waxx, it might be true that Minidsp is rather lower end solution, but we can build low-cost-high-end active system with a computer with professional 8 channel AD/DA, which is very reasonable price unlike many "audiophile" DAC. We can also use a computer as a streamer/crossover/DSP/measurement gear. I think it's hard to beat the price-performance ratio of this combination.
I agree that the "computer" or old PC hardware is a widely available hardware resource that's at times overlooked and when realized, hard to beat for the flexibility / costs.
Please link precisely what is meant by "professional 8 channel AD/DA" for those like myself that dont know off the top of their head.
DSP capable amps are coming available with BT connection. Although I believe limited to the lower sample rates, done right one can enjoy a fully digital signal path from music file to speaker driver terminal. I find that attractive; no RCA / XLR cables, capacitors, tubes, ground loops or going through a second A/D conversion for DSP functionality necessary.
I assume the DSP feature set of these amplifiers is only going to widen in the future, to where the music source device only needs to store and stream music files. Wouldnt it be great if such an amp just reads your convolution files for every driver channel - and the overall room response?
I use a MiniDSP 4x10 to run an active 3-way system with a 18" woofer, 8" midrange, and compression driver/horn as my main system. My active crossover is sitting on a shelf and hasn't been powered on since I got the MiniDSP.
I use a 2x4HD for prototyping and testing new speaker designs before I lay out the first try at a passive network.
Sometimes, DSP just solves a lot of problems that are difficult to address with a passive network. Each has it's place, but DSP is definitely a game-changer for the DIY'er. Especially if you like building amps as well as speakers.
I use a 2x4HD for prototyping and testing new speaker designs before I lay out the first try at a passive network.
Sometimes, DSP just solves a lot of problems that are difficult to address with a passive network. Each has it's place, but DSP is definitely a game-changer for the DIY'er. Especially if you like building amps as well as speakers.
I also have a MiniDSP 4x10 and do not find it lacking in any way. It is paired with 8 channels of 125W/channel Class D amplification.
I thought about going the PC + outboard DAC route, but decided that I wanted my audio system to act like audio systems used to - push a button to turn it on and put on a record (or CD, or stream). The 4x10 lets me do that. Config 1 is for vinyl, config 2 is for the Mac (where all of my CDs have been ripped), etc. Even my very non-technical wife can use it.
I thought about going the PC + outboard DAC route, but decided that I wanted my audio system to act like audio systems used to - push a button to turn it on and put on a record (or CD, or stream). The 4x10 lets me do that. Config 1 is for vinyl, config 2 is for the Mac (where all of my CDs have been ripped), etc. Even my very non-technical wife can use it.
It seems you walk to the MiniDSP from the active which active did you have................Rane RPM 88 dual rack space...
The RPM 88 is a "drag and drop" configurable, multi-process DSP-based device, set up and controlled using Rane's Drag Net software and offering the ultimate in signal processing flexibility, allowing the engineer to draw the system needed without signal flow restrictions. The control software provides complete display and control, in graphical form, of all signal processing configurations and functions, downloadable from a computer via a rear panel port.
Familiar Windows file management tools and shortcuts are incorporated into the Drag Net software, allowing complete project management within a single interface. Industry standard 10Base-T Ethernet is used to communicate between the unit and any Ethernet-equipped PC running Microsoft Windows.
The RPM 88 provides eight balanced, line-level analog inputs and eight balanced analog outputs featuring software-controllable microphone preamps with an equivalent input noise (EIN) of -128dBu, satisfying even the most demanding audio applications. Also included are standard XLR-type connectors providing stereo AES/EBU I/O. Each I/O, including the digital I/O, has its own, 100% user-defined signal processing path. Grounding screws for direct connection to the metal chassis are provided for solving EMI problems due to shield wiring.
The various DSP functions include parametric and graphic EQ, feedback elimination, crossovers and dynamics along with input and output gain. The processing power of the unit is extremely flexible. For example, the RPM's 400 MIPS can translate into 225 fully parametric EQ filters, should the need arise for multiple channels of fifteen-band parametric EQs and nothing else. With 24-bit converters, greater than 106dB throughput dynamic range and double-precision 48-bit internal DSP math, the RPM 88 offers a stellar integration of DSP algorithms and audio performance.
Multiple units can be controlled from a single computer using low-cost Ethernet switches. The recessed Default button on the rear panel recalls Preset 1 in case of communications failure. The front panel has three-color LED meters for each input and output, allowing fast and intuitive signal flow verification without a computer. Certified as UL, CSA and CE compliant, the RPM 88 is compatible with any installation mandating agency compliance.
I'm curious as to how many board members use active crossovers?
At least a 2 way?
How about 3 way systems ?
With a full blown 4 way, being of course, the cat's meow
I'm curious on this because, it seems to me, that around 1980 there were several active crossovers on the market, but these days, other than Marchand, not so much. Or am I missing something ?
my main system is bi amplified with active crossover, but upper pass is just cap and resistor followed by buffer, lower pass is op amp active
second system upstairs is fully active two way, recently tested three way active, with nice benefit
spare guest room is biamped, with passive crossover buffered before and after the filter
i got two way minidsp, but its not being used right now
many other two way active crossovers in unfinished stages
That could be the reason. And maybe it could also be, that other things change and they misinterpret why the sound change.
Difficult subject - especially because feelings are involved
It will be nice to see more reviews of users like this thread. Especially when it comes to have a MiniDSP alternative.
Often it turns towards Minidsp products and DSP/EQ but we don't see too much analog sytems with Xover behavior only : analog imput(s) towards analog outputs in order to avoid embeded ADC/DAC devices. To be positioned after a dac or before several Dacs (one for each way)
Does it exist without XLR input/output and quiet enough -noise- for hifi needs at a lower price point ? Or is it still with pots when there are Xover setuping without computer aid ? Or does the PA world throwed those on garbadge because it's all digital nowadays ?
Ah ! Capacitors vendors should lowish the price of their too much expensive polypro caps in front of all these cheaper active solutions... 50 to 200 usd for a cap is just crazy, best margin business ever with toothpaste !
Edit : sorry, forget : Passive but in the way to try active for a diy speaker (minimal EQ needed though)
Often it turns towards Minidsp products and DSP/EQ but we don't see too much analog sytems with Xover behavior only : analog imput(s) towards analog outputs in order to avoid embeded ADC/DAC devices. To be positioned after a dac or before several Dacs (one for each way)
Does it exist without XLR input/output and quiet enough -noise- for hifi needs at a lower price point ? Or is it still with pots when there are Xover setuping without computer aid ? Or does the PA world throwed those on garbadge because it's all digital nowadays ?
Ah ! Capacitors vendors should lowish the price of their too much expensive polypro caps in front of all these cheaper active solutions... 50 to 200 usd for a cap is just crazy, best margin business ever with toothpaste !
Edit : sorry, forget : Passive but in the way to try active for a diy speaker (minimal EQ needed though)
Last edited:
I'm hybrid. Analogue Active crossover between the 10" drivers and my MTM, and passive on the MTM.
True to form though, I didn't do a "normal" active crossover, that would be too easy I had to go and design my own. Something that I could't find that anyone else had done (well SY had done the gyrator for the high pass), the FDNR on the low pass is not something I've seen anywhere else (except in app notes as an anti-aliasing filter).
Tony.
True to form though, I didn't do a "normal" active crossover, that would be too easy
I had to go and design my own. Something that I could't find that anyone else had done (well SY had done the gyrator for the high pass), the FDNR on the low pass is not something I've seen anywhere else (except in app notes as an anti-aliasing filter). Tony.
Last edited:
4-way active via dsp,
FIR based driver-by-driver correction,
and complementary linear phase xovers
I've tried FIR correction on speakers already tuned either passively, analog active, or digital active...without any real success. Not worth the trouble ime/imo.
However, the driver-by-driver approach along with linear phase xovers has definitely been worth the effort. (I think the driver-by-driver approach is more important than the linear phase aspect.)
FIR both greatly facilitates driver-by-driver tuning, and also makes xovers vastly simpler by avoiding phase rotations and group delays.
I've used 8 channels of minDSP openDRC, PC convolution via JRiver,
and currently open architecture drag-and-drop Q-Sys, on a Core110f.
Interconnects are ethernet cables
FIR based driver-by-driver correction,
and complementary linear phase xovers
I've tried FIR correction on speakers already tuned either passively, analog active, or digital active...without any real success. Not worth the trouble ime/imo.
However, the driver-by-driver approach along with linear phase xovers has definitely been worth the effort. (I think the driver-by-driver approach is more important than the linear phase aspect.)
FIR both greatly facilitates driver-by-driver tuning, and also makes xovers vastly simpler by avoiding phase rotations and group delays.
I've used 8 channels of minDSP openDRC, PC convolution via JRiver,
and currently open architecture drag-and-drop Q-Sys, on a Core110f.
Interconnects are ethernet cables
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.