PDA

View Full Version : Ashly XR1001 Active Crossover



boputnam
05-03-2004, 08:23 PM
On advice of my FOH engineer, of Technical Support Consultants, Albuquerque, NM, I grabbed two of these for a trail. One in the pro gear, road rack; the other here at home with the 4345's.

The XR1001 is a 24dB/octave crossover, with adjustable crossover point. And, as GordonW was posting today, this has an adjustable "response", allowing for modifying the curve in the area of f0, while maintaining the 24dB slopes.

Results were most impressive. In the pro road gear, my EV Eliminator mains have not before sounded so clear, and so effortless. Punchier bass, and very clear highs. There, I'm using a 75Hz crossover point, with -3dB response and +3dB for the LF (subs).

At home with the 4345's, Ian and I went through A/B rounds against the 5234A. At the end, we both preferred the Ashly XR1001. The bass was more distinct, and had very good punch. There was notably much better definition right around the crossover point (290Hz). The HF was the biggest surprise, being more "open", and the horns were much less "beamy" (although they were not bad with the 5234A - but were certainly better with the XR1001). The soundstage was noticeably deeper. Overall, a wonderful, wonderful sound.

Mr. Widget got a run at the XR1001 too - with his new Clones. He too is quite impressed, and has now gone and got one. I'll let him add his commentary, but with his wooden horns the soundstage was pretty phenomenal. Really, really nice.

So, for now I've retired the 5234A, and we're running with the XR1001. If you get a chance, I'd suggest you "give it a go..." (Ian parlance... ;) ).

http://www.ashly.com/xr-series.htm

Mr. Widget
05-03-2004, 09:57 PM
Bo was generous enough to let me give one of his XR1001s a whirl while I was setting up my speakers in their new (and still quite unfinished) enclosures. Unfortunately I have been dealing with a bit of a head cold and my hearing is just now coming back. I was quite impressed with it from my direct comparisons with two active crossovers that I had that were available. The crossovers that I compared it to were an old Audioarts unit and a Rane AC22. I need to configure the cables and then I will compare it to a Crown VFX-2A I also have.

Basically I didn't get the feeling that the sound was being unduly processed. The Ranes that I have always sound a bit hard and constricting. The Audioarts sounds a bit veiled and dull. I have a couple of other crossovers that I really like , but they aren't as flexible as the Ashly or any of these other three either.

Widget

Chas
09-09-2004, 10:49 AM
Bo and Widget (or anyone who has some comments), I am contemplating getting a pair of XR-1001's to use as mono 3 ways.

Do you guys still feel the same about them?

One of my Behringers went into 120 Hz apoplectic shock (filter cap expired) after three weeks in service.
:biting: :banghead: :bomb:

I am nervous about still using them on my beloved JBL's......

Mr. Widget
09-09-2004, 11:49 AM
Still thumbs up! :yes:

Widget

scott fitlin
09-09-2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Widget
Bo was generous enough to let me give one of his XR1001s a whirl while I was setting up my speakers in their new (and still quite unfinished) enclosures. Unfortunately I have been dealing with a bit of a head cold and my hearing is just now coming back. I was quite impressed with it from my direct comparisons with two active crossovers that I had that were available. The crossovers that I compared it to were an old Audioarts unit and a Rane AC22. I need to configure the cables and then I will compare it to a Crown VFX-2A I also have.

Basically I didn't get the feeling that the sound was being unduly processed. The Ranes that I have always sound a bit hard and constricting. The Audioarts sounds a bit veiled and dull. I have a couple of other crossovers that I really like , but they aren't as flexible as the Ashly or any of these other three either.

Widget I wish i were near you, this way we could compare it to the urei 525 that I like! This, the 525, and Crown MX-4,s are my favorites for full range use!

I also like the VFX-2A for driving sub and tweeter amps. I am going to put one back into my system that has been modified for me, this one has front panel output level attenuators, why Crown never did this I will never know!

As for the AudioArts unit, I believe that those used Allen-Bradley carbon composition pots, and carbon wears, and after much use, even if they arent scratchy, get noticeably dull sounding! If you could source NEW Clarostat Conductive Plastic pots for that AudioArts xover, Id bet the cost of parts and install, that it would improve the sound of your unit quite considerably!

I agree with your statement about the Rane xovers! Always sounded like it restricted and compressed the music, to me!

boputnam
09-12-2004, 07:07 AM
Hey, Scotty...

Glad you revisited this Thread. I've only gotten more and more fond of this unit. One of the greatest attributes is the "Response" curve adjustment . The ability to shape the curve(s) in the area of the crossover (without altering the overall slopes) is very powerful for fine tuning between cabinets and for the ambient acoustics. Here's a close-up of the panel, and a description of the Response adjustment (from the catalogue):

scott fitlin
09-12-2004, 01:37 PM
Although its an older X77E, but it also has the damping adjustment!

Maybe I go get me one of these newer ones, and try it out!

scott fitlin
09-12-2004, 05:33 PM
Im gonna have to let somebody try the modified urei 525, and see what they think!

Mike Caldwell
09-18-2004, 12:47 PM
Hello
Another very good crossover to try is a TDM.
They are available in two stereo and three way stereo.
I use many of them in my PA systems and they sound great.
You can find them on e-bay from time to time.

If your thinking of going the digital route I feel you need to drop
serious $$$$$$$ to get a good sounding processor something
like a XTA , higher end BSS or a Lake. All of the DSP's give you
a lot parameters to control but not all of them sound that
natural when listening to them.

Mike Caldwell

scott fitlin
09-18-2004, 01:29 PM
I love my urei 525! and with a few minor mods its a sweet beast!

boputnam
09-18-2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Mike Caldwell
If your thinking of going the digital route I feel you need to drop serious $$$$$$$ to get a good sounding processor something like a XTA , higher end BSS or a Lake. All of the DSP's give you a lot parameters to control but not all of them sound that natural when listening to them. Mike, that is a critically important point.

Low-cost digital gear gives low-quality sound. IMO, if you can't afford top-line digital, stay top-quality analogue. I've noticed on some friends rigs that using digital processors like the (shall I mention it here...? :eek: ), the sound coherancy (or quality) seems to degrade as gain is increased.

Ian Mackenzie
09-18-2004, 05:13 PM
Bo,

Thats a good point. Generally these digital boxes are more a convenience for the Pro user in terms of set up time and precision control.

The more processing you engage, the more 0's & 1 get crunched and the quality starts to drop. You also have the quantitisation and noise floor problems. Not enough signal and you loose details and distortion goes up, too much and digital clipping is horrible. Analogue is almost the opposite and in this respect as far as Hifi goes it wins out, the higher the resolution the more HiFi you have, particularly low level details. On the other hand for pro PA, precision control and military fire power are all the go and digital is good for that.

I heard the Ashely at Bo's and its very good value for money and tunable, the JBL is still a well designed unit but is out classed by new componentry in the Ashely.

For those who are interested I will be trialing the active crossover project shortly and as we speak I am preparing two identifical units for my 4345's Down Under and Bo's in CA. The plan is to evaluate the units and see "if" the discrete design and all the TLC put into them is subjectively worth the effort.

The thing is Old Tin Ear has a habbit of decanting the local grape into rather large wine glasses and perching himself on a bar stool when he's doing serious listening. I am not sure I will be able to mimick his act!!....LOL.

Ian

scott fitlin
09-18-2004, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by boputnam
Mike, that is a critically important point.

Low-cost digital gear gives low-quality sound. IMO, if you can't afford top-line digital, stay top-quality analogue. I've noticed on some friends rigs that using digital processors like the (shall I mention it here...? :eek: ), the sound coherancy (or quality) seems to degrade as gain is increased. I had the BSS FDS-388 and I couldnt stand it! Midrange had a very bright sound, and there was always this white noise type of thing going on in the background! Heard it in other 388,s too!

Went to audition the BSS 366 Compact T with 24/96 digital audio! Better than the 388, but still not as good as top quality analog!

I also went to audition the XTA DSP processors which are even more expensive than the outrageously expensive BSS units, and many feel sound considerably better than the BSS units! It does sound somewhat cleaner than the BSS, but still, you know your listening to DSP processing! Again, something in the midrange bothers me!

Now, when I listened, and used these units, I engaged them strictly as crossovers, not using the additional features all of these units have! And they still arent as good as a really good analog crossover, no way!

Last week a friend brought over an EQ that features all discrete Class A circuitry and I couldnt believe just how good this thing sounded! Really good! Midrange was natural, and had a very vivid sound, yet somehow kind of creamy sounding! Clear as daylight, yet never sibilant, or edgy sounding!

So, at this point in time, I think Discrete circuitry is a home run.

boputnam
09-18-2004, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by scott fitlin
Last week a friend brought over an EQ that features all discrete Class A circuitry man I couldnt believe just how good this thing sounded! What brand and model was it, Scott?

scott fitlin
09-18-2004, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by boputnam
What brand and model was it, Scott? Well, it isnt an EQ in the sense you might be thinking! The companies name is DUO Audio, and its Daves new company, and he is a forum member as well. DancingDave!

The DUO 3 band Isolator is an EQ type device primarily for DJ use, with 12db of boost and infinite cut. The filters are seperated into 3 bands, low, Full range, and highs.

I have always stood away from using DJ type effect boxes in my system because they are usually low grade junk! Brands like Vestax come to mind here!

So, Dave is making High quality products for the Club/DJ market. He had it down here last week, and I couldnt believe just how good this thing sounded! Highs were smooth, open and airy, the mids were clear and very dimensional sounding, but without harshness, or edgy sound, really smooth, yet it pushed notes into the room, but without getting bright or fatiguing! It made the bass sound bigger, not boomy or pumped up, just bigger!

We listened to many records and some CD,s and its good! I played one record that has a guitar in the break, and it just made the strings sound really creamy, you could hear the pluck, but not bright, and yet extremely clear! The notes kind of hung in the air in front of you! This is the best way I can describe it!

After 2 hours he had to leave, and I have been missing the thing since! Before he left, he opened it up for me to see the inside. Nice board, nicely assembled, well thought out layout, great pots, big healthy power supply. No IC,s all discrete FET,s, resistors are high quality metal film types, good caps selected for how they sounded in this particular piece! And he made a point of telling me the circuitry is Class A! I have heard Class A components before so I knew what I was listening to, but it even made the CD,s sound good. I dont like CD sound, but this made them sound alot better to me! records were great!

Thre was just some kind of purity to the midrange. It didnt have the typical Solid State sound if you know what I mean!

dancing-dave
09-18-2004, 08:23 PM
This unit has a very basic layout and was built for the user to accentuate their favorite aspects of their music. It's a viable alternative to sonic maximizers, or more complex EQs because of it's simplicity. Since it has flat response there isn't the risk of missing out on your music.

The crossover points were chosen to cover the elements of music: bass, mid, high, so that a record that is defficient, or harsh, in any region of sound could be altered easily.

Full info: www.duo-audio.com

I've put the shameless plug in the Marketplace section with all the specs.

Mike Caldwell
09-19-2004, 07:10 AM
Hello
What I felt always separated the good from the bad in DSP units
was the resolution in the high frequency low level signals.
At this time all of my system crossovers are analog and will stay that way for the forseeable future.

Scott are the Urie crossovers you have the models with the
digital frequency display of the crossover frequency?

Mike Caldwell

scott fitlin
09-19-2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Mike Caldwell
Hello
What I felt always separated the good from the bad in DSP units
was the resolution in the high frequency low level signals.
At this time all of my system crossovers are analog and will stay that way for the forseeable future.

Scott are the Urie crossovers you have the models with the
digital frequency display of the crossover frequency?

Mike Caldwell Yes, I have the tuneable Urei 525,s with the LED dispaly! The earlier ones had plug in cards to set frequency so what Im using is more versatile!

My Urei 525 also has some mods that make the unit sound ( IMHO ) even better!

I had the DSP processor, and I auditioned the NEW top of the line BSS and XTA units, and they are very versatile, but still, I can hear the DSP, and whatever I attempted to do, I could not get the DSP processors to sound natural! Now, IMHO, the DSP processors sound suffers not only in low level high frequency, but low frequency as well. Through the DSP xovers, bass sounds anemic to me, and no amount of EQ, gain, or other adjustment can restore the body to the sound! What I did discover is that the DSP units clip and distort in an ugly way when pushed hard! Even the XTA, which is god awful expensive, and highly regarded in the pro world, could not satisfy my ears! All the DSP processors sound annoying to me after extended listening pereiods.

I, too, am still analog, and will be into the forseeable future!

Ian Mackenzie
07-03-2005, 02:13 PM
As a followup to the crossover saga the crossover used here was the Ashley .

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61627&postcount=318

The amp previously on the mids and highs was a Mac 150. There needs to be more evaluation to determine if either the amp or the crossover or both are the issue.

Either way its weird but if you raise the stakes high enough well somethings gotta give....a chain is only as strong as the weakest link(s).

Ian

Oldmics
07-05-2005, 07:06 PM
Pics of one of my drive racks.Unit on top is the new 428 from XTA (4 in,8 out)

Keeping this topic on the JBL note would be the trusted 280 used as a backup.

boputnam
07-06-2005, 07:31 AM
Hey, Oldmics... :wave:


Looks like you're outa rack space, yet again... :banghead:

:rotfl:

Mike Caldwell
07-06-2005, 03:18 PM
Hello
How easy are the XTA's to get around on just using the front panel.
I have committed to within a year going to DSP for mains and maybe
monitors as well.

Thanks
Mike Caldwell

Oldmics
07-06-2005, 03:36 PM
Access of parameters thru the front controls is easy enough once you take to the "digital mindset".


Since there is no visual reference once you tweek the controls and move to the next set of adjustments (leaving the screen to read only your next setup),it can be a bit daunting at first.

Using the software is a much better visual guide as it shows all parameters (most of them) simultainously.You do have access to all parameters thru the front controls-No hidden features that require a laptop interface.

Keep me in mind if you need prices as I am a dealer for most of this kinda stuff.

Oldmics

Ian Mackenzie
07-06-2005, 04:36 PM
Perhaps the thread should be titled "PA Equipment".

Non of this is "fit for the purpose" of audiophile sound reproduction.

Robh3606
07-06-2005, 05:27 PM
"Perhaps the thread should be titled "PA Equipment".

Non of this is "fit for the purpose" of audiophile sound reproduction."

Well if that's the case I have to add my M552's and M553 into this mix;) . They work for me and are analog crossovers. I still am not comfortable with the digital variety for the time being but that may change in the future. Hard to compete with the flexabillity if that's what you need to get the job done.

Rob:)

Mr. Widget
07-06-2005, 05:41 PM
JBL specifically said that the 43XX series was not for home use for about the first 10 years of that series' existence. They eventually changed their mind and I think many here believe that change was an appropriate one.;)

Widget

Ian Mackenzie
07-06-2005, 06:14 PM
Throw a dog a Bone and what happens.......Muhahhaha

The Doctor

Zilch
07-06-2005, 06:39 PM
Non of this is "fit for the purpose" of audiophile sound reproduction.Yeah, too CHEAP! ;)

[Same for pro amps....]

Baron030
07-06-2005, 06:44 PM
I know this sound like I am one upping a bit. But, I recently purchased an Ashly XR4001 4 way active crossover. And I am using it for a 15Ē- 4 way speaker system that is Quad Amplified. From the listening test that I have made so afar, I am very impressed with Ashly crossover. There is one tip I can offer on making system adjustments. The crossover frequency displayed on the front panel is not always going to be accurate. Ashly does clearly state this fact in their userís manual. When I was setting the crossover points on my system, I found actual over points to be slightly higher than the displayed values. So, for example, to set a crossover point at 1000 Hz, I had to set the knob so that it displayed 900 Hz. If you search this web site, you can find a link to site where you can down load some test tones. The test tones can provide you with a reference for adjusting actual crossover frequency. :)

Ian Mackenzie
07-06-2005, 09:03 PM
That wasn't fair was it.

These devices have controls suited for PRO audio applications, not a hifi system per say. They are also built around pro audio environment and parts inside are chosen around that need.

Its a bit like comparing a mixer to a hifi preamp. Which would you rather use?

43XX...Why do they often perform badly in the home?

Robh3606
07-07-2005, 05:11 AM
"That wasn't fair was it.

These devices have controls suited for PRO audio applications, not a hifi system per say. They are also built around pro audio environment and parts inside are chosen around that need.

Its a bit like comparing a mixer to a hifi preamp. Which would you rather use?

43XX...Why do they often perform badly in the home?"

Actually I think the point you raise is an interesting topic. What is the suitabillity of "Pro Gear" for home use?? I think it depends. There is excellent Pro Gear and some real garbage out there. Kind of like with normal HiFi stuff. If you consider Studio equipment Pro Gear why would you balk at using studio amps, crossovers and speakers in a home setting?? That's a real question by the way. I know Pro Designs like amplifiers are built rugged and bullet proof but are you saying the miss they nuances?? Crossovers well we have a good selection in this thread already. As far as the speakers not doing well at home. Look at the photo's you see?? Are the monitors optimized for a specific installation that may not be easy to pull off at home Yes! How many times have you seen less than optimum placement or large format soffit mounts right on the floor with the 077's well below the listener plane and no toe in??? To me that's just poor implementation on the owners part. Can you use this type of gear and get good results?? I think you can with careful selection and proper set-up. Can you get better results from a specific designed Hi Fi gear?? Maybe you can any one actually try any comparisons????

Rob:)

Ian Mackenzie
07-07-2005, 05:51 AM
"That wasn't fair was it.

These devices have controls suited for PRO audio applications, not a hifi system per say. They are also built around pro audio environment and parts inside are chosen around that need.

Its a bit like comparing a mixer to a hifi preamp. Which would you rather use?

43XX...Why do they often perform badly in the home?"

Actually I think the point you raise is an interesting topic. What is the suitabillity of "Pro Gear" for home use?? I think it depends. There is excellent Pro Gear and some real garbage out there.

>>Agreed, the better stuff costs thousands, unfortunately hifi is no longer and we have the 5.1 Wonderbox which were not considered hifi when they came in unless you buy the top model at around $5-7K and then there is so called Hi End Audio and seperates cost $000. It depends on how far you want to go and what you are striving for.

Its easy to get something that sounds dynamic with JBLs, loud and clean but can still sound hard and like a loud noise and not hifi in the sense of natural vocals micro fine details, natural instrument timbre etc.

I note the Japanese who take most of the JBL stuff use very expensive amps etc and they love their JBL's, I guess they figure its worth getting the best out of their expensive SACD players, amps and visa versa.

Kind of like with normal HiFi stuff. If you consider Studio equipment Pro Gear why would you balk at using studio amps, crossovers and speakers in a home setting?? That's a real question by the way. I know Pro Designs like amplifiers are built rugged and bullet proof but are you saying the miss they nuances?

Studio Gear and Pro Gear are imho name sakes that are interchanged for marketing purposes. I don't see anything on the Parts Express www page particularly inviting. Altec 604 's are studio gear and imho not fit for hifi or home use! (the sale of Altec and incarnations that followed unfortunately reduced not improve the performance of that device).

I have often hear studio engineers comment that recordings can sound better at home with true hifi systems..work that one out.

Crossovers well we have a good selection in this thread already.

My initial statement was in fact pointed at the discussions over quality/functionality of crossovers under discussion. The feeling is that digital is better than analogue and some see viritues in the Ashley which appears good value for money. The problem is everything is relative.

We did a listening evaluation last weekend to deduce if the Ashley crossover added or subtracted from the sound quality. I posted an extract if the comments, we also have the JBL M series to try out.

The feeling now is it sounds better running the 4343 full passive. Surprise surprise..perhaps not. My client was rather taken away by this and wrote a lengthy e mail prior to going on a vacation. But it depends on the level of your system and so on. I have heard others comment on the quality of their Ashley's.

We did this to enable us to determine the net improvement of various upgrade propositions to the 4343..so we can hear just what the speaker is doing.



As far as the speakers not doing well at home. Look at the photo's you see?? Are the monitors optimized for a specific installation that may not be easy to pull off at home Yes! How many times have you seen less than optimum placement or large format soffit mounts right on the floor with the 077's well below the listener plane and no toe in??? To me that's just poor implementation on the owners part. Can you use this type of gear and get good results?? I think you can with careful selection and proper set-up. Can you get better results from a specific designed Hi Fi gear?? Maybe you can any one actually try any comparisons????

Rob:)



.

Mike Caldwell
07-07-2005, 07:28 AM
Hello
As for the passive vs biamping a speaker system. Most speakers that offer the option to use the internal passive crossover or biamp, tri amp ect. when using the passive crossover there most likely is a fair amount of EQ and level attenuation built into the passive network to set the voicing of that speaker. When going to the biamp mode all or most of that pre EQ and atten. is bypassed and must be preformed at the crossover, eq or DSP. Multi amping offers many advantages to a passive system more headroom, better speaker damping with a dsp and some analog crossovers the ability to time align the speakers.

There are many pro audio components that would and sound excellent for home use. The main pro type of components that would have a use in a home system would be amp, crossovers, eq's and some speaker systems. Companies such as
Crown, QSC, Chevin, Lab Gruppen, Crest, Camco all make power amps that are excellent. Klark Teknik, BSS, Audient, Ashly all offer graphic and parametric EQ's that would be at home in a home. A company you maybe know from your area called ARX makes good power amps and eq's as well as a full line of audio equipment. With professional equipment there maybe an interface issue going from RCA outputs on a pre amp to the XLR balanced inputs but that is easy to take care of.

There are many brands that say pro that I would not touch with ten foot pole
or even consider to use for a backyard party. That equipement is your typical music store/music mail order catalog stuff aimed at the person only shopping by price and not thinking about sound quality or even how long the unit will even operate. Some of it is plainly copied designs and external apperance of other companies products built with production short cuts and very low grade components all to save money, Behringer has been suied by a handfull of companies for that very thing. You mentioned Parts Express....yes they do sell some of the budget equipment that I just mentioned they do however carry some good lines as well as a good selction of speakers and drivers for custom projects.
The biggest drawback to pro equipment in the home could be the more industrial look that some of it has and depending on the amp there may be some noise from the amps cooling fan if it has one, not in the audio signal but coming from the amp itself.

Mike Caldwell

Zilch
07-07-2005, 09:58 AM
For starters, there is no way in hell a 43xx box is ever going to compete with a 250Ti, XPL200A, or even a PT800 enclosure (very nice and entirely adequate for the specific task, but certainly not the same caliber as an XPL series enclosure). The battle is lost right there. Game over before it even starts.In your experience, are we on a good track box-wise here:

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=6403&page=3&p=61779

Perhaps you could reply in that thread. My most recent post there is really a plea for improvement suggestions.... :)

boputnam
07-07-2005, 11:27 AM
Hi, Lancer - welcome! :wave:

Could you steer your trusty steed to here? http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61921#post61921

Them all will be richer for your visit... :p

Robh3606
07-07-2005, 12:18 PM
Hi Lancer

"I have yet to hear a 43xx in a home environment beat something like a 250Ti, XPL200A or PT800. The problem isn't so much the drivers as it is the whole package."

I find that interesting. I rotate out 4344 and XPL-200A's both clones not stock in the same biamp set-up. I just took the 4344's out and put the XPL-200A back in on Tuesday night after listenening to the 4344's for about 2 months. My first impression was that the XPL's just disapear compared to the 4344's. I think the 4344 have them beat in the low bass and through the lower midrange where the 10" is running. Asside from that I think you are right about placement and such. You have to really work to get the 4344's to sound balanced with proper driver levels and placement and toe in for them to image. The XPL's are a lot easier to work with out of the box and as good as I can think the 4344's are I just can't get them to do the vanishing act the XPL's are so good at.

Rob:)

Ian Mackenzie
07-07-2005, 03:22 PM
Hi Lancer

"I have yet to hear a 43xx in a home environment beat something like a 250Ti, XPL200A or PT800. The problem isn't so much the drivers as it is the whole package."

I find that interesting. I rotate out 4344 and XPL-200A's both clones not stock in the same biamp set-up. I just took the 4344's out and put the XPL-200A back in on Tuesday night after listenening to the 4344's for about 2 months. My first impression was that the XPL's just disapear compared to the 4344's. I think the 4344 have them beat in the low bass and through the lower midrange where the 10" is running. Asside from that I think you are right about placement and such. You have to really work to get the 4344's to sound balanced with proper driver levels and placement and toe in for them to image. The XPL's are a lot easier to work with out of the box and as good as I can think the 4344's are I just can't get them to do the vanishing act the XPL's are so good at.

Rob:)

Your right, I've been slapping my gums on this for a while now ......Tandy meter and such. So many don't bother and so many get it seriously wrong.:banghead: . The there are those that must Eq the fuck out of the system rather than set the pads up correctly and they wonder 5 years later why it sounds like shit.:banghead: :banghead: .

When you actually get it right and you like cruising over a tonn (100dba) they can really fly very nicely. If you can be stuffed with all the messing around then sure, go for an XPL or a 250Ti.

Mr. Widget
07-07-2005, 04:17 PM
Hey Ian, maybe this should be called the Everything Thread.....

On the subject of passive vs. active networks, I have had some very interesting discoveries lately using DEQX. It is really amazing how different slopes and topologies can change the way speakers sound. With the added benefit of having Clio I can also see what is really happening when I change the slopes or type of crossover. DEQX gives me the choice of virtually any slope between 6dB per octave up to 300dB per octave and three types of crossovers. Butterworth, Linkwitz-Riley, and Linear Phase. Initially I thought that super steep Linear Phase crossovers were the ideal, but I have found that it is important to experiment with the system at hand as I currently like a 24dB Linkwitz-Riley for the woofer to mid horn and 300dB Linear Phase for the mid horn to tweeter.... I wouldn't be so bold as to say this will be the case for all systems, but in mine it sounds the best ...so far.

Obviously there are limitations as to what designers can do in a passive network, but to an extent they can taylor that network to smooth the response of a given system. If you use any of the active crossovers that we typically run into in either the home or pro worlds, you are stuck with this slope or that, you may be able to tweak the dip or bump at the crossover as with the Ashly or make some slope changes as in the Pass Labs crossover, but there isn't as much control as you may need to really maximize the system. The active crossovers will afford you the benefits as mentioned earlier by Mike Caldwell, but without a really good EQ, or a really good DSP based crossover you will likely be faced with other compromises. Ultimately as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, you really have to work at it with an active network. But if you have the ability and patience, the results are truly worth it. Alternatively, if you get a well designed off the shelf system you will probably be ahead. Most people do not have the test gear, either rack mounted or brain mounted to really maximize their system. Even with the aid of Clio it still takes me weeks of listening, measuring, tweaking and repeating until bliss is achieved.

Widget

Mr. Widget
07-07-2005, 04:38 PM
One additional thought... I use Rane AC-22s in my HT set-up and finally got around to measuring that system and tweaking it with the aid of my Clio rig.... I had originally set it up delaying the woofers the recommended amount as per Rane's manual. When I measured them, the response was improved with the delay turned off... listening confirmed this. Others may want to try this out and see what they hear.

Widget

Mike Caldwell
07-07-2005, 08:26 PM
Talk about a thread that has been brought back to life!

Analog crossovers that offer time alignment such as the Rane use a circuit design called a "all pass filter" to give up to a couple of milliseconds of delay with a combination of resistors and caps. Maybe someone can explain better how they work. Years ago I had a Rane AC23 in a system and I also thought it sounded better with the delay off. The TDM crossover I use now have the option for a delay on the outputs but I passed on them staying away from the all pass filters in the signal path. True time alignment is a very big plus for a DSP. As for the digital vs. analog crossover question my personal big concern and question iswhat happens if it glitches, locks up ect. as all computer/digital things can do. Not saying a analog unit will never have a problem but with something digital there are more things going on that any one of having a bad day can take out the entire DSP operation.

As for Ian's comment on people destroying the sound of a system with a EQ.....I have seen it many times where someone's system has no clarity, presence whatever you want to call it, then you notice that every band on the eq is cut in their attempt the get rid of feedback or it is set in the classic "smiley face"! For my home system I have a Hafler preamp and the tone controls are bypassed.

Mike Caldwell

Ian Mackenzie
07-07-2005, 09:18 PM
I absolutely agree that you need the flexibility to fiddle with a roll your own system. The Passlabs crossover allows independant crossover points, slopes up to 24 db and variable Q for Bessel and many other transfer functions..the manual is very extensive. (as does the hi end crossover Ken is building).

Where the system has pre set parameters like a 4343 I doubt if such fiddle is really necessary or desireable other than level match. The former remarks relate to distortion and transparency. The Ashley crossover is hardly a quality match for the Mac preamp and a Passlabs X250 power amp so its not a surprise at that level that the passive crossover sounds subjectively better.

(I note from the schematic this crossover design uses a now outdated TL072 chip and while it was well regarded in the early 80's it not deemed audio grade compared the lastest chips from BB and AD)

Although this is perhaps an extreme case I wonder what the point of upgrading a a charge coupled network is if your active crossover is not up to par?

Knowing the above I would recommend spending $300 in a pair of 60 uf Auricaps for the mid high pass filter in the equivalent 4343-4345 crossover over a similar sum on the Ashly crossover , the proviso being you have a decsent amp and preamp. A redundant issue for our valve amp friends on the forums. The charge coupling is of course and value =$ alternative.

Getting back to my original point I think it pays to review your system performance ocassionally by changing just "one" component as we often get buried in our own pressumptions about what might be better or worse.

sdaniel
07-18-2005, 09:07 AM
Still thumbs up! :yes:

Widget


Hmm, not sure if I got this attached to the right thread, seems the subject matter has changed a bit- oh well,

Original text:

I'm tempted by everyone's enthusiasm, and past good experience with Ashley. The XR 1001 is almost in budget, and would be easyer than building my own crossovers. I wonder, however, how the user knows if the chosen frequency is the actual frequency, I mean, those little knobs just point to numbers on a printed chasis. Does someone at the factory callibrate the finished unit? Would a user who needed precision have to hook it up to an ocilloscope or meter?





I've got K110's under 2405's, thus the need for accuracy, and wouldn't need much of an amp to power 2405's, would I?

Thanks,
SDaniel

boputnam
07-18-2005, 10:04 AM
Hey, SDaniel...

Far as we know, the accuracy of the face markings is limited to the precision with which the decals are applied.

Over on ProSound Web others have posted the face markings have a slight variance with actual. I think the reports there were that it was within +/- 5% (although mostly the markings were low biased, meaning if the desired crossover point was say 70Hz, something closer to 77 on the dial was closer). But there, and here, we suggest you check it on your RTA. That is the only way to know for certain.

And no, you do not need deliver a great deal of power to a 2405. I "hear" tube amps work really fine...

Baron030
07-18-2005, 04:20 PM
Here is a way to adjust the crossover point with a great deal of accuracy. And it does not require going out and buying any expensive test equipment. Over this last weekend, I used my old cassette desk and a few test tones that I downloaded from the Internet, to adjust my Ashley XR4001. The test tones were burned on a CD and then played through a CD player to produce the input reference frequencies. First, route the test tone that you are going to use as a crossover points into both line level inputs of the cassette desk. And then adjust the deckís recording levels until both channels display exactly the same VU recording level. Then, unplug the cassetteís line level inputs from your preamplifier and plug them the outputs of the Ashley. One line level input should be connected to low pass output and the other to the high pass output. While, the reference crossover frequency is playing, you adjust the Frequency knob on the Ashley, until both VU meters display the exactly same VU level, relative to each other. By using the cassette deskís VU meters as a comparator, and assuming the resolution of the VU meters are limited to a comparing a single Db. This should get you within 1/24 of an octave of being exact.:)

Baron030

sdaniel
07-18-2005, 08:19 PM
Hey, SDaniel...

Far as we know, the accuracy of the face markings is limited to the precision with which the decals are applied.

Over on ProSound Web others have posted the face markings have a slight variance with actual. I think the reports there were that it was within +/- 5% (although mostly the markings were low biased, meaning if the desired crossover point was say 70Hz, something closer to 77 on the dial was closer). But there, and here, we suggest you check it on your RTA. That is the only way to know for certain.

And no, you do not need deliver a great deal of power to a 2405. I "hear" tube amps work really fine...

Thanks. I would have to rent an RTA unless they are inexpensive. It is something I'd like to have.

Mr. Widget
07-18-2005, 08:53 PM
I've got K110's under 2405's, thus the need for accuracy...
What are you going to use the 2405 and K110 for? Will it be for hi-fi, home theater, musical instrument use?

It seems a bit strange to bi-amp a system made up of these components. A simple passive crossover would likely give you very acceptable results.

I have checked my Ashly and it is close enough. There is no real reason to sweat about a few hundred Hz one way or the other if you are crossing over at 6.5KHz to 7KHz which would be the lowest I'd use a 2405. If you are worried about damage to the HF driver... it won't be a problem if used correctly... if you are worried about sound quality, use your ears and don't worry to much about the printed scale. Obviously don't set it below 6KHz, but feel free to move it about to see what sounds best. Use the notch control by ear as well.

Widget

boputnam
07-18-2005, 09:15 PM
I have checked my Ashly and it is close enough. That is consistent with my usage (nearly constant, as the XR1001 is racked in my roadrack and I RTA it a minimum of twice a month). Once in the "ballpark", I stop looking, merely listen and adjust to taste. Same with the other really great features on that unit. :yes:

sdaniel
07-20-2005, 12:33 PM
What are you going to use the 2405 and K110 for? Will it be for hi-fi, home theater, musical instrument use?

It seems a bit strange to bi-amp a system made up of these components. A simple passive crossover would likely give you very acceptable results.

I have checked my Ashly and it is close enough. There is no real reason to sweat about a few hundred Hz one way or the other if you are crossing over at 6.5KHz to 7KHz which would be the lowest I'd use a 2405. If you are worried about damage to the HF driver... it won't be a problem if used correctly... if you are worried about sound quality, use your ears and don't worry to much about the printed scale. Obviously don't set it below 6KHz, but feel free to move it about to see what sounds best. Use the notch control by ear as well.

Widget
Those drivers sit atop 2225's, and comprise a stereo pair that is bi-amped. Currently, the K110s are uncrossed, and the 2405s have a cap. They have served as my primary speakers for years, and are slated to go into the home theatre. (Search for a good center channel started this whole hand wringing episode!) Over the years I have wondered if maybe they could be better, and learning that the 2405's and k110's have so little overlap drives my quest for really accurate crossovers, or more. (I'd be happy if Mr. Lansing told me to just buy the right components and build some passive crossovers)



I would not trust my ears alone to adjust an Ashley, as I am sometimes indecisive, and would always have to fiddle with it. That bit of my character can be seen in that I asked the question about the face markings. If it says 6K, it should be 6K, darn it!



I think I should just build good passive crossovers and relax. I do appreciate all the advice you guys give, and will accept more.

boputnam
07-20-2005, 12:38 PM
If it says 6K, it should be 6K, darn it!We have checked our Ashlys and they are close enough - better precision could only be found in digital readouts.

JBLnsince1959
07-20-2005, 01:36 PM
We have checked our Ashlys and they are close enough - better precision could only be found in digital readouts.

My experience also. ;)

set the puppies, relax and enjoy. Lifes to short to constantly second quess yourself :D

edgewound
07-20-2005, 03:22 PM
Most all of Ashly's gear is top grade stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Ashly XR crossovers are about the only analog one's available that allow adjustment of the filter type, ie. Bessel, Butterworth, Chebychev, etc. which is very cool depending on what drivers you use. The EQ's are very clean as well, and the amps are top notch, and not ridiculously expensive.

Any audiophile would most likely be happy with this "studio caliber" road gear.

Edgewound

boputnam
07-20-2005, 04:02 PM
The EQ's are very clean as well... Any audiophile would most likely be happy with this "studio caliber" road gear.Yup.

Their 31-band analogue graphic is a very acceptible, warm unit, and even though of fairly low Q, I like the filters quite a bit. Nearly top class. Their Protea 4.24 line I use for multiple monitor mixes with really great success; however I personally am not yet a fan of digital EQ for FOH. :no:

spwal
12-25-2007, 12:49 PM
I think i am going to bag the idea of a marchand and get the ashly.

this askly seems to do all the marchand can do and more.

JBL 4645
12-25-2007, 01:58 PM
Oldmics

What is the model of the JBL in the rack I canít make it out clearly because the image is too small? Thanks.

Merry Charismas to you.:)

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=8796&stc=1&d=1120615541


:happyh::window::tree:

allen mueller
12-25-2007, 05:15 PM
I think that would be a JBL DSC 260. I also belive they were made by BSS for Jbl.


Allen

johnaec
12-26-2007, 07:12 AM
The one pictured is the JBL DSC280 - big difference!

John

JBL 4645
12-26-2007, 07:17 AM
I think that would be a JBL DSC 260. I also belive they were made by BSS for Jbl.


Allen

Allen

Cheers mate Iíll have a look around Google image now thanks.:)

:happyh::window::tree:

JBL 4645
12-26-2007, 07:27 AM
http://www.jblpro.com/images/electronics/dsc280_2.jpg http://www.jblpro.com/images/electronics/dsc260_2.jpg

Oh, oh, oh, that is nice wow! So itís a (loudspeaker management system) very nice good looker as well.

http://www.jblpro.com/pages/electronics/active.htm (http://www.jblpro.com/pages/electronics/active.htm)
:happyh::window::tree:

L100t Owner
12-26-2007, 08:52 AM
I think i am going to bag the idea of a marchand and get the ashly.

this askly seems to do all the marchand can do and more.

Before you buy, I have a Yamaha D2040 professional digital dividing network for sale. Here is some info:

Yamaha D2040

This is a Yamaha Digital Channel Divider (4 way digital X-over). The D2040's sophisticated crossover divides its stereo output into four independently programmable stereo output channels. All channels offer full audio band coverage. In addition to a programmable crossover filter, each channel of the D2040 includes a 2-band parametric equalizer, a compressor/limiter, and a digital delay with a range of 0 to 1365.313 ms (at Fs=48kHz). Up to 15 setups can be stored in internal RAM memory with the push of a button. The sound? Flawless! They are over $3,000 new!

Manual:

http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/pa/english/signal/D2040E.pdf (http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/pa/english/signal/D2040E.pdf)

Email me if you are interested.

Chris

JBL 4645
12-26-2007, 09:34 AM
£3K blimey, that’s a bundle of dosh for a (loudspeaker management system). By the way I can’t view the pdf file, I have the program to run it, its just got a few problems running at the present time.
:happyh::window::tree:

hjames
12-26-2007, 10:07 AM
£3K blimey, that’s a bundle of dosh for a (loudspeaker management system). By the way I can’t view the pdf file, I have the program to run it, its just got a few problems running at the present time.


the Yamaha PDF views fine here,
probably just something wrong with JBL4645's computer ...

JBL 4645
12-26-2007, 10:34 AM
the Yamaha PDF views fine here,
probably just something wrong with JBL4645's computer ...

Yes not sure what it is, but Iíll solve it.
:happyh::window::tree:

spwal
12-26-2007, 12:52 PM
Before you buy, I have a Yamaha D2040 professional digital dividing network for sale. Here is some info:

Yamaha D2040

This is a Yamaha Digital Channel Divider (4 way digital X-over). The D2040's sophisticated crossover divides its stereo output into four independently programmable stereo output channels. All channels offer full audio band coverage. In addition to a programmable crossover filter, each channel of the D2040 includes a 2-band parametric equalizer, a compressor/limiter, and a digital delay with a range of 0 to 1365.313 ms (at Fs=48kHz). Up to 15 setups can be stored in internal RAM memory with the push of a button. The sound? Flawless! They are over $3,000 new!

Manual:

http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/pa/english/signal/D2040E.pdf (http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/pa/english/signal/D2040E.pdf)

Email me if you are interested.

Chris


Thanks, but im going to try to keep it simple (and inexpensive). I just want to get my biamp setup up and running!

podger076
12-26-2007, 06:18 PM
Found my XR-1001 very easy to set up. Love the sound.

Krunchy
02-09-2008, 09:59 AM
Can one of these be used in lieu of the 5235?

Chas
02-09-2008, 11:33 AM
Can one of these be used in lieu of the 5235?

Yes and no. I assume you are referring to using one with your 4345's.

The Ashly's are fourth order (24 db/8ve) LR filters. Now, if you want to match GT's recomended voltage drive in between the 2122's and 2245's it doesn't meet this criteria.

Having said that, I actually use a Marchand/DIY combination on mine that has exactly the same filter spec as the Ashly (24db/8ve). I can't hear or measure any problems. But, I have only heard the GT voltage drive as realized by the JBL internal passive network in my 4345's.

Off topic: In going from passive to active was like night and day. Frankly, I think the 4345 should have been sold in a bi-amp only version, like the 4350/55. But, I suppose the JBL marketing folks at the time wouldn't have cared for that idea.

In a nutshell, IMHO, the Ashly's are great value for the money and well built. You may well be very satisfied with them even though they don't exactly match the drive criteria and they are very reasonably priced - even if you aren't satisfied, it's not a big gamble.

I should also point out that one of the really nice things about the Ashly, Rane and other modern crossovers is that the filter design is known as a state varible. The big plus with this type of network is that both the low pass and high pass fiters darn near match up in terms of frequency and slopes. It's a big advantage over earlier designs like the JBL models.

Krunchy
02-09-2008, 12:19 PM
Thank you Chas, more food for thought :). Yes I was asking in ref to the 4345's, I thought this unit would work well for me with the balanced XLR's that it comes with.

Edit.
This is what I meant to ask (beggining to understand)
Are there other crossovers w/XLR's that match JBL' 5235 voltage drives?

Thank you Mike per below.

Chas
02-09-2008, 01:12 PM
Thank you Chas, more food for thought :). Yes I was asking in ref to the 4345's, I thought this unit would work well for me with the balanced XLR's that it comes with. Are there other crossovers that have Bal. XLR's that are (more) compatible/similar with the 5235?

I should caution you that the Ashly's are not truly balanced at the output. But typically, it is not too important because they are usually located in close proximity to the power amps, in terms of noise pick-up by the interconnects. They do have XLR outputs in, what they call, a quasi-balanced configuration. Essentially, though, it is unbalanced.

This will drive most balanced inputs on power amps, unless the amp is fully differential from input to output. These are very rare, however.

Anyway, to answer your question, if you are looking for something that matches the JBL voltage drives, you'll have to look for a custom unit. Marchand might be able to assist you, although I am uncertain as to whether he has bal ins and outs.

Or maybe a digital unit like the DBX. I have zero experience with these. maybe someone else could chime in?

Krunchy
02-09-2008, 01:19 PM
Thanks again Chas, I just found a thread on the 5235x-over that I will look into in greater detail.

Mike Caldwell
02-09-2008, 01:31 PM
There are many pro crossovers that offer XLR inputs and outputs both fully balanced and forms there of. All will drive XLR inputs on just about any power and can do it through a couple hundred feet of proper balanced audio cable, two conductors and the shield. Some pro models both new and old would be, TDM, BSS, Rane, DBX, Klark Teknik, Ashly (or course), these companies offer both analog and digital units. The analog models from TDM, BSS and Klark Teknik have been discontinued but still available with a little looking. All would be good units.


Mike Caldwell

Ian Mackenzie
02-09-2008, 01:49 PM
Yep it will work fine.

Somewhere in another thread I simulated the LR 24 db filters in a 4345 model.

edit

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=193142&postcount=73


If the model is to be believed (using physical baffle and driver locations) it is better standard filter than most other non std customised filter options.

There is a a tiltiing of the vertical polar response in the general crossover overlap (250-600 hz) that causes a depression on axis at normal seated postion using the 18 db filters. (the sympton is the mids sound a bit lean and cool....you dont want that)

This is minimised if not eleminated with the LR 24 db filters

The thing to remember (and I sent an email to Rich about this ) is you must reverse the polarity of the high pass amp outputs going into the 4345 when you use LR 24 db slopes.

The reason (its very to screw this up even on a good day) internally the phase of the 2122/ horn/slot is inverted to match the passive 2nd order filters.

With the 18 db filters its not so critical but with the LR filters the woofer must be in pass with the puppy (mid cone ) or you will have a BIG null at the crossover point.

The Ashly crossover does has a nifty adjustment that alters the filter Q factor at the crossover point so the can be a bump or a dip and it does make a difference. In any case follow the above for best results.

Hope this clarifies your enquiry.

The Doctor

Chas
02-09-2008, 03:22 PM
The thing to remember (and I sent an email to Rich about this ) is you must reverse the polarity of the high pass amp outputs going into the 4345 when you use LR 24 db slopes.
make a difference. In any case follow the above for best results.

The Doctor

Thanks Ian, I did forget to mention this. It has been a while since I went through the set up over here.:)

Mike, FYI: the Ashly XR1001 does not have balanced output, although it does have XLR connections and the input is fully balanced. I found this out the hard way....

Ian Mackenzie
02-09-2008, 04:44 PM
Hi Chas,

Well its easy to forget these small but otherwise important details.

richluvsound
02-09-2008, 05:23 PM
Hi Ian,
we reversed the woofer polarity @ 24 db 290 htz. We saw that big bloody whole. What a complete and utter Gentleman and all round star .

That smaart software is a great tool.The parametric aint such a scary place either with right hand to hold. I'm now flat as a pancake. We talked about how my ear needs retraining after years of DJ curve. I have one of the three profiles set up . I can muck about with the other two next weekend when I add the unmentionables . I do, ofcourse have the bypass for the moments I miss the room. I'm amazed at how much info was hidden behind the room interference.

Rich

Chas
02-09-2008, 05:57 PM
hmm...that guy looks kinder familiar......:) If he had a glass of Merlot in his hand, it would be a no-brainer...and, if so, I might suggest it was Bo teaching a new dance step called the "Funky Chicken"...

Ian Mackenzie
02-09-2008, 07:26 PM
hmm...that guy looks kinder familiar......:) If he had a glass of Merlot in his hand, it would be a no-brainer...and, if so, I might suggest it was Bo teaching a new dance step called the "Funky Chicken"...

Zactly.

Looks like Rich has a thingy for those 9XXX ?

Mike Caldwell
02-09-2008, 07:32 PM
Hello
The Ashly crossovers have what they call a quasi balanced output. A single ended line amp with the impedance balanced across the + & - of the balanced output.
Does not present a problem with 99% of equipment that they would be driving.
Other equipment does that same thing. You would think another line driver would not cost that much to do full differential outputs.
I guess that's why accounts are part of the R&D departments!!!:(

Mike Caldwell

Chas
02-09-2008, 08:39 PM
Hello
The Ashly crossovers have what they call a quasi balanced output. A single ended line amp with the impedance balanced across the + & - of the balanced output.
Does not present a problem with 99% of equipment that they would be driving.
Other equipment does that same thing. You would think another line driver would not cost that much to do full differential outputs.
I guess that's why accounts are part of the R&D departments!!!:(

Mike Caldwell

Makes no sense to me either. A couple of pesos for another opamp and related stuff..... :(

boputnam
02-10-2008, 02:02 AM
...we reversed the woofer polarity @ 24 db 290 htz. We saw that big bloody hole. Not sure it wasn't there before - see...

- 1st image = uncorrected, entire FR. Pretty brutal uneven response. Big room reaction to the LF. Muddy character to sound.
- 2nd image = LF alone, uncorrected. This is where we thought to try a steeper slope
- 3rd image = MF-F-UHF alone, corrected.
- 4th image = trial correction, LF out-of-phase with Mid-bass (note the cancellation near the crossover point)



...I'm now flat as a pancake. We talked about how my ear needs retraining after years of DJ curve. I have one of the three profiles set up . I can muck about with the other two next weekend when I add the unmentionables . I do, ofcourse have the bypass for the moments I miss the room. I'm amazed at how much info was hidden behind the room interference.As I warned, it takes some getting used to. Years of listening to a big boost bass curve is a difficult to get away from. I found initially there was no tonality or definition from the 2245H; after, there was remarkably honest representation of say the upright bass and in-balance with the rest. It was a remarkable improvement (to me... ;) ).


hmm... I might suggest it was Bo teaching a new dance step called the "Funky Chicken"...Now that is funny... Stepping across a mess of cable, fighting off serious jetlag after travelling from Johannesburg in coach and not getting any nap!

boputnam
02-10-2008, 02:13 AM
Here's the nearly final correction - compare the the first image, Green trace...

I gave back a bit more LF for Rich's taste, and was still whacking those moles at 450Hz, 1kHz, etc. The MF-HF-UH here was not final, as we swapped out the 2435HPL (sitting atop the cabinet) and stuck the 2425's (w/ 2307) back into the signal path. I was MUCH happier with the tonal balance of the 2425's - they were smooth and very good/natural sounding.

Rich is really passionate about these cabinets. That same passion that shows for his painting (which I did not take time to see enough of! :().

Ian Mackenzie
02-10-2008, 02:20 AM
I was MUCH happier with the tonal balance of the 2425's - they were smooth and very good/natural sounding.

.

Were you! Bugger.

So are you saying the 9800's are trash or are Rich ear's in need of some TLC?:D

richluvsound
02-10-2008, 03:12 AM
Bo,

I thought you were coming to sharpen my pencil ! ( that does'nt sound right)
but I'll leave in for Ian to play with.:(

I would just like to thank you again for your kindness . The meal was a nice treat. The starving artist as always in his garret with ... to quote Storm " THE BEST SPEAKERS IN THE WORLD"

a grateful limey

boputnam
02-10-2008, 03:16 AM
Were you! Bugger.Definately, without a doubt.


So are you saying the 9800's are trash...Dunno - they simply don't work for me in this configuration.

After some tweaking we had a good EQ curve on them - a great "looking" response. But they sounded honky - distinct horn character. Contrast that to the 2425/2307 where there was absolutely none of that (in honesty, the 2425/2307 was a completely pleasant surprise). The 2435HPL/9800's were too out-front - it was impossible to get them to balance with the rest of the 4345. They were simply wrong.

So, other than all that and their honky sound, they were great!

(FWIW, I don't know why this stuff is here - maybe I should migrate it to the Dinner in England thread...?)

spwal
02-10-2008, 06:06 AM
Yep it will work fine.

Somewhere in another thread I simulated the LR 24 db filters in a 4345 model.

edit

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=193142&postcount=73


If the model is to be believed (using physical baffle and driver locations) it is better standard filter than most other non std customised filter options.

There is a a tiltiing of the vertical polar response in the general crossover overlap (250-600 hz) that causes a depression on axis at normal seated postion using the 18 db filters. (the sympton is the mids sound a bit lean and cool....you dont want that)

This is minimised if not eleminated with the LR 24 db filters

The thing to remember (and I sent an email to Rich about this ) is you must reverse the polarity of the high pass amp outputs going into the 4345 when you use LR 24 db slopes.

The reason (its very to screw this up even on a good day) internally the phase of the 2122/ horn/slot is inverted to match the passive 2nd order filters.

With the 18 db filters its not so critical but with the LR filters the woofer must be in pass with the puppy (mid cone ) or you will have a BIG null at the crossover point.

The Ashly crossover does has a nifty adjustment that alters the filter Q factor at the crossover point so the can be a bump or a dip and it does make a difference. In any case follow the above for best results.

Hope this clarifies your enquiry.

The Doctor


Hi,

I just saw this. I find setting up these 4 ways to be confusing. Im gonna confuse more lol.

how do i hook up a 24 db marchand 2 way and the giskard-based cc passive networks up top? bonus question is that i have tad drivers in there which are "reverse" polarity from the rest of the jbl stuff in there. also, is the 2235h im using in there modern enough that they switched to conventional red is plus and black is minus polarity? sorry to confuse....

sorry bo, you kinda gave me an aswer before, but this seems like a new twist here.

thanks

Chas
02-10-2008, 06:12 AM
Interesting comment Bo, regarding the foghorns. I am using 2426H/2307 as a first step inside my new, modular "J-pods" with surprisingly good results, too. Ti diaphragms, untreated.

After reading all the stuff here over the years about the Ti's, I was expecting much worse.

My 4345's with 2421/2307 are still down :( so I can't do any direct comparisons at the moment.

johnaec
02-10-2008, 07:07 AM
Bo - what is the significance of the red curves in your captures?

John

sourceoneaudio
02-10-2008, 08:11 AM
Thanks Ian, I did forget to mention this. It has been a while since I went through the set up over here.:)

Mike, FYI: the Ashly XR1001 does not have balanced output, although it does have XLR connections and the input is fully balanced. I found this out the hard way....

The XR Series crossovers all feature 24 dB per octave filters, infinitely variable crossover frequency and response, as well as both 1/4" TRS phone jacks and XLR connectors for all inputs and outputs. A peak overload indicator monitors all critical points in the circuit to ensure low-distortion operation. A recessed switch on the front panel with an LED indicator allows for either Normal or Divide by Ten frequency selection. The XR-1001 is a stereo two-way or mono three-way crossover. Dimensions: 19" W x 1.75" H x 6" D.
24 dB/octave slopes, 20 Hz third order high pass filter
Variable filter allows tuning-in Linkwitz-Riley or other filter responses
Output mute switches
Balanced inputs and outputs
XLR and 1/4" TRS audio connections
Peak overload warning LEDs
Five Year Worry-Free WarrantyMaybe the new version does. ? :hmm:

boputnam
02-10-2008, 08:17 AM
...how do i hook up a -24 dB Marchand (active) 2 way crossover and the giskard-based cc passive networks up top? Standard way, I would think. Output from pre-amp goes into Marchand. Marchand Lo-pass output goes to woofs, Hi-pass goes to Giskard-based network.


...bonus question is that i have tad drivers in there which are "reverse" polarity from the rest of the jbl stuff in there. Unless you've adapted the signal path of the Giskard network for a non-JBL convention driver, merely connect the TAD backwards.


......also, is the 2235h im using in there modern enough that they switched to conventional red is plus and black is minus polarity? I don't know. My guess is "no". My grab is, the legacy polarity is unchanged by newer issue of this driver. This is confirmed from the JBL Pro website - 2235H (http://www.jblpro.com/pages/components/2235h.htm):

Positive voltage on black terminal gives forward diaphragm motion.

:)


...what is the significance of the red curves in your captures?That is the coherence of the measured signal, represented as %.

Chas
02-10-2008, 09:24 AM
24 Maybe the new version does. ? :hmm:


http://www.ashly.com/product/xr-series-2.htm

Well, I'll be darned, they sho'nuff have improved the things without changing the model number...Also feature switching power supplies, too.

Servo balanced outputs....nice:)

Maybe time to sell mine.

johnaec
02-10-2008, 09:34 AM
That is the coherence of the measured signal, represented as %.Hmmm - 'guess I have to read up on that one...

John

Krunchy
02-10-2008, 09:51 AM
Now, if you want to match GT's recomended voltage drive in between the 2122's and 2245's it doesn't meet this criteria.

Having said that, I actually use a Marchand/DIY combination on mine that has exactly the same filter spec as the Ashly (24db/8ve). I can't hear or measure any problems. But, I have only heard the GT voltage drive as realized by the JBL internal passive network in my 4345's.

Chas, if I may ask (and therefore remove all doubt about my ingnorance) what does GT & LR stand for, I looked it up in Dennis Bohn's book (great book BO, thank you for the suggestion) but was unable to reference it.
If the GT's recomended voltage drive criteria is not matched by the XR1001 would that have a negative/harmful effect on the drivers? Not necessarily?
Also, you mention that the Marchand has the same filter specs as the Ashly are you saying that you have only heard the GT's voltage drive in passive mode not in a bi-amped configuration, of am I misunderstanding this?
Sorry if my questions do not seem very cohesive :( trying to sort this out in my head.





Yep it will work fine.

There is a a tiltiing of the vertical polar response in the general crossover overlap (250-600 hz) that causes a depression on axis at normal seated postion using the 18 db filters. (the sympton is the mids sound a bit lean and cool....you dont want that)

This is minimised if not eleminated with the LR 24 db filters

(Q1)The thing to remember is you must reverse the polarity of the high pass amp outputs going into the 4345 when you use LR 24 db slopes.

The reason (its very to screw this up even on a good day) internally the phase of the 2122/ horn/slot is inverted to match the passive 2nd order filters.

With the 18 db filters its not so critical but with the LR filters the woofer must be in pass with the puppy (mid cone ) or you will have a BIG null at the crossover point.

Hope this clarifies your enquiry.

The Doctor
Hi Ian!
Thank you for the reply, been mulling it over and I'm starting (just) to get a grasp on what yoou are saying. It seems to my limited knowledge on this subject that the Ashly crossover would be very beneficial to the 4345 system and I would like to try it out.
Q1- how do you reverse the polarity of the high pass amp outputs going into the 4345. what exactly do you mean by HIGH PASS ? Could you expand upon this if at all possible.

Thank you Doc :)

richluvsound
02-10-2008, 10:02 AM
krunchy,


G.T. I believe are the initials of the clever bugger that designed our pride and joys. Greg Timbers.

L.R. Linkwitz Riley is a type of crossover, post Butterworth.

there is some great reading on the subject . I would need to a lot more to be able to explain it . Most of it still goes way over my head.

IAN HELP!!!!

Rich

Krunchy
02-10-2008, 10:17 AM
Thanks Rich :o: !
Yeah this is going over my head quite a bit as well, gonna try to grab what I can though, some will seep in eventually :D


Hi Ian,
we reversed the woofer polarity @ 24 db 290 htz. We saw that big bloody whole.Rich
How did you go about doing this Rich?

Robh3606
02-10-2008, 10:38 AM
Hello Bo/Rich


The 2435HPL/9800's were too out-front - it was impossible to get them to balance with the rest of the 4345. They were simply wrong.


Were they running with proper horn compensation or just with the network in the 4345??

Hello Krunchy

Don't worry this is not as tuff as it looks, to reverse polarity you can do it right at the speaker cabinet leads. I used to do that when switching between my M552 and the DX-1. The M552 has 24db L/R and the DX-1 12db slopes

Rob:)

richluvsound
02-10-2008, 10:55 AM
Hi Rob,

I never did a full xover mod for the 2435's . I just disconnected a couple of resistors on the original xover.

Krunchy,

maybe we should both go to Melbourne for a beach course in xover design.

Rich

Krunchy
02-10-2008, 11:03 AM
Thank you Rob, you've allayed all my fears :) Me may be making mountain out of molehill. :D

Rich, Im in!!! been looking for excuse to go down under (any excuse) wifey not keen, worried bout blue ringeed octopus (and all the other fun creatures they have down there), me I'd be more concerned with that 18++++hr flight.

richluvsound
02-10-2008, 11:09 AM
Krunchy,

Ian promised me that kylie would be my personal tutor. You think I'm a mad shopper. The mad Doctor from oZ sent me to a website that will blow your mind and your bank account. PM to follow !

Rich

Chas
02-10-2008, 11:34 AM
Sorry Krunch, for being so vague. Thanks Rich, for the translation.

With regard to the Marchand and Ashly units, I meant to say that in terms of being crossovers, they are technically, the same. That is, 24 db per octave LR slopes and FWIW, both are state variable types.

No, you won't cause any driver damage using them and actually since they have steeper slopes than the internal passive networks they will improve the driver protection somewhat.

Yes, I have only heard the correct "JBL and Timbers prescribed" drives in passive mode. I don't have a JBL crossover with the correct 4345 cards.

Bottom line IMHO, go with a modern, good crossover (Ashly/Marchand, etc). I think you will be very satisfied.

Krunchy
02-10-2008, 11:55 AM
Thank you Chas, and no you were not being vague, I am just at a very early stage of my education. I'm going to pick one up nonetheless, it has many good points that I think are worth checking out plus I'll always have the 5235 on standby/back up. ;)

boputnam
02-10-2008, 03:09 PM
...Were they running with proper horn compensation or just with the network in the 4345??Uh...


Hi Rob,

I never did a full xover mod for the 2435's . I just disconnected a couple of resistors (per guidance) on the original xover. But that, as I understood it, was on guidance from the network builder.

In this entire area I have no perspective, just objective appraisal of the response characteristics. There was a nasty imbalance, IMO. I don't know if the 2435 was at fault (my suspected opinion...) or whether there was crossover issue(s).

Look - I am not a crossover guy, nor do I have overt "driver brand loyalty". I call it as it sounds.

I did wonders with the DEQX PEQ filters, but the resultant "flat" response was not aurally pleasing. I was bummed... :( Rich's lady lost interest and I saw Rich was not impressed. The response curve (FFT) "looked" fine, but sounded bad. It reminded me of many clubs I walk into who's installed system can only be marginally impacted by EQ. So...

Out of curiousity I asked Rich to reconnect the 2425/2307's - I had actually never heard this combo (my 4345's had the 2421B/2307 combo...). Let me tell you, the difference was immediate, and really pleasing to me. The 2425/2307 was smoother than the 2421B/2307 combo (supporting why JBL made that change), and MUCH more pleasing than the 2435. I can't know if there was a crossover topology issue - the 2435 just did not sound good to me (or Rich).

But, I have a suspicion - here posed in incredible ignorance: The 2435HPL has an stamped metal housing. By contrast, the 2425 and more recent 476Be have massive cast housings - same with the renowned TAD series of compression drivers. In addition, in their brochures TAD speaks to their intense engineering attention to minimizing the in-housing resonance of their units.

It occurs to me that the same importance/focus we place on woofer cabinet design (i.e., minimizing resonance) needs be placed on housings for compression drivers. That is, aquaplas alone cannot compensate for deleterious housing resonance. If this is heresy, I apologize. I call it as I think I hear it.

I think the 2425 sounds more natural for this very reason. Likewise for the 476Be and TAD line. The 2435, while it measures well, just does not sound natural to me.

sourceoneaudio
02-10-2008, 03:11 PM
http://www.ashly.com/product/xr-series-2.htm

Well, I'll be darned, they sho'nuff have improved the things without changing the model number...Also feature switching power supplies, too.

Servo balanced outputs....nice:)

Maybe time to sell mine.


Glad my tid bit of input could help. :blink:

Ian Mackenzie
02-10-2008, 03:49 PM
Bo,

Nice post.

I think its a case of fine tuning per the prevailing room "overall"

By all accounts it was quite a benefical enperience for Rich.

iMac

richluvsound
02-10-2008, 05:45 PM
Guys an Girls !

The 2435 was only ever an experiment. I tried it for a while . Bo was kind enough to lend his wealth of knowledge to the task of getting the best sound possible out of my rig. I learned a little more, about which I knew nothing till I came stumbling through the registration process and into the forum. Everyone who has dared to travel to darkest Peckham has left the gift of insight . This latest assault though has left me gobsmacked. I keep hitting the bypass button :blink: And I thought my system sounded great before the smaart intervention . It has changed the way I listen and what I listen to ! The bi-amping and room correction- Kind of like going from Pee-Wee to the NHL
in a weekend. I love this forum , I have met some great people and also, when I ask a question I get an informed answer based on experience ,not mere hearsay!

many thanks to all,

Rich

Robh3606
02-10-2008, 08:04 PM
Hello Bo


Look - I am not a crossover guy, nor do I have overt "driver brand loyalty". I call it as it sounds.


I asked about the crossover because you need the compensation or it won't sound right. Stacking the deck against them so to speak. If you used DEQX and had those flatten things out and you didn't like it well, could be you don't like them. No crime there. You won't be the first person who doesn't.

I use 2425/2307's in my 4344's and I think they sound great there as well.



The 2435HPL has an stamped metal housing.

They are cast as well. Just not as large or as nice cosmetically.

Rob:)

boputnam
02-11-2008, 08:08 AM
...This latest assault though has left me gobsmacked. I keep hitting the bypass button :blink: And I thought my system sounded great before the smaart intervention . It has changed the way I listen and what I listen to ! Ha! Me too.

As I said when I walked in, the speakers sounded good, but almost immediately was commenting upon what I heard was "missing". They had the presence of the 4345, but not the tonality I have grown to love, nor their potential sound stage. All this was recovered - to me - with the change to the 2425/2307. It was immediately more pleasing and really, desireable. I wanted to sit and listen, whereas beforehand I did not.

The ability to go to different presets and bypass so quickly is a very powerful feature of the DEQX. It gave Rich comfort that my changes were reversible - a no harm / no foul thing. And, he could build something to his personal preference, too. After we settled-in on my "final" tuning, we listened for quite a while to a variety of source material. To me, the sound was very familiar - honest, un-coloured, balanced. We then switched to "bypass" and the overwhelming LF coupling with the room (familiar to Rich) was obvious and overshadowing tonality.

I encouraged Rich to experiment - adjusting one's listening to a flat response takes some "unlearning". It may be he doesn't care for it. Conversely, he may find that he has been missing much of what was intended by the artist and recording engineer. I too went through this un-training and found much of the engineering in my CD collection is not fulfilling.


I asked about the crossover because you need the compensation or it won't sound right. Stacking the deck against them so to speak.Yea, I know that Rob - I can only trust those that designed the networks Rich is using and the guidance he was given. When we swapped-in the 2425's, Rich had to make a quick change to the network - a change anticipated by the smart designer! ;) We checked and double-checked things. I wonder if what I experienced could relate to the compensation, but I cannot know.


If you used DEQX and had those flatten things out and you didn't like it well, could be you don't like them. No crime there. You won't be the first person who doesn't. I must reiterate, I tried very hard to "neutralize" the sound of the 2435. But while it was incredibly clear and a powerful transducer, it could not be suficiently tamed for this configuration. It just did not compliment the other elements. Remember, the 2435 was never intended for the 4345. That is OK.


I use 2425/2307's in my 4344's and I think they sound great there as well. I have come to really appreciate the 2425 from this experience. As always, JBL knew what they were doing going from the 2421B to the 2425 in later issues of the 4345 - it was an improvement.



They are cast as well. Just not as large or as nice cosmetically. OK. I should have restricted my comments to the mass of the housing. That is materially more with the other drivers, and spurred my thinking about resonance. TAD speaks a great deal about their attention to this in their manual for the TD-2002 - I'll post it when I return from London.

Ian Mackenzie
02-12-2008, 01:21 AM
The comparions of the 9800 and the 2307 are mute.

The fact that the 9800 is designed to mate with a cone driver of large surface area and similar dispersion at the (lower) crossover point its not surprising the results where mixed.

What is interesting it Rich liked them and at least on the face of it we could also assume Bo has a long standing association with the presentation of the 2307 in the 4345.

A long while back I used the 2397 and in comparison the 2307 (in my earlier 4343 clones) I much preferred the 2397 presentation but that was because I was so used to hearing that sound.

In a blind test shoot out of the 2397, the 2344 and the 2307/08 and slot the later gave the best presentation in terms of balance, imaging / depth and tonal accuracy in the 4345 configuration.

The 2397 had more wow factor (who has a mouth 24 inches wide?) and 2344 was nice if you like "Division Bell" coming off "The Wall.."

The 4348 system horn would be a more sensible option. I have heard it and it was very nice on a 1.5 inch driver. Pity about the price tag and the wait cc Zilch

iMac

boputnam
02-12-2008, 05:21 PM
The comparions of the 9800 and the 2307 are mute.Play on words..?? :hmm: Moot, perhaps... :p

The issue here has little/nothing to do with the 2435/9800. They are not the intended HF combo the charge-coupled network was so carefully designed for. I can tell you, the instant the stock driver compliment was connected to the network the result was astonishing. I was absolutely floored. The entire cabinet was in wonderful, tonal balance. Excellent and honest reprsentation of every instrument and sound we trialed. I was SO impressed with the 2425/2307 it surprised me. Silky smooth. Just silky smooth.

The charge-coupled network was specifically designed for the stock 4345 driver compleiment. It was NOT intended for the 2435/9800. The network "mod" recommended to accomodate the 2435/9800 combo was simply not correct; or, that HF combo should just not be used with the 4345. I don't know who determined the "mod", but whatever - something was not right. Having said that, the 2435/9800 sounded horny to me, and that was not a function of the network, mod or no mod. It just is not a combo I'd like to struggle with.


What is interesting it Rich liked them and at least on the face of it we could also assume Bo has a long standing association with the presentation of the 2307 in the 4345.Repeating... The 2435/9800 is an impressive, big, clear sound. Lots of articulation and presence. Anyone "new" to this realm - and of the entire JBL Monitor Series - would certainly be impressed. Me coming in with a few years experience on how the 4345 can sound, and oodles of years working with systems of variable HF capabilities, made me more critical - especially when Rich and I worked really, really hard with Pink Noise source and mastered a great correction, only to result in badly out-of-balance and shit sound. It was quite unpleasing.


A long while back I used the 2397 and in comparison the 2307 (in my earlier 4343 clones) I much preferred the 2397 presentation but that was because I was so used to hearing that sound.It simply was not a function of me "being used to" the 2307 - that is rubbish. The 2435/9800 was crap sounding in this instance.


The 4348 system horn would be a more sensible option. I have heard it and it was very nice on a 1.5 inch driver. Pity about the price tag and the wait cc ZilchThere is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with the 2425/2307 - it is absolutely magnificent. Those charge-coupled networks are an astonishing thing - breathtaking. They performed intensely well when the "mod" was restored and the stock 4345 drivers were used, as intended by the network engineer.

Ian Mackenzie
02-12-2008, 06:12 PM
Well coming from a L100 hater this certainly dispell's the description of Fog horn...LOL.

I wonder if Mr Widget would agree with your appraisal if he were there?

imac

Mr. Widget
02-12-2008, 09:25 PM
I wonder if Mr Widget would agree with your appraisal if he were there?
I must admit to having a bias against the lowly 2307 that I came to years ago... however hearing them in Bo's carefully tuned 4345s being called upon 1200Hz to 10KHz duties I have learned that they can be quite pleasing.

While I am not a fan of bi-radial horns including the H9800, I think it is obvious that there was a miscalculation or goofed hookup in this situation. All that aside, if I were going to go with a pair of 4345s, I'd likely stick with a 1" driver and the 2307... I would also follow the lead of Giskard et al and pursue the cc network.

After trashing these JBL horns I must admit I am listening to Klipschorns as I type this. Go figure. :rotfl:


Widget

Mr. Widget
02-12-2008, 09:33 PM
The Ashly is an excellent value. I am not sure if the current one is better or worse. It wouldn't surprise me if along with offering balanced outs they are now being manufactured in China instead of in the USA... and depending on how they are achieving the balanced outs, it could improve the sound quality or lessen it.


Widget

richluvsound
02-13-2008, 02:32 AM
Hi Widget,

How would you compare the PEQ in the DEQX to the MEYER. In terms of ease of use , value for money, features and sonic characteristics. My ear is by no means a tuned as yours, but I really do rate this MSB power dac. I would like to find out what price I could land it through the US. If you could demo one I think you'd enjoy it. Sorry ,I hope I'm not teaching you suck eggs.:(

Rich

Mr. Widget
02-13-2008, 08:12 AM
Hi Widget,

How would you compare the PEQ in the DEQX to the MEYER. In terms of ease of use , value for money, features and sonic characteristics. Ease of use? Twist a knob vs. drag and click a mouse... not sure how to compare that. I suppose the DEQX is slightly more intuitive as it draws a graph of the effect of your EQ changes, but truth be told after you get the hang of it the graph is only eye candy. If your computer is otherwise engaged, the DEQX is not very convenient... however once you have set the DEQX you no longer need to have it connected.

The DEQX EQ is part of the entire system. If you are going to use the DEQX as a crossover and preamp getting an outboard EQ is really not a good idea. Why add additional circuits to your system when there is nothing to gain.

Now if the question is simply comparing the DEQX as an EQ vs. the Meyer CP10 in an otherwise all analog system... I'd go with the Meyer.


Widget

boputnam
02-13-2008, 05:39 PM
How would you compare the PEQ in the DEQX to the MEYER. In terms of ease of use , value for money, features and sonic characteristics. The biggest differences are, Rich:
- you would lose the saved presets. The DEQX is pretty cool in allowing many, many saved presets so you can quickly trial different curves.
- setting digital filters is more precise than analogue. Analogue filter setting on a PEQ is only as precise as the placing of the decals. Using Smaart, I can rotate through a filter using a hi-Q and extreme notch to help me see where the center needs be. Not everyone has that power at-hand.


Now if the question is simply comparing the DEQX as an EQ vs. the Meyer CP10 in an otherwise all analog system... I'd go with the Meyer.Yea, me too. I also have a Meyer CP-10 in the signal path after my DSP. I don't use it often, but there are times when it comes in very handy. :yes:

Krunchy
03-22-2008, 06:56 AM
The Ashly is an excellent value. I am not sure if the current one is better or worse. It wouldn't surprise me if along with offering balanced outs they are now being manufactured in China instead of in the USA... and depending on how they are achieving the balanced outs, it could improve the sound quality or lessen it.Widget

Like almost everything else these days Widget. I have no experience with the American version of these so will not be able to provide input on this matter.

Posts 31 & 38 were particularly enlightening for me, thank you guys!

hjames
03-22-2008, 07:32 AM
Thanks for the heads up guys - the Ashly XR1001 does sound better than the M552 - a definate improvement

boputnam
03-22-2008, 09:38 AM
Thanks for the heads up guys - the Ashly XR1001 does sound better than the M552 - a definate improvement
That's fun, Heather!

I didn't know you were considering that! Have you tweaked the "Presence" at-all? That modifies the shape of the curves in the crossover area. You can emulate a Butterworth or Linkwitz-Riley. You can really fine-tune the response in the crossover region for best performance of your drivers.

Krunchy
03-22-2008, 02:01 PM
Its up and runnig and its sounds great, much nicer sound coming out of the speakers now :D :) :D :).
Thanks ! ;)

antoniomastri
06-23-2008, 06:29 PM
hi, how to unlock the display panel in SAFE mode of BSS DSC280?
key(?)+switch on

boputnam
06-23-2008, 06:32 PM
BSS DSC280?"DSC280" is not a BSS model. It is JBL.

Which are you using? If the JBL DSC280 you could try the manual (http://www.jblpro.com/pub/electronics/dsc280mn.pdf)...

Oldmics
06-23-2008, 07:02 PM
Page 38

Oldmics

scott fitlin
06-23-2008, 10:00 PM
hi, how to unlock the display panel in SAFE mode of BSS DSC280?
key(?)+switch onIf you locked the "safe" mode you better remember the password.

There is no way to get around the correct password when unit is in safe mode.

antoniomastri
06-24-2008, 04:30 AM
in the owner manual of dsc280:

19.5

"The DSC 280 has a hidden function called SAFE. SAFE mode is intended to be
used as a complete lock-out for installations or as the ultimate protection for hire
systems etc. When SAFE mode is switched on, all controls are disabled, the screen
blanks and the backlight adjusted to dim. When SAFE mode is switched OFF the
unit returns to normal with the mutes on. With SAFE mode ON the meters still
run but no one can change any values within the unit.

As the SAFE mode is intended for security, the details of its use can not be
published here. Please consult your dealer for further information on SAFE
mode."

my question:
in safe mode there is maximum protection and can not enter your password. there is a way to unlock it is a combination of keys that must be pressed during the ignition. you know what?

grumpy
06-24-2008, 11:34 AM
It would seem you have provided the answer to your own question...
Have you called a JBLpro dealer? I wouldn't be surprised if they asked
you to bring it in, to show ownership.

It -is- worthwhile to know that if a member of this forum happens to
purchase a DSC280 second-hand, that it could be "stuck" in this mode and
would need dealer assistance, so thanks for asking here.

-grumpy

antoniomastri
06-25-2008, 03:14 AM
the dsc280 the selling on ebay to less than 500 euros, is a machine now dated. that problem is to say the combination of blow-off mode safe?

bottleneck
07-09-2008, 03:01 PM
This peaked my curiosity... not sure if I understand ..yet!

I want to put some 2405's above a tad 4002 horn.

Could I use a 2 way active crossover (stereo), and then use a passive crossover after the active crossover for the 2405?

Is such a thing possible, or even a good idea ? I could always go 3 way active stereo crossover..

Sorry to thread-hijack.. just something I'm wondering over (having 2 amps right now it would be cheaper etc...)




Standard way, I would think. Output from pre-amp goes into Marchand. Marchand Lo-pass output goes to woofs, Hi-pass goes to Giskard-based network.

Unless you've adapted the signal path of the Giskard network for a non-JBL convention driver, merely connect the TAD backwards.

grumpy
07-09-2008, 03:56 PM
both would work... just need to be careful of DC or turn-on/off transients from
amps on the mid/tweets if directly connected. Capacitor in series is relatively
cheap insurance if DC or transients (pops or brief surges) are an issue. Value of cap
is based on crossover frequency... becoming effective an octave or two below
the intended frequency.

bottleneck
07-10-2008, 02:51 PM
Hi !

So if I have a stero 2 way active crossover, I can use this to seperate the bass (1 amp) from the tweeter and midrange (2nd amp).

To seperate the tweeter from the mid, I use a passive crossover after the hi-pass exit from the active crossover ?

Just want to be 100% sure before I go out and get a stereo 2 way active crossover!

Thanks !!




both would work... just need to be careful of DC or turn-on/off transients from
amps on the mid/tweets if directly connected. Capacitor in series is relatively
cheap insurance if DC or transients (pops or brief surges) are an issue. Value of cap
is based on crossover frequency... becoming effective an octave or two below
the intended frequency.

grumpy
07-10-2008, 03:44 PM
So if I have a stero 2 way active crossover, I can use this to seperate the bass (1 amp) from the tweeter and midrange (2nd amp).yes.


To seperate the tweeter from the mid, I use a passive crossover after the hi-pass exit from the active crossover ?you could... (passive line-level crossovers and another amp),
but it would be more "normal" to use a passive crossover (perhaps in the 7-9KHz range),
to split the signal from the 2nd amp -output-... for example:

http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/Network%20Schematics/N7000.pdf

The input to the N7000 would come from your actively high-passed "amp #2".
The N7000 "Low Freq Output" would go to the midrange, and the "High Freq
Output", to the 2405.

For stereo, two N7000 or equivalent would be necessary.

pos
07-10-2008, 03:49 PM
you should buy a 3 ways crossover then, like the Ashly XR2001. That is going to be far less expensive than buying (2) 2 ways crossovers, and it is also likely to better respect the original signal.

The JBL M553 is another option, as is the Behringer DCX2496 (digital).

grumpy
07-10-2008, 07:04 PM
I don't agree that the decision is so clear cut, but a 3-way active crossover often
isn't much more $$ than a 2-way, and can still be used as a 2-way if one wished
to start out (or end up) that way. :)

bottleneck
07-12-2008, 06:39 AM
hi!

It isnt the extra cost of a 3 way stereo crossover for me so much, more the cost of a 3rd power amp.

I like good stuff, so I'd probably spend about £500 on the 3rd amp.

If I can get away without that, it's a great saving for me.

Thanks for the info :applaud:


NB
**Grumpy** - I've just been googling the N7000. It looks like it was made for just this purpose - seperating 2405's (or similar) from a mid horn.. in just the way I want..
Looks like a ready-made circuit diagram I could just plain-old copy?
What do you think, good enough for the job?
Thanks again!

pos
07-12-2008, 06:44 AM
you can use a low power amp for the slot, even a chip amp, or a home made class A?
Look at Greg Timbers' post in the 4345 club thread (it was just quoted recently). He underlines the benefits of having a dedicated amp for the ring radiator, and the low power they need.

grumpy
07-12-2008, 01:14 PM
I agree with POS's comments, ... just pointing out alternatives.

Buying or cloning an N7000 or 3106 is another valid path. -grumpy

BMWCCA
01-27-2009, 10:26 AM
This looked like as good a place as any to ask this question:

My "new" 4345s have the custom CC networks. I have an Ashly XR-1001 on the way. The photo shows it to be the new "graphite" version with rear-mounted power switch and therefore I presume the auto-balanced XLR jacks.

What I'm hoping to use are two Crown amps: PS-400, and PS-200. I also have two Crown PS-MOD/X adapters to allow XLR input to the amps. I'm a bit of an electronics idiot and don't understand the difference between the PS-MOD/X and the PS-MOD/A. The manual says both allow balanced input but the X is passive using a transformer while the A uses "active circuitry". Which is preferred? What are the advantages of either over the other? I have been offered a pair of PS-MOD/A's as well, I just can't tell if I need them.

In general, is there an advantage to using balanced inputs if my runs between the Ashly and the Crowns is only a couple of feet? I won't have balanced output from the pre-amp anyway so I'll be either using the 1/4 TRS Ashly inputs or an adapter to the XLR. What is required to connect to the Ashly properly from a pre-amp with RCA jacks?

This is most likely the first of many questions I'll have, but it's critical to me just to get started on the right foot. Thanks in advance for your replies.

Mike Caldwell
01-27-2009, 11:14 AM
The passive transformer version will give complete isolation between your pre amp and the amp. That would help get rid of any ground hum problems you have....if any in the first place. The transformer depending on the quality could be a weak link in the signal path, it could start to saturate with high level low frequency input signal, it could limit the frequency response at the extremes. Could is the key word. The active version would not give you isolation but you may not need it. Frequency response may be wider.

I would try it without any of the input plug in modules and use either the 1/4 jacks or the terminal strip. On the outputs of the crossover try it first using pin 1 to the ring of a 1/4 inch plug or to the ground terminal on the amp and pin 2 to the tip of the 1/4 inch plug or to the + terminal on the input strip. The other way is to tie pin 3 and pin 1 on the XLR together inside the XLR plug that is plugged into the crossover.

The PS200 and PS400 are basically Crown DC300 and D150 power amps. I used many of them with active crossovers using the pin 1 and 3 tied together method.

Let us know how it works.
Mike Caldwell
www.mikecaldwellaudioproductions.com (http://www.mikecaldwellaudioproductions.com)

BMWCCA
01-27-2009, 11:46 AM
Thanks, Mike and Fred,
The Ashly manual shows both 1/4" configurations; three-wire TRS or using a mono 1/4" plug with the tip as (+) and the sleeve as (-). I suppose it really isn't going to make any difference unless I pick up a hum somewhere along the way. I'm certainly used to 1/4" jacks, cables, and adapters and I've got a few extras handy. I'll keep it simple for starters. The bank of XLR connectors on the Ashly got me thinking I might actually have a use for the MOD/X adapters I've been stumbling over for years and never used. ;)
6. AUDIO CONNECTIONS AND CABLES
6.1 Balanced
Your crossover is provided with two different
connector types, wired in parallel. 1/4 inch stereo phone
jacks and three pin XLR type connectors will allow inter-
facing to most professional audio products, with pin 2 hot
(+) and pin 3 (-). The inputs and outputs can be used ei-
ther balanced or unbalanced. We recommend balanced
connections between all components in your system, as
this minimizes ground-loop or induced hum and noise.
6.2 Unbalanced
If either inputs or outputs are used unbalanced,
the signal is on the (+) connection and the (-) connection
must be tied to ground. A mono phone plug used as an
unbalanced connection will automatically ground the ring
of the jack which is the (-) connection. When using a ste-
reo plug or XLR connector for unbalanced input or output
connections, the signal (-) MUST be tied to ground, or
loss of signal level may result.
And, if I'm not going to need/use XLR connectors, I already have a Crown DC300A-II and D150A-II in use where the 4345s will go. They're currently used with the 030s. (Well, the 300 is; the 150 is resting and waiting . . . )

Mike Caldwell
01-28-2009, 08:07 PM
It's hard to imagine today that a piece of truly pro equipment would use a single end unbalanced input like the D150 and DC300 amps. What's kind of strange during the D series amp era the D75 came out replacing the D60 and had balanced XLR inputs. I also agree the on the amp the 1/4 jack most likely will not make connection on the ring of a TRS plug. I just took a break and looked up the schematics at the Crown web site. Both the DC300 and the PS400 only had a two conductor 1/4 inch jack. You do want to use just a TR plug on the amp input and do what is needed with pin 3 at the sources output.

My back hurts just thinking of moving the racks of DC300 amps I once had!
Mike Caldwell

BMWCCA
01-29-2009, 11:44 AM
I'd start with coax RCA to 1/4" from Pre to X-over, and balanced XLR via twisted pair shielded from X-over to Crown modules (mic cable, not CT5, if that's what you're asking).I think we'd nixed the XLR in an earlier post due to the possibility of some signal loss in using the PS-MOD/X adapters, and I was going to run 1/4" mono jacks with two-conductor wiring instead. That'll be RCA with 1/4" mono from pre-amp to Ashly and I was wondering if shielded coax would be preferred over twisted pairs for the Ashly to the Crown. I see interconnects/patch cords availble both ways, or some with two concductors plus a shield where I'd connect the (-) and shield at the 1/4". I guess I'm just asking if the shield is necessary, if standard guitar cord would work, or (if I'm making them up myself) what type of cable to buy. My run won't be longer than three-feet at the most. Basic stuff, I'm sure, but it has to be done.

Fred Sanford
01-29-2009, 11:57 AM
I think we'd nixed the XLR in an earlier post due to the possibility of some signal loss in using the PS-MOD/X adapters, and I was going to run 1/4" mono jacks with two-conductor wiring instead. That'll be RCA with 1/4" mono from pre-amp to Ashly and I was wondering if shielded coax would be preferred over twisted pairs for the Ashly to the Crown. I see interconnects/patch cords availble both ways, or some with two concductors plus a shield where I'd connect the (-) and shield at the 1/4". I guess I'm just asking if the shield is necessary, if standard guitar cord would work, or (if I'm making them up myself) what type of cable to buy. My run won't be longer than three-feet at the most. Basic stuff, I'm sure, but it has to be done.

Guitar input cord is fine. Either is fine. If you're making them yourself, grab cable off the reels at my house instead of spending $$. Connectors, too. Trade you for some identity-confused LX series speakers...:D

je

P.S. here's a pic of some of the free cabling I recently picked up from a friend in NY:

Fred Sanford
01-29-2009, 12:00 PM
I'd start with coax RCA to 1/4" from Pre to X-over, and balanced XLR via twisted pair shielded from X-over to Crown modules (mic cable, not CT5, if that's what you're asking). All of that's here if you want to borrow before buying, but you probably have all or most already.

No nice RTA here, just a cheezy one. SPL meter, though. You can get white & pink noise files at whatever level you're looking for, and burn it to CD. Test tones with freq sweeps might help, too. Some useful stuff here:

http://binkster.net/extras.shtml#cd

je

Oh, and anyone making a disc from these files- read the destructions! I take no responsibility for what you might do to your system by accidently letting any/all of those files play at full volume.

je

boputnam
03-21-2009, 08:31 AM
I got curious about the Response knob on the XR-1001, so I I took some measurements on Smaart.

1) 100Hz, Response 6 (tan and blue). This is the -6dB down point, Linkwitz-Riley

2) 100Hz, Response 6 (tan and blue), and 12 (pink and green). You can see the increased attenuation at the crossover point (-12dB down), and the slightly lessened slopes at crossover.

3) 100Hz, Response 6 (tan and blue), and 2 (pink and green). You can see the decreased attenuation at the crossover point (-2dB down, and the Butterworth-type response), and the slightly increased slopes at crossover.

Note that on my unit, the 100Hz is not exactly were marked (that is 95.5Hz); the pot needs to be positioned about +1mm CW from the 100Hz mark.

Mr. Widget
03-21-2009, 02:17 PM
Note that on my unit, the 100Hz is not exactly were marked (that is 95.5Hz); the pot needs to be positioned about +1mm CW from the 100Hz mark.I imagine this variance will shift with frequency and unit to unit. I doubt this small error is audible.

For a phase correct Linkwitz-Riley crossover only the -6dB point will be correct. This of course doesn't mean that in some systems a different setting may not actually sound better.


Widget

BMWCCA
03-21-2009, 06:35 PM
Bo,

Thanks for checking that. I'm using 290Hz and I tried measuring the difference at 1/3-octave intervals near the crossover point with the Rat-Shack meter varying the Response control but my methods weren't precise enough to show me anything. Looks like it does just what the manual says it does.

Can't post what meager data figures I did acquire since I'm on the road for the next several days. Maybe I'll just turn up the crossover point knob a touch and let the 2245Hs play up a bit on general principles. :)

boputnam
03-22-2009, 11:51 AM
I imagine this variance will shift with frequency and unit to unit. Made me look. My other unit was basically identical. Makes sense to me - at least wrt same vintage devices.


I doubt this small error is audible.Dunno. 5Hz at 100Hz is approx. 1/10 to 1/20th of an octave (depending on down or up); 5Hz at 10.0kHz is 1/1,000 to 1/2,000th of an octave (ibid) - up there, I'd agree with you...


...I tried measuring the difference at 1/3-octave intervals near the crossover point with the Rat-Shack meter varying the Response control but my methods weren't precise enough to show me anything. The difficulty (or requirement) is, you need to sample (model) each band pass separately and capture each trace. Displaying the two captured traces at the same time is the only real way to see exactly were the crossover point is and measure the attenuation at crossover.

Mr. Widget
03-22-2009, 01:20 PM
Dunno. 5Hz at 100Hz is approx. 1/10 to 1/20th of an octave (depending on down or up); 5Hz at 10.0kHz is 1/1,000 to 1/2,000th of an octave (ibid) - up there, I'd agree with you...Bo even your ears aren't going to hear a 1/10th octave change of this type... ;)


Widget

BMWCCA
03-22-2009, 01:24 PM
The difficulty (or requirement) is, you need to sample (model) each band pass separately and capture each trace. Displaying the two captured traces at the same time is the only real way to see exactly were the crossover point is and measure the attenuation at crossover.Yeah, but I was hoping to at least be able to figure out what setting provided the smoothest response and even that wasn't doable with minimal equipment. :(

boputnam
03-22-2009, 02:29 PM
Bo even your ears aren't going to hear a 1/10th octave change of this type... ;):rotfl:

Baron030
03-23-2009, 10:10 AM
As an Ashly XR4001 owner, I to have found that there is a very slight variance between the frequency knob setting and the actual crossover frequency, and Bo's posting provides the proof of this point. And I would have to agree with Mr. Widget, that these variances are really very small and insignificant.

The best method that I found for setting an Ashly electronic crossover to an exact frequency is to use a signal generator set at the desired crossover frequency and monitor the outputs. The input signal should be evenly split between 2 outputs if the crossover frequency is set correctly. For making such a fine adjustment, I use 2 VU meters to monitor the two output levels, and then adjust the frequency knob setting until both outputs read the same output level.

For test equipment, I have used a computer signal generator program called "Sigjenny" and the VU meters on my old cassette desk to monitor the outputs of the crossover. Since, the VU meters are used as a comparator, their absolute accuracy is not important. So, assuming the resolution of the VU meters are limited to a comparing a single decibel. This should get you well within 1/24 of an octave of hitting the exact desired crossover frequency, assuming that the response is set at standard -6 db Linkwitz-Riley response. I have made additional tests with CLIO and I have confirmed that this simple test method does work very well.

And as far as adjusting the "response" control to give the flattest overall speaker response. I donít think a pink noise source and a 1/3 octave RTA is not going to sensitive enough for the task. Thatís not say that it will not work or it should not be used. But, that a signal generator sweeping back and forth across the crossover point while monitoring the SPL level would be far more sensitive to measuring any peaks or dips. Unfortunately, I have also found from experience that room resonances can mask and or throw off some of these SPL measurements a little bit. Still, I would recommend frequency sweeps over a 1/3 octave RTA for accuracy. Now, if you happen own an RTA then use both test methods, and average the results.

But, for the greatest overall accuracy, I have found that CLIO has worked the best for me. The ďgatedĒ frequency sweeps that CLIO uses are far less sensitive to being thrown off by room resonances. And because of its ease of use, it has allowed me to very quickly experiment with different crossover points and response setting to get the flattest overall frequency response with my system.

Baron030:)

Mike Caldwell
03-23-2009, 02:47 PM
Tricky idea! I'll remember that one!

Mike Caldwell

Loud & Clear
08-02-2009, 11:32 AM
On advice of my FOH engineer, of Technical Support Consultants, Albuquerque, NM, I grabbed two of these for a trail. One in the pro gear, road rack; the other here at home with the 4345's.

The XR1001 is a 24dB/octave crossover, with adjustable crossover point. And, as GordonW was posting today, this has an adjustable "response", allowing for modifying the curve in the area of f0, while maintaining the 24dB slopes.

Results were most impressive. In the pro road gear, my EV Eliminator mains have not before sounded so clear, and so effortless. Punchier bass, and very clear highs. There, I'm using a 75Hz crossover point, with -3dB response and +3dB for the LF (subs).

At home with the 4345's, Ian and I went through A/B rounds against the 5234A. At the end, we both preferred the Ashly XR1001. The bass was more distinct, and had very good punch. There was notably much better definition right around the crossover point (290Hz). The HF was the biggest surprise, being more "open", and the horns were much less "beamy" (although they were not bad with the 5234A - but were certainly better with the XR1001). The soundstage was noticeably deeper. Overall, a wonderful, wonderful sound.

Mr. Widget got a run at the XR1001 too - with his new Clones. He too is quite impressed, and has now gone and got one. I'll let him add his commentary, but with his wooden horns the soundstage was pretty phenomenal. Really, really nice.

So, for now I've retired the 5234A, and we're running with the XR1001. If you get a chance, I'd suggest you "give it a go..." (Ian parlance... ;) ).

http://www.ashly.com/xr-series.htm Note: I've read a good portion of this thread, but not all of it. I have the XR1001, and a gqx 3102 by ashly (brand new). I was quite proud at first, then I read made in China on the back. I'm so tired of seeing that Logo I'd like to :barf: I'm thinking along the lines of the JBL 5235 x-over & 2 JBL 5547A eq's, and selling the ashly gear. I know these units are highly touted here (ashly). However, the jbl x-over has a programable 6db bass boost at 20,30, and 40 hz. Now say I do my thing on the x-over and eq. (change all resistors to 1% metal film, change out all electrolytics to Panny FC's, change out the polester film caps for metalized polypropylene, and yada yada? Has that been tried?

My plans are, (and are going quite well I might add) to buy a nice refurbed pair of 4350's from Rick alias saeman. I added this so's to inform my fellow LH'ers what speakers I will be using, to better access my ? above...

Thanks All, Tom :)

I"ve had a peak inside the ashly units, and there almost a carbon copy of the DBX, Behringer, and etc I see being cranked out by the tons from china. double sided boards, a few 1% resistors, and a few 5% carbon films. I've not yet checked the esr on any of the electrolytics. I don't want to play with there newness status...

Mike Caldwell
08-02-2009, 02:32 PM
Up until about a year ago or so all Ashly equipment was made in the U.S. Some lines are still made in the U.S. and as you know some are now not! The U.S. version have a lighter gray face and the newer imports have a darker gray.

Mike Caldwell

BMWCCA
08-02-2009, 03:15 PM
I have the XR1001, and a gqx 3102 by ashly (brand new). I was quite proud at first, then I read made in China on the back. I'm so tired of seeing that Logo I'd like to :barf:

I"ve had a peak inside the ashly units, and there almost a carbon copy of the DBX, Behringer, and etc I see being cranked out by the tons from china. The old Ashly XR-series with the green logo on light-gray faceplates are made in USA, New York to be exact. At least that's what mine says. I believe the models changed when they added the hyphen: XR1001 is the old version and XR-1001 is the newer version, etc. :D

Loud & Clear
08-02-2009, 03:43 PM
I believe ashly started out, being made by an actual tour sound company, many years ago. I just hate it when they send it over seas for manufacturing or sell the company to China. That puts Americans out of work. The gear also becomes tinney, everthing is made with a much lighter gauge steel or aluminum. Man I Just Don't Know!!! I'm an American boy, what more can I say.

By the same token, and maybe with some hypocrisy. I don't mind if a product is made in Europe, or even Japan. It's that "Made in Chine" crap thats flooding the market, that really T's me off!!!

Sorry for venting, but it is extremely frustrating to me... :(

EDIT: I'm going to leave this alone now, and listen to oppinions on X-overs/Eq's... Mr. Widget say's it has been discussed to death. Guess I should read all the threads if I can find them...

MJ Bing
10-04-2009, 11:48 PM
I have read all the Ashly posts.
Much good info. One question?
When using the XR2001 in two-way
stereo, should I use channels 1 and 3?

Thanks
Michael :D

Mike Caldwell
10-05-2009, 06:01 AM
Hello

When the 2001 is set for two way mode on both sets of channels you could use any two of the four inputs.

MJ Bing
10-05-2009, 08:00 AM
Thanks Mike

I thought as such.
Also thanks to Bo for the
heads up on Ashly.
Bo knows.

Michael :D

boputnam
10-06-2009, 09:58 AM
Also thanks to Bo for the
heads up on Ashly.Yeah, they are good little units, fairly priced. Easy to adjust and that "Response" pot is pretty trick. I keep a few in the shop (and a stack of xta DP448's too... :)).