Active crossover suggestion with F5 - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Pass Labs

Pass Labs This forum is dedicated to Pass Labs discussion.

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 15th February 2011, 01:43 AM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by michal View Post
I am using miniDSP with F5, and the DSP deteriorates quality a lot (IMO). With a cheap active crossover from my car I can't localize speakers, with miniDSP I can. I am not saying miniDSP is bad, it's still a very good product, but not a good match for F5.

I have no experience with DCX, but probably going full analog after your source is better for F5.

I've seen a comparison of miniDSP to DCX claiming miniDSP being at par or better than DCX.

anilva, did you try using your Behringer Digital Xover to figure out xover points and slopes, and then replicate with analog circuit?
I should probably clarify my position. I am recommending that there is only one D-to-A conversion and this would be done by the Behringer or whatever. Feed it a digital signal (either S/PDIF or AES/EBU).

Wait ... this means no analog sources. Yes .... I am afraid so.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2011, 01:53 AM   #12
michal is offline michal  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Windsor, ON
Quote:
Originally Posted by WithTarragon View Post
I should probably clarify my position. I am recommending that there is only one D-to-A conversion and this would be done by the Behringer or whatever. Feed it a digital signal (either S/PDIF or AES/EBU)
For sure. Minimizing number of DACs before F5 is the way to go. F5 brings out a lot of detail, and multiple DACs will lose some of it.

WithTarragon, what is the weak link in the system that you are referring to in your other post?
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2011, 01:58 AM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
BobEllis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate NY
Considering the B5 is in the same family as the B1 and an RC network is as minimalist as you can make a filter, I'd be surprised if the basic crossover functions in the B5 are much more than that. The shelving and EQ are probably built on a JFET gain stage. That's the way I'd go to make it as "Papa like" as possible.

Jan Didden made a nice output stage and volume control for the Behringer. http://www.linearaudio.nl/6chan-1.htm if you want to go that route.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2011, 02:57 AM   #14
anilva is offline anilva  India
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bangalore
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobEllis View Post
Considering the B5 is in the same family as the B1 and an RC network is as minimalist as you can make a filter, I'd be surprised if the basic crossover functions in the B5 are much more than that. The shelving and EQ are probably built on a JFET gain stage. That's the way I'd go to make it as "Papa like" as possible.

Jan Didden made a nice output stage and volume control for the Behringer. http://www.linearaudio.nl/6chan-1.htm if you want to go that route.
Thanks. I will probably start with a passive RC in front of a B1. My knowledge in electronics is basic and cannot design/tweak beyond basic levels. The Behringer mod seems too complex for me. I thought Papa mentioned somewhere that he is going to reveal some inside details of B5. Any news?
__________________
DIY F5, F5T, F6, Aleph J, Fostex 206 based BLH, Altec Onken with 515B LF & 288H HF, Technics SP10 MKII & EMT938 turntables
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2011, 01:15 PM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by michal View Post
For sure. Minimizing number of DACs before F5 is the way to go. F5 brings out a lot of detail, and multiple DACs will lose some of it.

WithTarragon, what is the weak link in the system that you are referring to in your other post?
Sure, the weak link in the Behringer DCX (or the DEQ) is the analog out section (right after the DAC). Replace it with something better. There are many threads on the topic and a real range of price points.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2011, 02:53 PM   #16
labjr is offline labjr  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MA
Metric Halo ULN-8 is probably one of the best options for a digital crossover. They use 80 bit processing and have great analog output circuitry. Fairly expensive but has many uses including 8 channel ADC and DAC.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2011, 05:15 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
BobEllis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate NY
Metric Halo's LIO-8 is a bit cheaper if you don't need the microphone preamps. Still, at $3K plus another $600 for their DSP/crossover software it's rather $pendy. At my age, I don't think I can tell the difference between 96 Khz and 192 Khz sampling rates.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2011, 05:21 PM   #18
labjr is offline labjr  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MA
From what I've heard the Metric Halo is in another league. I imagine you'd hear the difference between harsh sounding digital and the microphone feed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2011, 05:53 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
BobEllis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate NY
The LIO-8 has 8 high quality 24/192 analog inputs, so it could be used for analog as well as digital sources. It just lacks the microphone preamps found in the ULN-8. For a non recordist, a microphone preamp is useful for measurements, but I wouldn't want to pay $1500 more for the same unit with 8 mic preamps.

I mentioned whether I'd hear a difference between 24/96 and 24/192 only as an indicator that many "lesser" interfaces might be totally acceptable. My M-Audio FW410 gives me 24/192 on one set of outputs and 24/96 on the rest along with a pair of mic preamps for $250. I think I can hear a difference playing the same track at 24/96 vs forcing it to 16/44.1, but it's not a lot. Sometimes I think I hear a difference at 24/192, but not consistently enough to believe it. The mic preamps on the FW410 are a little noisy, but usable for measurement (about 60 db S/N if I turn the gain down a bit). As always YMMV.

Whether the Metric Halo is worth the money is a moot point for me anyway since I don't have $3K to spend on an audio interface, even if I did think I'd hear the difference.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2011, 05:59 PM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
bobodioulasso's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
JFET Active Crossover
  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
Two-way crossover - suggestion? Defo Multi-Way 19 17th May 2010 09:23 PM
Any suggestion for a 3 way active pc speaker (amps and xover)? hamedfazelm Multi-Way 5 7th May 2010 05:38 PM
Component Suggestion: 2-way active now, 3-way active later CanadianDream Multi-Way 6 3rd August 2007 04:53 AM
Suggestion for simple crossover. GuyPanico Multi-Way 2 5th August 2005 07:56 AM
XVR1 active crossover, discrete active stage promitheus Pass Labs 18 22nd July 2002 01:29 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:36 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