Would this work as a xover?

[till]

Would this work as an balanced active crossover?

[azira]

Well, without analyzing it in better detail I could add a few comments. Firstly, it's only a first order passive network being buffered by active elements. This means your crossover point will be exactly what you set it at but pretty lame slopes compared to a basic opamp based active xo. A typical active xo uses the crossover network in the feedback path to increase the stop band drop off. You could change your crossover to a higher order between your buffers easily.

I don't understand the 100nF input caps on the low section. I don't think you want them.

Secondly, since you're not trying to make this crossover your current buffering stage, your rails can be a lot lower. I expect you'll only be dealing with line level signals so you should use +/-10 or even +/- 7 volts.

[till]

Thanks for reply. My experimenting with passive crossovers on these speakers http://home.tu-clausthal.de/~tpa/VotT/IMAGE0056.JPG told me something like first order on the tweeter and second order for bass sounded better than higher orders.

The 100nf is not accidently there, i want a slope at ~ 30Hz to keep lower frequencys away from the speaker.

For the voltage: would the higher voltage do any harm?

To make the low pass network 2nd order between the followers, i simply add another RC ? So it looks 5k1/47nF/5k1/47nF ?

[Nelson Pass]

The 530 is a pretty rugged part, so you would only have to
watch your dissipation on it and the bias resistors.

And of course it's fairly easy to add more poles. You can use
a simulator or just experiment to get what you want.

[till]

Thanks for the comment, in fact i plan to use the 510, but the software had none, so i had to draw 530 instead. I expect not much difference in the power they can take.

So i expect this idea for a simple line level crossover is ok and i can build it without changes, expect of course i will adjust the RC networks to my speakers.

I will report when it works.