Hi There! I'm planning to actively triamp my speakers. My current setup is as follows: pc (with Rew, RePhase and Eq Apo > Topping D50s > ZeroZone Irs 2092 monoblocks https://it.aliexpress.com/item/32904122947.html > Wharfedale Linton Heritage https://www.wharfedale.co.uk/linton-heritage/ (sensitivity 88-90 db, crossover 600 and 2400 Hz). Since the Lintons are three-way speakers, I'm wondering if I could remove the passive crossover and use the ZeroZones for the woofers and separate amps for midrange and tweeters. The crossover may be implemented in the digital domain with RePhase and Eq. Apo. A six-channel interface would substitute the Dac.
I have several doubts. First: is the entire endeavor worth it? After all, with Room correction I already have a quite flat response - see the attached image from Rew. Can removing the passive crossover increase the dynamic range and reduce the distortion? What about "semi-active" bi-amping: that is, disconnecting only the woofers from the passive crossover and using only two amps: one for woofers directly connected to drivers and one for mid-highs, connected to passive crossover. In this case, I could use a high-pass filter at, say 200 Hz.
Second question: which interface? Something from Motu or Focusrite?
Third: which amps for midrange and tweeters? I assume that I will be able to regulate the different sensitivities modifying the gain of the different channels. For midrange I've thought to amps like Topping PA5, Sabaj A8, SMSL DA 9, Aiyima A 07 or 08.
For tweeters: Topping PA3s, Sabaj A 10, SMSL A100, Aiyma A04.
Thank you in advance and sorry for my english.
Leonardo
I have several doubts. First: is the entire endeavor worth it? After all, with Room correction I already have a quite flat response - see the attached image from Rew. Can removing the passive crossover increase the dynamic range and reduce the distortion? What about "semi-active" bi-amping: that is, disconnecting only the woofers from the passive crossover and using only two amps: one for woofers directly connected to drivers and one for mid-highs, connected to passive crossover. In this case, I could use a high-pass filter at, say 200 Hz.
Second question: which interface? Something from Motu or Focusrite?
Third: which amps for midrange and tweeters? I assume that I will be able to regulate the different sensitivities modifying the gain of the different channels. For midrange I've thought to amps like Topping PA5, Sabaj A8, SMSL DA 9, Aiyima A 07 or 08.
For tweeters: Topping PA3s, Sabaj A 10, SMSL A100, Aiyma A04.
Thank you in advance and sorry for my english.
Leonardo
Removing a passive network in favor of multi-amping with active crossover (properly and well set up, of course) will always sound better in my experience. How much better is usually a function of how much your current loudspeaker performance is held back by passive networks, and how much back-emf-generated distortion is generated by the moving mass and other EM effects of the drivers using mono-amping.
This could work, but in my experience, using low phase growth crossover networks with zero phase growth across the crossover interference bands, and in a room that's acoustically treated for early reflections (the first 1-5 milliseconds of delay from direct arrivals just around the loudspeakers and around the listening positions) will always trump the use of passive networks that typically have from 90 degrees to 270 degrees of phase lag of the lower frequency drivers.
Chris
Keep in mind that you will need to duplicate the electrical transfer function of the passive crossover with your new digital filtering. This could be done by directly measuring signal voltage that is supplied to each driver, or you could use simulation I suppose.
j.
j.
Have you seen the Stereophile review and measurements (LINK)? After reading it I would first work on correcting the box resonances by adding bracing and perhaps wall treatment. No active or passive crossover can correct those problems. And from the reviewer's comments the speaker placement and toe-in is critical.
Hi! The first thing to do is follow ernperkins' advice 🙂
My active system looks like this, everything works fine:
PC - Equalizer APO (DSP and EQ) - 7.1 DAC Asus u7 mkii - x3 ampl SMSL SA300
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/active-wmtm-12-4-5-ribbon-tweeter.372786/page-3
It seems to me that if you do everything right, it will definitely be better. But more importantly, it will give you new knowledge and skills, and also, having everything for an active system, you can at any time replace one of the speakers, or make a new case for them, or make any project on new drivers.
But on the other hand, you will spend a lot of time on all this, and you may be looking for your way for a long time. If you are interested, then go for it, if not, then maybe not worth it. It may be worth buying something ready-made. I'm talking about how sometimes it's hard to find peace.
My active system looks like this, everything works fine:
PC - Equalizer APO (DSP and EQ) - 7.1 DAC Asus u7 mkii - x3 ampl SMSL SA300
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/active-wmtm-12-4-5-ribbon-tweeter.372786/page-3
It seems to me that if you do everything right, it will definitely be better. But more importantly, it will give you new knowledge and skills, and also, having everything for an active system, you can at any time replace one of the speakers, or make a new case for them, or make any project on new drivers.
But on the other hand, you will spend a lot of time on all this, and you may be looking for your way for a long time. If you are interested, then go for it, if not, then maybe not worth it. It may be worth buying something ready-made. I'm talking about how sometimes it's hard to find peace.
Actually, if the goal is to improve the loudspeaker acoustic performance itself to sound better than with passives, I don't find this is necessary at all, especially if trying to flatten the half of the acoustic transfer function that is generally ignored: acoustic phase response.
Rather, taking individual sweeps of each driver within the enclosure...and looking at where the natural crossovers between drivers occur (including considering acoustic phase), then choosing the appropriate filters/PEQs to apply in the active crossover to yield a flat or gently decreasing SPL response with the amplifier channels to be used (perhaps to accommodate a "room curve" to taste) is the appropriate path for the stated above goal. I've found that to be much more productive. If the active crossovers have PEQs available, flattening the individual driver response before settling on crossover frequencies, etc. is one way to approach.
Chris
Last edited:
In reality, there are multiple ways to developing the settings for an active crossover loudspeaker setup, and the above discussion has highlighted two ways to do it. Looking at the polar coverage vs. frequency for each driver, i.e., trying to match polar coverage angles at crossover, is another approach that can be used in addition to the above technique I identified, and yields a subjectively better sounding loudspeaker than most passive crossovers alone.
Achieving better polar response using the same drivers and enclosures (including horns if present) is possible using the active (digital) crossover to correct the time-based response that's not possible to control using passives, or passives and applique FIR filtering upstream of the preamp.
Chris
Achieving better polar response using the same drivers and enclosures (including horns if present) is possible using the active (digital) crossover to correct the time-based response that's not possible to control using passives, or passives and applique FIR filtering upstream of the preamp.
Chris
In what way? If you don't have a problem with it then I wouldn't worry about it.
What do you mean by this?