Thanks, never before seen the likes of something like this! All that digital and multibit DAC effort trashed by using the 3MHz AD712 as I/V and LPF 😀 Of course the Mitsubishi volume control chip might have even worse sound but I couldn't find its datasheet...😎
you can reprogram it as many times as you like.
Even with the microphone in the same position, it will give you a different result every time 🙄
which one are you asking about?
mini dsp
Hi and thanks again for your input.
I've looked over everything on the Mini DSP site. It all looks well executed and suited to us audiophiles.
From what I've read here on this forum, most people are "do it yourselfers". From your replies I can see you are well educated in electronics, chips, dacs, etc. So your opinions are well respected by me!
Although the Mini DSP web site is informing I hesitate to take their step.
First, because I see they are located in Japan and a far distance to go if something goes seriously wrong.
Second, except for one unit, everything else must be assembled in somewhat kit form. My electronical skills and free time to build are limited.
Third, it appears there is no means to control the outputs from the dsp to my amps. It would require more dacs and a variable resistor!?
What I'm getting at is what commercially available DSP is there that is reasonably well built and at the very least require small modifications?
The Behringer units are reaonably priced but I've seen that a few web companies that provided modifications have either stopped doing so because of "product reliability" or the mod costs double the price of the original unit.
I have also seen a dsp sold by Ashly. Their AC-24 model is a 4 way and has manual controls. It has been discontinued. It would have suited my needs and budget.
Sorry if I've rambled on too long. And thanks again for your input.
Hi and thanks again for your input.
I've looked over everything on the Mini DSP site. It all looks well executed and suited to us audiophiles.
From what I've read here on this forum, most people are "do it yourselfers". From your replies I can see you are well educated in electronics, chips, dacs, etc. So your opinions are well respected by me!
Although the Mini DSP web site is informing I hesitate to take their step.
First, because I see they are located in Japan and a far distance to go if something goes seriously wrong.
Second, except for one unit, everything else must be assembled in somewhat kit form. My electronical skills and free time to build are limited.
Third, it appears there is no means to control the outputs from the dsp to my amps. It would require more dacs and a variable resistor!?
What I'm getting at is what commercially available DSP is there that is reasonably well built and at the very least require small modifications?
The Behringer units are reaonably priced but I've seen that a few web companies that provided modifications have either stopped doing so because of "product reliability" or the mod costs double the price of the original unit.
I have also seen a dsp sold by Ashly. Their AC-24 model is a 4 way and has manual controls. It has been discontinued. It would have suited my needs and budget.
Sorry if I've rambled on too long. And thanks again for your input.
I have been using a pair of miniDSP`s for quite a while now, 1 for a pair of stand mounts and the other for 2 subs. They are very versatile little beasties and WELL WORTH the money!
The 2x4 units that I use do have a switch on/off thump, My amps are only 30w/channel so I have been ok with the odd mistake. This will change when I build my HackerNAP amps!
I built a PSU to run my Naim preamp and the miniDSP`s so I all gets switched on together.
You can power the unit via the USB cable but I would build/buy a PSU for it tho!
There was a slight problem with my original order and the guys were very appologetic and corrected the problem in no time at all.
The nanoDIGI and some DACs could be the ticket for you.
If ya still thinking a miniDSP product, buy with confidence, great products and great customer service!
The 2x4 units that I use do have a switch on/off thump, My amps are only 30w/channel so I have been ok with the odd mistake. This will change when I build my HackerNAP amps!
I built a PSU to run my Naim preamp and the miniDSP`s so I all gets switched on together.
You can power the unit via the USB cable but I would build/buy a PSU for it tho!
There was a slight problem with my original order and the guys were very appologetic and corrected the problem in no time at all.
The nanoDIGI and some DACs could be the ticket for you.
If ya still thinking a miniDSP product, buy with confidence, great products and great customer service!
There seem to be a couple of misconceptions about the MiniDSP crossovers above, so let me clarify from my experiences working with them:
So what electronics are made nearby you? Maybe you are concerned that there is not a nearby reseller of the MiniDSP units. Most electronic things these days are throw away, meaning that there is nothing that is worth fixing inside. Either you have a warranty that will replace the item, or you toss it and get another one. This applies just as much to the MiniDSP as to your other modern electronic gadgets. Most local retailers will just direct you to the MFG warranty, and you have to send it in to an authorized repair shop. Not so different!
This is not the case. There are the "in a box" products. These include the 2x4 and 4x10 crossovers. I own both of these and they are ready to use, no assembly required. These are likely the only two products that you should be focusing on if you want plug-and-play operation.
Each input and output channel of the MiniDSP crossovers has gain control, that is you can reduce the gain for each independently. This allows you to balance the levels for your amps without any external resistors, etc.
The Ashley AC24 crossover is a limited compared to any of the other DSP crossovers you mentioned. For the difference in price, the MiniDSP crossovers give you much greater control capability, if you know how to make use of it.
-Charlie
Mini DSP
Thanks again for the reply.
I just looked at the mini dsp site and you're right! They do offer their 4 X 10 assembled and boxed. I downloaded their instruction manual and it appears to be fairly easy to program with my home computer. And, it also allows me to add a 4th amp in the near future.
Thanks again for your info and help.
Mike
Thanks again for the reply.
I just looked at the mini dsp site and you're right! They do offer their 4 X 10 assembled and boxed. I downloaded their instruction manual and it appears to be fairly easy to program with my home computer. And, it also allows me to add a 4th amp in the near future.
Thanks again for your info and help.
Mike
Whatever you do, dont forget to come back and tell us what you ended up doing, and what you think of the sound...
Mini DSP
Just for anyone's information.
I e mailed the Development Team at Mini DSP and got a very thorough reply.
They said with the "4 X 10" I would have the options of using the cd player as a transport and sending its digital signal direct to the processor of the unit and keep the signal digital all the way to the DAC outputs for the tri amps. Use its volume control.
Or, it would accept the cd players analog signal and I could continue to use my preamps passive volume control and the cd players DAC.
On their web site I downloaded their very thorough instruction manual that is quite east to understand! It programs on my home PC. It is all enclosed in one "plug and play" box with standard RCA inputs and outputs.
Thanks again for the links and help.
Mike
Just for anyone's information.
I e mailed the Development Team at Mini DSP and got a very thorough reply.
They said with the "4 X 10" I would have the options of using the cd player as a transport and sending its digital signal direct to the processor of the unit and keep the signal digital all the way to the DAC outputs for the tri amps. Use its volume control.
Or, it would accept the cd players analog signal and I could continue to use my preamps passive volume control and the cd players DAC.
On their web site I downloaded their very thorough instruction manual that is quite east to understand! It programs on my home PC. It is all enclosed in one "plug and play" box with standard RCA inputs and outputs.
Thanks again for the links and help.
Mike
Check again the Najda : it has also digital outs and volume control with standard remote, and is more powerful and flexible (allows IIR AND FIR), which will allow minimum phase filtering
Little bit more DIY though, components soldered but you have to connect LCD display and PSU (easy)
Excellent sounding
Jean-Louis
Hi Erin and thanks for your interest.
I haven't come to a decision yet. Although I've been reading and learning much about digital signal processing as well as drivers and sub woofers.
Someone on here pointed out that the DAC and output stage on my Adcom GCD 750 CD player is still "first rate". And that using the DAC's on a Mini DSP 4x 10 might be a step down in sound quality.
If I can find a DSP that is capable of four outputs and has a digital to analog stage that is equal to or better than my Adcom's, then I'll try it.
Any input from you is still appreciated.
I haven't come to a decision yet. Although I've been reading and learning much about digital signal processing as well as drivers and sub woofers.
Someone on here pointed out that the DAC and output stage on my Adcom GCD 750 CD player is still "first rate". And that using the DAC's on a Mini DSP 4x 10 might be a step down in sound quality.
If I can find a DSP that is capable of four outputs and has a digital to analog stage that is equal to or better than my Adcom's, then I'll try it.
Any input from you is still appreciated.
Your CD player uses the PCM1702 DAC which is one of the best ever made. ( I own a Denon home theatre pre amp containing these chips, and they sound great. The PMD100 upsamplig chip is also very good (so I am told, but I never heard that one).
You wont find any active crossovers containing this sort of chip set.
The PCM1702 uses R2R conversion, and to my ears they tend to sound much better than delta sigma DAC's.
My favourite sounding DAC chips are TDA1541A, PCM1702 PCM58 and PCM53.
I'm somewhat in the same boat as you. I would like to go for an active crossover setup for all the benefits brought by this arrangement, but like you, I dont want to use an inferior DAC chip on the output which will compromise the sound. I am interested to try the nanoDIGI 2x8 K, because I have enough DAC's that use the aforementioned good sounding chips, but I am somewhat offput by the upsampling chip on that board. I have never heard an upsampling chip that didnt impart its own sonic signature (in a negative way). I would also personally prefer a SHARC DSP chip rather than the analog devices chip used on that board.
So, like you I am at an impasse.
I have thought about using a Behringer DCX2496 and using wolfson WM8804 to generate a SPDIF output for each stereo channel. However this is costly, and may end up not sounding as good as I hope, in which case it would be a huge wase of money on an experiment.
You wont find any active crossovers containing this sort of chip set.
The PCM1702 uses R2R conversion, and to my ears they tend to sound much better than delta sigma DAC's.
My favourite sounding DAC chips are TDA1541A, PCM1702 PCM58 and PCM53.
I'm somewhat in the same boat as you. I would like to go for an active crossover setup for all the benefits brought by this arrangement, but like you, I dont want to use an inferior DAC chip on the output which will compromise the sound. I am interested to try the nanoDIGI 2x8 K, because I have enough DAC's that use the aforementioned good sounding chips, but I am somewhat offput by the upsampling chip on that board. I have never heard an upsampling chip that didnt impart its own sonic signature (in a negative way). I would also personally prefer a SHARC DSP chip rather than the analog devices chip used on that board.
So, like you I am at an impasse.
I have thought about using a Behringer DCX2496 and using wolfson WM8804 to generate a SPDIF output for each stereo channel. However this is costly, and may end up not sounding as good as I hope, in which case it would be a huge wase of money on an experiment.
The only other thing I have to add, is that I do have an active crossover in my TV system, and it uses the AK4393 dac chip (same as the Behringer) 24dB crossovers do sound wonderful. What you get is a very clean sound where the speaker drivers crossover. Sibilance and smearing is reduced becuase there is a sharper roll off at the crossover frequency. When I go back to listening to passive speakers, I do tend to notice the characteristic sound of 12dB crossovers. They are not as clean.
I dont have the anwers. I think if at all possible you should try to find someone or a shop to borrow an active crossover, and try one for yourself.
I dont have the anwers. I think if at all possible you should try to find someone or a shop to borrow an active crossover, and try one for yourself.
Thanks again for your advice and info.
I have been using Marchand Electronics XM-6 active crossovers. One feeding a second one to produce two crossover points and a 3 way triamplified system.
In the desire to create a 4 way system I began to look into DSP and in particular,Mini DSP 4x 10. Marchand does produce a 4 way analog.
Ideally, I would like have an all digital system. CD transport / digital 4 way xover with software similar to DEQX that corrects driver as well as room issues / best 4 way digital to analog converters / 4 Class A amplifiers.
That would be simple to use.
Thanks again!
I have been using Marchand Electronics XM-6 active crossovers. One feeding a second one to produce two crossover points and a 3 way triamplified system.
In the desire to create a 4 way system I began to look into DSP and in particular,Mini DSP 4x 10. Marchand does produce a 4 way analog.
Ideally, I would like have an all digital system. CD transport / digital 4 way xover with software similar to DEQX that corrects driver as well as room issues / best 4 way digital to analog converters / 4 Class A amplifiers.
That would be simple to use.
Thanks again!
After spending quite some time thinking about this, I have a rather strong hunch that for the best SQ, putting the crossover function in the digital domain isn't going to be the optimum choice. That's because to my ears, bandlimiting a DAC's output has given me the best results. So I reckon that putting say an LR4 XO digitally before a DAC won't sound as good as a PLLXO after the DAC.
In order to test out my hunch I'm building an LR4 (24dB slopes) with inductors and caps and will put this after my DAC. Digital still has tremendous benefits in room correction, driver response flattening, and phase correction. But I'm far from convinced its the ideal way to go for implementing an XO. Hopefully my current build (ongoing on my blog) will help me find out if my hunch is a valid one.
<edit> I see that Marchand has the XM46 passive line-level XO. This I believe would be the way to go but the limitation there is its working from a 1k impedance and hence will need a rather beefy buffer stage to drive it. An ordinary line out will have its dynamics sapped driving into 1k.
In order to test out my hunch I'm building an LR4 (24dB slopes) with inductors and caps and will put this after my DAC. Digital still has tremendous benefits in room correction, driver response flattening, and phase correction. But I'm far from convinced its the ideal way to go for implementing an XO. Hopefully my current build (ongoing on my blog) will help me find out if my hunch is a valid one.
<edit> I see that Marchand has the XM46 passive line-level XO. This I believe would be the way to go but the limitation there is its working from a 1k impedance and hence will need a rather beefy buffer stage to drive it. An ordinary line out will have its dynamics sapped driving into 1k.
Last edited:
Richard, what are your thoughts on the importance of phase linear crossovers, and time alignment? I think that when using a digital source, digital crossovers are the ideal crossover, but i am personally not enamoured with the currently available options.
Last edited:
Basically there is no difference in analogue and digital filters if digital is IIR. The transferfunctions and phase distortions are the same. FIR is another thing - this is the only method to make phaselinear filters.
IIR filter can be better if used 100% digital = digital in and I2S out to PWM amplifier - simply because you skip the analogue path entirely. The downside is that you won't find that many I2S amplifier around.
IIR filter can be better if used 100% digital = digital in and I2S out to PWM amplifier - simply because you skip the analogue path entirely. The downside is that you won't find that many I2S amplifier around.
I'm almost totally ignorant on this subject I'm afraid. I do think that 'linear phase' in digital filters is highly overrated though and would always tend to go for a minimum phase, but FIR architecture rather than IIR. Phase linearisation in the bass though is definitely worth having - that is correcting the loudspeaker's natural highpass function for phase.
I tend to agree, the digital crossovers that are currently available aren't designed with attention to DAC and ADC sound quality. Its apparent to me that the weakest link in any digital system has to be the converters, they need all the assistance they can get from the supporting system/circuitry to put out the best sound. I rather feel until we get standardized measurements for noise modulation which show up S-D weaknesses very clearly in an objective fashion that they'll be the chips of choice for the vast majority of digital XO designs. Those of us who hear their colourations will just have to roll our own - which suits me fine.
If I am correct in reading the replies to my original question of "which active crossover is better, analog or digital"? Then analog is still best!??
I'm currently using two Marchand XM-6 active crossovers (no longer in production) in line (one after the other) that gives me two adjustable xover points and 3 outputs for a tri amped system.
I'm considering buying another XM 9 active xover to add to the line up and thus give me a fourth output for an additional amp and two pairs of 15" sub woofers.
Does anyone think this is a bad idea?
Does stringing the active xovers which use op amps, multiply or increase distortion?
Finally, I'd like to say I have been a long time fan of the now since deceased engineer and designer "John Dunlavy". My self built loudspeakers mimic his SC IV 3 ways. So I am anxious to hear the opinions of many of the posters here.
Before Dunlavy passed, there is some evidence that he was experimenting with a speaker called the "Magnus". It was to be a large 3 way speaker utilizing DSP 24 bit filtering and 3 Class A 200 watt amplifiers. It appears this was what he thought audio in the future should be.
Thanks to all again for your opinions and regarded thoughts.
I'm currently using two Marchand XM-6 active crossovers (no longer in production) in line (one after the other) that gives me two adjustable xover points and 3 outputs for a tri amped system.
I'm considering buying another XM 9 active xover to add to the line up and thus give me a fourth output for an additional amp and two pairs of 15" sub woofers.
Does anyone think this is a bad idea?
Does stringing the active xovers which use op amps, multiply or increase distortion?
Finally, I'd like to say I have been a long time fan of the now since deceased engineer and designer "John Dunlavy". My self built loudspeakers mimic his SC IV 3 ways. So I am anxious to hear the opinions of many of the posters here.
Before Dunlavy passed, there is some evidence that he was experimenting with a speaker called the "Magnus". It was to be a large 3 way speaker utilizing DSP 24 bit filtering and 3 Class A 200 watt amplifiers. It appears this was what he thought audio in the future should be.
Thanks to all again for your opinions and regarded thoughts.
An analog XO is only going to be better than a digital one if its a purely passive one. As the Marchand blurb says, the passive XO is lower noise. Yes, I reckon stringing together opamp-based XOs isn't such a great idea - it will exacerbate noise.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.