PDA

View Full Version : Active Crossovers



merlin
01-29-2007, 03:05 PM
Doing a search I couldn't see if this had been discussed recently, but are any of you using high quality active filters in your systems, and if so which?

I've been looking at the likes of DEQX but would prefer to not subject my lovely forty year old vinyl collection to a rather crude A-D process unless someone is going to tell me it's transparent. I know Widget is using one. How is it and what's the rest of the setup?

For analogue options, what's out there that's better than the Bryston 10b (which I thought sounded godawful)? Is there anyone out there making custom tube units that allow for baffle step and other variables? Also, when going active, are you leaving a passive cap in circuit to protect compression drivers from any unforeseen switch on thumps? Or running correction and attenuation filters passively as the DD66000 does when bi-amped?

Sorry for all the questions but I just haven't been able to find anything that suits.

louped garouv
01-29-2007, 03:27 PM
I use a RLA X2000 crossover from the Disco era w/ no caps for protection...



I would bet if you wanted one badly enough,
someone would build you almost whatever you could want....

:)

L100t Owner
01-29-2007, 04:15 PM
Doing a search I couldn't see if this had been discussed recently, but are any of you using high quality active filters in your systems, and if so which?

I've been looking at the likes of DEQX but would prefer to not subject my lovely forty year old vinyl collection to a rather crude A-D process unless someone is going to tell me it's transparent. I know Widget is using one. How is it and what's the rest of the setup?

For analogue options, what's out there that's better than the Bryston 10b (which I thought sounded godawful)? Is there anyone out there making custom tube units that allow for baffle step and other variables? Also, when going active, are you leaving a passive cap in circuit to protect compression drivers from any unforeseen switch on thumps? Or running correction and attenuation filters passively as the DD66000 does when bi-amped?

Sorry for all the questions but I just haven't been able to find anything that suits.

I used a Yamaha D2040 pro unit. It has the dreaded a/d d/a process but I could not tell a difference. It is a $3,000 unit that I will be selling for $500 if you are interested. Google it. Very nice unit.

Baron030
01-29-2007, 04:48 PM
Hi Merlin
I canít answer all of your questions. But, I have tried several different compression driver protection methods. And using a passive cap in series with the driver is really a good idea, especially when it is your first time converting a system over to an active crossover. You will quickly learn that the amplifiers are last to be turned on and the first to be turned off, otherwise you are facing a really loud thump and some possible driver damage. For a long time, I was very skeptical about biasing and bypassing capacitors. But, now I am true believer. Going with biased caps will eliminate any notch distortion that caused by the protection caps. But, there is more one thing that I have seen discussed much around here. And that is the need for add damping resistors. When a cap is wired in series with the driver, then the driverís voice coil is no longer directly coupled to the amplifiers out. In the case of a passive crossover network, an L-Pad provides a lot of damping to the driver. But, in systems with active crossovers, the cap acts like a series resistor and the driverís damping suffers. For example, with a 2446H driver that was protected by a 545Hz 12db/octave high pass filter, I noticed a pretty dramatic improvement, when a 47 ohm Ė 12 watt resistor was wired in parallel with the voice coil. Actually, a good rule of thumb for a damping resistor value, would be to use a resistance that is 4 or 5 times the impedance of the driver.
So, if you are going use a protection cap, seriously think about using biasing and bypassing the capacitors and add some damping resistance. Otherwise, just wire the drivers directly up to amplifiers and be very careful.
Baron030 :)

HipoFutura
01-29-2007, 05:26 PM
I use an Ashly XR2001 to tri-amp my system. The Ashly x-over is fantastic. I did have a DBX x-over that was terrible. It was muddy on the sub/mid x-over point.

The low-freqs and hi-freqs are split to SS amps and the mids run through tube mono-blocks. I love this setup and the Ashly x-over makes it all happen. Don

Robh3606
01-29-2007, 10:52 PM
Hello Merlin

In the active horn set-ups I have had, they both required a passive compensation circuit so there was a cap in series by default. In both cases I had the caps charge coupled. I was running aquaplased 2425's with 2344 horn now it's 2435's with PTH1010's. I use JBL M552/M553 in this set-up. They are your basic 24db LR analog actives made for S/R and Cinema systems. They work for me and are quiet as hell. These are in my main stereo/HT rig. I have a smaller system with 4344 wanabees biamped and use a JBL DX-1 there. The DX-1 is a real nice sounding crossover but unfortunately they are few and far between. If you ever see one grab it.

Rob:)

Mr. Widget
01-30-2007, 12:02 AM
...are any of you using high quality active filters in your systems, and if so which?

I've been looking at the likes of DEQX but would prefer to not subject my lovely forty year old vinyl collection to a rather crude A-D process unless someone is going to tell me it's transparent.I would recommend the Pass Labs XVR1 crossover or some of the better Marchand crossovers... I haven't directly compared either of them to the Bryston 10B, but others who have say that while the 10B is far more transparent than the Ashly, Rane, and Behringer club the Bryston isn't in the same league as the Pass Labs and some of the Marchands.

http://www.passlabs.com/downloads/xvr1_lit.pdf

This review of Magico's Ultimates also compares a DEQX and Marchand approach with the Ultimates. I have also heard the Ultimates paired with the Pass Labs XVR1... that would be my all analog choice.

http://www.magico.net/MAGICO_Ultimate.pdf


As for the digital transparency of the DEQX... for an analog front end, I agree the idea of needlessly digitizing the signal goes against the grain... I will say that running the DEQX with a CD as source, it sounds as good as I have heard that format.


I know Widget is using one. How is it and what's the rest of the setup?I use a balanced DEQX PDC 2.6P (pre-amp version) I feed it a PCM bit stream from a Sony player. In my current setup the outputs of the DEQX feed a pair of 845 based SETs up top, a pair of 200 wpc KT-88 based push-pull mono blocks for the midbass, and a massive QSC sourced JBL MPA 600 on the subs below 50Hz. That's it. Digital source, DEQX, amps. Done.

I intend to try an Alesis MasterLink playing 24/96 recordings of some vinyl... since DEQX is 24/96 native there will be no additional dithering or noise shaping... based on the excellent reports I have heard of the MasterLink recordings... I am hopeful that this will capture the sonic excellence of pure analog, with the convenience of digital.


Widget

merlin
01-30-2007, 06:14 AM
Many thanks for the replies gentlemen. Was there talk of a DIY version of the Passlabs at some point?

Thanks also for the advice on caps Baron. I was thinking of keeping the analogue compensation filters in place if I go the analogue route, which would of course solve the issue anyway as you say.

Widget, I was thinking along similar lines to you vis a vis vinyl - I'm getting too old and lazy to get up every twenty minutes or so. I'd got my eye on the Tascam DV RA1000HD (http://www.tascam.com/Products/dvra1000hd.html) myself - simply because of the opportunity to archive in DSD as well but I'm unsure as to whether this would be overly compatible with the DEQX. Another possibility is something like an Apple with Pure Vinyl (http://www.channld.com/pure-vinyl.html).

Thanks again

Titanium Dome
01-30-2007, 07:05 AM
(snip)

Another possibility is something like an Apple with Pure Vinyl (http://www.channld.com/pure-vinyl.html).

Thanks again

HS, Batman, how did I miss that? That looks like a whole lot more potential than the simplistic Finyl Vinyl software.

Thanks for that. :yes:

Robh3606
01-30-2007, 07:20 AM
Apple with Pure Vinyl (http://www.channld.com/pure-vinyl.html).

Just curious but what are the advantages asside from using a good wave editor as far as sound Quality??? Has anyone used it??? Looks like it has elements of Cool Edit with the pop and click removal.

Rob:)

Rolf
01-30-2007, 07:34 AM
HS, Batman, how did I miss that? That looks like a whole lot more potential than the simplistic Finyl Vinyl software.

Thanks for that. :yes:

Pure Vinyl ... How come some (seems like a lot) does not accept that the world and technology is moving forward?

Robh3606
01-30-2007, 10:18 AM
Pure Vinyl ... How come some (seems like a lot) does not accept that the world and technology is moving forward?

Well I think there is more to it than that. I enjoy SACD and DVD 24/96 but still have 80% of my vinyl. About 3 years ago I would have been very interested in this software. I "rescued" some of my vinyl that never made it to CD and probably never will. The real problem is there still is a massive amount of material that will never make the leap to CD because they don't see a market for it. I archived some of my MF Halfspeeds at the time as well so I didn't play them to death. I don't want to get into the vinyl vs. CD debate however I was a very late adopter for CD. I still think some of the MF Half Speeds and the Direct to Disks are some of the best software bar none available in any format. Just like any other format there were a huge number of dogs as well. All the people that harp on CD, if they were not around then, don't realize the QC problems with mass produced vinyl. I grew up with records and will always have a soft spot for them.

Rob:)

scott fitlin
01-30-2007, 11:02 AM
Marchand makes nice sounding analog crossovers, in kit form, or fully assembled. Whatever slopes and filter types you desire. They also make a really nice tube xover, utilizing 12AX7,s, but, beware, PRICEY for this particular model. www.marchandelec.com (http://www.marchandelec.com). Also, note that Marchand offers delay and baffle step correction, as options.

You could also try sourcing some vintage electronic crossovers, like the Crown MX-4,s. Very clean, very nice sounding, but, hard to find.

Some here also like the Ashly analog crossovers, also attractively priced. www.ashlyaudio.com (http://www.ashlyaudio.com)

Ian Mackenzie
01-30-2007, 11:15 AM
Many thanks for the replies gentlemen. Was there talk of a DIY version of the Passlabs at some point?


Thanks again

Yes there is....go to diyaudio.com under the Passlabs forum.

It been very popular and quite a sucessful project. You need to know how to solder and lots of time. Should not be problem over the U.K winter!

Macka

toddalin
01-30-2007, 11:18 AM
In the old days (early '70's), I used a Pioneer SF-700 in my triamped PA system, but the SF-850s are also nice. And these predate digital. These can still be found for ~$300.

http://www.allegrosound.com/Pioneer_SF-700.jpg

http://www.allegrosound.com/Pioneer_SF-850_4.jpg

Ken Pachkowsky
01-30-2007, 11:36 AM
I use a pair of these to control my Westlake HR1 4-ways. As Widget says, for a digital source, I have not heard anything better.

I have heard there are some very reasonably priced mods that can be done to improve the analog section. That being said its sounds damned good the way it is.

Good luck in whatever direction you go.

Ken

Titanium Dome
01-30-2007, 12:10 PM
In the old days (early '70's), I used a Pioneer SF-700 in my triamped PA system, but the SF-850s are also nice. And these predate digital. These can still be found for ~$300.

http://www.allegrosound.com/Pioneer_SF-700.jpg

http://www.allegrosound.com/Pioneer_SF-850_4.jpg

Very cool.

scott fitlin
01-30-2007, 12:24 PM
The Pioneers were good, all discrete circuitry, Im told.

merlin
01-31-2007, 11:23 AM
Many thanks for the help. I am ordering a DEQX on the basis that if it's good enough for Widget and Ken's Westlakes I am unlikely to be disappointed. I've used Tact before so should be able to get my head around it.

And if I find that it is the audio equivalent of a cold lifeless turkey, I will always have a couple of kind and generous Americans to lay the blame on :)

I recently heard a pair of the big Westlakes in Japan, passively driven from a pair of large Boulder monoblocks. They left a profound impression .

Widget, do you see advantages to the Alesis HD recorder over the Tascam or software routes?

scott fitlin
01-31-2007, 12:02 PM
The DEQX is supposed to be the best, and I assume if you have been speaking to Widget your aware you need a laptop, and software to program and setup the DEQX.

http://www.deqx.com/kit.html

merlin
01-31-2007, 12:28 PM
Yes thanks Scott,

As I mentioned I used the Tact RCS gear for a couple of years so know my way around something similar - so that will be a start.

I have to say I'm a little sceptical based on my Tact experience - which I found produced technically impressive but musically incoherent results. I hope the DEQX doesn't fall into the same trap - otherwise Mt Marchand will be getting a call!

scott fitlin
01-31-2007, 12:48 PM
Well, Ill tell you this, I have and use a BSS 366t. I was going to get the Lake Contour, however, I wanted front panel controls.

The sound of my dsp unit is good, but, it also depends on your speaker/amp combination. I have been able to achieve remarkably good results with dsp.

But, to my ears, analog xovers still sound different than dsp xovers. Im not saying better or worse, just different. Youll just have to decide whats better for yourself.

Take the time to really dial in the DEQX, you should get some impressive results.

:)

jblnut
01-31-2007, 03:24 PM
Pure Vinyl ... How come some (seems like a lot) does not accept that the world and technology is moving forward?

It's simple really - because it hasn't, at least in the mainstream. The technology used to make, record and distribute music has undergone a downward spiral that started about the time the CD was introduced. There's a very real reason why so many of us are still listening to LP's on our JBLs - because they sound GREAT ! Why would so many of us put up with the hassles of listening to vinyl if there were no benefit?
Think about it - no one here is talking about 8-tracks, because they suck. The LP - when well cared-for and played on a good turntable with a good cartridge - is capable of a vastly more involving musical experience than the now-common CD. The imaging is better, the micro-details are better, hell just about everything is better except having to clean them and turn them over every 20 minutes.

Try this simple experiment for me and tell me what you think:

1) Make sure your computer is set to display in 32-bit mode (right-click on the desktop, properties, choose settings tab)

2) Bring up a nice color photo you took on your digital camera - make sure it has lots of colors. Anything with the sky is great for this test.

3) Now change the color mode to 16-bit. Notice the colors now - see the "banding" that occurs when there aren't enough colors in the pallette to properly convey infinite variations ?


You think a 16-bit CD is any different accoustically ?

Food for thought...


jblnut

Mr. Widget
01-31-2007, 09:09 PM
Widget, do you see advantages to the Alesis HD recorder over the Tascam or software routes?The one distinct advantage is that I have a buddy with an Alesis unit I can borrow and give a thorough try out. :D

It has received rather good reviews too though.


Widget

Rolf
01-31-2007, 11:43 PM
1)It's simple really - because it hasn't, at least in the mainstream.2) The technology used to make, record and distribute music has undergone a downward spiral that started about the time the CD was introduced. 3)There's a very real reason why so many of us are still listening to LP's on our JBLs - because they sound GREAT ! Why would so many of us put up with the hassles of listening to vinyl if there were no benefit?
4)Think about it - no one here is talking about 8-tracks, because they suck. The LP - when well cared-for and played on a good turntable with a good cartridge - is capable of a vastly more involving musical experience than the now-common CD. The imaging is better, the micro-details are better, hell just about everything is better except having to clean them and turn them over every 20 minutes.

5)Try this simple experiment for me and tell me what you think:

1) Make sure your computer is set to display in 32-bit mode (right-click on the desktop, properties, choose settings tab)

2) Bring up a nice color photo you took on your digital camera - make sure it has lots of colors. Anything with the sky is great for this test.

3) Now change the color mode to 16-bit. Notice the colors now - see the "banding" that occurs when there aren't enough colors in the pallette to properly convey infinite variations ?


You think a 16-bit CD is any different accoustically ?

Food for thought...


jblnut

1) Not many will agree that technology has gone backwards.

2) I agree that the productions of CD's made in the "early years" was not always good, but CD technology AND CD players has come a long way since that time.

3) Why? Because many are stuck in the past and for some reason like to hear hiss, clicks, and the sccchhh from the LP, believing this is supposed to be a part of the music.

4) No matter how good the turntable and cartridge is, the noise from the contact between the needle and LP will always be there. To claim that the imaging and micro details are better on an LP than a good CD ... well, I have to say: buy a better CD player.

5) I don't think a compare between sound and pictures is relevant.

Mr. Widget
02-01-2007, 01:10 AM
3) Why? Because many are stuck in the past and for some reason like to hear hiss, clicks, and the sccchhh from the LP, believing this is supposed to be a part of the music.That's just silly... except for the younger musicians who put record surface noise on their CDs, no one wants to hear those obvious distortions.



4) No matter how good the turntable and cartridge is, the noise from the contact between the needle and LP will always be there.Unfortunate but true... though some are much better than others.



4)To claim that the imaging and micro details are better on an LP than a good CD ... well, I have to say: buy a better CD player.You are right that better digital playback gear gets closer to an analog experience. However, the very best redbook CDs do not offer the vast space, air, and inner detail found on those nasty old vinyl records... some of the early '80s vinyl from DG and others that were digitally recorded also lack the sense of space, air, and inner detail. Yet they come with all of the surface noise... sort of the worst of both worlds. :applaud:


Widget

merlin
02-01-2007, 01:23 AM
Aha! (exclamation rather than your country's most famous musical export) - fighting talk ;)


1) Not many will agree that technology has gone backwards.


Technology? Maybe not. Musical replay? A different question in my opinion. Try comparing a pair of Tannoy GRF Autographs with B&W803D's or maybe a Leak tuner with a Pure DAB radio.



2) I agree that the productions of CD's made in the "early years" was not always good, but CD technology AND CD players has come a long way since that time.


In my experience, CD mastering and the open abuse of ProTools has made the majority of commercial recordings all but unlistenable - the result of the level wars that have caused studios world wide to forget how to produce great music.



3) Why? Because many are stuck in the past and for some reason like to hear hiss, clicks, and the sccchhh from the LP, believing this is supposed to be a part of the music.


Sadly because, again in my experience, behind those clicks and pops lies real music with wonderful sound quality. Listen to anything to come out of the Capitol studios in the '50's or '60's and tell me with a straight face things are better today.



4) No matter how good the turntable and cartridge is, the noise from the contact between the needle and LP will always be there. To claim that the imaging and micro details are better on an LP than a good CD ... well, I have to say: buy a better CD player.


I'm pretty sure that the real problems with CD lie with the mastering process and not with the basic technology, but even the best CD player cannot improve compromised software - the only way of adding some body back into it is to stick a dirty great pair of JBL's on the end and turn up the volume. I'll tell you what, I'll send you a CD recorded from vinyl on an SME20/2a turntable. PM me and we'll find a recording that you have. It would be interesting to hear if you still think the CD sounds better.

Rolf
02-01-2007, 02:21 AM
That's just silly... except for the younger musicians who put record surface noise on their CDs, no one wants to hear those obvious distortions.


What is silly?



Unfortunate but true... though some are much better than others.


Yes, I know.



You are right that better digital playback gear gets closer to an analog experience. However, the very best redbook CDs do not offer the vast space, air, and inner detail found on those nasty old vinyl records... some of the early '80s vinyl from DG and others that were digitally recorded also lack the sense of space, air, and inner detail. Yet they come with all of the surface noise... sort of the worst of both worlds. :applaud:

Widget

Getting closer? Not sure what a "redbook or DG CD" is.

I remember my MFSL, especially the UHQR recordings, Crystal Clear on 45rpm's, Telarc's, Sheffields and others with great pleasure.

However, I was one of the "stupid ones" that sold all of my LP's and my very good HK record player with a very expensive cartridge in the very early 80's and replaced them with CD's. That is ... the ones that was (is) available.

At that time I owned the Paragon, a DB Systems pre-amp and two Kenwood 09? mono power amps ... and the above HK turn table. I remember that I compared the vinyl with the CD. What I listen much to was Dire Straits. The most difference was in the noise from the record player, and it was very annoying to me. I cannot remember that the CD lack any details, compared to the LP, as some say.

Today I am sorry that I sold all of my vinyl collection, but still believe that it would only stay there, not to be used.

In the past few years I have invested in expensive hi quality CD player, pre-amp and power amps. If one do this, the result is in my opinion better than the LP's and equipment used to reproduce music.

Rolf
02-01-2007, 02:24 AM
Aha! (exclamation rather than your country's most famous musical export) - fighting talk ;)



Technology? Maybe not. Musical replay? A different question in my opinion. Try comparing a pair of Tannoy GRF Autographs with B&W803D's or maybe a Leak tuner with a Pure DAB radio.



In my experience, CD mastering and the open abuse of ProTools has made the majority of commercial recordings all but unlistenable - the result of the level wars that have caused studios world wide to forget how to produce great music.



Sadly because, again in my experience, behind those clicks and pops lies real music with wonderful sound quality. Listen to anything to come out of the Capitol studios in the '50's or '60's and tell me with a straight face things are better today.



I'm pretty sure that the real problems with CD lie with the mastering process and not with the basic technology, but even the best CD player cannot improve compromised software - the only way of adding some body back into it is to stick a dirty great pair of JBL's on the end and turn up the volume. I'll tell you what, I'll send you a CD recorded from vinyl on an SME20/2a turntable. PM me and we'll find a recording that you have. It would be interesting to hear if you still think the CD sounds better.

Please see my answer to Widget.

hjames
02-01-2007, 04:30 AM
One of the problems in the mass record market - rock pop and that sort of thing, was that since the 1974 petroleum "shortage", the quality of vinyl used in rrecord production began to change. Previously records were made using 1st generation vinyl, so called "virgin vinyl". But as the record companies began to feel a squeeze in their costs, they came up with a new strategy. Records were sent to shops to be sold, but after a time the unsold remainders would be returned to the factory. Some "genius" had the brainstorm of recycling the old unsold records. It was done in sloppy fashion - I can remember getting records with bits of paper embedded within the plastic. As you might imagine, this kind of thing increased the surface noise of the vinyl - another reason folks fell so in love with the "silence" of CD playback.

Yes, Mobile Fidelity (MFSL), Deutsch Gramophone (DG) and such did do some very high quality records, but the mass market product was being rushed out the door and inevitably pushed to the smaller CD media.

And "Brothers in Arms" was the CD that also sold me on the new media - the difference between the vinyl LP and the CD was remarkable! A large part of my record collection consisted of "import" albums - uk and european artists that were generally not available in the US market, and typically on better vinyl than the usual release from the US record presses.






I remember my MFSL, especially the UHQR recordings, Crystal Clear on 45rpm's, Telarc's, Sheffields and others with great pleasure.

However, I was one of the "stupid ones" that sold all of my LP's and my very good HK record player with a very expensive cartridge in the very early 80's and replaced them with CD's. That is ... the ones that was (is) available.

What I listen much to was Dire Straits. The most difference was in the noise from the record player, and it was very annoying to me. I cannot remember that the CD lack any details, compared to the LP, as some say.

Today I am sorry that I sold all of my vinyl collection, but still believe that it would only stay there, not to be used.

In the past few years I have invested in expensive hi quality CD player, pre-amp and power amps. If one do this, the result is in my opinion better than the LP's and equipment used to reproduce music.

Rolf
02-01-2007, 01:46 PM
Thanks Heather for clearing up a couple of the vinyl things. I remember that "The concert for Bangladesh" had so bad and thin vinyl that it looks like it had spent some hours in the sun.

A lot of other records was also very bad produced, not like the UHQR "Stone Cakes".

merlin
02-01-2007, 02:11 PM
Hey thin vinyl wasn't bad in itself. Anyone with a good CBS Dynaflex pressing form the early '70's will almost be able to bend the disc in half - but the sound quality is sublime.

Heavy vinyl was no guaranteur of quality - whatever the audiophile labels would like us to believe.

Titanium Dome
02-01-2007, 03:50 PM
Hey thin vinyl wasn't bad in itself. Anyone with a good CBS Dynaflex pressing form the early '70's will almost be able to bend the disc in half - but the sound quality is sublime.

Heavy vinyl was no guaranteur of quality - whatever the audiophile labels would like us to believe.

Yes, there was time when in virgin vinyl "thin was 'in'."

Guy in WNY
02-01-2007, 06:02 PM
I use a trio of Furman Sound TX-3b's for my active x-overs.
One band I worked with in the '70's used the Crown VFX-2A. They only went biamped in that setup.
I split off at about 100-125 for the subs - that goes to the Crown PSA-2
The other 2 run stereo 3-way for the e120's (DC300A), 2350/2482 (DC300A), and 2402 tweets (Marantz).
Gets the job done and I get to play with crossover freqs and such whenever I want to.

The gear you guys are talking about is WAY pricier than my vintage gear setup.

But give it a shot - you'll be pleased! Just be sure to use as much power as you can buy! Clipping SUCKS!

Ken Pachkowsky
02-01-2007, 08:34 PM
Take the time to really dial in the DEQX, you should get some impressive results.

:)

Words of wisdom here.

It took me several months to get my Deqx units tuned in properly. Not until I set the input and output gains (internally) on each Deqx did I become very satisfied with them. I assumed they were set to factory defaults......ASSumed.:banghead:

I think you will be very impressed. Please keep us informed.

Ken

Mr. Widget
02-01-2007, 09:23 PM
I assumed they were set to factory defaults......ASSumed.:banghead:
Well... you did buy them second hand. :D

Mine were set to the factory defaults, but I also needed to adjust them.


Widget

Ken Pachkowsky
02-01-2007, 09:42 PM
Well... you did buy them second hand. :D

Widget

That is true....:applaud:

Ken

merlin
02-02-2007, 01:10 AM
A bit of a spanner in the works - I was told there are new DEQX products about to be launched. Until I find out more, I'm loathe to order up the old model. I should know more next week.

boputnam
02-02-2007, 08:29 AM
For analogue options, what's out there that's better than the Bryston 10b (which I thought sounded godawful)? Merlin...

Late to this - but, what was it you heard (or didn't... :p ) in the Bryston? I've tried a number of analogue and many digital units and find the Bryston to be pretty nice.


Aha! fighting talk...:no: Just curious (these are not fighting words)...

X_X
02-02-2007, 08:34 AM
Mark Levinson made a high-end active crossover (the LNC-1 and 2). While I've never owned or even heard one, I suspect it's high quality because a lot of the Levinson gear is top shelf. I would certainly want to check the resistors in any older crossover, though.

I have heard many people say passive line level crossovers (or PLLXO) are the best. This will enable a person to bi/tri/quad amp to the heart's desire while never introding some of the glare associated will active ops. There are a lot of things to consider when building these- namely the impedences. I just can't wrap my head around it, or I'd try it!

Nathan.

Guy in WNY
02-02-2007, 08:50 AM
LNC-2 on ebay now:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Mark-Levinson-LNC-2-Crossover-With-PSL-150_W0QQitemZ280076245656QQihZ018QQcategoryZ14977Q QrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Guy in WNY
02-02-2007, 09:00 AM
on ebay now:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Ashley-XR-4001-4-way-stereo-crossover-No-Reserve_W0QQitemZ300076617415QQihZ020QQcategoryZ23 792QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Very cheap right now at $41.00!

Lunch time is over - back to work now!

Ken Pachkowsky
02-02-2007, 09:32 AM
on ebay now:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Ashley-XR-4001-4-way-stereo-crossover-No-Reserve_W0QQitemZ300076617415QQihZ020QQcategoryZ23 792QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Very cheap right now at $41.00!

Lunch time is over - back to work now!

I have owned and used 3 Ashly's including the 4001. They are ok but not what I would call high end in terms of sound quality. They simply were not in the same league as a Deqx or Westlake HRX crossover. Mind you, at $300 used they should not be expected to out perform the above.

Ken

merlin
02-02-2007, 10:15 AM
Merlin...

Late to this - but, what was it you heard (or didn't... :p ) in the Bryston? I've tried a number of analogue and many digital units and find the Bryston to be pretty nice.


Hi Bo.

An edge if you like. A very mild coarseness and electronic glare which I find present in all the Bryston electronics I have used. In circuit it definately added this in my system - even in bypass mode. I'm sure technically it measures superbly.

X_X
02-02-2007, 10:34 AM
Hi Bo.

An edge if you like. A very mild coarseness and electronic glare which I find present in all the Bryston electronics I have used. In circuit it definately added this in my system - even in bypass mode. I'm sure technically it measures superbly.

I agree. It's hard to ignore the extra gain. It's a Catch22. Obviously, biamping with electronics gives you more full range control and flexibility, but it can ruin an otherwise perfect recording. If the equipment being used isn't up to the task (highest quality)- a purist is probably better off sticking with full range pasives. Some people like the extra bass no matter what the sonic costs. I used to be one of them...:o:

Then there's the balancing of amps. Sometimes, the "glare" we hear is because one amp is operating out of spec because of the gain/impedence mismatches. My best results came when I used identical amps. That helps a bit.

Mr. Widget
02-02-2007, 10:37 AM
A bit of a spanner in the works - I was told there are new DEQX products about to be launched. Until I find out more, I'm loathe to order up the old model. I should know more next week.I've talked with them about the new models... the only sonic change is they now offer a transformer based balanced out section as an upgrade over the active balanced outputs... this option is also available for existing models. The other changes are cosmetic and the option of buying a DEQX unit with built in digital amps... basically making it a very sophisticated tri-amped integrated amp!

Here is a list of the new models:

1) The PDC3 preamp processor. This has essentially the same internals as PDC2.6P but is 2U high with thick aluminum front panel and machined buttons etc. It also has blanked out cut-outs on the rear panel for the Dig out and the Bal out boards, so both can be installed together and can be upgraded in the field. We have a new all Jensen transformer balanced out board ($950) that is compatible with the existing one, so can also be used in PDC=2.6 models. List price of standard unit is US$4,450. Option prices for Bal out, dig out, and Earthworks mic are the same as for PDC-2.6 options.


2) The PDC3-300 is the same as above but with four internal Hypex UcD180'AD' version amps (for bi-amping) with 300W linear PSU that also powers the PDC board. Speakon 4-pin output connectors. All inputs, line outs etc are still available as per 'standard' PDC-2.6P. List price is US$5,950.


3) The PDC3-50 is same as '1' above but with internal 500W linear PSU (also powering PDC) whose DC output is provided by two 4-pin Neutric female connectors (mute, -55V, OV, +55V) to power two external bi-amp modules that can be mounted on the rear of the speaker boxes. Each module contains two UcD400 AD version amp modules and additional local low Z capacitors (8,800uF). List price is US$7,950.



Widget

Thom
02-02-2007, 11:00 AM
All this analog vs digital stuff makes me laugh. If you are seriously debating this then you weren't counted when they did a census of prospective customers. You spent more on your cartridge that the people in their census spent on their CD deck and more than some of them spent on their entire entire playback system. If I'm wrong and your playing your vinyl on a BSR or VM changer with whatever cartridge came in it than you are wrong. Vinyl doesn't sound near as good as CD in that playback setup. For the vast majority of consumers, CD sounds so much better than vinyl ever did. Most people's best quality sound source was FM. If you are seriously in on the vinyl vs CD argument then you had a much better cartridge than the FM station. You had a better tone arm than the FM station and you have a better turntable than you or the owners of that station are going to turn the DJ loose on. Properly mixed CD sounds better than FM. CD is the best source that many people have ever heard. You do have the problem of a lot of CD's being mixed to sound good played on junk or FM stations but you had that before. Theoretically vinyl can reach beyond the concrete limits of CD and maybe some do. But only on the right equipment, and for how many playings? And what did the direct to disc recordings cost and how many were there by your favorite artist? So is LP better than CD? If you define it just right it sure is but__

4313B
02-02-2007, 11:04 AM
Most people's best quality sound source was FM.I thought it still was... Are you dissing me? :blink:

merlin
02-02-2007, 11:07 AM
Thanks for the information Widget. The 300 looks interesting - with the Linear PSU and the ability to power four 1500AL's.:D

Overkill Audio over here modify the unit and you get multiple fully regulated independent Lithos power supplies (built by Tom Evans Audio Design), DSD data inputs and a USB input to enable direct computer connection.

Sadly you also get a decidely fantasy world price tag. I might have to have a word with Tom - his lithos stuff is quite remarkable.

merlin
02-02-2007, 11:10 AM
I thought it still was... Are you dissing me? :blink:

FM's being switched off over here soon. Replaced by 128kbps bitstream. that's progress for you.

4313B
02-02-2007, 11:17 AM
FM's being switched off over here soon. Replaced by 128kbps bitstream. that's progress for you.Yeah... whatever... I'm still reeling from the automobile replacing the horse. I do appreciate the heads up though. :thmbsup:

merlin
02-02-2007, 11:26 AM
Clip Clop Clip Clop Clip Clop Bang Bang!

PS. I trust you realise I was being ironic Giskard. Should I add a;) after every post or can you simply assume that being a Brit - I'm likely to be a tad dry?

Mr. Widget
02-02-2007, 11:29 AM
-I'm likely to be a tad dry?BTW: We don't use those initials here... ;)


Widget

4313B
02-02-2007, 11:47 AM
Clip Clop Clip Clop Clip Clop Bang Bang!

PS. I trust you realise I was being ironic Giskard. Should I add a;) after every post or can you simply assume that being a Brit - I'm likely to be a tad dry?I think we have a similar sense of humor. Mine used to run rampant here. Yanks couldn't handle it.

BTW: We don't use those initials here... ;)Speaking of which, a pair of TADs showed up yesterday at the front door. I naturally refused the shipment. :rotfl:

boputnam
02-02-2007, 11:58 AM
An edge if you like. A very mild coarseness and electronic glare which I find present in all the Bryston electronics I have used. In circuit it definately added this in my system - even in bypass mode. I'm sure technically it measures superbly.Interesting. I appreciate the info. I haven't experienced that, but it could be I'm not experienced enough, yet!


Obviously, biamping with electronics gives you more full range control and flexibility, but it can ruin an otherwise perfect recording. ... a purist is probably better off sticking with full range passives. That is not my experience, and differs with the opinion of JBL's best engineers. But, whatever your preference.


Then there's the balancing of amps. Sometimes, the "glare" we hear is because one amp is operating out of spec because of the gain/impedance mismatches. My best results came when I used identical amps. That helps a bit.This is a good point - clearly, the two signals must be in balance.

As I've deployed various active crossovers I find that proper measurements help achieve proper gain structure and EQ adjustment - all are crucial.


Speaking of which, a pair of TADs showed up yesterday at the front door. I naturally refused the shipment. :rotfl:Dammit, Giskard!! :bash:

scott fitlin
02-02-2007, 12:04 PM
Speaking of which, a pair of TADs showed up yesterday at the front door. I naturally refused the shipment. :rotfl:Why? I would have taken the delivery! They go like hotcakes on eBay! :D

4313B
02-02-2007, 12:08 PM
Why? I would have taken the delivery! They go like hotcakes on eBay! :D:banghead: I didn't consider that! Oops! :banghead:

That is not my experience, and differs with the opinion of JBL's best engineers. But, whatever your preference.I'm still stuck in the era of building my own. Obviously the DEQX looks inviting. I'm interested to see how it works out with Project May.

merlin
02-02-2007, 12:26 PM
I think we have a similar sense of humor.

Excellent -are you from the midwest?


Speaking of which, a pair of TADs showed up yesterday at the front door. I naturally refused the shipment. :rotfl:

Ah those will be mine. No doubt lost in transit between two countries very jumpy about beryllium shipments. Could you pop them on a boat or something?

boputnam
02-02-2007, 12:29 PM
Ah those will be mine. :scold:

Actually, they are Widget's - I simply couldn't part with mine...

merlin
02-02-2007, 12:33 PM
Interesting. I appreciate the info. I haven't experienced that, but it could be I'm not experienced enough, yet!


I rather doubt that Bo! I'm sure it's just system matching and personal preferences at work. Or maybe my 10B was faulty - I've only ever used the one. Are you using a 10B at the moment?

scott fitlin
02-02-2007, 12:42 PM
I had the 10B,s. I also have a bunch of bryston amps.

Bryston is VERY well made, very clean, and very accurate, but, also not my favorite sonic flavor.

Their definitely TOP of their Class, but, they do have a distinct sonic character, some love em, some dont.

boputnam
02-02-2007, 12:50 PM
IAre you using a 10B at the moment?:yes: At this very moment... :)

merlin
02-02-2007, 12:56 PM
All this talk of TAD's...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/airwise/sl-01.gif

X_X
02-02-2007, 04:05 PM
Steven Stone reviewed the Bryston 10B in the May 94 issue of Sterophile.Link (http://stereophile.com/accessoryreviews/594bryston/).

He mentions how "little glare" he detected on the piece. That's not to say he detected no glare at all.

I think the gains (no pun intended) from active crossovers are worth it for some people. I used to love that control! I also liked the load of the amps more evenly distributed. I just think the equipment has to up to the task is all. I think the 10B is probably an exceptional piece of gear, and up to the task as far as active crossovers go...

I have had love/hate relationships with active crossovers in the past. I can hear them- no question about it!

In my experience (which may differ from the experiences of others), I prefer a well done passive crossover being driven by an amp whose muscularity is clearly capable of driving the load ten fold. The fewer things the signal has to travel through- generally the cleaner the music. No worries, I'm not gonna jump into the single driver crowd just yet! But if I did, it'd be an JBL LE8! ;)



Nathan.

boputnam
02-02-2007, 04:18 PM
Hi, Nathan...

Thanks for the Link - I had seen that but it's good to have it referred to again. A pretty favorable review.

wrt the "GL" issue that Steve Stone speaks about - I discussed that with James Tanner at Bryston and that was an older design (1994), a problem which has since been remedied. I've not had any GL issues. btw, the guys at Bryston are great to work with.

I had a thought on passive vs active crossovers - I may be repeating a post found under Everest II DD66000 (reviews from CES), so bear with me:

Greg Timbers designed the DD66000 to work flawlessly with it's internal, passive network. This was done so the DD66000 can be nearly plug-and-play - very user friendly. JBL did not want a product who's sophistication would deter potential owners. There are a few "filter" options in the face of each cabinet that provide limited optimization for room response - these comprise gold-plated bridging plates to re-direct the signal through different / optional crossover circuitry. Pretty cool.

However, Greg reported when bi-amped, the DD66000 is "simply from another world". Bi-amp was his preference, for sure, but takes extra high-quality and expensive outboard gear, and related know-how. Just grist for the mill... :hmm:

merlin
02-02-2007, 04:37 PM
Thanks for the link Nathan. Hell I guess I simply want it all! I suppose everything represents a subtractive compromise to some degree - I just need to find the compromise that suits me best.

Has anyone ever tried one of Phil Marchand's tube designs? I have heard enough digital filters to know what they can do for imaging and detail retrieval, but I've yet to hear one that carries the natural musical communication of an analogue tube setup. A tube crossover and Manley EQ would possibly be a mighty fine alternative.

Ken Pachkowsky
02-02-2007, 05:54 PM
A tube crossover and Manley EQ would possibly be a mighty fine alternative.

It sure would be fun to try. I have never used a Pultec but have heard nothing but rave reviews. They are a standard in high end studio's.

Ken

X_X
02-02-2007, 05:58 PM
Bo,

With the way components have evolved over the last few years- it doesn't surprise me to know that there are some amazing active units out there. I am continually amazed at how far the quality of resistors, inductors, capacitors, and in some cases- transformers have come. Although some might argue that these things are worse! I find the good stuff to be far more accurate, transparent, and reliable. I bet the 10B is very nice. Even a circa 1994 unit is probably still near the top of the pile.

I am building a pair of charge coupled crossovers with Giskard's help, and hopefully it will be the best of both worlds. Yet, I'd still like to master the art of passive line levels...

Marchand makes a PLLXO (XM46 (http://www.marchandelec.com/xm46.html)) right out of the box.

Here is a quote from Phil:

"Because of the passive design the signal-to-noise ratio is very high. The noise generated by the crossover is much lower than for the electronic crossovers. The use of large ferrite pot-cores for the inductors is responsible for the low harmonic distortion levels. The circuit needs no power supply and is ideal for incorporating into other equipment, like power amplifiers, etc. We can also provide these crossovers assembled into a cabinet, with or without output level attenuators."


Of course, there is the insertion loss to consider, but we're talking about driving JBL's here! It only takes a little power to push through a passive and still rock a JBL speaker- especially if the bottom end is a pair of 2245's. I still prefer amps that are overkill- even if the knob stays below the 1/4 mark.

Nathan.

4313B
02-02-2007, 06:09 PM
Of course, there is the insertion loss to consider, but we're talking about driving JBL's here!It's never been an issue for me. The top ends are usually more efficient.

jim campbell
02-02-2007, 06:47 PM
deleted

scott fitlin
02-03-2007, 09:06 AM
Has anyone ever tried one of Phil Marchand's tube designs? I have heard enough digital filters to know what they can do for imaging and detail retrieval, but I've yet to hear one that carries the natural musical communication of an analogue tube setup. A tube crossover and Manley EQ would possibly be a mighty fine alternative.Phil Marchand says his tubed XO sounds SOOOO clear, and natural, I havent had the pleasure of hearing it though. I do have an XM44 SS XO which is very good, especially considering it doesnt cost a mil.

I have heard Pultecs, the original, Manley, and Summit Audio. They are all good, and all EXPENSIVE, but, for what they do, are amazingly sweet sounding EQ,s.

I happen to like the Summit Audio EQP-200, really sweet sounding top end, and clear midrange, and full sounding bottom, with terrific defintion. Definetely leans to the warm sound a bit. $2950 list. www.summitaudio.com (http://www.summitaudio.com).

The Manley is recording studio clean, but warm sounding, capable of pretty high gain and BIG bottom, and ULTRA expensive. They also have another EQ, Pultec styled, but even more comprehensive, The Massive Passive, SUPER EQ! Again, PRICEY!

The original Pultec I have heard in studios, great for kick drums and such, but, being old as they are, and if they have their original carbon pots, get scratchy, and no original parts still available, same for the tubes they use. So, I wouldnt go for one of these, not to mention they are RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE when you do come across them because of their collectibilty.

The BEST midrange of any of these Pultec or Pultec style EQ,s I have ever heard was a D.W. Fearn EQ, absolutely amazing, and natural mids, slightly rolled off sounding top end, though. However, they make these for recording studios, so they have click detented level and frequency switches, instead of continuosly variable pots. Also 4 rack space for a single channel unit, and also really expensive.

I have always favored the Summit EQP-200, with its hybrid SS/Tube circuitry, and this unit offers pretty good price to performance ratio! Best bang for the buck in this category of EQ,s, IMHO! The Jensen 990 discrete op amp output stage has a sweet sound, especially the top end.

Yet two more EQ,s to look at, and audition if your going to spend the money, is the Massenburg GML-8200. SS parametric EQ, very flexible in what you can do with it! www.massenburg.com (http://www.massenburg.com). And the Cranesong Ibis, www.cranesong.com (http://www.cranesong.com).

:)

eyedoc
02-03-2007, 11:02 AM
Ok, terrible question I know, but you never know until you ask...:blink:

With the idea that many things are cheaper (as well as less expensive) with new technology these days, i.e. computers as a whole, are the cheap active crossovers like pyle and others useless? I am not ready to drop more $$ on a crossover that my speakers, but am always looking for other options. Or should I still stay with my t3 series stock circuitry?

Thanks as always.

Mr. Widget
02-03-2007, 11:16 AM
With the idea that many things are cheaper (as well as less expensive) with new technology these days, i.e. computers as a whole...The analogy doesn't completely hold... at the low end, say Behringer... it does, but further up the food chain, the numbers of units sold is just too small for dramatic price savings... and if you are talking analog crossovers, the technology simply hasn't changed much if at all depending on the design so the cost would only go up over the years and not down.



... are the cheap active crossovers like pyle and others useless?I have no idea what a Pyle crossover is like, but I have messed around with Behringer, Rane, JBL, and Ashly... I'd put the Ashly far above the rest at this level.

Are these inexpensive networks better than going with a single amp and a passive crossover at the speaker... there are too many variables to make a blanket statement, but in many cases the answer would be no. If you are adding crap at the front end, you will hear it coming through your speakers.

The best inexpensive approach is to use a passive network at line level... i.e. between the preamp and amp. There are several on line sites that can guide you through this... you need to know the impedances of your associated electronics and the R-C types of networks typically used are rather simple, but with a passive network at line level you are not adding noise and distortion at the front end and you are not dealing with wild impedance swings and their issues at the speaker level filter design.


Widget

Robh3606
02-03-2007, 02:58 PM
With the idea that many things are cheaper (as well as less expensive) with new technology these days, i.e. computers as a whole, are the cheap active crossovers like pyle and others useless? I am not ready to drop more $$ on a crossover that my speakers, but am always looking for other options. Or should I still stay with my t3 series stock circuitry?

What is it you want to do??? You could Charge Couple the crossovers.

Rob:)

merlin
02-03-2007, 03:02 PM
Yet two more EQ,s to look at, and audition if your going to spend the money, is the Massenburg GML-8200


Many thanks for the advice Scott - you were reading my mind! I've heard the GML performing clever tricks in a friend's studio. There's something simply right about analogue Eq done properly to my ears - maybe I'm too nostalgic.

I'm going to try and borrow a Massive Passive at some stage and compare with DEQX. I am really hoping that the digital option wins out as it would be one heck of a lot less costly than trying to do this thing with tubes and passive pots!

Thanks again to all those of you who have been kind enough to help out with the emptying of my bank account.

scott fitlin
02-03-2007, 04:37 PM
The Massenburg is a great piece. George Massenburgs stuff is all that good. Very transparent, clean, with amazing headroom.

Ive played with the 8200, its a winner, but, definitely not tubey sounding. Crystal clear, very precise, SS EQ! The outboard power supply for the Massenburg is outstanding, and + and - 24v rails are BEEFY!

FWIW, I dig tube EQ,s with both analog and dsp XO,s.

You couldnt really go wrong with any of the choices listed. You just gotta find whats " Soup Du Jour " for you.

Guido
02-04-2007, 05:01 AM
I found this always very interesting.
Isn't it that these filters need to be tailored to the input impedance of the amp??


Yet, I'd still like to master the art of passive line levels...

Marchand makes a PLLXO (XM46 (http://www.marchandelec.com/xm46.html)) right out of the box.

Here is a quote from Phil:

"Because of the passive design the signal-to-noise ratio is very high. The noise generated by the crossover is much lower than for the electronic crossovers. The use of large ferrite pot-cores for the inductors is responsible for the low harmonic distortion levels. The circuit needs no power supply and is ideal for incorporating into other equipment, like power amplifiers, etc. We can also provide these crossovers assembled into a cabinet, with or without output level attenuators."

Hoerninger
02-04-2007, 05:40 AM
I found this always very interesting.
Isn't it that these filters need to be tailored to the input impedance of the amp??
Yes, of course. ;) Instead of 8 Ohms you have 10 Kilo-Ohms for example. (Output impedance must be considered as well.)
___________
Peter

m8o
02-04-2007, 08:43 AM
Many thanks for the replies gentlemen. Was there talk of a DIY version of the Passlabs at some point? I haven't heard that but you can check on the Nelson Pass forum on diyAudio.com:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=8

I do own the original TaCT RCS which I use to bi-Amp my Martin Logan Sequel IIs which does a very good job, and the technlogy has advanced a great deal since that. Though the closest I have to an 'audiophile' friend prefers when I use an analog x-over.

I can't talk about what's best for tri amplification yet as I don't have the notable experiance others do that already contributed. The DEQX sounds great; like the TaCT I own but much better an newer. I'm undertaking a project where I'm tri-amping my Klipsch La Scalas up front, using 3 mini-Smiths from John W. with 2402 drivers for tweeters, + a mix of full-sized smith horns (for the center) and original K401 mid horns -- all driven by constant current amps of my design... I'll of course be actively crossing over. So I need 3 3-way x-overs. I'm insisting on time-alignment for the tweeters (and mid if it needs it), thus I've settled on digital due to the difficulty in producing long delays for the treble. This happens to be my 'short list' of options that I'm considering, in order of consideration:

http://www.groundsound.com/dcn23.html
in complete kit form:
http://www.groundsound.com/dcnkit.html

OR

http://www.xilica.com/products.html
specifically: http://www.xilica.com/docs/XMSERIES.pdf

There there's also a new Behringer coming out. Though that'll only address 2 of my 3 speakers I need handled, so that's not for me.

boputnam
02-04-2007, 10:33 AM
There's also a new Behringer coming out...:scold: :offtopic:
:rotfl:

merlin
02-04-2007, 11:25 AM
M8o,

I'm glad to hear that the DEQX is better than the Tact. I used the Tact like you, and also like you, many friends who were simply music lovers preferred the system without any digital crossovers or dsp.

I like the simplicity of the PLLXO in theory - the lack of any active components or digital conversions. The answer will no doubt be to try all four options - but I'll need to get help with two!

Out of interest, a friend has been looking at these (http://www.anadigm.com/sol_audio.asp) for those of us terrified of all things digital but intent on having some adjustability. Have any of you guys ever heard of them or tried the product? It sounds like a neat idea.

eyedoc
02-04-2007, 02:05 PM
What is it you want to do??? You could Charge Couple the crossovers.

Rob:)


I have been reading (dangerous I know) about the increased efficiency and sound quality with external crossovers, and I am always interested in looking at improvements to the system. I have although, decided that I am probably out of my league at this time. Besides, it has been a few years since my undergraduate physics classes, and in fact, I lost my A for the second semester because the electro magnetic test kicked my butt:banghead:. Oh well, I guess I will stay with optics... and go back to other projects...

m8o
02-04-2007, 02:25 PM
:scold: :offtopic:
:rotfl: Exqueeze me? I baking powder? [Wayne's World ;) ] ...please elaborate "how"? Merlin asks about "high quality active filters" in the OP of which the said new digital behringer is. Please edjamacate me. (or is this implying "behringer" isn't "high quality" ??? )

m8o
02-04-2007, 02:39 PM
M8o,
I'm glad to hear that the DEQX is better than the Tact. I used the Tact like you, and also like you, many friends who were simply music lovers preferred the system without any digital crossovers or dsp. merlin, Big oops ... I don't want to give any false impressions. I meant the DEQX sounds 'better' then the TaCT "on paper" after reading the capabilities, specs, and comments about it. I did not mean to imply that I had heard it.

I found the Room Correction and subtle differences in the EQ curve I used with the TaCT (which I always based off inverting a measured RTA curve when using a 'flat' EQ curve in the TaCT) had a noticable difference in the 'cohesivness' of the music reproduction. Comments from the 'audiophile' -type friend aside, I still wouldn't give it up. ;) Problem is one of my Audio Research Classic 150 monoblocks got burnt in a lightning strike, and I still haven't sent it in to get fixed, so I haven't used that system in years. ...I'm all about horns lately anyway tho, as you ca tell from my current project.

Zilch
02-04-2007, 02:42 PM
There there's also a new Behringer coming out.Link, please.... :yes:

m8o
02-04-2007, 02:44 PM
Link, please.... :yes:
http://www.behringer.com/DCX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG (http://www.behringer.com/DCX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG)
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?Partnumber=248-669

or am I mistaken and that has been out already, just delays in producing new units?

boputnam
02-04-2007, 02:48 PM
...(or is this implying "behringer" isn't "high quality" ??? ):yes: :no: Behringer is simply not in the league of gear you are discussing.

In SR, I have been on the giving and receiving end of many Behringer gear - both as the FOH engineer and as the artist. There is nothing subtle nor sonically transparent about them. If we can hear it in the SR world, this is nothing you should consider in the audiophile space. I won't even use their gear in SR - I respect my audience too much... :)

Behringer do things at their price point, because they want to - no one competes at their "level".

m8o
02-04-2007, 02:50 PM
Thanx. Noted. That's info is invaluable to know.

Zilch
02-04-2007, 02:52 PM
http://www.behringer.com/DCX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?Partnumber=248-669

or am I mistaken and that has been out already, just delays in producing new units?Been out for several years, actually. It was discontinued for about a year in the U.S., allegedly because they failed to secure the necessary regulatory agency approvals prior to marketing here.

There seems to be an intermittent noise problem with them, the "Frying egg" syndrome, as yet not entirely resolved.

I haven't talked to Behringer direct about this, but it's on the list. I'm troubleshooting one sent to me by a forum member here.... :(

merlin
02-04-2007, 04:22 PM
With the Behringer, if you replace the analogue sections with audiophile components, drop in an off board linear power supply unit, fit decent WBT connectors all round, and bypass the DSP section completely, it can sound almost decent.

Mr. Widget
02-04-2007, 05:23 PM
With the Behringer, if you replace the analogue sections with audiophile components, drop in an off board linear power supply unit, fit decent WBT connectors all round, and bypass the DSP section completely, it can sound almost decent.:rotfl:


Widget

Robh3606
02-04-2007, 07:39 PM
With the Behringer, if you replace the analogue sections with audiophile components, drop in an off board linear power supply unit, fit decent WBT connectors all round, and bypass the DSP section completely, it can sound almost decent.


Well at least you like the case

Rob:)

m8o
02-05-2007, 08:17 PM
Regarding another digital processor made for live sound that can serve as a digital x-over .... Does anyone have experience with the BSS processor?
http://www.bssaudious.com/includes/product_sheet_include.aspx?product_id=32
If any do, would you say it's suitable for use in a 'quiet' media room? Or is it just suitable for 'live sound' where it's made for, where a much higher level of noise and distortion is acceptable? i.e., wondering is it 'Behringer-like' or much higher end? There's a well respected member here who's selling some but I can't find any discussion about it out on the 'net. The list price is many thousand, but there seems to be a bunch selling on eBay for a small fraction of list. That's 'odd' IMO; I'm worried it's 'telling' as to quality as well.

Ian Mackenzie
02-06-2007, 06:34 AM
Bo,

With the way components have evolved over the last few years- it doesn't surprise me to know that there are some amazing active units out there. I am continually amazed at how far the quality of resistors, inductors, capacitors, and in some cases- transformers have come. Although some might argue that these things are worse! I find the good stuff to be far more accurate, transparent, and reliable. I bet the 10B is very nice. Even a circa 1994 unit is probably still near the top of the pile.

I am building a pair of charge coupled crossovers with Giskard's help, and hopefully it will be the best of both worlds. Yet, I'd still like to master the art of passive line levels...

Marchand makes a PLLXO (XM46 (http://www.marchandelec.com/xm46.html)) right out of the box.

Here is a quote from Phil:

"Because of the passive design the signal-to-noise ratio is very high. The noise generated by the crossover is much lower than for the electronic crossovers. The use of large ferrite pot-cores for the inductors is responsible for the low harmonic distortion levels. The circuit needs no power supply and is ideal for incorporating into other equipment, like power amplifiers, etc. We can also provide these crossovers assembled into a cabinet, with or without output level attenuators."


Of course, there is the insertion loss to consider, but we're talking about driving JBL's here! It only takes a little power to push through a passive and still rock a JBL speaker- especially if the bottom end is a pair of 2245's. I still prefer amps that are overkill- even if the knob stays below the 1/4 mark.

Nathan.

I was about to unsubscribe to this thread and thought it would be worth mentioning the above will only work assuming the source has enough drive (current/voltage) and won't react badly to the inductive load of this passive network.

While most domestic line pre outputs will drive 1k loads they may not do it as cleanly as a 5 Kohm or typicially 20 Kohm load and output may significantly reduced. Typically distortion climbs rapidly at high frequencies in this situaton. It will also be important to check the preamp volume pot is not on the ouput like many valve preamps. A high current class A buffer is really required for this type of design.

Your power amp should also have a relatively high input impediance to the 10K pots on the output of the network.

So there is no free lunch with this.:)

Ian

boputnam
02-06-2007, 12:57 PM
Regarding another digital processor made for live sound that can serve as a digital x-over .... Does anyone have experience with the BSS processor?
http://www.bssaudious.com/includes/product_sheet_include.aspx?product_id=32
Not that unit, but I have used both their minidrive and omnidrive - they are great units (although programming seemed a bit clunky, to me, compared to other brands <KT, xta, etc>...).


Or is it just suitable for 'live sound' ... where a much higher level of noise and distortion is acceptable?Ahem. I cannot believe you think this way... :(

In "general", BSS is good gear - very high ranking. BSS certainly exceeds Behringer quality, and is priced accordingly. I have not tried their gear in a home setting.

m8o
02-06-2007, 02:33 PM
Not that unit, but I have used both their minidrive and omnidrive - they are great units (although programming seemed a bit clunky, to me, compared to other brands <KT, xta, etc>...).
Ahem. I cannot believe you think this way... :(
In "general", BSS is good gear - very high ranking. BSS certainly exceeds Behringer quality, and is priced accordingly. I have not tried their gear in a home setting. Thanx for the info. That's very helpful.

I did not mean offense against 'live gear'. Just that I was always under the impression home-audio warrants and requires a much lower noise floor then sound reinforcment gear, and has a tenet of 'neutral' signal transportation and amplification; but live gear often includes 'processing' the signal. Elaborating, I was speaking within the context that sound reinforcment usually utilizes such processing (whether analog or digital) as a compressor and/or limiter, or various types of transformations to the signal like reverb, echo, or alterations to the attack/decay envelope .... all implying 'non-linearity' of the output signal compared to what the input is. With these transformations of the signal being in the time domain as well as frequency domain, all in a manner that nets substantially different characteristics to what one hears then just tone adjustment or frequency-based attenuation of the active crossover section that would be used in a 'home audio' active x-over.

...but it's really the two points of the "noise-floor" and quality of the A/D and D/A quality I was most wondering about -- when compared to other devices that had been mentioned earlier in the thread.

I've actually committed to buying it, so I'll see! :D Based on what you're saying I should be happy. Having 'one box' taking care of tri-amping 3 channels that I can program with a PC is right up my alley. Though I'll only be utilizing about 10% (if that) of what it can do.

johnaec
02-06-2007, 04:29 PM
Elaborating, I was speaking within the context that sound reinforcment usually utilizes such processing (whether analog or digital) as a compressor and/or limiter, or various types of transformations to the signal like reverb, echo, or alterations to the attack/decay envelope .... all implying 'non-linearity' of the output signal compared to what the input is..What you have to realize here is that those "effects" are being added to the "live" sound to deal with exactly the same problems that are dealt with in a studio. The difference is that they've already been added to the recordings you buy, (when recorded in the studio), but have to be added to live sound, (concerts, etc.) - again, to address specific problems or preferences.


With these transformations of the signal being in the time domain as well as frequency domain, all in a manner that nets substantially different characteristics to what one hears then just tone adjustment or frequency-based attenuation of the active crossover section that would be used in a 'home audio' active x-over.The problem with live sound is that these time and frequency adjustments must be made to compensate for the usually far from ideal acoustic conditions of most live venues - a problem you don't usually have in most studios or well-designed home listening rooms.


...but it's really the two points of the "noise-floor" and quality of the A/D and D/A quality I was most wondering about...This is a valid point, but I think you'll find the noise floor of most high-end live gear to be very close to quality home gear - much of it is really that good these days, especially if 96K or 192K conversion.


Having 'one box' taking care of tri-amping 3 channels that I can program with a PC is right up my alley. Though I'll only be utilizing about 10% (if that) of what it can do. Likely true, but they're still really fun... ;) (I use a DBX DR260 for all sorts of things.)

John

boputnam
02-06-2007, 05:18 PM
...With these transformations of the signal being in the time domain as well as frequency domain, all in a manner that nets substantially different characteristics to what one hears then just tone adjustment or frequency-based attenuation of the active crossover section that would be used in a 'home audio' active x-over.Yup, and barring the very few home systems that I've heard which are done right, I'd put my SR system up against all of them. It is tri-amped, time-aligned, in-phase (acoustically), excellently EQ'd and with no C/L unless the specific input triggers it. Clean, very low noise floor and astonishing tonality. L-Acoustics mains, JBL 2242 subs, KT DN9848 DSP (to highlight but a few in the rack...) and QSC power. Jawdropping, particularly at low gain...

But I get your point. My point was, in SR settings, "studio" or audiophile quality gear often cannot be appreciated due to reverberations and/or acoustic coupling with the edifice/trees :p which overwhelm the clarity of the system, per se. Conversely, the use of BSS or other top pro gear in SR situations can be fine. Having said that, for SR I did hear the difference between digital DSP's, and decided to go to the Klark Teknik 9848, for it's great sonic character and powerful filtering options.

merlin
02-07-2007, 12:57 AM
It's interesting to hear opinions on the various pro options - all to often they can represent the best possible solution given their more acceptable pricing structure. It seems that the weak point of most digital gear is not in the processing it's self, but in the analogue stages and DAC's used.

I'm old school when it comes to DAC's - multibit sound best to me every time. One unit that hasn't been mentioned is the Accuphase DF-45 (http://www.axissaudio.com/digital/DF45.htm). Not exactly the type of bargain yard sales are renowned for, it seems to have a great deal of attention focussed on the analogue conversion and interfaces. I remember Andre at E Speakers had one a while ago with some of those pesky TAD units. Did anyone get feedback?

Ken Pachkowsky
02-07-2007, 08:18 AM
One unit that hasn't been mentioned is the Accuphase DF-45 (http://www.axissaudio.com/digital/DF45.htm). Did anyone get feedback?

I have searched high and low for one of these in the used market. They are rare to say the least. They also retain the value to a large degree. I spoke to a fellow in northern California that has one on a three way system and he raved about it.

In short, I continue to be very currious re trying one out.

Ken

boputnam
02-07-2007, 08:39 AM
In short, I continue to be very currious re trying one out.Yea, but "...that's just you all over!" (said the tinman to the scarecrow) :rotfl:

They look incredibly smart, but holy-cow what a cost! And no rack ears!! :bs: :p
Interesting that they've not incorporated any PEQ filters. That would seem easy to do, and obviate getting a separate unit.

Makes me want to try the KT DN9848 unit in the home and see...

Ken Pachkowsky
02-07-2007, 11:12 AM
Yea, but "...that's just you all over!" (said the tinman to the scarecrow) :rotfl:



I can't argue that.

If the shoe fits!:yes:

Later Bud

boputnam
02-07-2007, 11:43 AM
I can't argue that.Ha! I love it.

You are my favorite Guinea Pig - you do it to yourself! Us in white coats merely have to keep our clipboards handy to take notes!! :rotfl:

Do keep us posted! ;)

Ken Pachkowsky
02-07-2007, 12:24 PM
Do keep us posted! ;)

Of course:D

merlin
02-07-2007, 03:02 PM
Ken,

How much does the Accuphase sell for it the US? I noticed that the retail prices seem really high compared with Japan.

scott fitlin
02-07-2007, 04:27 PM
Last time I saw the Accuphase XO advertised it was like $8000. That was back in the 90,s.

boputnam
02-07-2007, 05:35 PM
I googled a price of $7,xxx, so it is in that range. Would love to A/B it to the KT DN9848, which is considerably less dough and considerably more "powerful"...

Ken Pachkowsky
02-07-2007, 09:00 PM
Ken,

How much does the Accuphase sell for it the US? I noticed that the retail prices seem really high compared with Japan.

Yep, I saw a price of 8K plus in the USA.

Ken

merlin
02-08-2007, 03:00 PM
Hey Ken, you are lucky. It's about $16,000 over in Europe.:(

I'm currently playing around with their C2800 preamp and the build quality makes some Levinson look like my DIY. It's a shame that the latest Accuphase units no longer feature multi tapped transformers. Damn I hate price fixing in this industry.

I will however look forward to reading how you get on with yours in the near future;)