I can understand the basic idea of the TS very well.
I just wanted to mention how the highly valued balanced signal will be broken down to single ended in most high quality actice x-over, without any audible, negative effect I must add.
Balanced gear is a wonderfull thing, any one who worked on a PA system will know this first hand. It is perfect for a noise less analog connections, but no magic bullet for perfect sound.
Second, a good passive x-over is always used as a kind of equalizer and just changing to an active system, removing it's components, will be a bad idea in most cases. At least the speaker will not be what the developer wanted it to be any more. This does not mean better or worse, it depends, so just different.
Last think about this idea, for a quick and cheap test. If you just plug a balanced, digital X-over in your chain, that way you can simulate the analog version and perfectly see what it has to look like. If you just go analog from the beginning, this is close to impossible. You can guess, but not instandly hear. So by measuring and matching with the DSP, you get the curve that will be needed in your analog version for the perfect result. Then copy it in analog gear.
The worst thing that could happen to you is a change of mind, suddenly accepting something digital in your system.
@Mark Tillotson
If you really have an analog recording and you think about the whole chain (analog!) the number of Op amps may easyly top a hundred of them.
Think of any instrument, from the pick up or microphone, through any effect gear the artist uses to get "his" sound, tone controls, delay, echo, parmetreic equalizer, noise reduction etc. until you reach the magnet head of the master recording and finaly the cutting amp for the disc master.
Multiply it by the channels of a recording and any "high ender" will get a very bad feeling in the gut. It is just a constant amplify, buffer, modify, buffer, modify and amplify again. A really uncountable number of such processes until you enter it in your chain, as the final recording.
We pay a fortune for a preamp, just to prevent the smallest disturbance of the signal. A signal that has passed an uncountable number of TL072 or what ever 8 Cent standard IC they used. The NExxxx we mentioned are already very expensive ones.
There is so much BS about how bad OP-Amps are. Even the cheapest ones, used right, are much better than most can imagine.
Same with A/D and D/A converters. The digital recording is nothing evil, it is very refined today and we would miss a lot without it.
It is very hard to physicaly find any any real analog recording today, if you don't use vintage LP's only. Only a very few of new vinyl pressings are 100% analog. Better don't look too close...
Just recently I got a re-mastered Jethro Tull CD of an old record I still have. While my teen age daughters usually smile about my "old stuff" they where just blown away by that recording. Not the original, the CD. Such music would still enter the charts today, but only in it's digitaly rejuvenated form.
In comparison playing the vinyl is just disgusting. Digital has some advantages, sometimes.
I just wanted to mention how the highly valued balanced signal will be broken down to single ended in most high quality actice x-over, without any audible, negative effect I must add.
Balanced gear is a wonderfull thing, any one who worked on a PA system will know this first hand. It is perfect for a noise less analog connections, but no magic bullet for perfect sound.
Second, a good passive x-over is always used as a kind of equalizer and just changing to an active system, removing it's components, will be a bad idea in most cases. At least the speaker will not be what the developer wanted it to be any more. This does not mean better or worse, it depends, so just different.
Last think about this idea, for a quick and cheap test. If you just plug a balanced, digital X-over in your chain, that way you can simulate the analog version and perfectly see what it has to look like. If you just go analog from the beginning, this is close to impossible. You can guess, but not instandly hear. So by measuring and matching with the DSP, you get the curve that will be needed in your analog version for the perfect result. Then copy it in analog gear.
The worst thing that could happen to you is a change of mind, suddenly accepting something digital in your system.
@Mark Tillotson
If you really have an analog recording and you think about the whole chain (analog!) the number of Op amps may easyly top a hundred of them.
Think of any instrument, from the pick up or microphone, through any effect gear the artist uses to get "his" sound, tone controls, delay, echo, parmetreic equalizer, noise reduction etc. until you reach the magnet head of the master recording and finaly the cutting amp for the disc master.
Multiply it by the channels of a recording and any "high ender" will get a very bad feeling in the gut. It is just a constant amplify, buffer, modify, buffer, modify and amplify again. A really uncountable number of such processes until you enter it in your chain, as the final recording.
We pay a fortune for a preamp, just to prevent the smallest disturbance of the signal. A signal that has passed an uncountable number of TL072 or what ever 8 Cent standard IC they used. The NExxxx we mentioned are already very expensive ones.
There is so much BS about how bad OP-Amps are. Even the cheapest ones, used right, are much better than most can imagine.
Same with A/D and D/A converters. The digital recording is nothing evil, it is very refined today and we would miss a lot without it.
It is very hard to physicaly find any any real analog recording today, if you don't use vintage LP's only. Only a very few of new vinyl pressings are 100% analog. Better don't look too close...
Just recently I got a re-mastered Jethro Tull CD of an old record I still have. While my teen age daughters usually smile about my "old stuff" they where just blown away by that recording. Not the original, the CD. Such music would still enter the charts today, but only in it's digitaly rejuvenated form.
In comparison playing the vinyl is just disgusting. Digital has some advantages, sometimes.
Hello, thank you all for the contributions and debate. When opening this thread I imagined that the digital filter vs analog filter debate would be inevitable. In that sense, I find it interesting to share this thread.
https://www.hifiwigwam.com/threads/active-analogue-crossover-vs-digital-dsp-crossover.95943/
In it the author presents a situation similar to the one presented here. He explains his experience with a model that he did not know about: The DBX 234XS. In any case, I want to remember that I am currently already using a digital active filter and DSP: the one for the bass section integrated into the Hypex Fusssion 501 amplification module. Together with those used for the subwoofers, I can control with a certain margin the highest frequencies. complicated from 20hz to 200hz.
I have also commented that the use of the analog active filter does not necessarily imply dispensing with the passive filter and the correction components it incorporates.
So it is important to remember that actually my idea is to combine two different types of filter: digital for bass (I already use it) and analog for mids and highs.
I am currently satisfied with the response curve as well as the RT of my room. The Mcintosh mc452 stage can correctly handle the amplification of mids and highs but I can't help but think that this amplifier's power is wasted and that, by stopping it from uselessly amplifying the frequencies from 20 to 200hz, its performance and sound could improve. Maybe the best solution is to do nothing
BR
Toni
https://www.hifiwigwam.com/threads/active-analogue-crossover-vs-digital-dsp-crossover.95943/
In it the author presents a situation similar to the one presented here. He explains his experience with a model that he did not know about: The DBX 234XS. In any case, I want to remember that I am currently already using a digital active filter and DSP: the one for the bass section integrated into the Hypex Fusssion 501 amplification module. Together with those used for the subwoofers, I can control with a certain margin the highest frequencies. complicated from 20hz to 200hz.
I have also commented that the use of the analog active filter does not necessarily imply dispensing with the passive filter and the correction components it incorporates.
So it is important to remember that actually my idea is to combine two different types of filter: digital for bass (I already use it) and analog for mids and highs.
I am currently satisfied with the response curve as well as the RT of my room. The Mcintosh mc452 stage can correctly handle the amplification of mids and highs but I can't help but think that this amplifier's power is wasted and that, by stopping it from uselessly amplifying the frequencies from 20 to 200hz, its performance and sound could improve. Maybe the best solution is to do nothing
BR
Toni
Attachments
Did you read your way through some basic active filter theory? You started asking about balanced active crossovers, now you seem to look for a kind of highpass for your amps. The thread you refer to doesn‘t say much to me.
As for highpassing the amp, I think it’s wise. But I still wouldn’t go balanced because there really is no argument for it.
As for highpassing the amp, I think it’s wise. But I still wouldn’t go balanced because there really is no argument for it.
Wow, I couldn't imagine having to go drop back to unbalanced gear. I pretty much can't stand single-ended anymore.
Take a look at some "pro" audio gear. Like Ashly. All balanced connections and a great way to blend in a subwoofer or bi-amp your speakers. Cheap too.
There is an argument for balanced connections: less noise and hum when using long interlinks. But you have to accept the surplus on balanced line drivers and differential inputs. Or rather complicated internal circuitry which likely has to be full of precision resistors and closely matched caps in order not to introduce any differences between the opposite lines.
Hello, thanks for all the contributions. I respect all points of view. For now, I think I'm going for the SublimeAcoustic. Although I believe that no one with direct experience with this product has participated in this thread, from what I have been able to read on other sites, it seems like a quality and honest product. It offers me the possibility of going from 2 to 3 ways. Too bad about its balanced connectors but that is a lesser evil.
BR
Toni
BR
Toni
I do not want to discourage you, but why do you think such an 'off-the-shelf' solution will fit your needs? I re-read the earlier posts: you didn't already remove the highpass section in the mid crossover. That essentially blocks out a lot of amp current below 200Hz, that should really be relaxing enough, no current, just voltage. Any amp that can't handle that 100% is a crap amp.
Now you could of course remove that highpass section and replace it with a custom active crossover, but in that case all you really would need are a handful of resistors, tiny MKP low value caps and some opamps (OK and a power supply). Plus (a big PLUS) some means of tuning it all right (acoustic verification by measurement), which is by far the most important part here.
Don't want to stop you from it (again) bu I really doubt if laying down $500 is helping you in the right way. Furthermore I really really doubt if that Sublime crossover is operating balanced internally, my bets are it is one (nice) piece of unbalanced signal processing. Going down this way you won't ever be able to tell which setting of this Sublime unit is the right one, mind you. Sorry for my interference.