Hi everyone,
I'm designing a 3-way passive crossover for my home audio speaker setup and could use some help optimizing the design. My goal is high-fidelity sound with good bass response and smooth integration between drivers.
Any advice on impedance compensation or phase alignment?
I've attached my XSim schematic and response graphs for reference. Any suggestions or improvements are greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance!
I'm designing a 3-way passive crossover for my home audio speaker setup and could use some help optimizing the design. My goal is high-fidelity sound with good bass response and smooth integration between drivers.
Driver Selection
- Woofer: Dayton Audio DC300-8 (12", 8Ω)
- Midrange: Dayton Audio MB620-8 (6", 8Ω)
- Tweeter: Eminence ASD1001B compression driver on B-52 PHRN-N01 waveguide (8Ω)
Crossover Goals
- Woofer to Midrange: 500Hz
- Midrange to Tweeter: 2.5kHz
- Crossover Type: 2nd-order Linkwitz-Riley (12dB/octave)
- Flat frequency response with smooth phase transitions
Any advice on impedance compensation or phase alignment?
I've attached my XSim schematic and response graphs for reference. Any suggestions or improvements are greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance!
I've been led to believe that the pass band (midrange) functions best with a ratio of 8 or 10 times the low pass frequency. So, in this case with a low pass of 500, you'd be looking for 4 or 5 k. Is it possible to move the MB620 lower? I'm sure there are others here with vastly more experience than I who can offer advice.
Moved to the multi-way forum. 
Yeah, break up 20 -20,000 Hz into 3 bands = 20-200, 200-2,000, 2,000-20,000 Hz, ergo 500-5,000 Hz or in octave spreads: n = ln(Fh/Fl)/ln(2)
where:
Fh = upper frequency
Fl = lower frequency
n = octave spread
ln(2) = 0.6931
That horn looks rather deep to me for this build. I think the x-over at 2.5k might be difficult. Did you consider other horns, or horn type tweeters?
I’ve already bought the parts for my speaker build and now I’m figuring out the crossover. My setup includes:
Since I’m running a Denon AVR-2113, which doesn’t support 4-ohm loads, I need to make sure the crossover design keeps the impedance in a safe range.
Would using a DSP-based active crossover be a better option than a passive one? The alternative is a well-designed passive crossover, but I want to get the best possible sound.
Any recommendations or tips from those who have built similar setups?
Since I’m running a Denon AVR-2113, which doesn’t support 4-ohm loads, I need to make sure the crossover design keeps the impedance in a safe range.
Would using a DSP-based active crossover be a better option than a passive one? The alternative is a well-designed passive crossover, but I want to get the best possible sound.
Any recommendations or tips from those who have built similar setups?
I’ve built lots of passive conventional as well as active DSP speakers. I think digital crossovers run circles around passive ones.
If you simply want the best possible sound, the only possible weakness of DSP is:
First, I’m going to assume that most of your music comes from a digital source. That means you always have to have digital analog converter somewhere, and the very very best DACs that you can buy are a little bit better than the DAC’s that are built in to affordable crossovers like miniDSP which cost $200-$800.
Now If you’re willing to spend $3000-4000, you can get Danville signal crossovers which are absolutely state-of-the-art. They have the best DSP‘s money can buy, and there is no compromise.
(Let’s be clear that very few systems have DACs that are better than what’s already in a mini DSP 2 x 4 HD or flex eight. So the point I’m making is a minor one. Also, the Flex Eight DAC is quite a bit better than the 2x4HD DAC. 10dB less noise at least.)
With that one caveat out of the way, the flexibility and dexterity that you gain by using a digital crossover is light years ahead of passive crossovers; and also with DSP, great results are much simpler and easier to pull off in real life.
If you’re going to design a really good passive crossover, you’re gonna need a generous inventory of inductors and capacitors, a good computer modeling program, a lot of measurements both before and after you build the crossover, and a lot of trial and error and experimentation.
With DSP, you can skip the computer modeling and go straight to measurements, and make alterations in seconds or minutes that would take you hours with a soldering iron.
You can also cancel out problems like sharp peaks and resonances with surgical precision. You can use time delay to align the drivers. Passive crossovers cannot do that. You don’t have to worry about the impedance of the driver interacting in unpredictable ways with the crossover. You can also instantly store and recall crossover configurations that you save as computer files.
It’s like the difference between a typewriter and a word processor.
I still like building passive systems, but it’s more like a game I like to play - of working within a certain set of constraints. I would never build a passive system because I thought it was inherently better.
If you simply want the best possible sound, the only possible weakness of DSP is:
First, I’m going to assume that most of your music comes from a digital source. That means you always have to have digital analog converter somewhere, and the very very best DACs that you can buy are a little bit better than the DAC’s that are built in to affordable crossovers like miniDSP which cost $200-$800.
Now If you’re willing to spend $3000-4000, you can get Danville signal crossovers which are absolutely state-of-the-art. They have the best DSP‘s money can buy, and there is no compromise.
(Let’s be clear that very few systems have DACs that are better than what’s already in a mini DSP 2 x 4 HD or flex eight. So the point I’m making is a minor one. Also, the Flex Eight DAC is quite a bit better than the 2x4HD DAC. 10dB less noise at least.)
With that one caveat out of the way, the flexibility and dexterity that you gain by using a digital crossover is light years ahead of passive crossovers; and also with DSP, great results are much simpler and easier to pull off in real life.
If you’re going to design a really good passive crossover, you’re gonna need a generous inventory of inductors and capacitors, a good computer modeling program, a lot of measurements both before and after you build the crossover, and a lot of trial and error and experimentation.
With DSP, you can skip the computer modeling and go straight to measurements, and make alterations in seconds or minutes that would take you hours with a soldering iron.
You can also cancel out problems like sharp peaks and resonances with surgical precision. You can use time delay to align the drivers. Passive crossovers cannot do that. You don’t have to worry about the impedance of the driver interacting in unpredictable ways with the crossover. You can also instantly store and recall crossover configurations that you save as computer files.
It’s like the difference between a typewriter and a word processor.
I still like building passive systems, but it’s more like a game I like to play - of working within a certain set of constraints. I would never build a passive system because I thought it was inherently better.
Last edited:
Then I suggest you take some time to dive deep into measuring correctly and using vituixcad simulator that can do a full polar simulation.
The best dsp crossover can not help if your measurements are not equally good.
I agree with Perry and use DSP and separate dedicated amps for each driver. Previously I had passive 2nd order LR based XO at 800Hz and 8kHz with horns for mids and highs.
I use a rebadged Linea Research ASC-48 processor for speaker system EQ, time alignment and crossover.
I use a rebadged Linea Research ASC-48 processor for speaker system EQ, time alignment and crossover.
If you don’t want to spend a lot of money on DSP, then pay attention to this solution.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/3-way-dsp-amp.415065/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...for-3-way-active-speaker.421239/#post-7872876
But without a measuring microphone, In any case, both in a passive crossover and in an active one, it will not be possible to good adjust the three bands.