Digital Crossover

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

JBdV

Member
2009-03-29 11:26 am
I am looking for an available diy project for a digital crossover for loudspeakers.

A Behringer DCX2496 is way too big.

I need only simple low off filter functionality. So hopefully a small unit I can build myself can do the job.

I want to connect this crossover in the digital domain (within the digital loop of my NAD M2)

Any suggestions?
 

FredrikC

Member
2010-08-25 7:24 pm
If you use the search function for miniDSP you will find that many are very happy with the performance, and there have been direct comparisons with the Behringer unit and also DEQX.
The miniDSP should be a better choice for most people cause it's designed for normal equipment, where the Behringer is designed for much hotter signals, both in and out, and will therefor have a bad S/N with allot of hi-fi type of amps and sources. Also because the miniDSP boards has a limited functionality they are very fast, and reprecent very little delay compared to many other DSP solutions.

For optimum sound quality use digital in, and have an anologue volumecontrol after the DSP. A bit complicated since there aren't many multichannel pre amps (you could build yourself). The miniDSP can controll volume digitally, but with a high gain amplifier and sensitive loudspeakers this could mean that you reduce the bit depth too much, getting bad S/N.
 
Last edited:

FredrikC

Member
2010-08-25 7:24 pm
If u use analog in, the DSP is going to do an A/D and then an D/A conversion anyways, so you won't benefit from the D/A conversion in your CD player.
You're just gonna increase the amount of conversions, and thats rarely a good thing.

If you put a preamp in front it could be even worse because you could be feeding the DSP a weak signal, again increasing noise and reducing dynamics.

If you want best possible soundquality, keep the signal digital as longs as possible.
If you want a better D/A converter than the one in miniDSP than the Behringer is'nt an alternative. Then you need to look for solutiouns with digital outpoots so that you can use an external D/A converter, but then again, you would need one for each channel = rare and exspensive.
You could use a computer with software and special soundcards, but it's advanced and requires some computer skill, and playing around with plug ins.

If the miniDSP is to cheap for you, and you want an easy, does it all, premium product I think you need an DEQX.
 
Last edited:

doug20

Member
2009-03-22 9:38 pm
If you use the search function for miniDSP you will find that many are very happy with the performance, and there have been direct comparisons with the Behringer unit and also DEQX.
The miniDSP should be a better choice for most people cause it's designed for normal equipment, where the Behringer is designed for much hotter signals, both in and out, and will therefor have a bad S/N with allot of hi-fi type of amps and sources. Also because the miniDSP boards has a limited functionality they are very fast, and reprecent very little delay compared to many other DSP solutions.

For optimum sound quality use digital in, and have an anologue volumecontrol after the DSP. A bit complicated since there aren't many multichannel pre amps (you could build yourself). The miniDSP can controll volume digitally, but with a high gain amplifier and sensitive loudspeakers this could mean that you reduce the bit depth too much, getting bad S/N.

Im one of those that has DCXs in their system for years. I now have 2 MiniDSPs and another one on the way.

I can not say enough good things about them. They do not have the "on the fly" tweaking ability of the DCX and I will keep the DCX around for prototyping.

Now if we could someone how add phase correction the the MiniDSP it would be even more incredible.

FWIW, I have zero noise issues with my waveguide/CDs or my ribbon designs. I actually hear less noise then what I did always with the DCX etc.

Im also one that thinks the A/D then D/A worries are overplayed. I have done DBTs with passive XOs vs Active XOs on the same speakers and there isnt any proof that one sounds better over the other. That is still a choice for others to make though. Im extremely happy with my solution.
 
Last edited:

FredrikC

Member
2010-08-25 7:24 pm
Im one of those that has DCXs in their system for years. I now have 2 MiniDSPs and another one on the way.

I can not say enough good things about them. They do not have the "on the fly" tweaking ability of the DCX and I will keep the DCX around for prototyping.

Now if we could someone how add phase correction the the MiniDSP it would be even more incredible.

FWIW, I have zero noise issues with my waveguide/CDs or my ribbon designs. I actually hear less noise then what I did always with the DCX etc.

Great feedback! I have ordered them myself aswell, can't wait to start playing with them =) I'll be using them on a 2-way with wave guide.

The greatest thing about the miniDSP is really they way they keep upgrading it through new plug ins and new I/O cards, so the functionality is almost limitless. It will not be outdated.
 
Does anyone have any input on which would sound (quality) better between the MiniDSP and the DBX 260? Anyone know what the chip set is used in the DBX 260? Im not so clear on the specs of either and which will apply used with an analog input. 24/96 24/48...ect. The miniDSP states a 48bit dsp....what is the DBX at?

I like the minimalist approach with the MiniDSP but if the DBX has more to it and sounds as good, I dont mind the price. 1k is OK for now.
 

doug20

Member
2009-03-22 9:38 pm
Does anyone have any input on which would sound (quality) better between the MiniDSP and the DBX 260? Anyone know what the chip set is used in the DBX 260? Im not so clear on the specs of either and which will apply used with an analog input. 24/96 24/48...ect. The miniDSP states a 48bit dsp....what is the DBX at?

I like the minimalist approach with the MiniDSP but if the DBX has more to it and sounds as good, I dont mind the price. 1k is OK for now.

Sound Quality discussion is highly subjective so is worrying about chipsets. 99.9% of the population will not hear or care abut the difference if there is any and there has never been enough measurement difference to back up most claims. Although from your posts maybe you are that .1% and this product isn't for you....its obviously too cheap to be good ;)

IMO, you are either building pro audio setups or you are not. Pick the product that meets the requirements of the project better.

Also, the DBX, DCX etc. will not have "more to them". You have to understand that the MiniDSP allows for advanced programming with biquads that means you can build any filter you want. If you understand this you will realize that gives it incredible flexibility.
 
Does anyone have any input on which would sound (quality) better between the MiniDSP and the DBX 260? Anyone know what the chip set is used in the DBX 260? Im not so clear on the specs of either and which will apply used with an analog input. 24/96 24/48...ect. The miniDSP states a 48bit dsp....what is the DBX at?

I like the minimalist approach with the MiniDSP but if the DBX has more to it and sounds as good, I dont mind the price. 1k is OK for now.

Personally the mini DSP sounds like it will be a downgrade in your system. Why a DSP unit anyway ?
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.