Login / Register
 
Electronic crossovers _ analog or digital ?
New Reply
Subscribe
ginetto61
Thread Starter
#1
18th September 2011
Old 18th September 2011
  #1
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Stavanger (NORWAY)
Posts: 129

Thread Starter
ginetto61 is offline
Electronic crossovers _ analog or digital ?

Hello !

I have a cheap Behringer analog crossover
I read that digital ones are better.
For instance they allow for steeper filters, time alignment ... etc.
There is any 3D dealing with digital crossovers ?
I would start as cheap as possible ... just to get some idea of the outcome
Thank you very much indeed
Kind regards,
gino
#2
18th September 2011
Old 18th September 2011
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Kiwi's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,950

Kiwi is offline
Context?
ginetto61
Thread Starter
#3
18th September 2011
Old 18th September 2011
  #3
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Stavanger (NORWAY)
Posts: 129

Thread Starter
ginetto61 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
Context?
Well ... I am on DIY. I would try to biamp some 2 ways speakers I have just to hear what is the best at home.
I have already the power amps and a line preamp.
Nothing serious
Actually I have the feeling that a good speaker if correctly multiamplified could sound better than used as passive speaker, with the signal coming from the power amp and passing through the internal speaker's crossover.
To be short, I would try the multiamplification and listen for any improvement.
I have already used the analog crossover and it was nice
I wonder how could it be with a digital one, with all the eq possibilities and steeper filters and so on ..
regards,
gino
#4
18th September 2011
Old 18th September 2011
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Kiwi's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,950

Kiwi is offline
So it's not for a live PA, but more for studio monitoring or maybe a home hifi? That's what I mean by context - what the hell are ya trying to do?

The obvious thing about digital crossover's is that the quality of D/A conversion is a huge factor. Most of us try to get the best D/A for monitoring - and it's not cheap to get a high quality two channel converter.

It would be suicidal to then dissect that high quality analog signal with cheap Behringer A/D and D/A ...

Passive crossovers have their own limitation of course, but they would have to be spectacularly bad to approach the damage done by cheap digital conversion.

What you could consider would be using high quality converters and high quality digital plugin crossovers ... perhaps linear phase filters. That would be worthwhile experimenting with.

I imagine that most electronic crossovers are design for live PA rigs, where Quantity of sound is far more important than Quality (at least to typical venue sound operators).
ginetto61
Thread Starter
#5
18th September 2011
Old 18th September 2011
  #5
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Stavanger (NORWAY)
Posts: 129

Thread Starter
ginetto61 is offline
[QUOTE=Kiwi;7044111]So it's not for a live PA, but more for studio monitoring or maybe a home hifi?
That's what I mean by context - what the hell are ya trying to do?

Yes ! It's a home hifi context. I should have said that.

The obvious thing about digital crossover's is that the quality of D/A conversion is a huge factor. Most of us try to get the best D/A for monitoring - and it's not cheap to get a high quality two channel converter.
It would be suicidal to then dissect that high quality analog signal with cheap Behringer A/D and D/A ...
Passive crossovers have their own limitation of course, but they would have to be spectacularly bad to approach the damage done by cheap digital conversion.
What you could consider would be using high quality converters and high quality digital plugin crossovers ... perhaps linear phase filters. That would be worthwhile experimenting with.
I imagine that most electronic crossovers are design for live PA rigs, where Quantity of sound is far more important than Quality (at least to typical venue sound operators)

I understand it is not an easy task.
But do you think that active biamplification using a analog active crossover could bring any benefit or not ?
Thanks and regards,
gino
#6
18th September 2011
Old 18th September 2011
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Kiwi's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,950

Kiwi is offline
How much do you want to spend? Are you playing files from a CD player, or from a computer? What converters are you using?

In the scheme of things, I think the crossover is probably the least significant area to concentrate on, until you have everything else in order.

The components of your speakers, and the cabinet dimensions and construction are hugely important.

Well chosen commercial passive speakers will sound good with their internal passive crossover. Are you building your own speakers?

If I wanted to get geeky about hifi - I would probably consider getting something like an Apogee symphony or similar with 8 high quality D/A, and upsample my CD collection to 24/96 or 24/88.2 with something like Voxengo R8Brain. Then clone the stereo tracks to 3 new stereo tracks so that subs, woofers, midrange and tweeters could alll have their own seperate amps (8 channels total).

That would allow individual EQ for each track, using a high end linear phase EQ. Offline processing would allow the highest quality.

The system would have to be fine tuned using a spectrum analyser and measurement microphones. The room would have to be acoustically treated.

Would I ever do this? No - because I don't care enough. I'm more than happy with a simple two channel hifi rig. I think of hifi as being more about listening fun in a real world environment - I don't want to recreate a highly accurate reference monitoring rig at home.
ginetto61
Thread Starter
#7
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #7
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Stavanger (NORWAY)
Posts: 129

Thread Starter
ginetto61 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
How much do you want to spend? Are you playing files from a CD player, or from a computer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
What converters are you using?
In the scheme of things, I think the crossover is probably the least significant area to concentrate on, until you have everything else in order.
The components of your speakers, and the cabinet dimensions and construction are hugely important.
Well chosen commercial passive speakers will sound good with their internal passive crossover. Are you building your own speakers?
If I wanted to get geeky about hifi - I would probably consider getting something like an Apogee symphony or similar with 8 high quality D/A, and upsample my CD collection to 24/96 or 24/88.2 with something like Voxengo R8Brain. Then clone the stereo tracks to 3 new stereo tracks so that subs, woofers, midrange and tweeters could alll have their own seperate amps (8 channels total).
That would allow individual EQ for each track, using a high end linear phase EQ. Offline processing would allow the highest quality.
The system would have to be fine tuned using a spectrum analyser and measurement microphones. The room would have to be acoustically treated.
Would I ever do this? No - because I don't care enough. I'm more than happy with a simple two channel hifi rig. I think of hifi as being more about listening fun in a real world environment - I don't want to recreate a highly accurate reference monitoring rig at home.
I think I have to explain better my intentions.

Lately I read an interesting and enlightening article explaining how passive crossovers are inherently worse than active ones.
On this basis I decided to try an active speaker, starting cheap.
I bought a Behringer 2031A of which I am reasonably pleased, considering how much I paid.
I could not resist and I opened it.
I found a robust amplification device but I also found a cheap woofer, as normal in this level of products.
As I have 3 to 4 pairs of good passive speakers I start thinking about transforming them in active with biamplification.
So I bought a analog elettronic crossover, always from Behringer, and now I am here asking if all this is sane, if it will give me better performance than which I get from Behringer 2031A.
Another option could be to replace the cheap woofers with better ones.

I think I will pass on digital x-over, at least for the moment.
I intend to use this speaker as my main stereo speakers with everything, from music to dvd concerts.

Thank you very much again for you kind and valuable help.
Kind regards,

gino
#8
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #8
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,070

O.F.F. is online now
You have got no idea how much I hate saying this but for your situation I'd recommend the Behringer DCX2496 digital xover.
Easy to try various slopes, types, xoverpoints, time delay etc and you can feed it directly from your computer avoiding extra conversions.
When you find what the ideal settings you could always realize them analogue later on.

You cannot easily swap woofers, woofer and cab work as a unit. You are unlikely to easily find another woofer which would work with a given cab volume and port dimensions.
ginetto61
Thread Starter
#9
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #9
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Stavanger (NORWAY)
Posts: 129

Thread Starter
ginetto61 is offline
[QUOTE=O.F.F.;7045598]You have got no idea how much I hate saying this but for your situation I'd recommend the Behringer DCX2496 digital xover.
Easy to try various slopes, types, xoverpoints, time delay etc and you can feed it directly from your computer avoiding extra conversions.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion.
As I am a beginner when you say that I can feed it directly from your computer I guess I need an interface with a spidf output
Can you recommend me anything of specific ?
I have a laptop running with Windows 7 OS

When you find what the ideal settings you could always realize them analogue later on
You cannot easily swap woofers, woofer and cab work as a unit.
You are unlikely to easily find another woofer which would work with a given cab volume and port dimensions

That is very true indeed. In the 2031a the woofer is a 8" unit crossed at about 2kHz to a 1" tweeter
I searched for a suitable and better replacement but it is very difficult to find a 8" unit able to reach up to 2kHz.
At some point I have even thought to make a circular wooden ring in order to be able to accomodate a really fine 6 or 7" woofer
I fell in love with Scanspeak unit. I have a huge respect for that brand.
I think that Scanspeak drivers are absolutely on the same level of those ones mounted in the most respected pro monitors out there (Genelec, K+H, PMC, etc.)
It is not difficult to understand why. I saw a 6" woofer from Scanspeak
The magnet was almost the same size of the frame
Speaking of fs=25 Hz and Qts=0,2 ... this is good !

Kind regards,
gino
#10
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,099

ray_subsonic is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginetto61 View Post
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Lately I read an interesting and enlightening article explaining how passive crossovers are inherently worse than active ones.
It's good that you mentioned this. Can you link to the article or the author?

While I get that this is an experimental project for you, I simply wanted to counter some basic assumptions which could be misinterpreted from this statement. Straight from the get-go, the above statement is completely subjective and based on the opinion of the writer. I'm sure any manner of data/facts/arguments might be used by by people who want to reinforce an argument in favour of their own opinion. Having done a fair bit of spec'ing, analysing, testing and listening to speakers, PA's and rooms over the years, It's also fair to say that the above statement is not really true.

I've heard some amazing passive speaker systems and PA systems over the years. Some of these were clearly superior to many of the active speakers I've heard. Ask Bob Ludwig, any speaker designer worth their salt, or any Mastering Engineer. Many still use passive speakers, or hybrid bandpassed passive speaker systems in their rooms. It's a given as well that a well designed and well spec'ed active system will usually sound superior to an inferior passive design. It all depends on the usage, the components at hand, and the design. Have Fun though .. There's a lot that can be learned when trialling a setup for an active system.
#11
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #11
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,070

O.F.F. is online now
Sorry but I can't help with the spidf since I use firewire and a Mac.

The problem with woofer swap is not finding one that reaches 2k (can't see that being a major problem) but that a woofer needs very specific port dimensions to work at its best in any given volume cab. If that is not correctly done (and a mm either direction can have a huge impact) the bass could roll off from very high (200Hz or so) or have large response peaks.

Also bear in mind the iron law of speaker design: low bass, high efficiency, small size.
You can pick any TWO of those!
In other words: low bass and small size will inevitably lead to low efficiency.
If you want high efficiency and low bass you will need HUGE cabs.


PS: Scan Speak make some excellent drivers and I would not be surprised to find them in rather expensive monitors. But if you like large magnets have a look at some Volt drivers (10" with 8.1kg magnet) or short-coil ATCs.
Genelec use Peerless woofers, PMC and Quested use Volt in their 8" or larger offerings.
No idea what K+H use but their range topper uses ATC mids.
#12
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #12
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,070

O.F.F. is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray_subsonic View Post
It's good that you mentioned this. Can you link to the article or the author?

I'll say straight from the get-go that the above statement is completely subjective and based on the opinion of the writer. I'm sure any manner of data/facts/arguments might be used by by people who want to reinforce an argument in favour of their own opinion.

Having done a fair share of spec'ing, analysing, testing and listening to speakers, PA's and rooms over the years, I'll also go on record and say that the above statement is a half-truth, and it's also not true. Ask Bob Ludwig, any speaker designer worth their salt, or any Mastering Engineer ..

I've heard some amazing passive speaker systems and PA systems over the years. Some of these were clearly superior to some of the active speakers I've heard. I've also heard some of the better active systems out there as well, which were audibly superior to inferior passive designs.

The only reason I'm posting this is to counter misinformation. Good luck in your audio quest.
I did listen to the designers of the best speakers I have heard: Roger Quested and Billy Woodman. Which is why I use active speakers!
In the last 30 years I have not heard a single passive speaker getting anywhere near an equivalent active one. For example active ATCs are miles better than their otherwise identical passive brothers, same goes for DynaudioAcoustics and my own Tannoy DCs.

It is somewhat telling that proponents of active speakers can and do show actual technical reasons for the superiority of actives while the proponents of passives only ever say "passives can be as good or better than actives" without any technical background.
Xover design for passives is also infinitely more complex than for actives since one has to take impedance, voice coil inductance etc into account.
With actives you can pretty much forget about those things.
#13
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,099

ray_subsonic is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray_subsonic View Post
The above statement is completely subjective and based on the opinion of the writer. I'm sure any manner of data/facts/arguments might be used by by people who want to reinforce an argument in favour of their own opinion.
And I repeat.
#14
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #14
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,070

O.F.F. is online now
And you can repeat ad nauseam.

If you like distortion get passive speakers and a valve amp.
You may like the result just don't call it an accurate representation of the input.

I wouldn't ask mastering engineers the time of day. All the recordings I own with the best sound quality have not been touched by mastering engineers. Their job is to make something sound so it sells (or fits on the chosen media if it is vinyl) which could possibly be 'nice' but not accurate.
#15
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,099

ray_subsonic is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.F.F. View Post
In the last 30 years I have not heard a single passive speaker getting anywhere near an equivalent active one. For example active ATCs are miles better than their otherwise identical passive brothers, same goes for DynaudioAcoustics and my own Tannoy DCs.
Your opinion only. By the sound of it, you have a one-eyed view about the subject based on whichever "speaker guru" you happen to follow. Maybe this isn't about to change. Fine. But trying to extrapolate from that, to argue that Active ATC's are "Better" than passives has nothing to do with the science of speaker/amplifier design. The performance of most passive ATC's (whether SMC 300, 100 or 20) depends on Serious power amplification and appropriate gauge/quality wire to both power them correctly and not induce impedance related tonal variations. Unfortunately this isn't always the case out there in the world.

Having spoken to Roger Quested about this, he confirmed that the greatest problem he had with his large passive monitors, was studio owners buying them sight unseen, for poorly designed rooms, and then going off their design briefs and under budgeting on power amplification, wiring and correct installation, and then blaming the monitors. This is partly why he offers a test/ install/ measurement service for most of his larger monitors and much of his clientele. While that is credit to his relentless quest to deliver to his customers, again, it has nothing to do with active monitors being "Better" than passive.

There are enough people out there who can clearly hear differences between Class A/AB amps and Class D amps. Which is why most manufacturers still offer the choice between active and passive. Some like the speed and efficiency of high current Class D amps on bass, others prefer the sound of Class A/AB for mid/high detail and "euphony", even though they suffer from inefficiency. It all comes down to the usage, the design and implementation, and catering to different people's taste, and different market segments.

Bandpassing and Filtering schemes, whether active or passive, is a contentious subject. They ALL have compromises. There is openly conflicting information wherever you go, but mostly in the Audiophile world. Here, acoustic, electrical and design theory all gets "Selectively" pressed into service as "Sales Propaganda". As always .. Caveat Emptor ..
#16
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #16
Lives for gear
 
ddageek's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 3,863

ddageek is online now
There is no best, only what works for you! A loudspeaker system is a sum of it's parts, no one part or design approach is perfect or best .
I have heard just as many crapy active systems as I have wonderful passive.
Also realize the expense and quality of all of the components in Billy and Rogers systems.
Their Active designs are no compromise in all facets, but they also offer passive systems.
Digital x overs do offer many more scenarios than passive, but you better really like those converters!
__________________
I have had worse days, but hey I've been on fire!

I feel like I should make the pissed smiley my Avitar

Eric Nelson
#17
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,099

ray_subsonic is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.F.F. View Post
If you like distortion get passive speakers and a valve amp. You may like the result just don't call it an accurate representation of the input ... I wouldn't ask mastering engineers the time of day. All the recordings I own with the best sound quality have not been touched by mastering engineers. Their job is to make something sound so it sells (or fits on the chosen media if it is vinyl) which could possibly be 'nice' but not accurate.
While I enjoyed your first few posts, I was a bit floored by some of these statements. That's a very one-eyed view of the Mastering Fraternity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by O.F.F. View Post
I'd recommend the Behringer DCX2496 digital xover.
While I agree that your digital connection idea was a good one, don't you think this is more of a tinkerer's tool? You'll invariably be making flawed decisions using this unit. As Kiwi said ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
The obvious thing about digital crossover's is that the quality of D/A conversion is a huge factor. It would be suicidal to then dissect that high quality analog signal with cheap Behringer A/D and D/A ... Passive crossovers have their own limitation of course, but they would have to be spectacularly bad to approach the damage done by cheap digital conversion.
#18
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #18
Moderator
 
Reptil's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: in a low orbit
Posts: 21,594

Reptil is offline
ashley crossover (this is not too expensive) into hypex amps (perhaps a little too expensive)
this sounds fine to me :-)
in an upgrade to good amps coupled with good drivers is where the most results are IMO

really REALLY good digital crossovers exist, but are not cheap
I got an older Lab Gruppen. Honestly, it's totally invisible.
__________________
"You must have Chaos within you, to give Birth to a dancing Star" Friedrich Nietzsche

for sale EURORACK MODULAR CASE


ginetto61
Thread Starter
#19
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #19
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Stavanger (NORWAY)
Posts: 129

Thread Starter
ginetto61 is offline
[QUOTE=ray_subsonic;7045800]

It's good that you mentioned this.
Can you link to the article or the author?........

Good evening !

this is the link

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2724-Compilation-of-WBF-Discussions-with-Roger-Sanders

the part relevant to active vs.passive x-over is explained in Post 7

Anyway I understand that:
1) the issue is very complex
2) passive crossovers can be made with high precision and extremely high quality components

Nevertheless the conclusions seem to me reasonable
As I said I am a learner.
Thank you very much.

Regards,

gino
#20
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,099

ray_subsonic is offline
Gino, Thankyou for the link. I will read shortly .. In the interest of being helpful ..

In an analog crossover, the Ashly XR units are where things kick off .. Also older BSS FDS analog crossovers are highly recommended. (1 tech I know has some "Secret" mods for some of the later and older FDS models)

In a DSP based unit : A Lake processor / XTA Granted - These are Very Expensive ..

Somewhere under $1k you could pick up any of these : An Ashly Protea / * BSS Omnidrive / Dbx Driverack units .. still good for the money

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
Ashley crossover (this is not too expensive) ... I got an older Lab Gruppen. Honestly, it's totally invisible ..
Reptil. Is your LabGruppen one of the Dolby/Lake rebadged crossovers? Great unit if so ..
ginetto61
Thread Starter
#21
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #21
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Stavanger (NORWAY)
Posts: 129

Thread Starter
ginetto61 is offline
[QUOTE=Reptil;7046269]ashley crossover (this is not too expensive) into hypex amps (perhaps a little too expensive)
this sounds fine to me :-)
in an upgrade to good amps coupled with good drivers is where the most results are IMO
really REALLY good digital crossovers exist, but are not cheap
I got an older Lab Gruppen. Honestly, it's totally invisible.


thank you very much indeed. Can I have the model of the ashley ?
I have now a behringer cx 3400 but I do not know its "visibility"
I am afraid it is quite visible
Even if testing them I did not hear particular noise
Could the ashley be a sensible upgrade ?
Regards,

gino
ginetto61
Thread Starter
#22
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #22
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Stavanger (NORWAY)
Posts: 129

Thread Starter
ginetto61 is offline
[QUOTE=ray_subsonic;7046354]Gino, Thankyou for the link.
I will read shortly .. In the interest of being helpful ..

You're welcome and thank you.

In an analog crossover, the Ashly XR units are where things kick off ..
Also older BSS FDS analog crossovers are highly recommended.
(1 tech I know has some "Secret" mods for some of the later and older FDS models)

Models please ... I am interested in just two ways x-over also

In a DSP based unit :
* A Lake processor / XTA Granted - These are Very Expensive ..
Somewhere under $1k you could pick up any of these :
* An Ashly Protea / * BSS Omnidrive / Dbx Driverack units .. still good for the money

I think I will stay analog, for the moment
As I said I could do also with only two ways stereo unit
I could always add a subwoofer in the future to complete in the bass
Thanks and regards,

gino
#23
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,099

ray_subsonic is offline
Gino ..

Reading through the thread you linked to with the discussion by Roger Sanders. Unless I'm mistaken, his comments regarding active speaker systems (and his own speakers) are referring to (ESL) Electrostatic Speakers. I'm not sure if you have ESL speakers ??

If you are interested to know more, there are a number of AES papers and possible Google links you could follow to learn more about Line Theory, Line Source and Line Transmission Theory (Dr Kristian Heil), and about Electrostatic speakers. You need to take that into account when reading what he is saying. Unfortunately, I find the flavour of his writing to be a bit of a sales pitch ..

This link should work for the BSS Audio website : http://www.bssaudio.com/discont_products.php

The 3 models are the FDS 310, FDS 360 and the FDS 318. If you scout eBay, the FDS 360 will come up often. A very good unit.
ginetto61
Thread Starter
#24
19th September 2011
Old 19th September 2011
  #24
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Stavanger (NORWAY)
Posts: 129

Thread Starter
ginetto61 is offline
[QUOTE=ray_subsonic;7046649]Gino ..
Reading through the thread you linked to with the discussion by Roger Sanders. Unless I'm mistaken, his comments regarding active speaker systems (and his own speakers) are referring to (ESL) Electrostatic Speakers. I'm not sure if you have ESL speakers ??

hi Ray !
of course not. But I am referring to the opinion of Mr Sanders on crossovers.
Maybe the post is not correct but there is something about them.
He states unequivocally the superiority of active crossovers vs. passive giving reasons for that.
This is the point I am very interested in.
His words make sense to me, but I everything but an expert.
And within electronic active x-overs of digital vs. analog ones.
But I understand that good sounding digital x-over come expensive.
So for now I would stay with electronic analog active x-overs.

If you are interested to know more, there are a number of AES papers and possible Google links you could follow to learn more about Line Theory, Line Source and Line Transmission Theory (Dr Kristian Heil), and about Electrostatic speakers.
You need to take that into account when reading what he is saying.
Unfortunately, I find the flavour of his writing to be a bit of a sales pitch ..

No .. I am not interested in ESL speakers. I prefer dynamic speakers.
The common speakers.
Because I see that exceptional performance can be achieved also with them.

This link should work for the BSS Audio website : http://www.bssaudio.com/discont_products.php
The 3 models are the FDS 310, FDS 360 and the FDS 318.
If you scout eBay, the FDS 360 will come up often. A very good unit.

Thank you so much Ray ! I will look for it.
I understand it would be a sensible step above my cheap Behringer
And I am pretty sure I will be done with that.

Kind regards,

gino
ginetto61
Thread Starter
#25
20th September 2011
Old 20th September 2011
  #25
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Stavanger (NORWAY)
Posts: 129

Thread Starter
ginetto61 is offline
I swear Gentlemen .. the last one on the subject.

to sum up Mr Sanders' conclusions on X-overs the best filter type is


48 dB/octave, Linkwitz–Riley


Almost impossible for any analog x-over, passive or active
So digital seems to be the only way to get them.
Do you agree ?

Speaking of X-overs’ transparency I think that a telling test could be to see how they transfer a square wave from in to out
I do not know how active X-overs pass a square wave
Anyway I saw what came out of some passive X-overs … not really a square wave
Also for this my doubts about passives X-overs have increased.
thank you very much
regards,

gino
#26
20th September 2011
Old 20th September 2011
  #26
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,070

O.F.F. is online now
Home | miniDSP

These are supposed to be quite good as well for digital xovers, at least they are popular with diyers (at diyaudio.com you might will be able to talk to other users and may be even the designers). Can't think of many other digital xovers for your situation.
Usually I'd recommend XTA units but they cost 8-10x as much as the Behringer unit which is fine as long as you do NOT use its self-adjusting function which is totally useless.

Personally I use modified BSS FDS360 analogue ones. I changed all op amps from TL072 to Burr Brown 2134 and removed the limiters as my amps contain better ones.
They are, as is usual for analogue, 24dB/oct L-R. This does me fine but I too have heard that 48dB should be better, on the other hand they replaced a 6dB hi pass so at least I don't have to worry about my tweeter frying.
#27
20th September 2011
Old 20th September 2011
  #27
Gear nut
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 119

Nathanael PCB is offline
+100 for BSS omnidrive. The DBX drive racks are also very easy to use. These are the two most used units in a lot of live sound for good reason. Robust, sound good and functional.

At a pinch the Behringer does the job.

At the moment I'm using L'Acoustics gear and they have their own basic processors that do well.
ginetto61
Thread Starter
#28
20th September 2011
Old 20th September 2011
  #28
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Stavanger (NORWAY)
Posts: 129

Thread Starter
ginetto61 is offline
Thank you all very much indeed for your kind and valuable advice.
I think I will start using my analog unit.
I should be able to hear some improvements from the original passive ones in the speakers.
24db/octave L-R filters are the second best option after 48dB/octave
Thank you very much indeed again
kind regards,
gino
#29
26th September 2011
Old 26th September 2011
  #29
Gear Head
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 52

lulumusique is offline
If you are into DIY speakers, I would recommand digital crossovers for seveal reasons:
1- time alignement. Only digital filters can do that (don't expect having a perfect time alignement on DIY speakers).
2- Then again, with digital filters you can tweek the crossover as many time as you want, another great feature for DIY speakers: don't expect being able to predict the ACOUSTIC response of the system (crossover+speaker+box) on the first try.
3- Something interesting too is that they usualy have embedded EQs.
4- A digital fitler can do anything an analog filter can. An anlog fitler can't.
So really, if you want to build your own multi-amplified speaker, for me you should go digital...
(Another thing but for more high-end designs: some expensive digital crossovers use Finite Impulse Response filters and are the only filters that can have a linear phase response.)
#30
27th September 2011
Old 27th September 2011
  #30
Moderator
 
Reptil's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: in a low orbit
Posts: 21,594

Reptil is offline
here's what I got. xr-201
Ashly Audio XR-Series Crossovers
I imported it from the USA myself. Since it was no where to be found.

XTA is in my wet dreams. tried once to find a cheapo. gave up.

HOWEVER!!!!
http://compravenda.slando.pt/lisboa_..._26299614.html
a bargain

Quote:
Originally Posted by ray_subsonic View Post

Reptil. Is your LabGruppen one of the Dolby/Lake rebadged crossovers? Great unit if so ..
nope an older ACN-2C I bought in 1997 (or 1998 I don't remember)
like in the advertismennt ^^^^
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.