Would this work as a xover?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
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.
 
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 ?
 
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.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.