Active Crossovers

[Mr. Widget]

With the Behringer, if you replace the analogue sections with audiophile components, drop in an off board linear power supply unit, fit decent WBT connectors all round, and bypass the DSP section completely, it can sound almost decent.

Widget

[Robh3606]

With the Behringer, if you replace the analogue sections with audiophile components, drop in an off board linear power supply unit, fit decent WBT connectors all round, and bypass the DSP section completely, it can sound almost decent.

Well at least you like the case

Rob

[m8o]

Regarding another digital processor made for live sound that can serve as a digital x-over .... Does anyone have experience with the BSS processor?
http://www.bssaudious.com/includes/p...?product_id=32
If any do, would you say it's suitable for use in a 'quiet' media room? Or is it just suitable for 'live sound' where it's made for, where a much higher level of noise and distortion is acceptable? i.e., wondering is it 'Behringer-like' or much higher end? There's a well respected member here who's selling some but I can't find any discussion about it out on the 'net. The list price is many thousand, but there seems to be a bunch selling on eBay for a small fraction of list. That's 'odd' IMO; I'm worried it's 'telling' as to quality as well.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Bo,

With the way components have evolved over the last few years- it doesn't surprise me to know that there are some amazing active units out there. I am continually amazed at how far the quality of resistors, inductors, capacitors, and in some cases- transformers have come. Although some might argue that these things are worse! I find the good stuff to be far more accurate, transparent, and reliable. I bet the 10B is very nice. Even a circa 1994 unit is probably still near the top of the pile.

I am building a pair of charge coupled crossovers with Giskard's help, and hopefully it will be the best of both worlds. Yet, I'd still like to master the art of passive line levels...

Marchand makes a PLLXO (XM46) right out of the box.

Here is a quote from Phil:

"Because of the passive design the signal-to-noise ratio is very high. The noise generated by the crossover is much lower than for the electronic crossovers. The use of large ferrite pot-cores for the inductors is responsible for the low harmonic distortion levels. The circuit needs no power supply and is ideal for incorporating into other equipment, like power amplifiers, etc. We can also provide these crossovers assembled into a cabinet, with or without output level attenuators."


Of course, there is the insertion loss to consider, but we're talking about driving JBL's here! It only takes a little power to push through a passive and still rock a JBL speaker- especially if the bottom end is a pair of 2245's. I still prefer amps that are overkill- even if the knob stays below the 1/4 mark.

Nathan.

I was about to unsubscribe to this thread and thought it would be worth mentioning the above will only work assuming the source has enough drive (current/voltage) and won't react badly to the inductive load of this passive network.

While most domestic line pre outputs will drive 1k loads they may not do it as cleanly as a 5 Kohm or typicially 20 Kohm load and output may significantly reduced. Typically distortion climbs rapidly at high frequencies in this situaton. It will also be important to check the preamp volume pot is not on the ouput like many valve preamps. A high current class A buffer is really required for this type of design.

Your power amp should also have a relatively high input impediance to the 10K pots on the output of the network.

So there is no free lunch with this.

Ian

[boputnam]

Regarding another digital processor made for live sound that can serve as a digital x-over .... Does anyone have experience with the BSS processor?
http://www.bssaudious.com/includes/p...?product_id=32

Not that unit, but I have used both their minidrive and omnidrive - they are great units (although programming seemed a bit clunky, to me, compared to other brands <KT, xta, etc>...).

Or is it just suitable for 'live sound' ... where a much higher level of noise and distortion is acceptable?

Ahem. I cannot believe you think this way...

In "general", BSS is good gear - very high ranking. BSS certainly exceeds Behringer quality, and is priced accordingly. I have not tried their gear in a home setting.

[m8o]

Not that unit, but I have used both their minidrive and omnidrive - they are great units (although programming seemed a bit clunky, to me, compared to other brands <KT, xta, etc>...).
Ahem. I cannot believe you think this way...
In "general", BSS is good gear - very high ranking. BSS certainly exceeds Behringer quality, and is priced accordingly. I have not tried their gear in a home setting.

Thanx for the info. That's very helpful.

I did not mean offense against 'live gear'. Just that I was always under the impression home-audio warrants and requires a much lower noise floor then sound reinforcment gear, and has a tenet of 'neutral' signal transportation and amplification; but live gear often includes 'processing' the signal. Elaborating, I was speaking within the context that sound reinforcment usually utilizes such processing (whether analog or digital) as a compressor and/or limiter, or various types of transformations to the signal like reverb, echo, or alterations to the attack/decay envelope .... all implying 'non-linearity' of the output signal compared to what the input is. With these transformations of the signal being in the time domain as well as frequency domain, all in a manner that nets substantially different characteristics to what one hears then just tone adjustment or frequency-based attenuation of the active crossover section that would be used in a 'home audio' active x-over.

...but it's really the two points of the "noise-floor" and quality of the A/D and D/A quality I was most wondering about -- when compared to other devices that had been mentioned earlier in the thread.

I've actually committed to buying it, so I'll see! Based on what you're saying I should be happy. Having 'one box' taking care of tri-amping 3 channels that I can program with a PC is right up my alley. Though I'll only be utilizing about 10% (if that) of what it can do.

[johnaec]

Elaborating, I was speaking within the context that sound reinforcment usually utilizes such processing (whether analog or digital) as a compressor and/or limiter, or various types of transformations to the signal like reverb, echo, or alterations to the attack/decay envelope .... all implying 'non-linearity' of the output signal compared to what the input is..

What you have to realize here is that those "effects" are being added to the "live" sound to deal with exactly the same problems that are dealt with in a studio. The difference is that they've already been added to the recordings you buy, (when recorded in the studio), but have to be added to live sound, (concerts, etc.) - again, to address specific problems or preferences.

With these transformations of the signal being in the time domain as well as frequency domain, all in a manner that nets substantially different characteristics to what one hears then just tone adjustment or frequency-based attenuation of the active crossover section that would be used in a 'home audio' active x-over.

The problem with live sound is that these time and frequency adjustments must be made to compensate for the usually far from ideal acoustic conditions of most live venues - a problem you don't usually have in most studios or well-designed home listening rooms.

...but it's really the two points of the "noise-floor" and quality of the A/D and D/A quality I was most wondering about...

This is a valid point, but I think you'll find the noise floor of most high-end live gear to be very close to quality home gear - much of it is really that good these days, especially if 96K or 192K conversion.

Having 'one box' taking care of tri-amping 3 channels that I can program with a PC is right up my alley. Though I'll only be utilizing about 10% (if that) of what it can do.

Likely true, but they're still really fun... (I use a DBX DR260 for all sorts of things.)

John

[boputnam]

...With these transformations of the signal being in the time domain as well as frequency domain, all in a manner that nets substantially different characteristics to what one hears then just tone adjustment or frequency-based attenuation of the active crossover section that would be used in a 'home audio' active x-over.

Yup, and barring the very few home systems that I've heard which are done right, I'd put my SR system up against all of them. It is tri-amped, time-aligned, in-phase (acoustically), excellently EQ'd and with no C/L unless the specific input triggers it. Clean, very low noise floor and astonishing tonality. L-Acoustics mains, JBL 2242 subs, KT DN9848 DSP (to highlight but a few in the rack...) and QSC power. Jawdropping, particularly at low gain...

But I get your point. My point was, in SR settings, "studio" or audiophile quality gear often cannot be appreciated due to reverberations and/or acoustic coupling with the edifice/trees which overwhelm the clarity of the system, per se. Conversely, the use of BSS or other top pro gear in SR situations can be fine. Having said that, for SR I did hear the difference between digital DSP's, and decided to go to the Klark Teknik 9848, for it's great sonic character and powerful filtering options.

[merlin]

It's interesting to hear opinions on the various pro options - all to often they can represent the best possible solution given their more acceptable pricing structure. It seems that the weak point of most digital gear is not in the processing it's self, but in the analogue stages and DAC's used.

I'm old school when it comes to DAC's - multibit sound best to me every time. One unit that hasn't been mentioned is the Accuphase DF-45. Not exactly the type of bargain yard sales are renowned for, it seems to have a great deal of attention focussed on the analogue conversion and interfaces. I remember Andre at E Speakers had one a while ago with some of those pesky TAD units. Did anyone get feedback?

[Ken Pachkowsky]

One unit that hasn't been mentioned is the Accuphase DF-45. Did anyone get feedback?

I have searched high and low for one of these in the used market. They are rare to say the least. They also retain the value to a large degree. I spoke to a fellow in northern California that has one on a three way system and he raved about it.

In short, I continue to be very currious re trying one out.

Ken

[boputnam]

In short, I continue to be very currious re trying one out.

Yea, but "...that's just you all over!" (said the tinman to the scarecrow)

They look incredibly smart, but holy-cow what a cost! And no rack ears!!
Interesting that they've not incorporated any PEQ filters. That would seem easy to do, and obviate getting a separate unit.

Makes me want to try the KT DN9848 unit in the home and see...

[Ken Pachkowsky]

Yea, but "...that's just you all over!" (said the tinman to the scarecrow)

I can't argue that.

If the shoe fits!

Later Bud

[boputnam]

I can't argue that.

Ha! I love it.

You are my favorite Guinea Pig - you do it to yourself! Us in white coats merely have to keep our clipboards handy to take notes!!

Do keep us posted!

[Ken Pachkowsky]

Do keep us posted!

Of course

[merlin]

Ken,

How much does the Accuphase sell for it the US? I noticed that the retail prices seem really high compared with Japan.