PDA

View Full Version : Digital or analog crossover ?



ginetto61
09-17-2011, 11:56 AM
I apologize if the issue has been already discussed here
I have become very very interested in active crossovers after reading an interesting article comparing active and passive ones :eek:
The same article states the superiority of digital crossovers on analogue ones :confused:
Could you give me your point of view or, eventually, redirect me to any old 3Ds on this issue ?
Thank you very much indeed.:D
Regards,

Gino

Mr. Widget
09-17-2011, 12:15 PM
I am not sure there is a specific discussion on just this topic, but indirectly there have been numerous discussions about various digital and analog crossovers.

I have used numerous inexpensive analog crossovers as well as the DEQX digital and a handful of expensive analog crossovers. In general digital offers much more control and is more flexible, but I don't think any commercially available digital electronic crossovers are as sonically invisible as the best analog units are... so far. They have gotten better and better, but right now in 2011, I would still go with analog. The possible exception would be if I used a digital crossover with digital outputs feeding an appropriate number of sonically superior DACs... Bryston BDA-1, Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC, or something along these lines... but at that point you are spending some "real money".


Widget

ginetto61
09-17-2011, 12:24 PM
I am not sure there is a specific discussion on just this topic, but indirectly there have been numerous discussions about various digital and analog crossovers.
I have used numerous inexpensive analog crossovers as well as the DEQX digital and a handful of expensive analog crossovers. In general digital offers much more control and is more flexible, but I don't think any commercially available digital electronic crossovers are as sonically invisible as the best analog units are... so far. They have gotten better and better, but right now in 2011, I would still go with analog.
The possible exception would be if I used a digital crossover with digital outputs feeding an appropriate number of sonically superior DACs... Bryston BDA-1, Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC, or something along these lines... but at that point you are spending some "real money".
Widget

Thank you very much indeed for your valuable and kind reply
I would like to stay on the cheap side. I will follow discussion on analogue units then.
By the way the feature that intrigues me about digital X-over is the possibility to have very steep slopes
But I do not understand what makes a 48dB/octave filter so much better than a 24dB/octave ( the maximum for most of analogue units).
Regards,
gino

ginetto61
10-02-2011, 12:43 PM
[QUOTE=Mr. Widget;320377] ... sonically invisible... Widget

I swear ... the last one :o:
This "sonically invisible" is making me wondering :confused:
Do you rely on listening tests or measurements to assess this property ?
I feel this is a topic issue in general.
Thank you very much indeed.
Regards,:D
gino

Mr. Widget
10-02-2011, 02:52 PM
You can look at a laundry list of beautiful measurements and still find a piece of electronics sounds hard nasally and compressed. You have to listen. Ideally with a highly revealing system and in a good room.


Widget

ginetto61
10-03-2011, 06:29 AM
[QUOTE=Mr. Widget;321256]
You can look at a laundry list of beautiful measurements and still find a piece of electronics sounds hard nasally and compressed.
You have to listen.
Ideally with a highly revealing system and in a good room.
Widget

Thank you sincerely Mr Widget ! nice and clear
I asked because I read somewhere here in the forum of people playing with square waves to asses a component's transparency.
But I definitely understand the point
I am a little sad but I have to accept the reality
Kind regards, :)
gino

Titanium Dome
10-03-2011, 10:08 AM
There are often two (or more) paths to the same destination. Some will say "This is the better path because it's short, straight, and gets you there the quickest." Others will say, "This is the better path because it follows a meandering stream, has beautiful flowers, features signing birds, and has an aura of arcadian beauty and pastoral romanticism about it." Someone else will say, "This is the better path because it goes high among the peaks, with grand vistas and shocking drops, and it enervates the soul and energizes the body."

Mr. Widget and I like different paths, but we at least agree on the methodology: listen.

Mr. Widget
10-03-2011, 01:03 PM
Mr. Widget and I like different paths, but we at least agree on the methodology: listen.I'd argue that we diverge less than we agree. It's not like one of us prefers tiny "full range" Lowthers and the other a full range JBL system after all. ;)

I do prefer two-channel and you appreciate surround sound and are more tolerant of digital processing, but otherwise I think we are frequently in agreement.


Widget

ginetto61
10-04-2011, 09:24 AM
Hi Gentlemen !
I have just read an interview to John Dunlavy
He is a very techy speakers designer
And when I think I have found a designer who completely relies on measurements :applaud:
... he introduces this "final speakers voicing by ear" :blink:
I tend to be techy ... may be because I trust very little my own ears :(
Let's say that what confuses me mostly is the idea of a component that measures very well and performs poorly in a listening test
But really does a component like this exist ?
I doubt
Have nice listenings !
Kind regards,
gino

Robh3606
10-04-2011, 10:00 AM
You have to try this stuff and make up your own mind. You get peoples opinions on the net and frankly all of them, including mine, are on shacky ground as there is no frame of reference. If you have actualy sat down with someone and listened to a system together then at least the two of you know what you are talking about.

As with anything it's all about implimentation and set-up. You have people on both sides of the fence and you have to wonder how well the disatisfied people did their homework of if they even bothered to. The nets a great place for information but putting weight into another persons listening impressions is very much a grey area.

Rob:)

Mr. Widget
10-04-2011, 10:59 AM
You have to try this stuff and make up your own mind. You get peoples opinions on the net and frankly all of them, including mine, are on shacky ground...:yes:

Of course I am always right, but then if one were to slog through my thousands of posts on this forum, one would discover 180 shifts in some areas as I have gained experience and situations have changed.

Back to the question about measurements though; every successful audio designer I have met and spoken with over the years uses careful lab measurements and then ultimately his ears. Trust your ears, they are the final arbiter... and if you find you can't hear a difference between a more costly and less costly item, or a difference between a more convenient or less convenient item, why not choose the less costly or more convenient item?


Widget

Titanium Dome
10-05-2011, 08:49 AM
:yes:


if you find you can't hear a difference between a more costly and less costly item, or a difference between a more convenient or less convenient item, why not choose the less costly or more convenient item?


Widget

Because the more costly item has better build quality and durability? Because the less convenient item has greater future utility? Because your significant other likes black rather than brown? Because one fits and the other doesn't? Because LCD displays and LEDs that flash are cooler than stupid sliding levers and dumb rotary knobs that don't even have fake chrome on them?

Of course, I agree with your reasoning and have occasionally followed your advice, but your statement was begging the question, so I donated some queries out of consideration for the begging.

Generally, I like to get a lot of stuff and ignorantly mess around with it to see what happens. Everyone here already had that opinion, so I saved us all some time. :rootn_tootn:

JeffW
10-05-2011, 09:42 AM
Because the more costly item has better build quality and durability?

So long as it don't have no billet aluminum faceplate :p

Titanium Dome
10-05-2011, 10:15 AM
So long as it don't have no billet aluminum faceplate :p

Yes, we don't need no stinking billet faceplate! :rotfl:

Mr. Widget
10-05-2011, 10:20 AM
Because the more costly item has better build quality and durability? Because the less convenient item has greater future utility? Because your significant other likes black rather than brown? Because one fits and the other doesn't? Because LCD displays and LEDs that flash are cooler than stupid sliding levers and dumb rotary knobs that don't even have fake chrome on I didn't go there because I thought it obvious... ;)


Widget

Titanium Dome
10-05-2011, 01:19 PM
I didn't go there because I thought it obvious... ;)


Widget

Everything I buy has to have at least one LED, or I don't want it.

If you remember that Pink Floyd disc set that had the red flashing LED in it, I almost cried when it finally died, and the CDs' sound seemed less "live." I bought a couple of blue LED headbands and put them on my K2s. This really makes them sound cool. I think there's something about blue light that interacts with the Be and Mg drivers' output that's just magical.

grumpy
10-05-2011, 03:10 PM
LOL... until I read about the blue LEDs ... I can't stand them. They're unnatural.
They make my eyes hurt. Could be the racks of computers I have to deal with
regularly, with their damn blue projector bulb LEDs, have damaged my ability
to appreciate them. Or I just don't like them. Did I mention I don't like blue LEDs?
I really don't like them.

Eaulive
10-05-2011, 03:32 PM
LOL... until I read about the blue LEDs ... I can't stand them. They're unnatural.
They make my eyes hurt. Could be the racks of computers I have to deal with
regularly, with their damn blue projector bulb LEDs, have damaged my ability
to appreciate them. Or I just don't like them. Did I mention I don't like blue LEDs?
I really don't like them.

There's a scientific explanation for this. The human eye is very sensitive to blueish light but lacks detail resolution at this frequency. However it's less sensitive to redish light but the detail resolution is excellent, that's why you can read under a candlelight and could not under a weak neon light. That's also why the blue leds always seem to be out of focus and make you want to rub your eyes.

Many years ago Europeans had yellow headlights on their cars, good detail resolution, less glare for the oncoming drivers, now those stupid xenon lights are a real PITA for the one who's not using them, and they look so bright but don't render the details and shadows like the good old halogen.

grumpy
10-05-2011, 03:45 PM
Well there you go. My fix is usually electrical tape.

Attention: analog or digital crossover industrial designers...
(as though they'd be reading here)
please limit the use of blue LED indicators to a minimum, always
using more of green if you must... red -and- blue is 'right out'.
... and a diffuse/translucent emitting surface really helps to tame those 'blues' :)

(ok, so did I tie the thread back in?)

Use the right tool for the job; if you have a choice, use the one you like.

JeffW
10-05-2011, 07:01 PM
I bought this HP computer monitor sight unseen at WalMart because I needed a monitor right now.

It has a bright blue "Power" LED front and center. Like you need an indicator to tell if your monitor is on. Black tape.

TiDome likes them thar blue LEDs so much because they often come embedded in the billet aluminum faceplates he's so fond of :applaud:

(And don't tell anyone, but with 7 amps, a preamp, a phono stage, and a 4 way crossover, I don't want no more damn blue LEDs. But I didn't buy the stuff because it had blue LEDs, or billet aluminum faceplates. Sometimes it boils down to


Because the more costly item has better build quality and durability? , plus it sounds good).

Ken Pachkowsky
10-10-2011, 01:28 PM
I am not sure there is a specific discussion on just this topic, but indirectly there have been numerous discussions about various digital and analog crossovers.

I have used numerous inexpensive analog crossovers as well as the DEQX digital

Widget

Had to chime in on this....There is a huge difference between the Deqx you had and the current offering. They have done a great job in HDP-3 and continue to upgrade it all the time. As you know.....I like the product but am not fussy about the company. That being said, I would have no trouble suggesting someone purchase one. Marchand builds some great active crossovers in the 2-3k range.

Nice to see you guys are alive and kicking...be well.

Ken

Radley
12-15-2011, 11:36 AM
I'm by no means an expert, but I think you have to remember that digital audio has limitations. The frequency response of the A/D and D/A converters could be a deciding factor. Most DSP's are 20Hz to 20kHz. Ask yourself is that enough? I've A/B'd my home system analog to digital and I must say I much prefer listening to the analog. Although, digital is very good at notching out an offending frequencies. I think the good analog stuff will have a wider response.

I remember the great mixing console designer, Jim Gamble saying his consoles would go out to 75kHz and was looking to extend that out to 200kHz.

Radley

Titanium Dome
12-15-2011, 08:28 PM
This BSS unit is 10Hz to 40kHz (+ or - 2.5dB). My hearing is 22Hz to 13kHz. I know I can feel frequencies below my hearing threshold, and I firmly believe that frequencies above my hearing threshold impact my overall listening experience, but 40kHz is plenty of room and is the outer limit of many speakers and beyond the limits of most.

boputnam
12-21-2011, 09:33 PM
I remember the great mixing console designer, Jim Gamble saying his consoles would go out to 75kHz and was looking to extend that out to 200kHz.Lucky enough to call Gamble a friend, I cannot critique your specific quote but conceptually you are spot on. It's all about "headroom" - both from a perspective of gain and frequency response. If either is limited too close to your working parameters there likely will be audible consequences.

That said, the single biggest issue in this discussion is the AD/DA converters. The "good" ones are dammned expensive, and still may not meet the expectations of the audiophile. Me? While not an audiophile, when using best-of-class, I'm pretty pleased with the sound of those DSP's, and the benefits of their technology.

That said, I have yet to deploy them in the home... :o:

Ian Mackenzie
12-24-2011, 12:38 PM
I must say I much prefer listening to the analogI think you answered your own question thereSomething else to weigh up is the high level of skill required to exactly match the active crossover be it digital or analogue existing passive network.Many active crossover users feel the analogue active network is not a good as the existing passive network.Overall the ear is very sensitivty to amplitude differences and if the analogue or digital active network does not exactly track the the voltage drive of the existing passive network it won't be optimal and you wont be entirely happy.Some factory systems like certain JBL models have published voltage drives and the correct set up for a JBL network. The 4343 , 4344 / 4345 and 4430/4435 are a case in point.Otherwise it can take months of adjustment assuming the active crossover allows for fine adjustment.If you are messing around with a diy system from scratch the same issue applies. Therefore you ask what it the benefit?Mostly the 1st crossover point from the woofer to the mid as the woofer and the mid will have better damping. But uness the active crossover is utterly transparent you may also detect other differences in the mid range and top end fidelity.One member replaced just about every part of an advanced analgue active crossover in the quest to improve the sound reproduction.If you are using the loudspeaker for so called hifi you will find this a a tedious and often confusing journey and quite often it is more cost effective and time efficient to go buy a better loudspeaker if that is what you are seeking.

Hans Bleeker
11-17-2012, 11:06 AM
I builded a compleet passive crossover for my setup and listened to it for a while, then just put the active crossovers I wanted to test in the signal path but with HUGE overlapping frequenties so they wouldn't interfear with the passive crossovers, just to hear how they alter the signal and then make a chooise. So far I havent heard a digital device that not makes my music artificial in the best case senario, worst case is Horid harshness in the mids, easy to spot on a 2"driver :)
And I found so far that I havent been able to find ANY LR analog active crossover that not flattens my system, Butterworth RULES for me, 12 and 18dB. But I havent tried every crossover that there is in the world , so might be I was just unlucky with the devices I tried.

dawoofer
12-27-2012, 07:23 PM
I builded a compleet passive crossover for my setup and listened to it for a while, then just put the active crossovers I wanted to test in the signal path but with HUGE overlapping frequenties so they wouldn't interfear with the passive crossovers, just to hear how they alter the signal and then make a chooise. So far I havent heard a digital device that not makes my music artificial in the best case senario, worst case is Horid harshness in the mids, easy to spot on a 2"driver :)
And I found so far that I havent been able to find ANY LR analog active crossover that not flattens my system, Butterworth RULES for me, 12 and 18dB. But I havent tried every crossover that there is in the world , so might be I was just unlucky with the devices I tried.

So, what are you saying then?

4313B
01-04-2013, 01:34 PM
I think he's saying that he has yet to run into a digital device that is benign.

I think he is also saying that he doesn't like the ubiquitous LR filters in analog active circuits, that he prefers Butterworth filters.

Titanium Dome
01-04-2013, 09:03 PM
I builded a compleet passive crossover for my setup and listened to it for a while, then just put the active crossovers I wanted to test in the signal path but with HUGE overlapping frequenties so they wouldn't interfear with the passive crossovers, just to hear how they alter the signal and then make a chooise. So far I havent heard a digital device that not makes my music artificial in the best case senario, worst case is Horid harshness in the mids, easy to spot on a 2"driver :)


That methodology seems fraught with potential problems, especially with the bias implied in the commentary.

Ian Mackenzie
01-05-2013, 01:59 PM
Possibly a useful point that warrants discussion is to ask why do you need to use an active crossover?

This precludes the selection of digitial or analogue active crossover and may well provide the answer to this choice if required.

For example What is the motive? Is the need perceived ie an active crossover must be better then the existing passive filter?

In theory a pure active system is better as the driver is directly coupled to the amplifier.

However, the correct implementation reuuires a lot of engineering and complexity and is often beyond the means of the user.

Have a look at the more recent active small format JBL monitors

Some people think that that can make the best diy loudspeaker by plug and play with an active crossover.
Others want to improve the performance of an existing all passive system.

If you like to experiment and have lots of time and can handle endless frustration and have a deep wallet then actives crossovers maybe for you.


Assuming you want to improve an existing full passive system first get some assistance to assess where the most benefit may be if you decide to apply an active crossover.

Then determine you budget.

ie Do you want cleaner highs, tighter bass or a more dymanic sound?

In the case of the former an upgrade of the existing capacitors in the passive filter may suffice.


If the woofer is large then 12 inch and the crossover point if 300 hertz or below then there is a fair chance the bass response will improve.

However, if you a a purist or an audiophile then be aware there are some trade offs in terms of overall sound quality and you may seek alternatives.

The fact is running the audio signal through sn active filter process will have some effect on noise and distortion regardless of being digiital or analogue.

Sometimes it is possible to bi wire the existing passive crossover with seperate amplifier for the highs and the lows to the low and high [pass passive filters.

This precludes the use of active crossovers and offers the benefit of a dedicated amplifiers

The other option is to buy a new or better amplifier period if you are looking for improved sound quality!

pathfindermwd
01-06-2013, 09:46 AM
Possibly a useful point that warrants discussion is to ask why do you need to use an active crossover?


Hi Ian/All

I hope you don't mind if I piggyback my question on this thread since it touches on Ian's replies.

I am running a L100S whose XO duanage modified for me. It has a crossover where the woofer has been separated to make it bi-ampable. It has dual binding posts, with bridging bars to run it in normal mode. It has L-pads added to the mid/tweet.

I am currently running it with an Adcom 555/500 GTP pre in the normal fashion. On it's way is an Adcom 535 which I will dedicate to the mid/tweet.

The reason for this approach is because I have heard opinions that the adcom 535 is the best sounding of all the Adcoms, and I wanted to offer that to the top end of the speakers, and retain the power of a big- amp system,.

My question is, should I look to use and active XO as a pre-amp filter to reduce the load/frequency's the amps need to reproduce, before getting to the passive XO?

Should I use the active XO to let the 555 power the woofer directly?

I have no particular desire to use an active XO, other than acknowledge that it waste's alot of the amps power not to do so.

I get the drift of the posts here that an active XO is not a good solution.

EDIT: I'm also curious if the active XO could address phase issues between the Woofer/mid at the XO point.

frank23
01-06-2013, 01:19 PM
nsive analog crossovers as well as the DEQX digital and a handful of expensive analog crossovers. In general digital offers much more control and is more flexible, but I don't think any commercially available digital electronic crossovers are as sonically invisible as the best analog units are... so far. They have gotten better and better, but right now in 2011, I would still go with analog. The possible exception would be if I used a digital crossover with digital outputs feeding an appropriate number of sonically superior DACs... Bryston BDA-1, Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC, or something along these lines... but at that point you are spending some "real money".

Widget

I am using the JBL M553 for my active setup. It is the weakest link as all my other components are of the "high end" variety. It is just that I have not found an alternative analog active crossover that can do what it does. The only real quality item that I have found is either the Bryston 10B, or the Marchand Electronics series, but they also do not offer the same functionality. On Ebay there are loads of alternatives, but they all seem very old / shabby built, or lack the 4th order LR and the CD compensation the M553 offers. Or they are vintage Accuphase F15's or Sony / Pioneer etc that are just too old to function without a full recap anyway.

I think I'll upgrade the coupling capacitors in my M553 and see where that brings me. But I am open to good suggestions for analog electronic crossovers.

allen mueller
01-06-2013, 04:05 PM
My question is, should I look to use and active XO as a pre-amp filter to reduce the load/frequency's the amps need to reproduce, before getting to the passive XO?


If I understand correctly that when running a passive bi-amp setup the crossover presents a high impedance load to the amp outside the crossover point so that would achieve your goal of reducing the load on the amp driving your HF section.

Al

club900fe
01-27-2013, 12:18 AM
I am currently running it with an Adcom 555/500 GTP pre in the normal fashion. On it's way is an Adcom 535 which I will dedicate to the mid/tweet.

The reason for this approach is because I have heard opinions that the adcom 535 is the best sounding of all the Adcoms, and I wanted to offer that to the top end of the speakers, and retain the power of a big- amp system,.

My question is, should I look to use and active XO as a pre-amp filter to reduce the load/frequency's the amps need to reproduce, before getting to the passive XO?

That's a pretty big difference between the two amps (60W and 200W). I would be concerned that the 60W top end wouldn't be able to keep up with transients in that freq range (I'm thinking massed string crescendos). In my setup, I try to keep the amps for bi-amping relatively the same in wattage (100W for top and 125W for bottom). My issue is that the gain on the amps are different (20dB and 26.6 dB). For me, that is one of the reasons for needing an active XO - to be able to attenuate and equalize the levels on the two amps.

Definitely agree that you should only use a tool (active XO) if there's a need for it.

BMWCCA
01-27-2013, 06:48 AM
That's a pretty big difference between the two amps (60W and 200W). I would be concerned that the 60W top end wouldn't be able to keep up with transients in that freq range (I'm thinking massed string crescendos). In my setup, I try to keep the amps for bi-amping relatively the same in wattage (100W for top and 125W for bottom).

Prefacing this reply with the usual disclaimer that I only know what I've learned by doing myself:
In independent testing the 535 is usually rated closer to 90wpc at 8-ohms. I personally don't use Adcom but I have friends who swear by them. Reviews of the 535 seem to indicate it's a fine amp for full range use so I suppose it would work just fine in this application.

Maybe you should have read this review before jumping in with a criticism of a member's system on your first post:
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/adcom_gfa-535_power_amplifier/index.html

In my bi-amp 4345 system my LF amp is double the power of my HF amp (100wpc Crown PS-200 and 190wpc PS-400). Both amps have variable input attenuators and I'm using active crossover but set that output equal between the two amps at unity. Rat Shack dB meter used with a frequency generator seems to verify that same setting on both amps and same unity gain on the Ashly XR1001 provides a fairly flat curve and certainly no "jump" at the crossover point. I run both amps at roughly 50% attenuation on their controls to get my pre-amp volume control into a useful range which seems to run the system noise-free.

pathfindermwd
01-27-2013, 09:42 AM
If I understand correctly that when running a passive bi-amp setup the crossover presents a high impedance load to the amp outside the crossover point so that would achieve your goal of reducing the load on the amp driving your HF section.

Al

I appreciate the input.


That's a pretty big difference between the two amps (60W and 200W). I would be concerned that the 60W top end wouldn't be able to keep up with transients in that freq range (I'm thinking massed string crescendos). In my setup, I try to keep the amps for bi-amping relatively the same in wattage (100W for top and 125W for bottom). My issue is that the gain on the amps are different (20dB and 26.6 dB). For me, that is one of the reasons for needing an active XO - to be able to attenuate and equalize the levels on the two amps.

Definitely agree that you should only use a tool (active XO) if there's a need for it.

The 535 is remarkably capable for it's rated 80 watts. At 12 o'clock on the dial, both amps put out pretty equal loudness, and distortion begins around 1 or 2 o'clock for both. Aside from their different character, I would be hard pressed to know which was playing, if i didn't know. They are both rated at the same gain, which is why I chose it.

Let me just say for the record that, there is only a slight advantage to bi-amp these L100S's passively. Do I need to actively bi-amp? No, not really. But there are are a number of things I do in life that I don't really need to do, but want to do anyway..;)

EDIT: 60 WPC. I thought I read 80 somewhere.

BMWCCA
01-27-2013, 12:06 PM
EDIT: 60 WPC. I thought I read 80 somewhere.

Some reviewers tested the 335 at closer to 90-watts.


Active bi-amp uses the amps you have that much more efficiently. Sounds like you're only an Ashly XR1001 away from seeing what it'll do for you!

pathfindermwd
01-27-2013, 01:07 PM
Some reviewers tested the 335 at closer to 90-watts.


Active bi-amp uses the amps you have that much more efficiently. Sounds like you're only an Ashly XR1001 away from seeing what it'll do for you!

I believe it! As most know, there's not much difference between 100 watts and 200, about 3db I have been told. The 555 does control bass a bit better, but it's not a huge difference between the two at volume, not as much as one might expect.


I need some hand holding on this active stuff, a few things I'm not clear on.

1. Does the XR1001 use balanced inputs? If so, would I just get some RCA to XLR connections?

2.. I understand that I will bypass the passive XO for the woofer. But I will continue to use passive XO for the Mid/Tweet, correct? Will overlapping the two XO's create a problem?

3. I need a starting point to begin. Using the Ashly in a two way mode, I would just crossover at 800hz, just like the passive?

4. Anything else I need to know?

Titanium Dome
01-27-2013, 02:05 PM
Maybe you should have read this review before jumping in with a criticism of a member's system on your first post:
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/adcom_gfa-535_power_amplifier/index.html



Whether he would have read the review that was in your mind beforehand or not, I do not see any "jumping in with a criticism of a member's system" in his post. He addresses the question and makes some observations based on real concerns without getting personal or casting aspersions on the equipment.

So now I'm jumping in to say that's a harsh way to treat a new poster.

BMWCCA
01-27-2013, 04:18 PM
I need some hand holding on this active stuff, a few things I'm not clear on.

1. Does the XR1001 use balanced inputs? If so, would I just get some RCA to XLR connections?

2.. I understand that I will bypass the passive XO for the woofer. But I will continue to use passive XO for the Mid/Tweet, correct? Will overlapping the two XO's create a problem?

3. I need a starting point to begin. Using the Ashly in a two way mode, I would just crossover at 800hz, just like the passive?

4. Anything else I need to know?

It's so simple even I can do it!

You can run balanced, or not. It takes both. In most systems the runs are so short it won't make any difference and unless you're truly balanced the whole way through it's not balanced anyway, so why bother?

I run my LF pass at 290, just like the original 3145 network, but direct to the woofer from the LF amp. The high pass goes directly to the HF amp and to the passive network for the upper (3 in my system) elements. I set the Ashly "response" to "6" which seems to be the suggestion for matching the 3145 slope.

I think I paid $100 for my Ashly on eBay and it's been working perfectly for four years. It seems the ones without the dash in the model (XR1001) are made in USA. Somewhere along the way the name changed to XR-1001 and those are now sourced from China. I haven't seen complaints about the latter versus the former.


My apology if my reply to Club was snippy. I figure he went to that much trouble to look up the Adcom output so he could make his general comment he might have made a more graceful entrance instead of a critique of Pathfinder's system that it now seems others agree is without foundation. The review was in the first Google hit I got for the 535.

pathfindermwd
01-27-2013, 05:00 PM
It's so simple even I can do it!

You can run balanced, or not. It takes both. In most systems the runs are so short it won't make any difference and unless you're truly balanced the whole way through it's not balanced anyway, so why bother?

I run my LF pass at 290, just like the original 3145 network, but direct to the woofer from the LF amp. The high pass goes directly to the HF amp and to the passive network for the upper (3 in my system) elements. I set the Ashly "response" to "6" which seems to be the suggestion for matching the 3145 slope.

I think I paid $100 for my Ashly on eBay and it's been working perfectly for four years. It seems the ones without the dash in the model (XR1001) are made in USA. Somewhere along the way the name changed to XR-1001 and those are now sourced from China. I haven't seen complaints about the latter versus the former.


My apology if my reply to Club was snippy. I figure he went to that much trouble to look up the Adcom output so he could make his general comment he might have made a more graceful entrance instead of a critique of Pathfinder's system that it now seems others agree is without foundation. The review was in the first Google hit I got for the 535.


I'm definitely going to give it a try! For better or worse, I have to find out for myself what all all the fuss is about, both for and against..:)

Thanks!

hjames
01-27-2013, 05:38 PM
I'm definitely going to give it a try! For better or worse, I have to find out for myself what all all the fuss is about, both for and against..:)

Thanks!


Yep, ran my 4341s with a pair of 1st gen GFA555s and for a while with one GFA555 on the woofers and a GFA 545 on the 3 drivers on the high split.
The Ashly is a nice, inexpensive way to go about active biamping ... have fun!

BMWCCA
01-27-2013, 06:44 PM
The Ashly is a nice, inexpensive way to go about active biamping ... have fun!

I've considered the Marchand which many here endorse. It would appear the entry-level there would cost about $600 with a fixed crossover point. Additional frequency modules are available for $6 each, two required.

http://www.marchandelec.com/xm9.html

club900fe
01-27-2013, 09:58 PM
Maybe you should have read this review before jumping in with a criticism of a member's system on your first post:
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/adcom_gfa-535_power_amplifier/index.html


Whether he would have read the review that was in your mind beforehand or not, I do not see any "jumping in with a criticism of a member's system" in his post. He addresses the question and makes some observations based on real concerns without getting personal or casting aspersions on the equipment.


@BMWCCA: You had me at "hello."
It wasn't my intent to criticize and I don't think I did. But if that's how you interpret it, c'est la vie.

Anyway, years ago, I did experiment with bi-amping a 60W (for M/H) and a 125W amp (for L). With an active XO and with the majority of recordings, it sounded very good. However, there were a few recordings - mainly orchestra and organ if I remember correctly - that just sounded uneven to me, especially during crescendos. I eventually concluded (rightly or wrongly) that it may be due to the inability of the 60W amp to provide transients to the same degree as the other amp before distorting. YMMV.


As to some of the questions...


2.. I understand that I will bypass the passive XO for the woofer. But I will continue to use passive XO for the Mid/Tweet, correct? Will overlapping the two XO's create a problem?

I currently am using this type of setup and have had no issues. But I did get some interesting results using steeper slopes in the active XO in that there was increased phase shift. Not a big deal in a 2-way speaker but it was in my 3-way speaker that has a passive XO for the M/H. Because of this, I try to use the most gradual slope that I can in the active XO.



4. Anything else I need to know?

Yeah, have fun with it and enjoy lots of listening.


EJ (back to lurking mode...)

club900fe
01-27-2013, 10:01 PM
My apology if my reply to Club was snippy. I figure he went to that much trouble to look up the Adcom output so he could make his general comment he might have made a more graceful entrance instead of a critique of Pathfinder's system that it now seems others agree is without foundation. The review was in the first Google hit I got for the 535.

No worries. I didn't read the article but was already familiar with the 535 and 555 from way back when.

pathfindermwd
01-28-2013, 09:23 AM
I try to use the most gradual slope that I can in the active XO.



EJ (back to lurking mode...)


Thanks for the helpful hint EJ. There are alot of personalities here. Like anywhere I think that sometimes, people are just having an off day.:dont-know:

Some seem particularly sensitive to proper forum etiquette, especially if they see a post as trolling or thread-crapping. I can see their point. It's hard to look for useful information sometimes when one has to wade through alot of non-information.

Agreeing with what I see as Dome's position, I think that the forum could be a friendlier place. It's often only in hindsight that a post may not have been very helpful or useful to a thread. But if we can't always have useful posts, hopefully we can have some fun in the process. Speakers are a fun hobby, and we could emulate that example more.

The best way to let others get to know you is to participate. They haven't thrown me out of here yet, so join in!

Welcome to the forum!:)