jonathan is the older driverack 480 any good for use with the sanders , how does it compare with the newer 4800
what conversion 24/96 used in old model
what conversion 24/96 used in old model
Sanders Sound Systems - electrostatic
- Thread starter kach22i
- Start date
I've been a happy Sanders 10C owner for some time now. I run mine with dual Magtechs, one per side. The system sounds phenomenal to me.
Lately I've been wondering about passive crossovers instead of the Behringer. Has anyone tried this? Something about digitizing my analog front end just seems weird. . .
If you like, you can always give Roger a call 303.838.8130 and talk through what your issue is and walk through some possibilities. He's is always available to help.
As jap stated, there are options for you. You may want to try the 10b choice with your system if you do not want the digital crossover. It has an analog crossover. I am sure that Roger would work with you to try it out along side your current setup for you to decide if you want to change it out. Just give a call!
Cheers,
Angela
Last edited:
Forgot about the dbx units, also a good choice, better performance (IME) than Behringer.
High-order passive filters are difficult for the average person to design, are lossy, and tend to exhibit transient ringing and phase-shift issues. They also tend to vary a little with time and temperature, and of course getting the initial values right given normal component tolerances can be harder. All solvable problems, but a good DSP-based filter is much more flexible and stable. You can dial in the response to match the speaker while adjusting slope, delay (phase), and crossover frequencies independently, something more difficult and time-consuming with most analog filters (active or passive). I believe Roger uses a pretty high-order (relatively, like 4th-order) crossover to isolate the woofer and ESL panels in his designs.
Marchand Electronics makes passive and active analog filters to spec.
I have owned passive, active, and digital (DSP-based) filter/crossovers and they all have their quirks and foibles...
High-order passive filters are difficult for the average person to design, are lossy, and tend to exhibit transient ringing and phase-shift issues. They also tend to vary a little with time and temperature, and of course getting the initial values right given normal component tolerances can be harder. All solvable problems, but a good DSP-based filter is much more flexible and stable. You can dial in the response to match the speaker while adjusting slope, delay (phase), and crossover frequencies independently, something more difficult and time-consuming with most analog filters (active or passive). I believe Roger uses a pretty high-order (relatively, like 4th-order) crossover to isolate the woofer and ESL panels in his designs.
Marchand Electronics makes passive and active analog filters to spec.
I have owned passive, active, and digital (DSP-based) filter/crossovers and they all have their quirks and foibles...
150Hz corner freq is a bit tricky owing to the relatively high value inductors that would be called for (say of the order of 100s of mH). Certainly its doable though I am not sure that I'd go passive XO myself for that low turnover frequency, but I would for something in the kHz range. For XO freqs in the few 100s of Hz region, the performance balance might just switch back in favour of active again given the challenges of the high value inductors. The much lower working bandwidth means that the required dynamic range in active is easier to maintain.
@jap - I don't see the 24/96 of Behringer as any kind of limitation on SQ, the SMPSU though almost certainly is
Thanks for the reply. I had wondered about the possibility of using a line level passive x-over.
I assumed anybody using these ESLs would be using line-level crossovers (?)
The (one) issue with purely passive line-level crossovers is that the performance (frequency and roll-off) is dependent upon the source and load impedances. So long as you know them and/or they are within range of the passive filter design you'll be OK. For that matter, a small error would probably not be noticed. However, I tend to prefer active crossovers, at least with buffers if the actual filter between them is passive. And I agree with opus111 that LF passive components get large and introduce their own set of issues.
The (one) issue with purely passive line-level crossovers is that the performance (frequency and roll-off) is dependent upon the source and load impedances. So long as you know them and/or they are within range of the passive filter design you'll be OK. For that matter, a small error would probably not be noticed. However, I tend to prefer active crossovers, at least with buffers if the actual filter between them is passive. And I agree with opus111 that LF passive components get large and introduce their own set of issues.
Good to know that the 10b analog active crossover is still an option. I think that is the best bet if you want to keep the signal analog. Better to have something designed by the designer of the speakers. All other options are a risk.
had my 10c for several months now Very , very happy with them with the 300dollar behringer x/over, seems very transparent to me
I assume you could improve with a very high end x/over if you spent several thousand bucks on a dbx/trinnov/total dac etc
I assume you could improve with a very high end x/over if you spent several thousand bucks on a dbx/trinnov/total dac etc
The older 480 and 260 series are equivalent sonically, IIRC, they do A/D/A at 24/48. Quite clean, but the 4800 took it to a new level with 24/96 A/D/A. One of the benefits of the 4800 is a more adjustable input/output gain structure settings, making it easier to integrate into consumer setups (even if using Balanced connections, not everyone handles level quite the same, so adjustability is great).
So yes, a 260 or 480 would work fine, but they are a generation back in features and fidelity.
BTW- I've heard the Sanders 10c Demo at Axpona here in Atlanta and was very, very impressed with the audio quality (considering the room). No lack of fidelity in the standard show setup (which uses the Behringer and a Tascam SSD player).
It was the best audio I heard at the show, only the big MBLs even came close (at like 5x the price)
It was the best audio I heard at the show, only the big MBLs even came close (at like 5x the price)
Similar threads
Members online
- Armsan
- Ehoffman13
- respected_ent
- haiwenchen
- Sablon Audio
- chopchopbin
- RealMcCoy
- Tlay
- takacs75
- AudioLibertarian
- MPW
- Opabin
- Kingrex
- crosswind
- gtaphile
- the sound of Tao
- HeavyD
- Stbo
- Massimo66
- bonzo75
- AudioAbe
- Yuen A.
- Bonesy Jonesy
- zerostargeneral
- andromedaaudio
- cjfrbw
- Bobvin
- Monisi
- damic
- Salectric
- rob
- hallgard
- rocco1113
- KrellFan1
- Moladiego
- Johan K
- bajaed
- Geoffkait
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |