DIY Speaker Project - Duplicating a Totem Signature One - Active or Passive?

[SuicideSquid]

Hi Folks,

I'd very much appreciate your feedback on the following project.

My main system features a pair of Totem Forest speakers in cherry. I've had them for around fourteen years and I love them and have no intention of replacing them any time in the near future.

I've been using them in stereo for years, but am moving and have the opportunity to integrate them into a surround sound setup. Totem doesn't really make a matching centre channel - the closest is the Model One Centre, but two issues: I don't particularly like either the aesthetics or the sound of the standard "MTM-on-its-side" centre channel, and Totem no longer makes this speaker in cherry. They do make a bookshelf version of the Forest, called the Signature One, but again, they no longer make these in cherry - black, white, or mahogany only.

I have some experience building speakers, so my new DIY project is to duplicate the Signature One speaker, in a cherry cabinet. I've got the Hivi D6.8 woofer and SEAS tweeter, and this weekend I glued up some cherry and MDF and started prepping the cabinet.

Where I'm stumbling is the crossover. I know that Totem uses a 2.5kHz 2nd-order crossover in both the Forest and Signature One, though I'm not sure if the Signature One uses the identical crossover to the Forest. I have X-over Pro CAD software and can design something that'd likely function well and be pretty similar.

But then I started thinking, "Why don't I just use an active crossover instead of messing around trying to copy a passive crossover?"

My current setup is a Denon 4700H AV Receiver outputting to a six-channel hypex Buckeye amplifier - I'm currently bi-amping the Forests. So I have two more channels of amplifier I can use for the centre channel (and then use the Denon's internal amps for rear / overhead speakers).

I feel like I may just be swapping one problem for another though. And I'm not sure whether I should be looking at something like the dbx223 analog active crossover, or something like a miniDSP digital active crossover. The room sounds good and will have room treatment so I'm all right sticking with the Audyssey EQ/correction built into the Denon rather than setting up dirac. Mostly I'm concerned with ease of use and transparency, as my family will all be using the system and I don't want someone (including me) to be easily able to screw up the crossover settings and potentially damage the speaker.

And assuming it works well with the centre channel, I may pull the crossovers out of the Forests and switch them to active as well.

Long way of getting to the point but:

Should I build a passive crossover, or take this opportunity to go active? If I go active, digital or analog? Your feedback much appreciated!

 

[Elitzur–Vaidman]

I'd 100% go active, it makes modeling your speaker design a lot easier. And I'd go with something like a miniDSP 2x4 or 2x4HD.

 

[SuicideSquid]

I'd 100% go active, it makes modeling your speaker design a lot easier. And I'd go with something like a miniDSP 2x4 or 2x4HD.

I read Amir's review of the miniDSP 2x4HD and it was very mixed.

Have you used one of these yourself? I'm curious about the ease of setup, how one goes about using the measurement mic for setup, and what sort of protection (if any) is in place to avoid sending low frequencies to the tweeter that might damage it.

Also, do you know how straightforward it might be to use two of these in tandem, if I wanted to go active for all three front channels?

 

[JaquesLeBricoleur]

I read Amir's review of the miniDSP 2x4HD and it was very mixed.

The miniDSPs performance most likely wont be the limiting factor, so dont worry too much.

 

[olbobcat]

Active makes your life easier. Computer modeling of a passive crossover only works so well. They usually need some fine-tuning. I would not let the finish color bother me, or it laying down. All secondary to having it sound good. I would just buy a center. When I build or buy I usually get black That way it always matched or was not obvious. I am actually doing a pair in red cedar which is crazy.

 

[SuicideSquid]

Active makes your life easier. Computer modeling of a passive crossover only works so well. They usually need some fine-tuning. I would not let the finish color bother me, or it laying down. All secondary to having it sound good. I would just buy a center. When I build or buy I usually get black That way it always matched or was not obvious. I am actually doing a pair in red cedar which is crazy.

It may not matter to you, but it matters to me. I've built all of my furniture, and it's all cherry. The speakers are a focal point in my living room. The rear channels, the audio stand, the coffee table, and the bookshelves are all cherry. This isn't a basement setup for me to tinker - it's where my family and I spend most of our time.

Also, as I noted, I prefer the sound of a standard bookshelf speaker to the sound of a centre channel. Imaging and directivity are better with a standard bookshelf.

 

[olbobcat]

It may not matter to you, but it matters to me. I've built all of my furniture, and it's all cherry. The speakers are a focal point in my living room. The rear channels, the audio stand, the coffee table, and the bookshelves are all cherry. This isn't a basement setup for me to tinker - it's where my family and I spend most of our time.

Also, as I noted, I prefer the sound of a standard bookshelf speaker to the sound of a centre channel. Imaging and directivity are better with a standard bookshelf.

I am not a matchy-match type of person. I have built a lot of my furniture. Both in walnut and rustic hickory. Being in the furniture industry for 40 years I have learned to think outside of the box. But I would still go active then! Trust me on that.

 

[SuicideSquid]

I am not a matchy-match type of person. I have built a lot of my furniture. Both in walnut and rustic hickory. Being in the furniture industry for 40 years I have learned to think outside of the box. But I would still go active then! Trust me on that.

Have you used the MiniDSP 2x4HD or other active DSP crossover? Any experience with active analog crossovers?

 

[olbobcat]

Have you used the MiniDSP 2x4HD or other active DSP crossover? Any experience with active analog crossovers?

Yes, I originally bought a 2x4 when they hit the market, and then a 2x4 HD, and am currently running a DBX Pa2. Next up maybe the Flex eight. I would like something with FIR filters next time around and I am researching that possibility. I am on a 2 way bi-amp 2.1 right now. Since you are on a HT setup you might have to think of all the ramifications. I no longer run surround so I cannot offer you expertise on that. I have built a few crossovers and once I went active I was a very happy man.

 

[SuicideSquid]

Yes, I originally bought a 2x4 when they hit the market, and then a 2x4 HD, and am currently running a DBX Pa2. Next up maybe the Flex eight. I would like something with FIR filters next time around and I am researching that possibility. I am on a 2 way bi-amp 2.1 right now. Since you are on a HT setup you might have to think of all the ramifications. I no longer run surround so I cannot offer you expertise on that. I have built a few crossovers and once I went active I was a very happy man.

As long as I can level match the active and passive speakers I can't see there being an issue there, but maybe someone else knows of one I'm not aware of (added latency from DSP processing maybe?)

 

[SuicideSquid]

Does anyone have experience with the Dayton Audio DSP-408 4x8? It seems like it might be a better choice for my application - specs are similar, but it would let me do my front L, front R, centre, and sub all in one box, for a similar price to a single MiniDSP 2x4HD, and the Dayton Audio box and measurement mic are a little easier to get a hold of in Canada without a significant markup.

If I'm just intending to do xover and basic EQ, am I missing out on a lot with the DSP408 vs. the 2x4HD? I've looked up some reviews and they're mostly decent, but can't find any in-depth measurements like the ASR MiniDSP reviews.

 

[fluid]

Mostly I'm concerned with ease of use and transparency, as my family will all be using the system and I don't want someone (including me) to be easily able to screw up the crossover settings and potentially damage the speaker.

A passive crossover will work much better to accomplish the above ease of use and reduce the potential for error. As much as I like active crossovers and use them myself, they do add an extra layer of complication that family members don't always appreciate

You haven't mentioned if you have any measurement capability. Without that the chances for successfully designing anything go down very quickly. An active crossover in that situation is easier to fiddle and tweak in real time.

 

[SuicideSquid]

A passive crossover will work much better to accomplish the above ease of use and reduce the potential for error. As much as I like active crossovers and use them myself, they do add an extra layer of complication that family members don't always appreciate

You haven't mentioned if you have any measurement capability. Without that the chances for successfully designing anything go down very quickly. An active crossover in that situation is easier to fiddle and tweak in real time.

I'm going to be buying a measurement mic either way so that's a wash.
I think I've settled on an active crossover for the front centre channel. I'm also building rears that will have passive crossovers, but having the measurement mic and the active crossover will help me design the passives for those rear speakers. Now it's just a matter of deciding between the Dayton DSP-408 and the MiniDSP 2x4HD.

 

[fluid]

I'm also building rears that will have passive crossovers, but having the measurement mic and the active crossover will help me design the passives for those rear speakers. Now it's just a matter of deciding between the Dayton DSP-408 and the MiniDSP 2x4HD.

An active crossover like either of those choices is a good way to prototype a passive speaker to at least get it pretty close to the active slopes and phase. In a simple two way the crossover components wouldn't have to be that expensive to be on a similar level to the ones in the Totem's you have. I suspect there is relatively little to gain from an active crossover in this situation particularly if you run some form of room EQ afterwards but that is obviously up to you.

There is thread with some information comparing the two, unless you spring for the much more expensive minidsp Flex version I doubt there would be much in it
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ton-dsp-408-compared-to-minidsp-2x4-hd.11336/

 

[SuicideSquid]

An active crossover like either of those choices is a good way to prototype a passive speaker to at least get it pretty close to the active slopes and phase. In a simple two way the crossover components wouldn't have to be that expensive to be on a similar level to the ones in the Totem's you have. I suspect there is relatively little to gain from an active crossover in this situation particularly if you run some form of room EQ afterwards but that is obviously up to you.

There is thread with some information comparing the two, unless you spring for the much more expensive minidsp Flex version I doubt there would be much in it
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ton-dsp-408-compared-to-minidsp-2x4-hd.11336/

I have read that thread, it's interesting but some contradictory info so not super helpful..

 

[fluid]

Just like a google search on the two, neither are perfect but are more alike than different underneath apart from the options they offer.

One thing that is useful in speaker design is to be able to select active EQ in a simulator that matches the unit you buy. Some use generic definitions of Q, some do it differently and sometimes, those differences can result in some real life transfer functions than you were not expecting. MiniDSP is quite well supported in that regard but I don't know what definitions the Dayton is using.

 

[Sokel]

Here's a dead cheap decent one,also there's another one much nicer but 4 times the price that a friend posted in the same thread.
There are tones of those if you look around.

Cheap analog electronic crossover

I've been playing lately with a very cheap analog 2-in/4-out analog crossover. Is somehow DIY but very easy to fix. To my surprise it measures very decently! (note that has been measured with the worst possible conditions,long cables soldered just to see,adapters,noisy PSU and by someone totally...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[SuicideSquid]

Ended up springing for the Dayton with the Omnimic measurement system. Seems like their mic measurement system is very versatile, and I played around with the software a bit and it seems straightforward. If it doesn't work out I'll just build passives and re-sell the Dayton system, it's not a huge investment. When I get around to finalizing the build I'll post some photos and an update on my thoughts on the active system, how good it sounds, and how closely I'm able to match the sound of the original speaker.