Active Crossovers

[morricab]

I have the Dayton DSP 408. Its super fast and easy to dial in the slope, gain, phase, crossover point. Even has a full EQ. Can cut top and bottom on a 3 way. Its a nice tool. All I am saying is why buy another tool. I have one. If I proceed, I will eventually go active analog. Like a Merchand tube. Even those need to be modified. OCD Mike has a video on how his is built. No op amps.

I will try the Blade and the 845. I don't think its going to work. Whats that Amp Ralph talks about. Dynaco ST70. I still think about a CJ Classic 62 SE for the woofers. Maybe a good 300B for the top and the Blade on the woofers. But the Blade has always been more detailed than rich. I am looking for a richer amp on those woofers. I think. Still learning where the music is most important. I am very surprised how important 600 hertz and down is for vocal and really the whole of the music.

Ah, ok. I thought the Dayton was just for subs. I see now it’s basically like a mini-DSP .

I would try all tubes. If you want a richer sounding PP tube amp try a Prima Luna or a Willsenton EL34 amp( a friend bought one and it is rich but still reasonably transparent).

A Marchand tube cover is IMO the way to go with analog xovers. The Accuphase is ok, but is holding back the system.

 

[Kingrex]

Ah, ok. I thought the Dayton was just for subs. I see now it’s basically like a mini-DSP .

I would try all tubes. If you want a richer sounding PP tube amp try a Prima Luna or a Willsenton EL34 amp( a friend bought one and it is rich but still reasonably transparent).

A Marchand tube cover is IMO the way to go with analog xovers. The Accuphase is ok, but is holding back the system.

What Prima Luna. Seems to be affordable ones of the 100 series, They go up to monoblocks and 300 series.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Or a Phil Marchand fixed crossover?

 

[Kingrex]

I tried the 845 as the main amp with the Elrog tubes. The Blade on the woofers. The 845 is too fuzzy and loss of detail. Not a good match. I am not anxious to try the other way as a SET is not the amp to put on woofers. I guess I could use the DSP and set the high pass as 60 hertz and let the sub do the rest.

 

[morricab]

I tried the 845 as the main amp with the Elrog tubes. The Blade on the woofers. The 845 is too fuzzy and loss of detail. Not a good match. I am not anxious to try the other way as a SET is not the amp to put on woofers. I guess I could use the DSP and set the high pass as 60 hertz and let the sub do the rest.

If your amp is fuzzy then it’s a bad SET…period. Two friends of mine both went to SET from PP triodes and SS, respectively, once they got SET friendly speakers and they marvel at the improvement in sound. No fuzz at all. None of my 4 SETs sound anything other than crystal clear. My DIY system is running two SETs, with an overall system sensitivity of 99dB (limited by the midbass).

 

[Ron Resnick]

Different circuits can make the same tube sound different.

There is nothing inherently fuzzy about 845.

I agree with Brad -- something is amiss.

 

[Kingrex]

No argument here on the quality of the 845 amp I have. But I am not going to buy another SET. I have a crystal clear amp. I do not need 2. I need an amp to driver Woofers.

Still wondering if a used $1500 EVO 100 is a amp to get. That is the price of a rebuilt Dynaco. My budget. The EVO 300 are more like $3500. Not looking to spend that on an experiment.

So far, when using multiple amps and a DSP, the Blade on the top end and the A3cr is the best. Pretty good balance. Good extension and enough body with the sub to be pleasant. The woofers though fall a little short of the muscular feel the Blade puts into the 10 inch and horn. I would like to find more grit and bite in the bottom end. Possibly, the DSP is causing this. I am not sure. I would not argue if someone were to say as such.

@Ron Resnick
I thought the Marchand were all fixed. When I last talked to him, I had to give him the values to design into the crossover. I think the only thing that is variable is the gain. I am not sure how gain is adjusted. I would prefer it in the analog domain.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Phil Marchand will make whatever you would like.

 

[microstrip]

(...) @Ron Resnick
I thought the Marchand were all fixed. When I last talked to him, I had to give him the values to design into the crossover. I think the only thing that is variable is the gain. I am not sure how gain is adjusted. I would prefer it in the analog domain.

Yes, changing frequencies and slopes can involve a soldering iron.

IMO if you want to go active and do not have any guidance you can trusts, you should get a digital crossover such as cheap Behringer DCX2496, a calibrated microphone and REW. Taking measurements play with frequencies, slopes and gain until you get a reasonable similitude with the response of the factory passive speaker and than ask Marchand to built an equivalent analog active crossover.

 

[Holmz]

Yes, changing frequencies and slopes can involve a soldering iron.

IMO if you want to go active and do not have any guidance you can trusts, you should get a digital crossover such as cheap Behringer DCX2496, a calibrated microphone and REW. Taking measurements play with frequencies, slopes and gain until you get a reasonable similitude with the response of the factory passive speaker and than ask Marchand to built an equivalent analog active crossover.

This is where maybe having a DSP based XO can help… even a “bog standard” $100 thing can allow some quick A-B comparisons before busting out the iron. So it’s a potential tme savior.

 

[Atmasphere]

There is nothing inherently fuzzy about 845.

That is true.

But if its used in an SET and then that SET is pushed beyond 20-25% of full power, then 'fuzzy' could be a good descriptor- if you've heard stuff that doesn't have that problem. At similar power levels the 845 SET can make, the Blade is likely an order of magnitude less distortion, and distortion obscures detail, can make things seem out of focus; 'fuzzy'.

My surmise is Rex likes to play his system at life-like levels and that uses a bit of power.

 

[morricab]

No argument here on the quality of the 845 amp I have. But I am not going to buy another SET. I have a crystal clear amp. I do not need 2. I need an amp to driver Woofers.

Still wondering if a used $1500 EVO 100 is a amp to get. That is the price of a rebuilt Dynaco. My budget. The EVO 300 are more like $3500. Not looking to spend that on an experiment.

So far, when using multiple amps and a DSP, the Blade on the top end and the A3cr is the best. Pretty good balance. Good extension and enough body with the sub to be pleasant. The woofers though fall a little short of the muscular feel the Blade puts into the 10 inch and horn. I would like to find more grit and bite in the bottom end. Possibly, the DSP is causing this. I am not sure. I would not argue if someone were to say as such.

@Ron Resnick
I thought the Marchand were all fixed. When I last talked to him, I had to give him the values to design into the crossover. I think the only thing that is variable is the gain. I am not sure how gain is adjusted. I would prefer it in the analog domain.

Marchand makes active and passive line level crossovers (this is what Ron was referring to I think). All are analog as they don't do digital xovers. I think Ron is using passive, line- level (meaning between the preamp and amp rather than at the speaker) xovers. I would go with an analog tube xover from them as my endgame xover.

 

[morricab]

No argument here on the quality of the 845 amp I have. But I am not going to buy another SET. I have a crystal clear amp. I do not need 2. I need an amp to driver Woofers.

Still wondering if a used $1500 EVO 100 is a amp to get. That is the price of a rebuilt Dynaco. My budget. The EVO 300 are more like $3500. Not looking to spend that on an experiment.

So far, when using multiple amps and a DSP, the Blade on the top end and the A3cr is the best. Pretty good balance. Good extension and enough body with the sub to be pleasant. The woofers though fall a little short of the muscular feel the Blade puts into the 10 inch and horn. I would like to find more grit and bite in the bottom end. Possibly, the DSP is causing this. I am not sure. I would not argue if someone were to say as such.

@Ron Resnick
I thought the Marchand were all fixed. When I last talked to him, I had to give him the values to design into the crossover. I think the only thing that is variable is the gain. I am not sure how gain is adjusted. I would prefer it in the analog domain.

Again, I would get a good SET (Line Magnetic and Cayin makes some very good affordable ones) for the mid/highs and use your Blade amp for the bass. With active Xover you can adjust the bass to taste, so even if you think the Blade is more on the lean side, you can goose it up a bit for a fuller sound. The Evo 100 is probably not too bad but again, I would want a good SET on the mid/high...it will just sound better.

One of the guys I mentioned replaced his Primal Luna integrated amp with a Cayin 805 SET integrated. The SS guy (he had a pretty nice sounding Plinius SA103) replaced his with a Line Magnetic 805 integrated.

 

[Kingrex]

Again, I would get a good SET (Line Magnetic and Cayin makes some very good affordable ones) for the mid/highs and use your Blade amp for the bass. With active Xover you can adjust the bass to taste, so even if you think the Blade is more on the lean side, you can goose it up a bit for a fuller sound. The Evo 100 is probably not too bad but again, I would want a good SET on the mid/high...it will just sound better.

One of the guys I mentioned replaced his Primal Luna integrated amp with a Cayin 805 SET integrated. The SS guy (he had a pretty nice sounding Plinius SA103) replaced his with a Line Magnetic 805 integrated.

I feel like your beating the dead horse.

 

[Rob181]

I feel like your beating the dead horse.

The real question is - who killed the horse in the first place...

 

[Holmz]

Marchand makes active and passive line level crossovers (this is what Ron was referring to I think). All are analog as they don't do digital xovers. I think Ron is using passive, line- level (meaning between the preamp and amp rather than at the speaker) xovers. I would go with an analog tube xover from them as my endgame xover.

You went from (Ron’s) passive analogue (Marchand) to active analogue. What was the reasoning used?

 

[morricab]

You went from (Ron’s) passive analogue (Marchand) to active analogue. What was the reasoning used?

What is your question?

 

[Holmz]

What is your question?

What is your reasoning behind a powered XO versus a non-powered XO ?

 

[Daro]

The Audion Dream 845/52b is a tube amplifier that was one of the cleanest and best modern ones. I had the highest-end model Erik Andersson ever made, only a few of them, all silver transformers. It had one drawback: a very sensitive input, and the amplifier favored passive preamps.

The XTA is a sufficient DSP for a home system. I've tested it with Tad, JBL, Yamaha Altec, etc.

The best effect I've heard at home with a DSP is Dolby Lake! It's a wonderful machine, but difficult to set up.

I've used over 10 different crossovers in various systems, from the pricey Westlake with their HR1VF, to a simple Rane with Strathearn studio monitors, 6 ribbons, and 18 bass drivers with 0.5 ohm impedance.
So, it depends on the application, and a simple Rane is enough.

 

[morricab]

What is your reasoning behind a powered XO versus a non-powered XO ?

It can sound more dynamic and be more transparent. If passive parts are not of the highest quality they will veil the sound.
I was not saying that Kingrex shouldn’t try line level passive, only my experience where a good active xover beats such a passive.
I would rather stick with speaker level passive rather than line level passive.