• 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!

Stereo receivers, amps, and preamps with XO that include high-pass filter for the main speakers?

OP
K

KEW

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
81
Likes
125
Another idea I had in this area that I think greatly opens up possible receivers/integrateds and ups the capability quite a bit is getting something with a tape/EQ loop and hanging a 4 channel miniDSP* (2x4, 2x4HD, DDRC-24).

Or you just go 'full out' and go Pre-amp>miniDSP*>amp, or SHD*>amp
But then you have a few boxes and you might be trying to avoid this.
So for example those miniDSP (2>4 channel) boxes are probably small enough to tuck behind your receiver.

*Insert whatever DSP box you would like here.

You might be able to get a better, better price/performance ratio by not requiring the BM be in the receiver/integrated and just move it out into a DSP box that can do a better job at it. You also get room correction and maybe integrated bass management, assuming any of these have Dirac Live BM yet.
If you go the mini DSP tape loop route aren't you pulling out the low frequency signal for the subwoofer at the mini DSP? That seems like it would be a problem because your volume control would not change the volume of the subwoofer!
Am I missing something?
 

win

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
430
Likes
432
Location
Irvine CA
If you go the mini DSP tape loop route aren't you pulling out the low frequency signal for the subwoofer at the mini DSP? That seems like it would be a problem because your volume control would not change the volume of the subwoofer!
Am I missing something?

Most of the minidsp units have volume control on them. That would keep it in sync.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KEW
OP
K

KEW

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
81
Likes
125
Most of the minidsp units have volume control on them. That would keep it in sync.
Wouldn't you be the one who had to keep it in sync by changing the volume on the mini DSP every time you changed the volume on the receiver?
Or I guess you are saying to use the volume control at the mini DSP which would affect both the mains and the subwoofer?
Can you access the mini DSP volume via a app on a phone or does it have a knob?
 

Unclevanya

Active Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
153
Likes
105
Not a good solution as this creates a slow 1st order filter with difficult to determine corner frequency.
Define slow please. If you mean the slope 6db/octive that's what I would prefer on my main speakers.

Also what does corner frequency mean?

I realize the ohm rating on the speakers isn't necessarily accurate at the point of crossover selected so tinkering would be needed.
 
Last edited:

waynel

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
1,036
Likes
1,290
Define slow please. If you mean the slope 6db/octive that's what I would prefer on my main speakers.

Also what does corner frequency mean?

I realize the ohm rating on the speakers isn't necessarily accurate at the point of crossover selected so tinkering would be needed.
Yes slow means 6dB per octave. This is not good because there will be significant overlap between the sub and the mains. It’s easy enough to align the phase at the crossover frequency but the phase will not stay aligned in the overlapping region (especially for ported speakers).

The corner frequency is the frequency that’s 3dB down. Normally this is 1/(2*pi*R*C) but instead of R you would be using a complex impedance of a speaker at the corner frequency . It wouldn’t be correct to use the nominal speaker impedance but you’ve need to measure the complex speaker Impedance at the corner frequency.

Finally since you would be mostly using the resistance of the woofer voice coil as your R this will change with signal as large signals heat up the voice coil. All 3 of these issues are far from ideal.
 
Last edited:

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,409
Likes
1,925
You also need delay on the main speakers, for proper integration. This means the amplifier must use digital processing. Some 2-channel amplifiers use analog filters, and in those there is no way to get proper time alignment.
This.

None of the old-school audio units (e.g., Parasounds mentioned here) do this and so all the 2.1 features (sub out, etc) are useless without aligning the subs to mains. While I like the Parasounds and what they have done in the past (and would still consider their amps), the rest of the line is a slow march to irrelevance since companies like that seem reluctant to get their hands dirty with any kind of software inside (unless they have realized this and have such projects in the pipeline). That has not been their core competence.

Another idea I had in this area that I think greatly opens up possible receivers/integrateds and ups the capability quite a bit is getting something with a tape/EQ loop and hanging a 4 channel miniDSP* (2x4, 2x4HD, DDRC-24).
But using them with analog loops requires a ADC-DAC conversion inside the external processor which is prone to noise and distortion. The older miniDSPs aren't exactly known for good DAC performance let alone ADCs.

No audio unit (outside of AVRs that provide these functionalities themselves and so don't need it) I know of provides a digital loop out (yet). Partly because they don't get it, partly because there is no one connector that they can be sure can support any available external processors, especially when you get into 2.1 or higher. DDRC-24 won't work with a USB loop for example, unless you mess around with adapters and dongles which takes it into a consumer-hobbyist market segment niche than an average consumer market.

So the external processor would need to become the input switching and processing unit down-streaming to these audio units in which case there is very little need for another pre-amp downstream with its own switching and volume control, etc.

The large segment of the boomer generation with their "we don't need no stinkin' audio more than 2.0" which made the artisan audio makers thrive will also be the death of them. :)
 

waynel

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
1,036
Likes
1,290
This.

None of the old-school audio units (e.g., Parasounds mentioned here) do this and so all the 2.1 features (sub out, etc) are useless without aligning the subs to mains.
I've not seen a definitive answer yet that phase alignment is not sufficient for sub integration. Have you seen any controlled study demonstrating that time alignment at sub bass frequencies is audible as opposed to phase alignment? That being said I think digital Crossovers are the way to go.
 

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,409
Likes
1,925
None of the old-school audio units (e.g., Parasounds mentioned here) do this and so all the 2.1 features (sub out, etc) are useless without aligning the subs to mains.

One useful reference for understanding what alignment means (even more important when the mains and sub(s) are separated by a distance)

http://www.rythmikaudio.com/phase.html

Edited to add for those that want a simpler reading than the above article to understand the context: Phase and time-delay are related in what reaches your ears. Differential delay between speaker output is a simple way of attaining phase alignment at MLP. Constant delay does not correct phase difference across the spectrum, so you adjust the delay to correct at the crossover point where a discontinuity is most audible when you have separate main and sub boxes.

When you have discrete mains and subs attached to your audio device that is doing the crossover (as opposed to a crossover within a speaker where it knows the relative distance between the drivers), it has no way of knowing where the sub-woofer and mains are placed in your set up and the phase differences at MLP due to that placement. HT equipment where separate subs are more common allow for phase correction at MLP via measurement for your specific setup and provide for a delay/distance setting. Some subs also provide a variable phase adjustment (some only a 0 or 180 switch if at all) which can also be used via a measurement at MLP but not all subs do and the consumer has to figure out how to do this.

One can also do this delay compensation upstream of the pre-amp which is doing the crossover but that requires another box capable of doing so and that would be acting as the source switch which makes the pre-amp switching useless.

The 2.1 pre-amps with crossovers but without the ability to align for your set up only work when the mains and sub are all roughly at the same location which logistically is impractical unless it is a near-field desktop listening like setup. Multi-way speakers with a built in sub-woofer can do their own crossovers and alignment without the pre-amp having to do so.
 
Last edited:

waynel

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
1,036
Likes
1,290
One useful reference for understanding what alignment means (even more important when the mains and sub(s) are separated by a distance)

http://www.rythmikaudio.com/phase.html
1) that isn't a controlled study - its a user guide
2) the link says nothing about the audibility of phase compensation vs delay
3) the link states that time delay does not affect the effectiveness( of subwoofer integration) vs phase adjustment

on delay:
"This trick enables us to use the speaker distance as a tool for phase adjustment between subwoofer and front speakers. Since it is a constant delay adjustment, the phase adjustment is not fixed for all frequencies, instead it is proportional to frequency. That does not affect its effectiveness as our objective is to get correct phase alignment at the crossover frequency. "
 

Trouble Maker

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
679
Likes
733
Location
Columbus, Ohio, US
If you go the mini DSP tape loop route aren't you pulling out the low frequency signal for the subwoofer at the mini DSP? That seems like it would be a problem because your volume control would not change the volume of the subwoofer!
Am I missing something?

I meant to say I was honestly unsure if most of them are fixed or variable output Yes, that is critical, wouldn't really work with fixed outputs on the loop, so thanks for pointing it out!I can swear I did this, but just using the subs line level in/out and tape loop back in the day. But that was 20 years ago and I could be remembering incorrectly. I thought what I did was stereo receiver loop out>sub line level in (sub sends lows to sub and highs back out)>sub line level out>receiver loop in>speakers, and that it was variable out so volume knob controlled subs and speakers uniformly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KEW

Trouble Maker

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
679
Likes
733
Location
Columbus, Ohio, US
But using them with analog loops requires a ADC-DAC conversion inside the external processor which is prone to noise and distortion. The older miniDSPs aren't exactly known for good DAC performance let alone ADCs.

Maybe.... the performance seemed, reasonable for the HD in Amirms test. That added with the DSP capability at the price point is pretty incredible IMHO. If ones wants transparent they can always step up to the SHD series, but that is a bigger box with a bigger price.

So the external processor would need to become the input switching and processing unit down-streaming to these audio units in which case there is very little need for another pre-amp downstream with its own switching and volume control, etc.

Yup, the SHD version that's kind of a pre-amp light with a few inputs that could eliminate the need for a pre-amp or switcher all together. The other option to DSP with the necessary ADC>DAC regardless of internal or external is analog filters which aren't nearly as flexible or capable. That's a trade-off that everyone has to make on their own. :) I guess you chose the former (DSP) based on the rest of your post, which I think you are pretty spot on that there is more progress to be made there. My image, hope, prediction, whatever you want to call it is that in about the next 5-10 years we will see two things happen. The first is continue commoditization of cheap & clean power, which is already starting in the class D and chip amps. I personally think we are seeing the beginning of a 'war' of sorts in this area. Second is the same thing happening in DSP/speaker/room correction coupled with a greatly increased grasp on acoustics of speakers and rooms to leverage that technology. We are already seeing built in auto room correction in some relatively inexpensive products. I think this will continue allowing increased performance at lower price points, more palatable to the masses form factors.

No audio unit (outside of AVRs that provide these functionalities themselves and so don't need it) I know of provides a digital loop out (yet).

It kind of strikes me that due to economies of scale, an AVR might actually be the best (most economic) solution to this. The Denon 3700 has an awful lot of capability and performance for the price. I get that not everyone wants to go this route, but I would guess one might need to spend at least this much if not more to get what it has, and it will probably be in a few different boxes to boot.
 
Last edited:

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,409
Likes
1,925
It kind of strikes me that due to economies of scale, an AVR might actually be the best (most economic) solution to this. The Denon 3700 has an awful lot of capability and performance for the price. I get that not everyone wants to go this route, but I would guess one might need to spend at least this much if not more to get what it has, and it will probably be in a few different boxes to boot.

The best bet for sub-$1000 units right now is the NuForce AVP-18 ($500)/Emotiva MC-700 ($700)/IOTAVX 7.1 4K (approx $1000+). Among mainline AVRs, the Marantz Slimline AVRs ($500-$700 street prices) which provide L and R and Sub pre-outs but analog only so cannot go to a better DAC for mains but can use a better amp for mains.

@Xulonn has the IOTAVX unit and can give you some feedback.

While the non-Marantz above are all (same genealogy) also multi-channel and based on an older Cirrus Logic chip, they provide most of the basic functionality with room eq capability, bass management (delay and balance and xover) and convenient switching options. Should have better SQ than the lower end Marantz.

The NuForce provides an upgrade option to a better mains performance if one wants with a digital out for L and R so you can connect it to an external DAC and amp at any time while the bass management is still available. I believe with high-pass for the L and R digital out and so you can do 2.1 with aligned sub integration even with external extensions later. The downside is that this company is defunct so support is uncertain even though you can still buy it. It has no balanced outs and HDMI is 1080p only if that matters for its internal DAC and HDMI inputs.

Emotiva MC-700 and IOTAVX provide no digital outs but add 4k HDMI and Balanced outputs respectively. So they will do just fine if their offering is good enough which should be a definite cut above the lower-end Denon/Marantz AVRs below $1000.
 

Trouble Maker

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
679
Likes
733
Location
Columbus, Ohio, US
Those are definitely some interesting options, and would fill a need for someone looking for those feature sets for sure.
I wonder how good the room correction is in those. I think that is critical and it seems like there are more bad options than good out there right now.
They also still don't include amps, so that probably bumps the price up to at least the point of the 3700. :)
Finally it's great there are options out there, everyone will have different priorities and wants.
 

waynel

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
1,036
Likes
1,290
Those are definitely some interesting options, and would fill a need for someone looking for those feature sets for sure.
I wonder how good the room correction is in those. I think that is critical and it seems like there are more bad options than good out there right now.
They also still don't include amps, so that probably bumps the price up to at least the point of the 3700. :)
You should be able to get a 3700h for around $900
 

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,409
Likes
1,925
Those are definitely some interesting options, and would fill a need for someone looking for those feature sets for sure.
I wonder how good the room correction is in those. I think that is critical and it seems like there are more bad options than good out there right now.
They also still don't include amps, so that probably bumps the price up to at least the point of the 3700. :)
Finally it's great there are options out there, everyone will have different priorities and wants.

Agreed. Those non D&M suggestions are for more relevant that want an inexpensive front-end for a stereo amp+speaker combination they already have or want to have as separates than the HT integrated all-in-ones (which one works depends on whether one needs balanced pre-outs for their amps, etc).

Nothing beats the value of the all-in-ones if one is happy with what they offer or want a simple plug-and-play system at a starting price of around $1k.

About room EQ, those systems come with a pretty good parametric equalizer that can take DIY REW filters, their own AutoEQ is not good compared to Audyssey, ARC, etc. So, they are flexible for the more adventurous. Not for everybody.

What is unfortunate are the boutique companies (e.g., Parasound) getting more and more sidelined in this evolving business removing some of those options from being available in the future due to increasing role of software in these units that is outside their core expertise. Even Schiit (who seem to hate software with a passion) isn't immune to this when the ChiFi companies figure out how to add some of these pre-amp DSP features into their well-measuring DACs. miniDSP is finally heading that way after creating a lot of play toys that were a hit and miss.
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
@Xulonn has the IOTAVX unit and can give you some feedback.

I've had the IOTAVX AVP for about three months now. It cost me $907 including shipping from the UK to Miami for forwarding to me in Panama. U.S. price based on current exchange rate, including shipping and duty is about $916.

Put it into my system, connected the TV and output from my Intel NUC basic LibreElec Kodi HTPC, and my amplifiers via XLR, and everything worked perfectly for my 3.0 audio aystem (L/R/C, no subwoofer). I ran the room correction process using the included mic, and the results seem to be good. I will be enjoying another MP4 documentary within the hour. I'm happy with my current system. I simply turn off the center channel power amp for serious listening to high-quality two channel recordings.

I thought about keeping my Topping DX7s for serious 2-channel stereo listening, but in spite of better specs, I probably could not hear any difference in a blind comparison - and I don't use headphones.

I was pleasantly surprised at hearing a hint of some lower bass with the addition of a center channel with it's two 5" drivers. It's a bit deeper than with just L/R speakers - more bass than I expected, but definitely not subwoofer competition. I assume that the two bass/mid drivers in the center are helping to more a bit more air. I may get a better mic and measure my in-room response some day - and my room is tiny.
 

EEG

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2020
Messages
35
Likes
19
I forgot about the Onkyos! I know at least one of those was also produced under the Integra badge, Anyone remember the model number?
Integra DTM-7
http://www.integrahometheater.com/P...7&class=Receiver&source=prodClass#prettyPhoto
It'a almost identical to Onkyo TX 8270. No AM band for the tuner section and more expensive.

Both Onkyos( TX 8270 .8390) are in fact AVR-s stripped down to stereo. Not really stereo units like the R-N803D. The inside photos of the Onkyos doesn't look good at all
 

Attachments

  • tx8270-2.jpg
    tx8270-2.jpg
    179.4 KB · Views: 403
  • onkyo-tx8390-innen.jpg
    onkyo-tx8390-innen.jpg
    45 KB · Views: 418
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KEW
OP
K

KEW

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
81
Likes
125
Integra DTM-7
http://www.integrahometheater.com/P...7&class=Receiver&source=prodClass#prettyPhoto
It'a almost identical to Onkyo TX 8270. No AM band for the tuner section and more expensive.

Both Onkyos( TX 8270 .8390) are in fact AVR-s stripped down to stereo. Not really stereo units like the R-N803D. The inside photos of the Onkyos doesn't look good at all
I don't know how big of a difference it makes in practice, but the most obvious difference between those two units is the 8270 has the folded sheet metal cooling fins while the 8390 appears to be the moree traditional cast aluminum.
I wonder why they don't anodize/darken the sheet metal fins. Black body radiation is definitely more efficient than the lighter color! Maybe conduction to adjacent air molecules and convection to exchange those is a much bigger factor than radiation!
 

KaiserSoze

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
699
Likes
592
I don't know how big of a difference it makes in practice, but the most obvious difference between those two units is the 8270 has the folded sheet metal cooling fins while the 8390 appears to be the moree traditional cast aluminum.
I wonder why they don't anodize/darken the sheet metal fins. Black body radiation is definitely more efficient than the lighter color! Maybe conduction to adjacent air molecules and convection to exchange those is a much bigger factor than radiation!

Meaningful questions. A few quick thoughts ... from what I recall dyes are used to produced color in anodized aluminum. Pure black will absorb all visible wavelengths, however (1) dye that looks black will most likely reveal a different chromatic absorption spectrum if a prism or similar thing is used to view the light that bounces off it (2) even if the dye is a perfect absorber of all visible wavelengths it won't much matter unless the fins get way hotter than you would hope they would get - a stove burner doesn't begin to glow visible red until it is much too hot to touch (3) the thermal conductivity of aluminum oxide is only about 1/8 as great as the thermal conductivity of pure aluminum, so by anodizing it you would in effect be coating it with a thermal insulator (4) an object that absorbs all visible wavelengths has properties akin to a "black body" but is not necessarily a "black body" in the sense used by physicists.

The concept of a "black body" is defined from the perspective of absorption, denoting an ideal (i.e., hypothetical) object that absorbs every quanta of incident EM radiation irrespective of wavelength or incident angle. If particularly-defined equilibrium conditions are met a black body will reradiate the energy it absorbs. Since the thermal energy that is desired to be radiated from the heat sink is predominately long wavelength (longer than visible wavelengths), if the heat sink fin were a true "black body" it would be somewhat analogous to using an RF amplifier for audio. "Black body radiation" refers to radiated EM energy wherein the spectral makeup is that of an ideal "black body" at some specific temperature, i.e., the spectral distribution obeys the mathematical formula discovered by Max Planck.

WARNING: the following train-of-consciousness discussion of the historical roots of quantum physics is intended only for people who are not annoyed by other people's train-of-consciousness discussions of the historical roots of quantum physics.

The black body concept and related concepts are interesting because quantum physics has its historical roots in the effort by physicists to explain why hot objects do not radiate energy in a manner uniformly distributed over wavelength, i.e., why the color of a hot object changes from red to white to blue as the temperature increases. As far as anyone could figure out, as the end of 19th century was looming near, there wasn't any reason why a hot object ought not emit white light (uniformly distributed over wavelength) that merely increases in intensity as the temperature increases. Max Planck figured out the statistical formula that matches the experimentally observed spectral distribution. His formula "explained" why the emitted radiation was predominately long wavelength (red) at low temperature and why the spectral balance gradually shifted toward shorter wavelength as temperature increased. But why did nature favor that mathematical distribution, asked everyone. Someone, presumably Planck, pointed out that the only way the formula could be explained would be if energy were only radiated in discrete chunks, i.e., quanta. At low temperature, comparatively few short-wavelength quanta are possible (compared with what is possible at higher temperature) because short-wavelength quanta carry off a lot more energy than long-wavelength quanta. The idea that energy consists of discrete quanta was so radical that not many physicists were bold enough to say that this really did mean what it meant. Another major problem that physicists had been trying to explain was the photoelectric effect. In particular, why it was that low-intensity UV light could stimulate electrical current but a high-intensity red light could not, no matter how great the intensity. Einstein used Planck's theory of black body radiation to explain the photoelectric effect and was awarded a Nobel for the explanation. (He was awarded a 2nd one for his theory explaining Brownian motion, which settled the question of whether atoms were real, which question was still unsettled at the start of the 20th century. He was never awarded a Nobel for either of his two theories on relativity. The first theory of relativity, the explanation of the photoelectric effect, and the theory of Brownian motion proving the existence of atoms were all published the same year, 1905, while he was still working as a patent clerk.) Einstein explained that quanta of red light don't carry enough energy to make orbital electrons take the leap from one atom to the next atom, and that when intensity is increased, this only increases the quantity of quanta that are too weak, whereas individual quanta of UV light individually possess enough energy to make it happen. The next major player was Bohr, who realized that the quantum nature of energy was the reason that the elements all had their very particular and unique absorption spectra. This insight along with years of determined effort permitted him to come up with his atomic model where electrons orbit not in an any-orbit-is-as-good-as-another fashion (a Newtonian, planetary fashion) but rather in a fashion where only certain particular orbits were permitted, each with its own particular energy level, such that the energy difference for an electron jumping from one allowed orbit to another allowed orbit matched the energy of the emitted/absorbed wavelengths of an element's emission/absorption spectrum. At some point someone pointed out (maybe it was Bohr but I don't recall) that if you apply Einstein's most famous formula to the mass of the electron to obtain the equivalent energy and then apply Planck's constant in the equally routine manner to that amount of energy, thereby calculating the electron's physical wavelength, that the allowed orbits in Bohr's model are those orbits where the circumference is an integer multiple of the electron's wavelength, such that an electron orbiting an atomic nucleus may be considered to be a sort of standing wave. (The orbital circumference is a trivial Newtonian calculation using the electron mass and kinetic energy.) Interesting it is that for electrons moving through space the particle model is ideal whereas electrons that have been captured by an atomic nucleus are best modeled as standing waves.

You were warned not to read past the warning.
 
Top Bottom