Ashly XR1001 Active Crossover

[BMWCCA]

Thanks, Mike and Fred,
The Ashly manual shows both 1/4" configurations; three-wire TRS or using a mono 1/4" plug with the tip as (+) and the sleeve as (-). I suppose it really isn't going to make any difference unless I pick up a hum somewhere along the way. I'm certainly used to 1/4" jacks, cables, and adapters and I've got a few extras handy. I'll keep it simple for starters. The bank of XLR connectors on the Ashly got me thinking I might actually have a use for the MOD/X adapters I've been stumbling over for years and never used.

6. AUDIO CONNECTIONS AND CABLES
6.1 Balanced
Your crossover is provided with two different
connector types, wired in parallel. 1/4 inch stereo phone
jacks and three pin XLR type connectors will allow inter-
facing to most professional audio products, with pin 2 hot
(+) and pin 3 (-). The inputs and outputs can be used ei-
ther balanced or unbalanced. We recommend balanced
connections between all components in your system, as
this minimizes ground-loop or induced hum and noise.
6.2 Unbalanced
If either inputs or outputs are used unbalanced,
the signal is on the (+) connection and the (-) connection
must be tied to ground. A mono phone plug used as an
unbalanced connection will automatically ground the ring
of the jack which is the (-) connection. When using a ste-
reo plug or XLR connector for unbalanced input or output
connections, the signal (-) MUST be tied to ground, or
loss of signal level may result.

And, if I'm not going to need/use XLR connectors, I already have a Crown DC300A-II and D150A-II in use where the 4345s will go. They're currently used with the 030s. (Well, the 300 is; the 150 is resting and waiting . . . )

[Mike Caldwell]

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

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

[BMWCCA]

I'd start with coax RCA to 1/4" from Pre to X-over, and balanced XLR via twisted pair shielded from X-over to Crown modules (mic cable, not CT5, if that's what you're asking).

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

[Fred Sanford]

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

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

je

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

[Fred Sanford]

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

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

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

je

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

je

[boputnam]

I got curious about the Response knob on the XR-1001, so I I took some measurements on Smaart.

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

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

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

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

[Mr. Widget]

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

I imagine this variance will shift with frequency and unit to unit. I doubt this small error is audible.

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


Widget

[BMWCCA]

Bo,

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

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

[boputnam]

I imagine this variance will shift with frequency and unit to unit.

Made me look. My other unit was basically identical. Makes sense to me - at least wrt same vintage devices.

I doubt this small error is audible.

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

...I tried measuring the difference at 1/3-octave intervals near the crossover point with the Rat-Shack meter varying the Response control but my methods weren't precise enough to show me anything.

The difficulty (or requirement) is, you need to sample (model) each band pass separately and capture each trace. Displaying the two captured traces at the same time is the only real way to see exactly were the crossover point is and measure the attenuation at crossover.

[Mr. Widget]

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

Bo even your ears aren't going to hear a 1/10th octave change of this type...


Widget

[BMWCCA]

The difficulty (or requirement) is, you need to sample (model) each band pass separately and capture each trace. Displaying the two captured traces at the same time is the only real way to see exactly were the crossover point is and measure the attenuation at crossover.

Yeah, but I was hoping to at least be able to figure out what setting provided the smoothest response and even that wasn't doable with minimal equipment.

[boputnam]

Bo even your ears aren't going to hear a 1/10th octave change of this type...

[Baron030]

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

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

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

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

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

Baron030

[Mike Caldwell]

Tricky idea! I'll remember that one!

Mike Caldwell

[Loud & Clear]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks All, Tom

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