…… and understanding.
Yes my fault i just thought that phrase is used in other places also. Is it not used in english speaking places?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
ASR reccomended external crossovers?
- Thread starter direstraitsfan98
- Start date
Yes my fault i just thought that phrase is used in other places also. Is it not used in english speaking places?
The forum is international. Mis-understandings are to be expected as a normal occurrence across cultures and languages. You are not at fault. Being able to come to a common understanding is what matters.
hyperplanar
Senior Member
Don’t think I’ve ever heard this idiom before, but I enjoyed learning about this German idiom! It made sense once you explained it. Soon enough I’ll be speaking less like a Californian dudebro and more like a German master of engineering.
I have heard it used as something being in "rarefied air," and while I thought I understood what you were getting at, I wasn't quite sure.
All cool, my fault, good there was no escalation and @Thomas savage had to poop on me. *brrrrr*
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
and @Thomas savage had to poop on me. *brrrrr*
You're very lucky to get it for free.
@Thomas savage usually charges per hour for that type of service.
I know it. But then brits and Germans are far too similar for either's liking lolDon’t think I’ve ever heard this idiom before, but I enjoyed learning about this German idiom! It made sense once you explained it. Soon enough I’ll be speaking less like a Californian dudebro and more like a German master of engineering.
hyperplanar
Senior Member
Well, one makes terribly unreliable cars. The other has terribly dry humor.
Wait a minute...
While Brits have dry humor and no good car"s. German's have dry car's and no good humor. Very similar. ; )
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 977
- Likes
- 1,078
Back to the subject at hand...
I saw a dbx 223xs for sale on the local Craiglist for $85 last week and thought it worth getting to split the signal out of my SU-8 v2 to my monoblocks driving my L/R and a powered Hsu sub. Reviews of it on some of the pro audio forums were generally favorable, most saying it was transparent, well constructed, etc. and the specs are good.
It also incorporates a summing circuit for the low output, which is handy for a single sub installation. The Hsu has both L/R inputs and its own summing circuit, but its crossover maxes out at 80 Hz. My REW measurements suggested that I'd be better off at 120 Hz.
The 223xs might be "transparent" in a PA installation, but it does inject some hiss when the input and output gains are both set to 0 dB. If I boost the input by 6 dB and cut the low and high output by 6 dB, that is reduced quite a bit.
I was disappointed to hear some 60/120 Hz buzzing in the right channel. When I googled for any info on a buzz or hum with the 223xs, the first hit spoke of exactly what I had heard, and how to fix it. The power leads in that user's unit were routed poorly, and all it required was moving them and re-securing them away from components on the main board. I popped the top on mine and it looked just like that user's, so I removed the connector from the main board, clipped the cable tie that held the cable close to other components on the board, twisted the three wires, added a cable tie to keep the cable as far as possible from the board. No more buzz/hum.
One user commented that it was quite ironic that dbx, whose expertise was traditionally noise reduction, put out a unit with an obvious flaw that created excess noise.
I saw a dbx 223xs for sale on the local Craiglist for $85 last week and thought it worth getting to split the signal out of my SU-8 v2 to my monoblocks driving my L/R and a powered Hsu sub. Reviews of it on some of the pro audio forums were generally favorable, most saying it was transparent, well constructed, etc. and the specs are good.
It also incorporates a summing circuit for the low output, which is handy for a single sub installation. The Hsu has both L/R inputs and its own summing circuit, but its crossover maxes out at 80 Hz. My REW measurements suggested that I'd be better off at 120 Hz.
The 223xs might be "transparent" in a PA installation, but it does inject some hiss when the input and output gains are both set to 0 dB. If I boost the input by 6 dB and cut the low and high output by 6 dB, that is reduced quite a bit.
I was disappointed to hear some 60/120 Hz buzzing in the right channel. When I googled for any info on a buzz or hum with the 223xs, the first hit spoke of exactly what I had heard, and how to fix it. The power leads in that user's unit were routed poorly, and all it required was moving them and re-securing them away from components on the main board. I popped the top on mine and it looked just like that user's, so I removed the connector from the main board, clipped the cable tie that held the cable close to other components on the board, twisted the three wires, added a cable tie to keep the cable as far as possible from the board. No more buzz/hum.
One user commented that it was quite ironic that dbx, whose expertise was traditionally noise reduction, put out a unit with an obvious flaw that created excess noise.
Hipper
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Warning - this thread was last posted on in May 2020!
I'm interested in this passive vs active crossover debate but more from the point of view of wondering what speakers to buy when it comes to replacing my current ones. This means I'm not wanting to convert a speaker from passive to active but rather, I'm asking whether I should be looking for an active crossover speaker because they are better.
Firstly, are the limitations of passive crossovers and the complications of implementing active crossovers an argument for looking at speaker types that avoid crossovers altogether - electrostats, single driver types (I realise this could mean I might want to use subs and therefore crossovers with these)?
If convinced that multi drivers are the way to go, is looking for speakers with active crossovers the best solution (providing one is willing to buy the relevant electronic crossover units and amps)?
What, perhaps in measurable terms, are the benefits? I use room treatment and EQ and these provide major benefits - I can truly say 'night and day'. On this scale, where does the benefit of active crossovers sit?
I'm interested in this passive vs active crossover debate but more from the point of view of wondering what speakers to buy when it comes to replacing my current ones. This means I'm not wanting to convert a speaker from passive to active but rather, I'm asking whether I should be looking for an active crossover speaker because they are better.
Firstly, are the limitations of passive crossovers and the complications of implementing active crossovers an argument for looking at speaker types that avoid crossovers altogether - electrostats, single driver types (I realise this could mean I might want to use subs and therefore crossovers with these)?
If convinced that multi drivers are the way to go, is looking for speakers with active crossovers the best solution (providing one is willing to buy the relevant electronic crossover units and amps)?
What, perhaps in measurable terms, are the benefits? I use room treatment and EQ and these provide major benefits - I can truly say 'night and day'. On this scale, where does the benefit of active crossovers sit?
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
It depends, but not even close to night and day, in my experience. I wrote about it up thread.
I had a 2-way passive that used a simple 1st order crossover I temporarily converted to 2-way active. I left 1 speaker of the pair still passive.
The difference was subtle. I did a blind listening test and got it right 2/3 of the time, so it was noticeable, but I've had bigger changes in sound just by changing speaker position.
Room and recording quality are much higher up the priority scale.
That being said, with a complex crossover, things could be very different.
Hipper
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Active crossover units I've heard of are the already mentioned Behringer DCX2496, and versions of DEQX.
My current speakers are VMPS RM30Ms and the designer, the late Brian Cheney, made great play of constructing accurate passive crossovers. However he became convinced that there was a place for active crossovers so used the Behringer for this purpose. He made the later speaker designs with an outboard passive crossover (he called it OXO) that was externally connected so all you had to do if you wanted to go active was remove the OXO and connect up the Behringer and of course amps. Cheney would implement the crossovers and also some generic EQ for typical rooms. He found that the ADC and DAC on the Behringer were neutral so that the characteristics of the other DAC in the system (if there was one) could be heard (this was 2010 or so).
Jim Salk on the other hand chose the much more expensive DEQX when he used active crossovers. I don't know if he still makes actives.
My current speakers are VMPS RM30Ms and the designer, the late Brian Cheney, made great play of constructing accurate passive crossovers. However he became convinced that there was a place for active crossovers so used the Behringer for this purpose. He made the later speaker designs with an outboard passive crossover (he called it OXO) that was externally connected so all you had to do if you wanted to go active was remove the OXO and connect up the Behringer and of course amps. Cheney would implement the crossovers and also some generic EQ for typical rooms. He found that the ADC and DAC on the Behringer were neutral so that the characteristics of the other DAC in the system (if there was one) could be heard (this was 2010 or so).
Jim Salk on the other hand chose the much more expensive DEQX when he used active crossovers. I don't know if he still makes actives.
The main limitations of passive crossover are:-.
1) Slopes are limited to 18dB/octave, sometimes 24dB/octave whilst DSP active crossovers can do 48dB/octave easily, so reducing out of band signals and improving distortion.
2) Passive crossovers aren't adjustable for frequency, and limited adjustment for level, so without a lot of factory selection, it's a lot more difficult to get a good flat result.
3) The only way a passive crossover can operate is to reduce unwanted levels, i.e. everything is attenuated, which means that the system's sensitivity can only be that of the least sensitive driver. This is why most teeters and some midrange units have series attenuators to bring them down to the level of the bass unit which usually is the least sensitive.
4) A passive system will end up with a fairly complicated (i.e. variable) impedance characteristic unless the crossover is very complicated, like the KEF 104.2 &107. This may give the amplifier a hard time whereas with active crossovers, the amplifier sees a mostly resistive load, with some inductance, so much more benign.
Active crossovers don't have any of those limitations, and on top, if implemented in DSP can offer time alignment, room correction and fine equalisation.
As to single drivers, there's no such thing as a true 'full-range' single driver as if the cone has sufficient size and/or excursion for deep bass, it will be beaming like mad in the treble, and most likely breaking, so highly coloured.
Electrostats are somewhat different, but even here, they have to be multi-unit as bass needs large(er) excursion, so greater stator-diaphragm separation, which leads to lower sensitivity, and front-back cancellation means large size and EQ. Roger Sander's book on Electrostatic loudspeakers is a wonderful text on how to build your own, and on their design generally.
If buying new loudspeakers, I would look for actives using DSP-based crossovers that offer EQ and in-room adjustments, or take a decent pair of passives, decent because they have good quality drivers, and use an external DSP-based crossover and power amps, which is what I did.
S.
Hipper
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Thanks watchnerd and sergeauckland.
I'm not technically accomplished enough to have the confidence to convert passive crossovers to actives, but when replacing my existing speakers it might make sense to buy an already implemented active crossover.
I would like to try and sum up the benefits of going with an active crossover as I understand them, perhaps a bit simplistically. Remember I'm just looking at this from the point of view of someone who is sitting in front of the speakers, a music listener!
First though I should say that I have made strenuous efforts to deal with room issues by careful positioning, copious amounts of room treatment and the use of EQ. This has had three obvious measurable benefits:
My understanding of the benefits of an active crossover are therefore (and ignoring the use of DSP for room correction):
Whilst it may seem simplistic, is it possible that when using DSP/EQ to correct for the room I would already be correcting any frequency and perhaps timing and phase issues of a passive crossover?
Similarly, would employing a more powerful amp overcome the problems of amp behaviour in a passive crossover?
Going with active crossovers would appear to cost more as there is a need to employ multiple amps (or a multi channel amp) and associated additional cables plus of course the electronic crossover/DSP device. Could spending that money on better amps and speakers yield the same improvements in performance?
Finally, can you recommend any articles suitable for a layman that discuss the pros and cons of these crossovers in a sensible manner? Are there any measurements that show improvements for the listener? I've read the Elliott Sound Products one, which is perhaps a bit out of date (little discussion on digital crossovers), and a couple of others which talk in gushing terms of the worst magazine reviews although they make good points too:
https://sublimeacoustic.com/blogs/news/making-the-case-for-active-crossovers-vs-passive
I'm not technically accomplished enough to have the confidence to convert passive crossovers to actives, but when replacing my existing speakers it might make sense to buy an already implemented active crossover.
I would like to try and sum up the benefits of going with an active crossover as I understand them, perhaps a bit simplistically. Remember I'm just looking at this from the point of view of someone who is sitting in front of the speakers, a music listener!
First though I should say that I have made strenuous efforts to deal with room issues by careful positioning, copious amounts of room treatment and the use of EQ. This has had three obvious measurable benefits:
- Smoother frequency response
- Lower decay times which are also more consistent throughout the frequencies
- Smoother phase response
My understanding of the benefits of an active crossover are therefore (and ignoring the use of DSP for room correction):
- Smoother frequency response in the crossover regions
- Perhaps as a result, smoother phase response in this region too
- Less wasted energy from the amp and better amp behaviour
Whilst it may seem simplistic, is it possible that when using DSP/EQ to correct for the room I would already be correcting any frequency and perhaps timing and phase issues of a passive crossover?
Similarly, would employing a more powerful amp overcome the problems of amp behaviour in a passive crossover?
Going with active crossovers would appear to cost more as there is a need to employ multiple amps (or a multi channel amp) and associated additional cables plus of course the electronic crossover/DSP device. Could spending that money on better amps and speakers yield the same improvements in performance?
Finally, can you recommend any articles suitable for a layman that discuss the pros and cons of these crossovers in a sensible manner? Are there any measurements that show improvements for the listener? I've read the Elliott Sound Products one, which is perhaps a bit out of date (little discussion on digital crossovers), and a couple of others which talk in gushing terms of the worst magazine reviews although they make good points too:
https://sublimeacoustic.com/blogs/news/making-the-case-for-active-crossovers-vs-passive
Coach_Kaarlo
Active Member
Was researching external crossovers mentioned in this thread and came across this;
https://www.behringermods.com/dcx2496.html
Very interesting, worthy addition to the DCX2496 methinks.
https://www.behringermods.com/dcx2496.html
Very interesting, worthy addition to the DCX2496 methinks.
hello there, i'm looking at a DSP/crossover for my JBL XPL200, i used to use the DCX2496, and wanted to get something better, with less hum noise, from your investigations, which are the best options?
XLR input/output would be important
XLR input/output would be important
The DCX2496 has a high output (+22dBu) or just under 10v so although it has a decent S/N ratio, that only applies if you have pretty insensitive power amps. With most power amps, there's some 18dB more signal and therefore noise than you need. I put 16dB attenuators on my DCX outputs, which attenuates both the signal and the noise, so preserving the S/N ratio, and noise just isn't a problem.
S
is it just software crossover or hardware crossover as well?
Similar threads
