmodified pro units).

Comparing sound quality when using different slopes (4th order vs 8th order) is comparing apples and oragens. This is a very major difference soundwise for your speaker, as polar responce will be very different.

My suggestion, invest as much of your budget as you can in good speakers (that were the real differences are), and spent minimal on electronics.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2011, 07:26 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville
I run my DEQX passive no preamp and yes you can crossover lower than 8 order for a two way app. Right now I'm running a two way eagle2amp on the MJK H frame and a SEOTL to the brines fb20 he'll of a good sound 12db linkwitz Riley
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2011, 08:43 PM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Tennessee
Bigfishe,

I have sent you a PM via the DIYAudio forum. I would be interested in hearing your project in the future. I'm about 85 miles from Nashville.

Jim
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2011, 09:12 PM   #19
Bill F. is offline Bill F.  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Bill F.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SW MI
I really love my Rane RPM88. It may be overkill for your needs, but I have a spare I'd be willing to sell within your budget. PM me if you're interested.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 09:46 AM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
..."Dolby lake, not the lab gruppen copy,the origanal version .Next question"..

Budget under 1000Euro!! So, not a useful comment then? Amazing spec though but can't find a recent price on the Lab Gruppen LM26 version..

.."Comparing sound quality when using different slopes (4th order vs 8th order) is comparing apples and oranges"...

This is an interesting quote..if the polar response is very different the drivers must already be mismatched in dispersion angle at the crossover frequency I would suggest. Issues with physical driver displacement may be an issue as obviously the 48dB/oct will produce negligible overlap and potentially then a smoother response through the crossover area?

The purpose of the very steep slopes originally was to enable HF drivers to be brought down much closer to their fs and keep them well protected. The other benefit is of course that you do not need to use the mid driver so high thus reducing the effects of poorer dispersion due to beaming and the inevitable more ragged response on and off axis.

I see little benefit in well designed home or studio loudspeakers where driver choice is not so dependant on maximum power handling.

But this may once again indicate the complete unsuitability of a traditional WMT design..a poor starting point for a loudspeaker I would suggest.

With three different acoustic centres and different vertical displacements, different frequency dependent dispersion angles, cabinet energy storage and internal standing waves, cabinet diffraction, etc, etc I would suggest that the difference between a 4th order and an 8th order was the least of ones problems!

Steep filters by their nature will also have more ringing, and this may be an audible effect..have you tried the different (LR, Bessel, Butterworth) 4th order filters and heard a difference?

Comments from studio engineers and those who really understand the physics of these filters please!! I know the Harman/BSS site has a section on the nature of these 8th order filters and may be worth a visit.
  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
Peavey VSX-26 Digital Loudspeaker Management 3-In/6-Out Audiodidakt Multi-Way 3 27th March 2013 07:18 PM
Digital Speaker Management System Jeroenkv Multi-Way 2 26th September 2007 09:26 PM
Best Small(ish) DIY Loudspeaker System? RussB Multi-Way 3 12th October 2006 09:30 AM
RCA theatre loudspeaker system marine83park Multi-Way 1 30th May 2005 02:34 PM
Loudspeaker phase in car audio system sma Multi-Way 4 5th February 2004 09:03 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:17 AM.


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