Hi guys,
I'm working on a 3way design with a 12" woofer, 6.5"mid and 30mm tweeter. I built a nice passive crossover for the mid\tweeter but want to use active to the woofer. For amps I'm using Fosi small format class D. I'm looking for an active crossover that's reasonably priced to be similar in size to the Fosi class D amps.
I usually know of these things I want but for some reason can't find a crossover in the size. I can get great prosound units all day long and have 5 already. If need be, I'll DIY but would like to save the labor.
At this time I don't want DSP, I'm waiting for one more technical generation to get on that bandwagon.
Thanks,
Scott
I'm working on a 3way design with a 12" woofer, 6.5"mid and 30mm tweeter. I built a nice passive crossover for the mid\tweeter but want to use active to the woofer. For amps I'm using Fosi small format class D. I'm looking for an active crossover that's reasonably priced to be similar in size to the Fosi class D amps.
I usually know of these things I want but for some reason can't find a crossover in the size. I can get great prosound units all day long and have 5 already. If need be, I'll DIY but would like to save the labor.
At this time I don't want DSP, I'm waiting for one more technical generation to get on that bandwagon.
Thanks,
Scott
This might be suitable, but it needs a case.
https://www.xkitz.com/collections/a...-way-active-crossover-fully-assembled-xover-2
We support the following Crossover frequencies:
When ordering, please specify your desired crossover frequency.
Or we will ship with default XO frequency of 2000Hz.
https://www.xkitz.com/collections/a...-way-active-crossover-fully-assembled-xover-2
We support the following Crossover frequencies:
When ordering, please specify your desired crossover frequency.
Or we will ship with default XO frequency of 2000Hz.
- Any multiple of 10Hz from 30Hz-200Hz (e.g. 60Hz, 70Hz, ... 200Hz)
- 250Hz
- Any multiple of 100Hz from 300Hz-4000Hz
- Any multiple of 500Hz from 4500Hz-12000Hz
I see no reason to not use a miniDSP 2x4 HD or the FLEX as it has a display and volume knob. You will get a lot of enjoyment with the amazing flexibility, 1st order, 2nd order, 4th, 8th or keep going. FIR filtering and filters left over for a Linkwitz transform, baffle step correction, notching out driver resonances, time delay and room correction. What could you possibly be "waiting for". Buy one now and upgrade later if that's possible or even desirable. All the limitations of variable analog crossovers are just not that attractive to me. The frequencies of the different channels won't track, the gain will be different. No delays. Fixed crossover slopes and Q that can't adapt to drivers. The analog crossover will likely cost more as well. I just can't understand the desire to stay clear of nearly perfect digital crossovers. "one more technical generation" What would that even be? The math for digital filters has not changed in 40 years. DACs and ADCs are so very good today, there's not going to be audible improvement from here on out.
That makes no sense to me. It has analog inputs just like your proposed analog crossover. In addition it also accepts a stereo digital stream with SPDIF / Toslink that I would assume you can get from any Blueray or SACD player. Why people still use those when they can rip their entire collection into a small laptop and play or stream anything with JRiver and a miniDSP, I don't know. Worst case you can use the analog inputs. If you didn't already have amplifiers I would point you to the Hypex Fusion plate amps, as they are a compact solution that reduces the number of boxes and wires needed. I think you will likely spend the equivalent of $300 - $500 in time and money building a limited function analog crossover, power supply and case anyway. Go do that.
I've never had the time to rip all my music, maybe someday. I don't need or want all the functionality of DSP. I use good parts and don't force any of them to operate beyond their best range, below box nodes or into their breakup region. I get smooth flat response and low distortion with simpler designs. I have an HT preamp and receiver and setup room correction but always bypass it and run them in direct mode where it sounds remarkably better and supports DSD direct and Bluray direct too. I'm not interested in going from digital to analog then digital to analog again. When miniDSP supports 192\24 over HDMI I'll certainly consider one of their products.
A bit of a plug, my apologies, but;
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...eaker-filter-board-evalf.405002/#post-7496040
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...eaker-filter-board-evalf.405002/#post-7496040
In comparing 96kHz and 102kHz there is no audible difference. Going A2D DSP D2A will produce perfectly matched filters that you can change with the click of a mouse, and flip between three presets for a cross over from your listening seat with a remote. There is an audible difference between perfectly matched filters and what you can build in the analog world. Unless you are buying 50 of each part and hand matching them yourself there will be differences side to side. The idea that the analog filter would be better than the digital ones even with the added conversions is in my experience audiophile non-sense. It is certainly fun to build up the analog circuits and you can get good results. I highly recommend you eventually get a digital crossover just to use as a tool to let you determine the filters to build in the analog domain, as that can give you a rapid prototyping capability. It can be done without purchasing anything using software on a PC like equalizerAPO and the two channels out of a sound card. Good luck with your project.
I went from analog line level to DSP based crossovers a few years ago. I have currently settled on the Linea Research ASC-48 also available as the rebranded Danley SC-48. (I have the Danley) I went through several iterations of analog XO and finally bought and modified a behringer DCX 2496 which I used until recently.
I had planned on just using the Behringer temporarily while I came up with a new analog XO design, I even went so far as to included PEQ, but no delays. The analog lacked in transparency compared to the modified DCX and I abandoned my plans.
I believe I made the right decision for my system, constraints and priorities in going to DSP.
Unlike the OP however I am using horns with significant offsets one to the other which makes time alignment difficult to achieve. The OP has stated his preference for analog XO so I think we need to respect that. It may also be that his particular speaker design has more benign acoustical behaviors than many of us are used to dealing with. (Choice of drivers, range over which they operate vs response flatness, cabinet design, room behaviors)
I think in general 12dB or 24dB LR filters are good in the analog domain, if possible make them tunable over a reasonable range to allow for optimum tuning of XO points between drivers. I like the TI line of sound plus op-amps (1602, 1641/1642, etc)
Something like an EV XEQ-3 is good for figuring out what you need in the analog domain, and then you can design and build what you need in a form factor to fit your space target.
I had planned on just using the Behringer temporarily while I came up with a new analog XO design, I even went so far as to included PEQ, but no delays. The analog lacked in transparency compared to the modified DCX and I abandoned my plans.
I believe I made the right decision for my system, constraints and priorities in going to DSP.
Unlike the OP however I am using horns with significant offsets one to the other which makes time alignment difficult to achieve. The OP has stated his preference for analog XO so I think we need to respect that. It may also be that his particular speaker design has more benign acoustical behaviors than many of us are used to dealing with. (Choice of drivers, range over which they operate vs response flatness, cabinet design, room behaviors)
I think in general 12dB or 24dB LR filters are good in the analog domain, if possible make them tunable over a reasonable range to allow for optimum tuning of XO points between drivers. I like the TI line of sound plus op-amps (1602, 1641/1642, etc)
Something like an EV XEQ-3 is good for figuring out what you need in the analog domain, and then you can design and build what you need in a form factor to fit your space target.
I understand your point. But to say that the biamp 6-24 is not usable, that's over the top, surely. It's a popular Nelson Pass project, supported by the diyaudio shop, after all. I wanted to make sure the OP is aware of it.
Since the OP is making a passive crossover for the mid/tweeters, it's not impossible he could use some passive equalisation. Or, since it's a 3 way, baffle step might be dealt with by careful placement of the bass/mid crossover frequency.
That is nonsense.
There is a trend to boost the bottom to compensate for the 2∏ to 4∏ steriadians to bring the on-axis flat. Every dB the on-axis is lifted to bring it level, also boosts the room response (in excess) or 1 dB.
We have build literally hundreds of loudspeakers, and i only ever used a filter in one of thiose ($20 CAD total for drivers), relacing that driver with SEAS FA22 let me eliminate the filter.
But it seems many just like too much botto, so i consider most BSC filters as just turning up the bass.
dave