Hi and thanks for the valuable advice.
Digital is a mess ... if the input signal is digital there is the jitter
Instead if there is a DA conversion i am sure that something is lost.
I do not think that a completely transparent AD-DA process can exist.
Something is lost in the double conversion
Speaking instead of analog electronic x-overs i think that the better and expensive ones can be a nice solution
I think something like the Bryston units and similar ... with discrete selectors instead of cheap pots
The cheap ones op-amp based i do not know ...
Very interesting and thanks again.
One thing is sure ... for the high sections the power requirements are much different than those for the bass sections
So using different amps to drive the sections seems very reasonable to me
To end i would like to try a good analog active x-over ... but the price is an issue
A well designed 12dB/octave filter with good parts could do just fine
I think that many high level pro monitors like Altec, Tannoy etc. had passive x-overs.
I do not think that these monitors cheated on quality ... not at all.
Thanks again and kind regards, gino
Hi Gino,
I have a number of Altec pieces and you might be surprised at how, let's just say 'relaxed' they were about some things. The XO's were not the end all.
Hello Cal, you mean that the passive solution is quite common in also very high end speakers ?
What concerns me most is the need of sharp cuts
I am not an expert but i think that for passive xovers a 24dB/octave cut is challenging. Maybe i am wrong.
Thanks again and kind regards, gino
I have to totally disagree with this, your statements are oft repeated myths that simply have no basis in fact. The biggest source of complaints about professional digital processors like the DCX are from home audio users with no other balanced I/O components in their systems which results in poor signal to noise ratio and below optimum resolution resulting from a weak drive signal. Speakers will always be the weakest link in an audio system so to dismiss a component that can make such dramatic improvements in the accuracy of a speaker system bases solely on the fact that it is digital borders on absurdity. You would be well advised not to pre judge these devices because you will never match what it can do with passive components and IMO a device the the Behringer DCX is a hugh bargain at it's retail price and could possibly be the best speaker optimizing tool you ever buy.
Last edited:
Hi and thanks for the valuable reply
I feel like i have followed the bad prophets 🙄😀
Still i have to say that honestly digital causes me distress
With analog the sound can be very very good or at least decent
Not perfect but still decent
The bad digital is devastating ... just noise and not music
So digital scares me in the end
When in the old days i was listening only to analog sources i lived better, much much better
Non weird surprise ... never. It was always music ... maybe not perfectly transparent but always music
I am jittering now every time i start listen to digital
so i understand balanced connections make a difference
Good ! i have already some balanced components i like
Thanks again. Just to be sure, are you talking about this unit here below
Behringer: ULTRADRIVE PRO DCX2496
do you enter with a digital signal ?
do you still need a preamp or the unit can drive directly the power amps and control the volume ?
I would be very interested to know about your set-up
I checked and the price is very reasonable indeed
I have already the Behringer analog xover ... but this looks more serious
I see 6 balanced outs in the back ... so it can work as a 3 ways stereo xover ?
Thanks a lot again. Kind regards, gino
Last edited:
Yes that is the unit I'm talking about, I have one and use it in professional audio systems and for speaker building. In my case inputs are from mixers with balanced outputs and this unit connects to power amplifiers with balanced inputs. The unit can do stereo 3-way as well as many other configurations, it will allow summing of the input signals to drive any of the outputs, includes fully adjustable parametric EQs, delay, and limiting on each output, and you can configure Butterworth, LR, or Bessel crossover filters on each output independently and at any slope from 6 to 48db per octave. This last feature is great at simulating a common 2nd or 3rd order passive crossover. I also have a very high quality Rane analog active crossover (AC23) and sonically there is no difference between them IMO.
Hello and thank you very much indeed for you very valuable advice
Impressive really. I will have one for sure very soon.
Just one last question. Is there a master volume control on the unit ?
I mean, can i skip on a preamp ? this just to make the chain simpler.
Anyway it deserves to be tried indeed. What an impressive list of features !!! .
Amazing.
Thanks again, gino
Impressive really. I will have one for sure very soon.
Just one last question. Is there a master volume control on the unit ?
I mean, can i skip on a preamp ? this just to make the chain simpler.
Anyway it deserves to be tried indeed. What an impressive list of features !!! .
Amazing.
Thanks again, gino
Last edited:
MiniDSP offer a wide range of platforms,
I have the 2x8 set up as digital preamp/active XO.
Keen to try out Hypex and their DLCP board.
I have the 2x8 set up as digital preamp/active XO.
Keen to try out Hypex and their DLCP board.
No,
you need a six channel analogue vol pot.
Or three, 2channel switched pots.
Or six single channel switched pots.
I used switched pots, just 2positions for normal sound output and quieter sound output.
This was OK for long term listening room testing.
This was OK for long term listening room testing.
Hi and thanks you. I saw the site ... what is it ? an EQ unit ?
Nice but more expensive than the units by Behringer i guess.
I have no ambition of pro sound
And budget is tight i am afraid.
Thanks a lot and kind regards, gino
Hi and thanks. I guess by the way that should be possible to fix the volume of each out. Then i will use a balanced preamp at the input to regulate the main volume.
It is a real pity that the unit has no master control ... a real pity
It should IMHO, maybe even remote controlled
A nice feature these days
Thanks again. Kind regards, gino
No.
The output needs the 6 volume controls. Preferably all ganged together. a 6way 2pole switch gives you loud and louder, or loud and not so loud.
The input requires a maximum that is close to 0dBfs through the processing whether the input is digital or analogue.
The output needs the 6 volume controls. Preferably all ganged together. a 6way 2pole switch gives you loud and louder, or loud and not so loud.
The input requires a maximum that is close to 0dBfs through the processing whether the input is digital or analogue.
gino, do you know what the term "can of worms" means? You've opened one! 😀
basically it refers to getting into a very complex subject with lots of variations and no clear path through... that's horn speaker design in a nutshell.
I think there is a simple path, at least one to start down. The idea is to start with what you can get, and not spend too much, and get some experience and ideas. The Peavey horn will do for a start. I'd go for a driver under it that doesn't need to go too low - then use a sub. Simplify.
Beyond that there are dozens of threads that will illuminate these issues. One in particular is the one on the Jean Michel L'Cleach horns. Also look at the Synergy design. You could build a Synergy. Many people have and like them.
Pretty easy construction, wood.
Also, the point about power levels? The idea is that within the mechanical constraints of the diaphragm of a compression driver you can go lower than the rated LF cutoff *as long as you keep the power and therefore the excursion* low enough.
_-_-bear
basically it refers to getting into a very complex subject with lots of variations and no clear path through... that's horn speaker design in a nutshell.
I think there is a simple path, at least one to start down. The idea is to start with what you can get, and not spend too much, and get some experience and ideas. The Peavey horn will do for a start. I'd go for a driver under it that doesn't need to go too low - then use a sub. Simplify.
Beyond that there are dozens of threads that will illuminate these issues. One in particular is the one on the Jean Michel L'Cleach horns. Also look at the Synergy design. You could build a Synergy. Many people have and like them.
Pretty easy construction, wood.
Also, the point about power levels? The idea is that within the mechanical constraints of the diaphragm of a compression driver you can go lower than the rated LF cutoff *as long as you keep the power and therefore the excursion* low enough.
_-_-bear
did I get this back to front?
Maybe 2way, 6pole.
all six poles change to an alternative position.
None of these processors have ganged level controls on the outputs because it's not a requirement for pro sound applications and this is a piece of pro sound equipment after all. There's nothing wrong with having your master volume control before the processor, it seems home audio users get a little too hung up on maintain optimum bit depth when it's really not an audible problem with any input level from about -40dBFS and up.
Hi and i see and well no problem to put a balanced volume control upstream
Thank you for confirming that.
My question was about the out levels as well
I mean ... my present analog xover has no master volume control but it is possible to fix the level of each out indipendently
I guess that this should also be possible with the digital units
If not you have to rely on the control on the power amps ???
Just to understand perfectly the situation with the digital unit.
Thanks again, gino
Hi and thanks and yes. I am waiting for my first pair of compression drivers, PYLE something ... very very cheap, 1.4" exit, 75 mm coil.
I have already seen a suitable horn ... from 18sound ... very cheap but looking well made. Not bought yet anyway.
I would like to be able, as a start, to measure the freq response of the assembly.
I could also try the horn with a normal speaker ...
My goal is to have the lowest distortion possible from a speaker.
If a speaker is designed to give let's say 105dB with low distortion at 95 dB the distortion should be practically not existent.
So my aim is a very low distortion and possibly high efficiency speaker.
i do not understand perfectly why you say that this should simplify
I was thinking to just two ways ... horn above and a suitable woofer up to 1kHz or so.
A sub is another way more ...
For the bass i was thinking to go hunting for something PA actually
I have no skill with woods ... i have to rely on something already existent.
To give you an ided i will be always listening from no more than 3 meters
I very much prefer a near field listening (actually i do not know if 3 meters qualifies as near field)
With max ... i do not know
My next buy it will be a SPL meter ... just to have an idea of the peak i reach listening to music ... let's say 100dB/3 meters peak ? just to fix a value
I am a complete believer on zero distortion sound
I have noticed that with some equipment i loose some information ...
I strive for an extremely clean sound ...
Thanks again, gino
If ur listening at 100dB @ 3meters, ur listing reasonably loud, fyi.
What I was saying is that IF you rely upon the lower freq driver (not the horn) to go low into the bass, you will have to give up some sensitivity, need a rather large enclosure and have a limited range of driver choices.
Otoh, if you give up on the LF (more or less) and concentrate on "best response" from say 100Hz up (even if it turns out to go lower) and highest sensitivity and/or lowest 2nd & 3rd THD drivers, you'll find you have a far wider range of choices, and you'll need a smaller enclosure.
But you will still need some sort of sub eventually. A tapped horn is not a bad choice... but given that you can amplify the sub the sensitivity becomes reasonably irrelevant, just use a big cheap amp and a driver that has the right parameters and high enough power handling.
Fwiw, just using a "horn" and a "compression driver" does not assure you of either flat response or nil distortion.
_-_-
What I was saying is that IF you rely upon the lower freq driver (not the horn) to go low into the bass, you will have to give up some sensitivity, need a rather large enclosure and have a limited range of driver choices.
Otoh, if you give up on the LF (more or less) and concentrate on "best response" from say 100Hz up (even if it turns out to go lower) and highest sensitivity and/or lowest 2nd & 3rd THD drivers, you'll find you have a far wider range of choices, and you'll need a smaller enclosure.
But you will still need some sort of sub eventually. A tapped horn is not a bad choice... but given that you can amplify the sub the sensitivity becomes reasonably irrelevant, just use a big cheap amp and a driver that has the right parameters and high enough power handling.
Fwiw, just using a "horn" and a "compression driver" does not assure you of either flat response or nil distortion.
_-_-
Especially with cheap drivers like that Pyle. Some of them *may* be good, but don't just expect to get B&C/RCF/JBL performance in that price range.
In any case, none of them are going to be flat out to 20k, or even 15. The best you can do is a linear falling response that can be shelved out in a processor (or passive x/o if used).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.