- Thread Starter
- #101
so is the V2 lower than that too (but more linear)?
Yes.
so is the V2 lower than that too (but more linear)?
You can use the smallest and would still have enough power, I find them used for 200 Euros sometimes. You cannot have an active DSP controlled speaker much cheaper, without economies of scale. The problem is usually not power, but a quality DAC that can do the rest. Because the Crowns have an inbuild XO, you should be fine with a single Behringer DCX2496 I assume, but those have noise problems. About DEQ2496 (share same chip but DEQ has digital in), @amirm wrote: "For the intended pro/live sound, the Behringer DEQ2496 does the job as it likely has lower distortion than any pro amp you use. For audiophile use though, it only manages to get 15 to 16 bits of clean dynamic range relative to distortion. That does the job but I hope we strive for better." This might be acceptable for some, if willing to compromise a bit. The next best step is probably a Hypex FusionAmp. Their DAC is really great (no audible hiss without analouge attenuation), but although the package is a very good value, it might still be a bit more expansive. Hypex also suffer from a devastating fire at their suppliers fab, and they stocked aftermarket AKM DACs and had to increase the price.It would be great, but each of these amps cost as much as one of the speakers. Worth it?
If you have existing amps and are on a budget, you might also consider a minidsp 2x4hd.You can use the smallest and would still have enough power, I find them used for 200 Euros sometimes. You cannot have an active DSP controlled speaker much cheaper, without economies of scale. The problem is usually not power, but a quality DAC that can do the rest. Because the Crowns have an inbuild XO, you should be fine with a single Behringer DCX2496 I assume, but those have noise problems. About DEQ2496 (share same chip but DEQ has digital in), @amirm wrote: "For the intended pro/live sound, the Behringer DEQ2496 does the job as it likely has lower distortion than any pro amp you use. For audiophile use though, it only manages to get 15 to 16 bits of clean dynamic range relative to distortion. That does the job but I hope we strive for better." This might be acceptable for some, if willing to compromise a bit. The next best step is probably a Hypex FusionAmp. Their DAC is really great (no audible hiss without analouge attenuation), but although the package is a very good value, it might still be a bit more expansive. Hypex also suffer from a devastating fire at their suppliers fab, and they stocked aftermarket AKM DACs and had to increase the price.
Using a separate dsp unit opens up the possibility of using any number of budget amplifier options, not just the best measuring ones. I'm not sure yet if these speakers warrant "best in class" electronics that cost more than the speakers themselves. I hope the review will shed more light.The conclusion on the minidsp is also not without reserve. Anyway, with this setup, you will need two power amps and one DSP module that does the filtering, whatever device you choose. Hypex plate amps are very competitive in this domain.
Do people have suggestions what is the best way to add DSP to ones system if they have a receiver / integrated setup?
If it is only computer based content then a computer based DSP system seems very easy to add upstream of any DAC/amp.
But for people who have various inputs (DVD players, video game systems, computers, etc), it seems like adding DSP to the system is more complex and one would need to upgrade to separates with the DSP between the DAC and the amp correct?
Specifically in my case, how is the amp quality on generic receivers? As I have a Marantz receiver than can take all the inputs I have, but then if I want to add DSP I would have to take the pre-outs and run them to the minidsp (or similar system) and then back into a amp. If I don't have a separate amp but have a older receiver could I just use that as the amp? How much variation in quality is there in terms of amplifiers themselves?
Or what are other suggestions for adding DSP to ones system that uses a receiver.
I think the main issue is finding a receiver that has a clean unprocessed line-out and also take line level input back at the separate channels. But keep in mind that you will not be able to use the receiver as a normal surround processor in this manner since you need multiple channels per speaker.there are so many MiniDSP devices that one of them must be exactly what you're looking for.
Would not it be true only in active crossover application? Crossover seems to be okay in this case. Why not use DSP to address shortcomings of individual drivers?... But keep in mind that you will not be able to use the receiver as a normal surround processor in this manner since you need multiple channels per speaker.
I think the main issue is finding a receiver that has a clean unprocessed line-out and also take line level input back at the separate channels. But keep in mind that you will not be able to use the receiver as a normal surround processor in this manner since you need multiple channels per speaker.
Do people have suggestions what is the best way to add DSP to ones system if they have a receiver / integrated setup?
If it is only computer based content then a computer based DSP system seems very easy to add upstream of any DAC/amp.
But for people who have various inputs (DVD players, video game systems, computers, etc), it seems like adding DSP to the system is more complex and one would need to upgrade to separates with the DSP between the DAC and the amp correct?
Specifically in my case, how is the amp quality on generic receivers? As I have a Marantz receiver than can take all the inputs I have, but then if I want to add DSP I would have to take the pre-outs and run them to the minidsp (or similar system) and then back into a amp. If I don't have a separate amp but have a older receiver could I just use that as the amp? How much variation in quality is there in terms of amplifiers themselves?
Or what are other suggestions for adding DSP to ones system that uses a receiver.
Right. Easiest way is to use the built-in passive crossover (even if the eq is flawed like w/ v1) and simply eq with DSP since the directivity control is good.
Yes, it wouldn't be fully active, as was Erin's suggestion, but certainly cheaper and easier to implement. I'm doing that right now with the v2.Would not it be true only in active crossover application? Crossover seems to be okay in this case. Why not use DSP to address shortcomings of individual drivers?
I think the main issue is finding a receiver that has a clean unprocessed line-out and also take line level input back at the separate channels. But keep in mind that you will not be able to use the receiver as a normal surround processor in this manner since you need multiple channels per speaker.
That post was in regards to a fully active setup.you should use processed line-outs. That’s the whole point of an AVR, otherwise you don’t get surround sound.
That post was in regards to a fully active setup.
An active setup requires a power amplifier for each driver so you need to take one pre-out and feed it to two power amplifiers (in the case of a 2 way speaker,) and you often times have a hard time finding a receiver that will leave the pre-out signal alone without running some kind of processing on it. You don't really want any avr processing until after the digital crossover. Btw, what processing did you have in mind? Fake Dolby reverb effects? That's pretty much what came to my mind, but maybe things have gotten more advanced since I last looked hard at a receiver at face value.I don't get it. it's better to have (good) AVR processing either way.
You don't really want any avr processing until after the digital crossover.
Btw, what processing did you have in mind?
I think going fully active would be a hypothetical ideal, but having the kilpple measurements of the passive system and then adding an active layer on top of that would probably be better as my own measurements wont top the kipple.Yes, it wouldn't be fully active, as was Erin's suggestion, but certainly cheaper and easier to implement. I'm doing that right now with the v2.
Yes, this would work as long as you do not run it into clipping.So adding a minidsp system would take care of the DSP, but that leaves me with the need for amplification.... so I was wondering if I could just take any run of the mill old receiver that I have and use it as the amp.
Yes, it wouldn't be fully active, as was Erin's suggestion, but certainly cheaper and easier to implement. I'm doing that right now with the v2.
Does your receiver have digital PEQ already? Many do. Also, does your receiver have room correction? That’s another way to get it to make corrections, even up in the speaker range. I would experiment with that first.I think going fully active would be a hypothetical ideal, but having the kilpple measurements of the passive system and then adding an active layer on top of that would probably be better as my own measurements wont top the kipple.
So adding the active aspect to them is what I am trying to figure out how to best implement in my system.
I see benefits of keeping my receiver as it can decode all the various formats that I throw at it and has all the inputs that I need.
The problem is that I want to EQ just the L&R speakers, so then I would get their signal via the receiver L&R pre-outs and then that leaves me with the need for DSP and amplification.
So adding a minidsp system would take care of the DSP, but that leaves me with the need for amplification.... so I was wondering if I could just take any run of the mill old receiver that I have and use it as the amp. Or will the quality of amp truly effect the audibility.
Or what would be the most affordable amp+DSP combo?
Thanks!