I don't know the XM46. Is there any schematic in the website?
I do believe that we must take the driver's acoustical response into account when designing and building a line level XO (active or passive), unless we are sure that both of the drivers mounted in the baffle/box are flat within at least 1-2 octaves from the XO point.
I do believe that we must take the driver's acoustical response into account when designing and building a line level XO (active or passive), unless we are sure that both of the drivers mounted in the baffle/box are flat within at least 1-2 octaves from the XO point.
HiFiNutNut said:
There's a schematic in the manual: http://www.marchandelec.com/ftp/xm46man.pdf
HiFiNutNut said:
Absolutely. In fact in my system I use a second-order high-pass and a third-order low-pass to arrive at fourth-order acoustic slopes.
+1 for the XM46
I'm using a 4th order at, 70hz, high pass XM46s on a pair of Omega Aperiodic 8s, using the Visaton B200 drivers with a correction circuit. Also using an Onix Rocket UFW-12 sub which comes with a R-DES 5 band parametric for low pass and correction for the sub. I split the signal from a Creek OBH-12 passive attenuator to feed both. Previously I had used the built in filters from the sub and/or a Behringer CX2300 for XO and the XM46 is miles better, transparency wise, than either. I had considered using a DCX but that requires extensive mods, which I'm not capable of, to be useable. The XM46s are as transparent a componet as one could ever hope to use.
I'm using a 4th order at, 70hz, high pass XM46s on a pair of Omega Aperiodic 8s, using the Visaton B200 drivers with a correction circuit. Also using an Onix Rocket UFW-12 sub which comes with a R-DES 5 band parametric for low pass and correction for the sub. I split the signal from a Creek OBH-12 passive attenuator to feed both. Previously I had used the built in filters from the sub and/or a Behringer CX2300 for XO and the XM46 is miles better, transparency wise, than either. I had considered using a DCX but that requires extensive mods, which I'm not capable of, to be useable. The XM46s are as transparent a componet as one could ever hope to use.
konut said:
But doesn't that violate the two octaves rule we were discussing above? What's the F3 on the Omegas? Are they ported or sealed? It doesn't seem to me that you would end up with a fourth-oirder slope given the above implementation.
Its an aperiodic design using 2 Scan Speak flow resistance vents per cab. F3 is specified as 40hz. The beauty is I can tailor the R-DES to feather in the sub. Seemless transition both measured and heard.
konut said:
That R-Des is a sweet unit. I looked at it but I passed because it only offers 2nd and 4th order slopes. The Rocket UFW-10 woofers roll off naturally at 6dB/octave above 100 Hz, so with an 80 Hz filter I needed 3rd order electrical to end up with 4th-order acoustic.
Thanks for the schematic. It IS a PLLXO.
I have no doubt it has the best sonic provided that the filter response is correct. Both the preamp output impedance and the power amp input impedance need to be taken into account when choosing the values of the components. Insertion loss can be compensated from your bass volume adjustment from the XM46. I would probably use LTSpice to model the PLLXO, and use the FRC Excel Spreadsheet to combine the responses of the filter (from LTSpice) and the measured on-baffle driver response. The final response should match that of standard LR3, B3, LR4 or whatever you choose, not just the order, but Q, etc.
Best of luck.
Regards,
Bill
I have no doubt it has the best sonic provided that the filter response is correct. Both the preamp output impedance and the power amp input impedance need to be taken into account when choosing the values of the components. Insertion loss can be compensated from your bass volume adjustment from the XM46. I would probably use LTSpice to model the PLLXO, and use the FRC Excel Spreadsheet to combine the responses of the filter (from LTSpice) and the measured on-baffle driver response. The final response should match that of standard LR3, B3, LR4 or whatever you choose, not just the order, but Q, etc.
Best of luck.
Regards,
Bill
I'm starting to despair of ever finding a crossover that's truly transparent. The XM46SB is out of the system for now. It seems to suck the dynamics out of the music.
audiobomber said:
And back in again. I re-tried the Fmods and the monitors on their own and with the subs. The passive Marchand is still the best compromise so far.
audiobomber said:
I think I may have had it installed backwards. It sounds great right now. Talk about embarrassing.
I give up. I'm running the BESL's full-range with the subs coming in below, through their internal crossovers. Everything I've tried between the amps and preamp has its own sonic thumbprint, including FMods. XM44 and XM46. I rarely listen above 90 dB anyway.
How would you know?
Sorry, I know this post is 7 years old, and the info I'm reading here is generally very good.
I totally get changing a piece of gear in a system, and only that one piece, and suddenly hearing a veil lifted. I think we've all experienced this.
So to know if the Marchand added a veil, it seems that you must have already had your system set up with another active crossover, and then you put in the Marchand (with no other changes) and then you heard a veiled difference.
If this is the case, and the only thing changed in your system was the active crossover, I think we'd all like to know which other active crossover you think is better.
But if you never heard it sounding better, how could you know if the Marchand added a veil?
Of course, anything in the system takes away from whatever went before. You can't shine sh*t. But to know better or worse, you need to know something better or worse before that.
I have no idea if this will even be read, since the last post is so old, but I had to ask.
Sorry, I know this post is 7 years old, and the info I'm reading here is generally very good.
I totally get changing a piece of gear in a system, and only that one piece, and suddenly hearing a veil lifted. I think we've all experienced this.
So to know if the Marchand added a veil, it seems that you must have already had your system set up with another active crossover, and then you put in the Marchand (with no other changes) and then you heard a veiled difference.
If this is the case, and the only thing changed in your system was the active crossover, I think we'd all like to know which other active crossover you think is better.
But if you never heard it sounding better, how could you know if the Marchand added a veil?
Of course, anything in the system takes away from whatever went before. You can't shine sh*t. But to know better or worse, you need to know something better or worse before that.
I have no idea if this will even be read, since the last post is so old, but I had to ask.
Last edited:
I have the Marchand tube crossover a solid state crossover using opamps and the Marchand passive crossover.
The Marchand crossover sounds noticeable better than the tube and solid state crossovers which sound about the same
The output impedance of the Dac and input impedance of the amp form part of the filter so if you change components in the system.
In my case my Elgar DAC had on output impedance of 50R so it is set up for that.
My phono stage has an output impedance of 500R so it would not crossover at the design frequency..
A crossover using active compoments would work of course with both.
The Marchand crossover sounds noticeable better than the tube and solid state crossovers which sound about the same
The output impedance of the Dac and input impedance of the amp form part of the filter so if you change components in the system.
In my case my Elgar DAC had on output impedance of 50R so it is set up for that.
My phono stage has an output impedance of 500R so it would not crossover at the design frequency..
A crossover using active compoments would work of course with both.
You say it right!
Hey Dan: You are absolutely right -on all counts. M. Colloms is indeed highly respected. Equally important is your/our own understanding of such terms (Pace/Rhythm) but also terms such as 'finesse', articulation', 'balance', 'speed/dynamics' -heck even 'swing/jump' etc. All valid. All understandable. All easy to hear.
And yet, there are those who treat music/hi-fi like a tea kettle, about as deaf/dumb as they come; they couldn't 'judge' SQ unless they were looking at a specification page. I feel bad for these guys -but don't when they start spewing about their inability to detect both gross and nuanced SQ distinctions between equipment, cables, cross-overs,etc.
There are many sensible, honest respected hi-fi journalists', industry experts and indeed audiophiles who are capable of discussing, and ultimately enjoying such distinctions as are being discussed here.
Right then, carry on ...
pj
Hey Dan: You are absolutely right -on all counts. M. Colloms is indeed highly respected. Equally important is your/our own understanding of such terms (Pace/Rhythm) but also terms such as 'finesse', articulation', 'balance', 'speed/dynamics' -heck even 'swing/jump' etc. All valid. All understandable. All easy to hear.
And yet, there are those who treat music/hi-fi like a tea kettle, about as deaf/dumb as they come; they couldn't 'judge' SQ unless they were looking at a specification page. I feel bad for these guys -but don't when they start spewing about their inability to detect both gross and nuanced SQ distinctions between equipment, cables, cross-overs,etc.
There are many sensible, honest respected hi-fi journalists', industry experts and indeed audiophiles who are capable of discussing, and ultimately enjoying such distinctions as are being discussed here.
Right then, carry on ...
pj