Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 157

Thread: Ashly XR1001 Active Crossover

  1. #31
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    7,984
    "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

  2. #32
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606
    "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


    .

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Covington, Ohio
    Posts
    688
    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

  4. #34
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    10,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Lancer
    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/s...page=3&p=61779

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

  5. #35
    Senior Señor boputnam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    northern california
    Posts
    7,007
    Hi, Lancer - welcome!

    Could you steer your trusty steed to here? http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbull...1921#post61921

    Them all will be richer for your visit...
    bo

    "Indeed, not!!"

  6. #36
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    7,984
    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

  7. #37
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606
    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. . 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. .

    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.

  8. #38
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,985
    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

  9. #39
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,985
    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

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Covington, Ohio
    Posts
    688
    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

  11. #41
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,129
    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.

  12. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    56

    questions, if I may. Asley XR 1001 crossover

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
    Still thumbs up!

    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

  13. #43
    Senior Señor boputnam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    northern california
    Posts
    7,007
    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...
    bo

    "Indeed, not!!"

  14. #44
    Senior Member Baron030's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    426
    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 deck’s recording levels until both channels display exactly the same VU recording level. Then, unplug the cassette’s 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 desk’s 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


  15. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by boputnam
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Questions about the Ashly XR1001 Active Crossover
    By porschedpm in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-19-2004, 01:37 PM
  2. JBl XPL 160 and active crossover
    By glarre in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-18-2004, 08:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •