Crossover slope preferences

[stevem]

For those of you who have been able to experiment with different crossover slopes (12, 24, 48 db/octave, etc.), and types (L-R, Butterworth, Bessel, etc.), which have you found to perform the best in your systems? I currently am using 48 db/octave Linkwitz-Reilly, but I have been experimenting with others. They all sound different, and seem to have pluses and minuses. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Earl K]

Hi,

- A simple enough question .
- FWIW one should separate electrical from acoustic slopes .

Complex Answer :

- I use 24 db LR electrical slopes on my twin woofers, which effectively translate into @ 17 or 18 db acoustic slopes , for my MTM woofers.

- I use an approx 18 db electrical slope on the horns ( call it a quasi Bessel arrangement ). This electrical slope when superimposed over the horn/driver combo translates into about a 12 or 13 db "acoustic slope" in the 1.5 octave area around the crossover point ( 800 hz ). ( 1.5 octave = .5 octave up & 1 octave down )

- The combination of these two acoustic slopes with their approx. 90° phase difference, work very well for my MTM setups. These differentials ( both phase and slope wise ) happen to conform pretty closely to D'Appolitos own theory (for best convention ) on what make MTM setups work . These choices seem to give the most coherent & seamless sonic glue throughout the crossover region .

Polarities ??

- In my setups : a positive signal "pulse" gives a compression wave for the woofers and horn . ( I don't like mixing together rarefraction and compression waves ) ;)

<> Cheers

[Ian Mackenzie]

A good explanation here:

http://sound.westhost.com/index2.html

[jkc]

Try this

Assuming a vertical speaker layout and a 2 way, hold your head horizontally a few inches from the speaker equally distant from the 2 drivers with voice playing.

Do you hear what sounds like 1 speaker or 2 speakers?

If it sounds like 1 you got it right.



Passive 24 dB/octave are a little difficult as the higher the order the more critical the accuracy of the component values become and the more critical it is that the correct impedance is seen by the crossover.

There is also the cost issue due to increased complexity and number of components.



JBL’s flagship K2’s use 24dB, not without reason.



When I build a 24 dB passive crossover I trim all components on a bridge and remove windings from the inductors to trim for the correct value.

Remember that most commercial designs are made to a budget and the crossover is 1 area where you can save money to meet a price point.

The lower the order the cheaper and easier it is to build a crossover.

[Alan Fletcher]

Why build passive xovers when you can buy VERY high quality, fully adjustable active xovers (i.e. Ashly XR- series) on the cheap and bi- or triamp? Is it for the challenge of building such a device?

Passive crossovers are by their very nature not phase coherent and also they present a difficult reactive/capacitive load to the amplifier. Why do it?

Seems to me that if you are going to build a project speaker, you might as well get rid of the major fault of a commercially produced, passive x'd speaker, the crossover design.

Maybe I'm just nuts...

[Ian Mackenzie]

Steve,

Sounds like you are jsut over the river from Robert.

Robert is a dab hand with passive crossovers, perhaps help might be able to hep you out (see his diy 4 way XP system)

Forgive me but what sort of system were you thinking of organising?...I seem to recall you mentioning this in another thread.

[jkc]

I agree that active crossovers offer what appears to be a technically superior solution.

However if you look at many 24dB/octave commercial crossovers most are not that great, the main reason being that they do not follow the correct alignment due do the difficulty in adjusting the required number of components.

A 24dB/ocvtave Likwitz-Riley requires the adjustment of 6 resistors per section to change frequencies, difficult to implement.

The main benefit of a 24dB/ocvtave Likwitz-Riley being phase coherency and some other filter alignment designed for convenience of adjustment sounds wrong.



When you design a filter its phase coherency is defined by the filter type and it makes no difference weather or not the filter is implemented as an active or passive filter as to phase coherency or response.

A Passive filter that presents a difficult reactive load to an amplifier is also incorrectly designed.



The other day I had a commercial active crossover running on my speakers and wife took one listen and said that sounds awful.

On the other hand she like my home made 24dB/ocvtave Likwitz-Riley crossovers that run my left and right.

I struggle sometimes to decide which sounds better, my active or passive filters.

They both have the same alignment but sound different.



As I see it you get what you pay for, if you extend the argument to digital filters the cheap ones sound awful.

The same applies to analogue filters.

This is a very complex subject with many subjective impressions.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Absolutely...trust your ears..

[scott fitlin]

Usually, you get what you pay for, or at least your supposed too! I like 18db butterworth filters. They sound good to me, and gives me a bit of overlap between the drivers allowing a more seamless image than 24db slopes! I always find 24 db filters to make speakers sound like individual bands, rather than the independent ranges gelling together as one.

With the Rane AC23, I dunno, it just starts to sound compressed as you push the system. So Bryston 10B LR were tried, same thing, as you push, the sound compresses!

I have no real experience with passives so I have nothing to say in that area!

One of my favorite active electronic xovers is still the Urei 525.

I have a new BSS FDS 366T, so I will be trying out a digital unit once again, I will experiment with the different filter types!

I also would like to hear Ians all discrete, class A crossover, it looks good, what I have seen of it here on the forum!

[duaneage]

I experiment with phasing to voice the tweeter and midranges., reversing the phase shifts the localization of the sound around and shows me what needs to be changed to get the drivers to balance out. I use a VCB-100 virtual xover box to quickly A-B changes to get the "voicing" right. I start out with 12 db slopes and use the natural rolloff as much as possible. I shoot for a point of origin that does not seem to come from one driver, rather from the entire speaker, then I know I have the crossover matched. I seldom see the calculated values when I am done. Being able to A-B the changes is important since it is difficult to remember what was going on 20 minutes ago accurately.

As to electronic xovers, they cannot help too much in time alignments and other nuances like passive parts can. The abrupt rolloffs can do more harm than good sometimes.

Part of the art of good speaker design is in the crossover, and that is usually what separates good speakers from great ones.

[Zilch]

Why build passive xovers when you can buy VERY high quality, fully adjustable active xovers (i.e. Ashly XR- series) on the cheap and bi- or triamp?Passive crossovers also do the balancing and the EQ.

Some folks would rather have a wire than a rack full of dedicated gear to upgrade.

[O.K., two wires, then.... ;) ]

[stevem]

Actually, I had intended a discussion on the various merits of different slopes and types, not passive versus active, but what the heck! I'm also using a BSS FDS 366 (not the "t", but with the new software so I think they are the same). I really do like the sound of this unit.

What about using one slope for the high pass and a different one for the low pass? I haven't tried this, but under what conditions would you want to do this? I suppose it might help get a flatter response through the crossover region, but couldn't you do the same thing with a little EQ?



The issue of group delay is beyond my limited measurement capabilities, so I don't know what effect this is having in my system. I'll have to try experimenting like duaneage and jkc suggested and see if I can hear any differences.

[duaneage]

What about using one slope for the high pass and a different one for the low pass? I haven't tried this, but under what conditions would you want to do this? I suppose it might help get a flatter response through the crossover region, but couldn't you do the same thing with a little EQ?


This is done quite often. Usually the tweeter is crossed over steeper to increase power handling, especially when trying to match with a larger woofer. Volumes have been written on the pass charactoristics of crossover networks, not to mention the impedance and phase that results when you inject a crossover into a system.

As for using a little eq, sure why not. But if your developing a speaker for a market you cannot count on an EQ to be present. In your home you can do what you must to get the sound right. Most rooms need a LOT of eq anyway, few of us live in studios with properly designed walls.

Most important point is to make sure the drivers are protected and that the impedance does not go too low or deliver an unusual phase angle to an amplifier, that might get something hurt.

[Ian Mackenzie]

For those of you who have been able to experiment with different crossover slopes (12, 24, 48 db/octave, etc.), and types (L-R, Butterworth, Bessel, etc.), which have you found to perform the best in your systems? I currently am using 48 db/octave Linkwitz-Reilly, but I have been experimenting with others. They all sound different, and seem to have pluses and minuses. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

It depends as Earl said on the characteristics of your drivers and how you propose to use them..(baffle layout).

I would definately try the simple 6db slopes and then progress from there: there is no right answer.

[spkrman57]

Unlike many on this forum I like the low power 45 triode amp, at 1.8 wpc I have the flexibility to use the 1st order crossovers. 1st order crossovers are really quite forgiving but require knowing your drivers well.

With JBL 15" drivers like the 2226, they are a high inductance driver and coils do not always act like crossovers. In fact the "Pi speaker forum" uses them for duty up to 1.6khz with just a .7 mh(for the 2226H 8 ohm model) to tame a rising response from 800hz to 1.6khz. The 2226 actually is down 20db at 2 khz due to its natural behavior.

When used with a 3rd order at 1.6 khz hi pass crossover they operate in a very seamless manner. I am currently using a 1st order crossover on my compression driver on Edgar round wooden horns. For now, Altec 902/650hz Edgar tractix. I am awaiting my order from Bruce(Edgar) for my 500hz tractix and my 399's from Great Plains.

Reading from prior posts on this forum discussing crossovers with comments from "Earl K", I experimented some and I am using a 3 parallel cap combination. I have a 2 ufd oil cap/12 ufd Dayton MPT(not sure what the "T" stands for, maybe just a fancy way of saying MPP?)/.68 Dayton MPP cap. This is all fed directly to a 8 ohm L-pad.

Sound is good at just the right volumes, too low or too high and the sound is just off a bit, but to get it right and the 18" 2242 in Giskard cabinet with PE 250 watt sub plate amp makes music downright scary in a good sense.

I am using Mike Bakers old E130/2225 recone with a "perfect-lay 14 guage 1.2 mh coil" and they mesh very well together.

For higher power though I use a 3rd order on my compression drivers.

Just my thoughts for the fans of the "peanut powered amps"

Ron

[pangea]

For those of you who have been able to experiment with different crossover slopes (12, 24, 48 db/octave, etc.), and types (L-R, Butterworth, Bessel, etc.), which have you found to perform the best in your systems? I currently am using 48 db/octave Linkwitz-Reilly, but I have been experimenting with others. They all sound different, and seem to have pluses and minuses. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

I've been experimenting quite a lot the past six months on my MTM hybrids and I always seem to be coming back to the 6dB slopes, one way or another.
Even before, when I was building passive x-overs for various speakers (for home use), I seem to like the 1st order filters best and I think, it partly has to do, with the fact that it's less complicated and partly that I seem to prefer the transient response and the imaging/sound-staging that seems to be better/easier to achieve with 6dB slopes IME.

Otherwise I think I prefer the "Bessel" characteristics.

Br
Roland

[frank23]

I like the sound of, what Earl calls "wimpy", 1st order, or 6dB crossovers.

But since the frequency bands from the drivers overlap a lot with 1st order, you need drivers that have good performance at least 1 octave outside of their passbands.

This would mean that using a 2420 [good down to 1000Hz] you would have to cross-over at 2000Hz and therefore your bass/mid has to behave nice [no peaks] up to 4000Hz.

And you have to give up a lot of power handling because [as earl explained] at relatively low frequencies for which the high frequency driver was not designed, the excursion can become too large far earlier than with higher-order crossover designs. But it is enough for using in my living room.

Frank

[Earl K]

Hi

- About these wimpy/sloppy Ist order filters ; That is what I use on my horns and I love the sound.

- I actually use three single pole filters operated together in a quasi "synchronously tuned" arrangement.

- That's just a fancy word for three filters with the same approx. Fc point ( a "no-no" with typical filter design ) . These Fc points are effectively isolated from one others' proximity effects. Typically, if one lumps 3 filters together, all at, or near the same Fc point, one will create a lot of filter "ringing"/"peaking".
- One form of this cascaded isolation is accomplished with the first filter being a Line Level Passive Type ( though its' Fc is around 300 hz ) . This filter, of course has total isolation from the next two since there is an amplifier in between them. The second and third passive filters ( which have approx. the same Fc points of 630 & 750 hz ) are semi-isolated from each other by some circuit resistance ( an 8 ohm series resistor ) . This topology maintains all the wonderful transients of a simple single pole filter while providing a lot of extra protection for my horn circuit.


:cheers:

[stevem]

I have a new BSS FDS 366T, so I will be trying out a digital unit once again, I will experiment with the different filter types!

Scott, I'm curious to know how you like your new BSS 366t. Can you give us some of your impressions? Thanks!

[scott fitlin]

Scott, I'm curious to know how you like your new BSS 366t. Can you give us some of your impressions? Thanks!I havent hooked it up yet. I will during the winter, and we will see.

But it can do nice things. I run my 15,s on a 12db slope everything else is 18db, with the 366t you can do this too! EQ and time align and all the other thingamabobs are cool!

[scott fitlin]

Today I put the BSS 366T into the system, took my time figuring it out, and once I had a basic setup, began playing music and listening.

My first impression was that the 366T sounds much better than the older 388, which i also had, and didnt like! I also thought its extremely clean.

I spent most of the late afternoon till early evening listening to music, and fiddling around with the 366, and its a bit different than analog, but good. Very good.

Im sure I have quite a ways to go yet to find my ultimate programming and setup, but after tweaking by ear, as best I could, the gain, and delay settings, I am surprised at how good it can sound!

To me, analog still has a warmer sound, and a different sound on the top end, maybe a bit more depth in the image as well, but I am getting very clear, and clean music, with surprising depth, good transient response, and alot of resolution of fine details in the music.

I started to fiddle with time aligning the drivers, mostly my 2404,s and although not a night and day difference, some really minute details are heard with better clarity and focus.

I think the 366T sounds really good, and even though its slightly different from what im used to, it sounds light years better than the digital components available ten years ago. The sound is totally clean and very clear. If I had to pick something to love about it, its what you can do to the signal, that you cant do with analog crossovers.

Another thing about the BSS 366T is that it lets you do anything you want to do, gain, overlap, different slopes on different ranges.

I like the clean sound of it for sure. I didnt really know what to expect of it, but so far, thumbs up!

:D

[boputnam]

I have a new BSS FDS 366T, so I will be trying out a digital unit once again, I will experiment with the different filter types!You will be astounded the control afforded by this unit. On close examination - home audio - you will miss the sound of analogue. However, in your LARGE application, Scotty, this may be a great fit.

[scott fitlin]

You will be astounded the control afforded by this unit. On close examination - home audio - you will miss the sound of analogue. However, in your LARGE application, Scotty, this may be a great fit.Very true, but I tend to scrutinize when i listen, and the better is my system you would be amazed at what you CAN hear in here, even with the bumper cars running!!!!!!

I already hear the difference between the BSS 366 and all of my analog crossovers, on one hand the analog controlled full range is warmer sounding, on the other hand the DSP controlled full range has cleaner sound, incredible clarity, and good dynamic expression, and of course amazing flexibility!

As I said in my earlier post, I am no where near the final setup, and am just playing with the unit at this point! About an hour ago, I WAS missing my analog crossover for its richer midbass bloom, and then I remembered, my older crossover has several mods, one is the LF slope is 12db per octave! So, into the BSS and change the LF select to "edge" so I can have different slopes between the 15,s and horns, and now the 15,s are on a 12db butterworth slope, while the mid horns have the same crossover point but remain 18db butterworth! And it works, theres the mid bass bloom, and somewhat fuller sounding 15 I was looking for!

My 18,s and super tweeters remain analog, the full range is on the BSS, Ill tell you I do like the amount of things you can do, and its clean, man, its clean!

I have been listening to all kinds of music, and I am really think its good, even though slightly different then analog. I know Im hearing better notes from my full range, its just clearer!

Whatever it is, it seems to be pleasing me, cause If I dont like something Ill take it out 15 minutes to a half hour after I put it in! I`ve been listening and futzing around with the BSS since 5 this afternoon! It appears my old opinion of DSP controllers is based upon the things ive heard in club systems utilizing DSP controllers, and the BSS-388 that I gave up on long ago! I have had the 366 for a while now, and been hesitant to install it, fearing i wouldnt like it, and I sort of had to keep that notion out of my head while I installed it this afternoon, but I kind of thought it wouldnt last with me, but, I was very surprised, pleasantly surprised!

Now im really wondering what the Lake Contour thing sounds like! Maybe that will be good for my subs and highs? :D

[pangea]

I havent hooked it up yet. I will during the winter, and we will see.

But it can do nice things. I run my 15,s on a 12db slope everything else is 18db, with the 366t you can do this too! EQ and time align and all the other thingamabobs are cool!

Hi
Is there a particular reason why you have chosen a 12dB slope for the bass and 18dB for the rest and have you changed any of that with the BSS 366?

I've been testing different slopes and characteristics quite a lot and the best result thus far, regarding holographic and focused sound stage I got with 12dB/Bessel on LF(2235), 12dB/Bessel on MB(2123), 12dB/Bessel on MH(2441) and 6dB/But on UHF(075)where the chosen x-over point is at 20kHz.

Have you tried this, apart from that special thing I'm using on the 075?
I would probably go for a normal x-over if I'd have a 2405.

BR
Roland

[scott fitlin]

Hi
Is there a particular reason why you have chosen a 12dB slope for the bass and 18dB for the rest and have you changed any of that with the BSS 366?

I've been testing different slopes and characteristics quite a lot and the best result thus far, regarding holographic and focused sound stage I got with 12dB/Bessel on LF(2235), 12dB/Bessel on MB(2123), 12dB/Bessel on MH(2441) and 6dB/But on UHF(075)where the chosen x-over point is at 20kHz.

Have you tried this, apart from that special thing I'm using on the 075?
I would probably go for a normal x-over if I'd have a 2405.

BR
RolandWell, the Altec basshorns I use in my system seem to sound very good on a 12db slope and is what they did to the urei 525 crossover I used all these years!! Fuller bottom, and better low mid, on the compression driver 18db for steeper rolloff offering better protection, 18 sounds good to me, 12 can be a bit shallow for my horns, this system is commercial and is played loud!

I will try the bessel shapes, its easy enough to do! Ill see what I think! I did try some higher order filters last evening, and went back to 18 butterworth! But the fact that you can do anything you want is fun! From 6db to 52db, Bessel, Butterworth, L-R, Neville-Thiel!

Today I want to experiment with the DEQ features!

[scott fitlin]

Umm, I just went and did the Bessel 12db alignment on the 15,s to horns, and THATS IT! Really good! Everything snapped into place, detail, low mid, transients, and soundstage! WOW!

Im going to create a totally new program, and name it " Pangea1 "

This is what I`m loving about the 366T, you can do anything, and its easy to do!

I have my assistant here with me today, a young man of 18 years old, and he loves the sound of the system with the BSS in it. I let him tell me his opinion because hes young and his ears are fresh! Just like my uncle used to ask me what I thought of things when I was in my teens!

The BSS-366T is growing on me!

:D

[louped garouv]

uh oh -- times are changing at the El Dorado..... :D


glad to hear you have found a new toy you like..... nice feeling for a change, isn't it? ;)

[scott fitlin]

uh oh -- times are changing at the El Dorado..... :D


glad to hear you have found a new toy you like..... nice feeling for a change, isn't it? ;)Yeah, it is!

Its a bit different from analog, but its really good too! Dead clean.

What I really am enjoying, besides the fact that it does sound good, is that you can do anything you want! I mean anything, gain, different slopes and filter shapes on each band, as much or as little overlap as you want or need, whatever you need, the BSS-366T allows you to do! Whereas other DSP processors dont allow you infinite flexibilty, at least the ones I have experience with! For example, the 366T will let me use a 12db bessel filter on my LF xover, AND 18db Butterworth for the mid horn! With say, the DBX Driverack, you can choose Bessel 12db, but thats the filter slope and shape all the way through!

As for analog, well, Im still analog, the BSS is being fed by the RLA X-3000, and the combination seems to work!

Ill tell you I like the 366T better than the 388 which is still around and in many places, as well as having had one! The 24/96 processing of the 366T makes a noticeable improvement in sound over the older 16 bit processing!

Then theres the DEQ ( dynamic equalization ) feature that might be useful as well. Level dependant, frequency specific eq used to keep the horns sounding smooth when at high volume! You set it like a limiter, threshold, attack and release, and frequency, and how much cut or boost to apply when the threshold is reached! You can set it to make the system sound fuller at low volumes, or as I said, to keep the horns from getting blary sounding at high volumes! Very interesting! The delay to each frequency band is useful too! I applied a small amount of delay to my 2404 stack tweeters which are mounted at the front of the stacks, and I aligned them with the 2441 on the 2395,s and its not night and day different, but small details have better focus and clarity!

Now if your gonna ask me if it sounds JUST like analog, no its slightly different! But the gap IS closing! And this sounds good, where I didnt think some of the older units sounded good at all!



I hope one day soon, they can produce digital processing that is completely indiscernible, sonically, from analog processors! The fact of the matter is that what you can do with these things is truly useful!

[scott fitlin]

The more I play with this thing, the better I get my system to sound!

So far, I can say Im really happy with it. I keep tweaking, and experimenting in ways you just cannot do with conventional analog xovers, and I have found several things that make my room sound really fricking good!

Bo, your right, the control and flexibility is outstanding!

:D

[pangea]

... as well as honored, you decide to call the setup pangea1. :)
It really makes me happy, to be able to give something back on this great forum.

I thought you might appreciate the 12dB Bessel. I had also tried different slopes and I'm not excluding, 18dB might be better in a pro environment, but for HiFi/Pro/Fi, I found that there was a huge difference between the 12dB/18dB and the 12/12 dB Bessel, in terms of holographic sound stage and detail and I think it had something to do with an incompatible phase shift.

Now it's possible to absolutely pinpoint each instrument and singer, down to an inch and that is really a revelation. It somehow, as if the speakers aren't even there anymore.

This, I would never have been able to achieve, without my two Behringer DCQ2496 Ultradrive.

YES, and then there is the DEQ, GEQ and DYN, to play around with!!!:applaud:
WOW, wait until you have added a touch from each of those, but only a touch. Too much of those will wreck and color the music, but just a hint of it has added all the LIVE feeling I could ever have dreamt of. :applaud:

There is absolutely no going back, since I've been using my digital electronic cross overs!!!

BR
Roland

[scott fitlin]

Well, Pangea, if you really look at things, 12db slopes on my 15,s make sense! Altec basshorns, and 12db is what they were doing all those years ago! 18 and 12db butterworth seem to be a bit lean sounding, 24db LR or 24 Butterworth definitely to tight and not enough overlap between horn and woofer.


Yesterday, when I switched to 12db slopes butterworth shape, the low mid was better, but the bottom was still somewhat anemic sounding, and then you mentioned bessel, so its so easy to do, I tried it! What a difference this makes! Not only did the midbass come to life, the soundstage opened up, and transients have better attack, and the music seems to have a deeper image, more dimensional. Vocals sound more natural and real using the bessel filter for the 15,s! Music sounds bigger, and better, and being able to mix and match filter slopes as well as filter shapes is really good! I also got it to sound pretty spatial, after playing with it for a while, too!

Im really enjoying this thing, I love the things Im able to do, I enjoy the clean sound, even a couple of people who dropped by, as well as David, my 18yr old assistant said this sounds good!

If it didnt sound good, none of the features would be worth anything, but it does sound good, and the custom programs you can create is astounding!

I know for sure im hearing things in my music and system I WAS NOT hearing before!

And IT LOOKS so COOL in my rack! My processing rack faces the entrance line, and with all the led,s other VU,s and LED bars I have going, its quite a show in itself!

:bouncy:

[pangea]

Well, Pangea, if you really look at things, 12db slopes on my 15,s make sense! Altec basshorns, and 12db is what they were doing all those years ago! 18 and 12db butterworth seem to be a bit lean sounding, 24db LR or 24 Butterworth definitely to tight and not enough overlap between horn and woofer.


Yesterday, when I switched to 12db slopes butterworth shape, the low mid was better, but the bottom was still somewhat anemic sounding, and then you mentioned bessel, so its so easy to do, I tried it! What a difference this makes! Not only did the midbass come to life, the sound stage opened up, and transients have better attack, and the music seems to have a deeper image, more dimensional. Vocals sound more natural and real using the bessel filter for the 15,s! Music sounds bigger, and better, and being able to mix and match filter slopes as well as filter shapes is really good! I also got it to sound pretty spatial, after playing with it for a while, too!

Im really enjoying this thing, I love the things Im able to do, I enjoy the clean sound, even a couple of people who dropped by, as well as David, my 18yr old assistant said this sounds good!

If it didnt sound good, none of the features would be worth anything, but it does sound good, and the custom programs you can create is astounding!

I know for sure im hearing things in my music and system I WAS NOT hearing before!

And IT LOOKS so COOL in my rack! My processing rack faces the entrance line, and with all the led,s other VU,s and LED bars I have going, its quite a show in iteslf!

:bouncy:


What made me think it might have something to do with phase, was that at one time, one of my Beringer's didn't get the time alignment quite right and that had exactly the same affect on the sound stage, as it collapsed and the instruments went straight back in to the speakers, which I previously thought was a natural thing due to mixing the record that way.

I also read that different slopes are "turning" the signal in different angles and that might result in the same problem, as a faulty time alignment.

BR
Roland

[scott fitlin]

What made me think it might have something to do with phase, was that at one time, one of my Beringer's didn't get the time alignment quite right and that had exactly the same affect on the sound stage, as it collapsed and the instruments went straight back in to the speakers, which I previously thought was a natural thing due to mixing the record that way.

I also read that different slopes are "turning" the signal in different angles and that might result in the same problem, as a faulty time alignment.

BR
RolandAll I know is what I hear, and this does sound right!

Years ago, Richard Long, who did the sound for clubs like Studio 54 and Paradise Garage, whose dance club sound I loved, advertised his crossovers to use Linear Phase technology, claiming to fix phase disturbances and time arrival of different frequencies, resulting in clearer and better sound! Over the years, the word Bessel has come up a few times when discussing this very subject!

What my ears hear, is that once I began using the Bessel filter on the 15,s, the system, and music sounded very much like what I heard out of his systems and his electronics.

The great thing about some of todays DSP processors, is that if you want to do these types of things, all you have to do is tell it what to do! Years ago, you had to modify the elctronics to be application specific!

I would imagine the DSP technology will only get better as time moves forward, and for a change, I am moving forward, too! :D

[pangea]

All I know is what I hear, and this does sound right!

Years ago, Richard Long, who did the sound for clubs like Studio 54 and Paradise Garage, whose dance club sound I loved, advertised his crossovers to use Linear Phase technology, claiming to fix phase disturbances and time arrival of different frequencies, resulting in clearer and better sound! Over the years, the word Bessel has come up a few times when discussing this very subject!

What my ears hear, is that once I began using the Bessel filter on the 15,s, the system, and music sounded very much like what I heard out of his systems and his electronics.

The great thing about some of todays DSP processors, is that if you want to do these types of things, all you have to do is tell it what to do! Years ago, you had to modify the elctronics to be application specific!

I would imagine the DSP technology will only get better as time moves forward, and for a change, I am moving forward, too! :D

Absolutely, my ears also tell me this is right!

WOW, studio 54, isn't that the act to follow, the absolute "creme de la creme" !?:applaud:

I've been experimenting quite a lot this last year on the slopes and characteristic's with my Behringer's, and I always seem to be coming back to the Bessel 12dB configurations, even before when I was still building passives, coming to think of it.

BR
Roland

[scott fitlin]

Absolutely, my ears also tell me this is right!

WOW, studio 54, isn't that the act to follow, the absolute "creme de la creme" !?:applaud:

I've been experimenting quite a lot this last year on the slopes and characteristic's with my Behringer's, and I always seem to be coming back to the Bessel 12dB configurations, even before when I was still building passives, coming to think of it.

BR
RolandStudio 54, and RLA sound! I grew up on this in our NYC nightclubs, and we got it for our place too! Had you heard that room in 1978 you would have been amazed! So smooth, so clear and sweet, and that ferrocious Richard Long bottom end kick and top end spark.

Now, I am using his original 3 way crossover, the same that was in Studio, in conjunction with the BSS-366T and there seems to be a great synergy between the two units, I dont know why, but it works well!

I demoed the room again, this time for my neighbor, I played Boyz to Men- Ill Make Love to You, and all he could say was WOW, thats SOOOOOOOOO clear! And it really is, I am feeling your words about no going back! The full range is just getting TOO good to go back!

I got more improvements on the way, I cant wait to get my 4 new double 18 ported, JBL 2242 loaded WIDGETWOOFERS! I want to MOVE SOME AIR.

:applaud:

[pangea]

Studio 54, and RLA sound! I grew up on this in our NYC nightclubs, and we got it for our place too! Had you heard that room in 1978 you would have been amazed! So smooth, so clear and sweet, and that ferrocious Richard Long bottom end kick and top end spark.

Now, I am using his original 3 way crossover, the same that was in Studio, in conjunction with the BSS-366T and there seems to be a great synergy between the two units, I dont know why, but it works well!

I demoed the room again, this time for my neighbor, I played Boyz to Men- Ill Make Love to You, and all he could say was WOW, thats SOOOOOOOOO clear! And it really is, I am feeling your words about no going back! The full range is just getting TOO good to go back!

I got more improvements on the way, I cant wait to get my 4 new double 18 ported, JBL 2242 loaded WIDGETWOOFERS! I want to MOVE SOME AIR.

:applaud:

Me thinks, not only air will be moved!!!:nutz: :dancin:

BR
Roland

[scott fitlin]

Me thinks, not only air will be moved!!!:nutz: :dancin:

BR
RolandIm hoping to move peoples money out of their pockets, too, and into a safer place! MY CASH REGISTER!

:yes:

[scott fitlin]

Ive had the BSS-366T in my system now close to three weeks? I am liking it more and more each day!

Since I time aligned my full range, the focus and clarity are really terrific!

Just sounds good to me, and these newer 24 bit converters sound good. They just do, and the gap between analog and digital has grown smaller indeed!

I guess Im semi digital now?

:)

[pangea]

Ive had the BSS-366T in my system now close to three weeks? I am liking it more and more each day!

Since I time aligned my full range, the focus and clarity are really terrific!

Just sounds good to me, and these newer 24 bit converters sound good. They just do, and the gap between analog and digital has grown smaller indeed!

I guess Im semi digital now?

:)

Is the BSS-366T strictly x-over, or can it do some expanding, DYN-EQ and add some limiter as well, like the Behringer Ultradrive does?

Also, do you think the quality is above the Behringer and perhaps in the range of the dbx Driverack?

BR
Roland

[scott fitlin]

Is the BSS-366T strictly x-over, or can it do some expanding, DYN-EQ and add some limiter as well, like the Behringer Ultradrive does?

Also, do you think the quality is above the Behringer and perhaps in the range of the dbx Driverack?

BR
RolandThe 366T can do parametric EQ, shelving, dynamic EQ, limiting, and everything else the others do and more!

I actually like it alot. Its clean! I also like the .1db increments of adjustment, it really allows to to dial in exactly where you need to be!

Time aligment works, no, it is not night and day, but you can definitely hear it! CLARITY and Focus!

What really got my attention is that when I switched back to an analog xover, the analog unit has a bottom end thats got more weight, and seems heftier, but, with todays music, especially electronic dance music, the bass is just too much, to the point of becoming muddy, and blurred! The same recordings through the BSS 366 just seem to sound more like music used to sound, in that the bass isnt overwhelming the entire mix and soundscape! So, yes the digital unit is a bit leaner sounding, and that worked out for me, because of ther way todays music is made! I can hear midbass and bass notes, and transient snap! The midrange is crystal clear, and mellow to boot, not irritating, the highs are fairly exact and transparent, maybe this is the area where DSP has a ways to go, and yet, what I got right now is really good!

Rather than compare it to other brands, and say this is better, or that is whatever, what I am saying now is that the 24/96 converters they are using now blow away the earlier 16 bit converters! Much better, more natural sounding! They all have them now, so its up to the user what functions they require and how much do you want to spend!

When I put this into my system, I kind of had that " yeah, 2 days, and it will be packed away in the box again " thinking! But, that just didnt happen, I like it, it cleaned up a whole host of things for me! It just seems to work well with todays recordings, the clarity, and coherence, and clean sound are NO JOKE!

:)

[louped garouv]

When I put this into my system, I kind of had that " yeah, 2 days, and it will be packed away in the box again " thinking! But, that just didnt happen, I like it, it cleaned up a whole host of things for me! It just seems to work well with todays recordings, the clarity, and coherence, and clean sound are NO JOKE!

:)

so.....

getting rid of a analog xover soon? Crown is it? ;)

gonna have to make up a sign... "now introducing the quasi-digital EL Dorado"

:D

[scott fitlin]

so.....

getting rid of a analog xover soon? Crown is it? ;)

gonna have to make up a sign... "now introducing the quasi-digital EL Dorado"

:DNo, Im still using the RLA X-3000, and the Full Range out feeds the BSS, and this seems to have wonderful synergy!

I can`t deny I like this thing controlling my full range! The clarity is great, and recordings sound terrific! Vintage speakers sound terrific with this BSS!

Welcome aboard, be prepared to be taken on a Quai-Digital voyage! Next stop? The 21st century!

:D

[louped garouv]

didn't the RLA 'full out' used to feed a modded Crown analogue unit?

Glad to hear you still like it.... BSS gear ain't cheap :blink:

but then again, neither is RLA