| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Audio Discussions » Crossover Design (70 posts, 4 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 3 of 4 (70 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  The crossovering Messiah is coming...air capacitors..  The air-transformers from Santa...  Audio Discussions  Forum     6  67932  11-22-2004
  »  New  The Edgarhorn RTA response...  Poor quality crossover components?...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     7  86842  08-29-2007
12-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Kerry Brown
Posts 23
Joined on 03-22-2005

Post #: 41
Post ID: 17636
Reply to: 17626
Edgarhorns and DEQX
fiogf49gjkf0d

Hi Jorge, Marc, Adrian, Romy et al,
First off, Jorge what's your asking price on the modified DEQX ? Which model is it ? Who did the mods and what are they ? I am very interested.
Adrian, as I recall you live in San Francisco. You are still welcome to visit and listen to my horns, I'd like to hear your setup as well. I am curious how your Edgarhorn system compares to mine. Anyone else who would like to hear a well implemented Edgarhorn system is also welcome to visit.
Marc, please surf the web for more information, there are many sophisticated systems that use DEQX processors. In my opinion conventional passive crossovers are not very good, multi-amping with line level passive filters is much better and multi-amping with a DEQX processor is better still. The new generation of processors is much better than earlier models. 
In my opinion compression super tweeters are not good. I use planar magnetic drivers ( but would love to own a pair of Raals like Romy's ). If you like you may email me privately for more info on mods etc..
Romy, you or another forum member may be interested in my S-2s ( one is in the mahogany box ) and K15-40s, I have 2 of each for sale in excellent original condition ( plus horns and crossovers, all from a pair of Canadian Vitavox Khorns ).
Happy New Year,
Kerry
12-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Jorge
Austin TX
Posts 141
Joined on 10-17-2010

Post #: 42
Post ID: 17637
Reply to: 17631
Tweaks for horns
fiogf49gjkf0d
First and most important is time aligning the drivers, this will help a lot.
When you are finally done, realign again... ijijiijii

I would think you already have everything perfectly simmetrical to your listening position etc.
Toe in and all of that. pulling them from the back wall etc.

For imaging Horns like a big space, The best imaging I ever listened to was with horns.. not in my room sadly.

After that things become more difficult,  If you are multiamping, micro adjusting the volume level of each driver will do amazing things, really a powerful tool.
If you are not multiamping this will become  almost impossible,  you can say, adjust with an L-pad,   but my first reccomendation would be to get rid of all Lpads...
12-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Jorge
Austin TX
Posts 141
Joined on 10-17-2010

Post #: 43
Post ID: 17638
Reply to: 17637
DCX not DEQX
fiogf49gjkf0d
My most humble apologies to DEQX and its users, what we tested was the Behringer DCX unit,  my mistake.
I never used a DEQX and have no current opinion on its performance.
12-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,184
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 44
Post ID: 17640
Reply to: 17636
A gravity defining illusion.
fiogf49gjkf0d

“Gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass”. Try to fuck with it!

 Kerry Brown wrote:
Marc, please surf the web for more information, there are many sophisticated systems that use DEQX processors.

There is none that I have seen. Each single “sophisticated system” that use digital crossovers that I have seen on Web was in fact stupidly designed system.

 Kerry Brown wrote:
In my opinion conventional passive crossovers are not very good, multi-amping with line level passive filters is much better and multi-amping with a DEQX processor is better still. The new generation of processors is much better than earlier models.

Kerry, and what problems are with “conventional passive crossovers” and why they are not good? Topologically digital can’t attenuate (it means to filter) and analog can’t delay.  This is the fundamental rule of the game, like gravity. BTW, it is not my discovery but something that was taught by the guy who design the most celebrated digital in the today world. So, I wonder how the "new generation of processors" defines the law of gravity?

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Kerry Brown
Posts 23
Joined on 03-22-2005

Post #: 45
Post ID: 17642
Reply to: 17640
Romy don't get so worked up dude
fiogf49gjkf0d
Hi Romy,
Always nice to correspond with you, thanks for your comments.
I used the term 'sophisticated' literally: so - phis - ti - cat - ed Adjective: 1. ( of a machine, system, or technique ) Developed to a high degree of complexity.
As do you, I prefer multi-way horns so most DEQX based systems are not interesting to me but most of them are definitely sophisticated.
Passive speakers level crossovers are not as good as line level passive... I think you explained why rather well in previous posts. 
We disagree, obviously on active crossovers but I am not alone in my thinking - and you know the theoretical ( at least ) advantages of active filtering very well.
Attenuate: at - ten - u - ate; Verb; Reduce the amplitude of ( a signal, electric current or other oscillation ). 
I don't understand when you say active crossovers don't attenuate. Mine does. Very well too, I can trim channels to match each other perfectly. And DEQX volume control is 'analog' = step ladder resistors. 
I am not qualified to defend active and or digital crossovers on technical grounds... but they work. Well. Very well.
Here are some links for you:

Why DEQX is good


http://goldenagemusic.mamutweb.com/Shop/Product/DEQX-HDP-Express-Black-front-panel/6301012


Why active crossovers are good


http://sound.westhost.com/biamp-vs-passive.htm


Acoustic Zen Micro


http://www.audiophilia.com/hardware/ma16.htm 


Tikandi Speaker System


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/two-channel-speakers/695-legend-acoustics-tikandi-loudspeaker-system-with-deqx-hdp-3-processing.html


SonicWeld PulseRod


http://www.sonicweld.com/pulserod.html


Overkill Audio Encore Speaker System


http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/overkill/encore.html


My system


Wasatch Acoustics MUSINA system


http://www.consumerelectronicsnet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=36436


Tikandi System with HDP3 review


http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue57/deqx.htm


Similar processors are used in other systems including the Linkwitz open baffle speakers


http://www.linkwitzlab.com/


Lotus Group Granada ( maybe the best show sound I have heard and why I changed my mind about "full range" speakers)


http://www.lotusgroupusa.com/Granada.htm


Emerald Physics


http://www.6moons.com/showcase/underwoodhifi/underwoodhifi.html




12-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,184
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 46
Post ID: 17643
Reply to: 17642
I think you are confided.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Kerry Brown wrote:
I don't understand when you say active crossovers don't attenuate. Mine does. Very well too, I can trim channels to match each other perfectly. And DEQX volume control is 'analog' = step ladder resistors. 
  
I am not sure why you are talking about active crossovers. There was no conversion about active crossovers. We were talking about digital crossovers not just analog crossover with active stages.

 Kerry Brown wrote:
I am not qualified to defend active and or digital crossovers on technical grounds...
  
I am qualified, ether in technical or in auditable aspects. Do not listen me. Take any digital file that juts went from A/D and than with any DIGITAL tool in your deposal reduce volume of the file for 1dB. Listen the result. If you do not hear the difference then you do not know what you are listening, there is nothing wrong with it, you are blessed, enjoy your life. After all there are people who do not recognize differences between speedcook ovens and conventional ovens, between infrared saunas and Finnish saunas, between fresh dill and dill mead from fructose sucrose glucose and gasoline. Be advised that filtration is just frequency-desponding attenuation…
 
Thanks for the links. I have interests to into them. They are undoubtedly written by idiots who trade digital toys and for idiots who have ass between ears.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Kerry Brown
Posts 23
Joined on 03-22-2005

Post #: 47
Post ID: 17644
Reply to: 17643
Whatever
fiogf49gjkf0d
Romy,
Thanks for your kind remarks but the proof of the cook is in the pudding, if you are ever on the west coast  you should drop by and have a taste. 
I doubt whether I will ever get to Boston, don't travel much, but I'd be interested in listening to your speakers, I'm sure they sound great. Especially after you ditched the EV T-350s.
Besides that, I must ask... is there one speaker system you've heard that you like very much ? Besides yours ?
Is there one audio reviewer, manufacturer or expert opinion that you completely agree with ?
Hope you have a bitchin' 2012 bro.
K
12-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,184
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 48
Post ID: 17645
Reply to: 17644
Yes, the LA is the country of horns…
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Kerry Brown wrote:
Thanks for your kind remarks but the proof of the cook is in the pudding, if you are ever on the west coast you should drop by and have a taste.

Sure, if I go to SF then I might visit you, in fact there are quite a few places in SF that I might go. Do not expect however that any proof might be in any pudding with it and not only because I know how your inhalation sounds.  The proof of inferiority of D-crossovers is in fact that people with diminished reference points do sport them. The completely idiotic articles and completely barbaric acoustic systems that you brought up as “evidences” most likely just prove of it and I do know who what kind people has a needs to patronize the DSP crossovers. Kerry, do not take my reply as attack against you personally as many online idiots would consider. I do attack your standing on the subject and your judgments; I still live room that you are a good TV viewer, fine eater, good voter and considerate pedestrian….
 Kerry Brown wrote:
Besides that, I must ask... is there one speaker system you've heard that you like very much ? Besides yours ?

I am not convinced that you understand how complicated the question you ask. Probably the next question will be with the same level of seriousness about the color of my underwear.
 Kerry Brown wrote:
Is there one audio reviewer, manufacturer or expert opinion that you completely agree with?

Yes, the next question WAS about the color of my underwear. Well, I am passed the level of my audio development when I need to agree with anybody or even answer those questions. Let keep the thread focus on the crossover, regardless not much superficial it became, and let keep the pop media interviews out of picture.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Kerry Brown
Posts 23
Joined on 03-22-2005

Post #: 49
Post ID: 17646
Reply to: 17645
Hardy har har
fiogf49gjkf0d

Yup, that's me alright, a "confided" ( whatever that means ) fine eater, good TV viewer, good voter and considerate pedestrian with his butt between his ears. 
Hilarious material from the Don Rickles of the Audio world.
I dub thee Romy The Bad Dog... cats are relaxed, mellow, bad dogs are aggressively defensive.
Peace Out Homes,
KB


12-31-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 526
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 50
Post ID: 17647
Reply to: 17636
EdgarHorn system
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Kerry Brown wrote:
Adrian, as I recall you live in San Francisco. You are still welcome to visit and listen to my horns, I'd like to hear your setup as well. I am curious how your Edgarhorn system compares to mine. Anyone else who would like to hear a well implemented Edgarhorn system is also welcome to visit.
Kerry, I would love to come by when it is convenient for you and listen to your horn set-up, and if you do not mind I would probably report about it here for the benefit of those who live further away. Please contact me and we can set up a time.

I suspect that if I listen to your system or if you listen to mine, we may find we both still prefer our own systems. I have said many times before that I believe all people truly hear differently, just all everyone has different shaped faces and different sensitivity to  hot chili peppers and some people are even color blind but there is probably more subtle variation we never have examined. You and I surely listen for different things in stereo and we must adjust different parameters to make the stereo sound more like what YOU or I hear as live sound -- and it is different for each of us. 

Is it true that the words "neutral" and "dynamic" and "inner detail" have importance for you? My experience with digital equalization and alignment makes me think they might, as this seems to be its strength?

In any regard, I look forward to hearing from you.

Adrian
01-01-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,184
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 51
Post ID: 17648
Reply to: 17647
I beg you differ
fiogf49gjkf0d
 drdna wrote:
Is it true that the words "neutral" and "dynamic" and "inner detail" have importance for you?
Adrian,
 
I do not think that it is right to shape the question like this. No one would deny those "neutral" and "dynamic" and "inner detail and many other things, even those who do not understand what it is. Let me to share my view about it and this is not about Kerry specifically but a wider subject.
The "neutral and dynamic and inner detail” are not as some kind of mathematical Boolean that exist or not exist. It is always about degree and correctness and it also, to much higher degree, upon the personal appreciation of degree and correctness.  So, I always am trying to evaluate the specific person aptitude to understand the depth and degree of "neutral and dynamic and inner detail” from cultural level. Many audio people are not too developed culturally or musically to have appreciation of fineness of dynamic nuances, colors etc… They might use the same trims but the definition of "neutral" and "dynamic" between two different people might be very different.

In particularly the phrase "inner detail" might be dangers as in audio there are many celebrated methods how to deliver to an ignorant person with corrupted sonic references the feeling that he is getting a lot of "inner detail". So, in my view to inquire: does "inner details" have importance for you is very same like inquire does oxygen has any importance for you. No one deny importance of oxygen but how many people are accustomed to truly fresh and clean air?

Rgs, The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-01-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,184
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 52
Post ID: 17649
Reply to: 17642
Another association about the DSP sophistication.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Kerry Brown wrote:
I used the term 'sophisticated' literally: so - phis - ti - cat - ed Adjective: 1. ( of a machine, system, or technique ) Developed to a high degree of complexity. As do you, I prefer multi-way horns so most DEQX based systems are not interesting to me but most of them are definitely sophisticated.
Kerry claims a sophistication of DSP based acoustic systems, insisting that they “developed to a high degree of complexity”. This is absolutely wrong statement.  If to have the understanding of “design” at the level of idiotic articles from 6moons and others sales whores then of cause everything is “sophisticated”. The reality is that each single and DSP based acoustic systems is incredible barbaric and ignorantly designed. This is not sweeping generalization of ignorance on the subject (like in your case) but the commentary of the person who is very attentive to what is going on within the subject.

Let me to give you an association. Do you so cooking? If your do then think about DSP crossovering like it was monosodium glutamate (MSG) for cooking. Some cooks (designers) have no ability to get sophisticated taste and from good so they flood food with MSG. Could the cooking with MSG might be recognized as “sophisticated”? Well, for the people for whom a definition of sophistication squeezed between McDonald and Taco Bell I guess I guess the MSG-loaded meal is “sophisticated”

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-01-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Kerry Brown
Posts 23
Joined on 03-22-2005

Post #: 53
Post ID: 17652
Reply to: 17647
Comparative Religion
fiogf49gjkf0d

Any time Adrian, email me privately and we will set it up. I don't mind if you report your impressions if you don't mind me doing the same.
You're probably correct in your suspicion, different strokes for different folks. 
Objectively speaking though, I have heard more than a few stereo systems that sounded 'better' to me than my own, usually because the room was bigger and 'better' than my shape and size-compromised space.
My room is too small and irregularly shaped. In a bigger room that was better shaped and better constructed my stereo would sound better. 
Besides all that though, DEQX processors sound as good as the reviewers say they do. My jukebox makes it clear ( to me anyhow - and my musician friends ) that DEQX digital processing, even on less than perfect horns in a less than perfect room enables objectively excellent tonal neutrality, objectively realistic imaging, objectively startling dynamics, objectively minute detail retrieval, objectively strong evocation of emotion, objectively dancin' happy feets, all that good stuff, in spite of technical, cultural or religious objections.
Cheers,
Kerry

01-05-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Markus
Posts 68
Joined on 03-07-2007

Post #: 54
Post ID: 17664
Reply to: 17640
Digital can't attenuate?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
Topologically digital can’t attenuate (it means to filter)


Do you have a link to an explanation of this statement? Given the proliferation of digital volume controls, I'd like to understand more.
01-05-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,184
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 55
Post ID: 17667
Reply to: 17664
Digital can’t attenuate, analog can’t delay.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Markus wrote:
Do you have a link to an explanation of this statement? Given the proliferation of digital volume controls, I'd like to understand more.
The proliferation of digital volume controls is not an evidence of anything. Digital volume controls used only in economical equipment, including the high-end cheap equipment.  Any more or less serious audio component does use analog volume attenuation, even though digitally controlled.
 
I will not explain why digital volume controls are problematic; I did it many times already.  I can’t not refer to other sites as well as I for quite number of years do not pay attention to what people right about the subject at other sites.
 
In very brief. Digital reducing volume by tossing away bits. At 0dB you have one resolution, at -6dB you have another and at -30 db you end up with a few bit resolution of a telephone line. At DSP level the only way to reduce value is throwing away bits. It is why digital can’t not filter. Digital can only delay with absolute no negative consequences. With analog is opposite – attenuation is not a problem but delay is major pain in ass - topologically imposable to do it perfect.

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-05-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Jorge
Austin TX
Posts 141
Joined on 10-17-2010

Post #: 56
Post ID: 17668
Reply to: 17667
Old problem now forgoten
fiogf49gjkf0d
A long time ago, when EAD dsp 9000 pro came out,  Wadia had a DAC with volume control I dont remeber the number right now but -i think it was the 2000 anyway, the big deal about the EAD 9000 was that the integrated volume control was only 6db in the digital domain and the rest with high quality vishay resistors,  so disregard the volume your were using, the minum "damage" to the signal was always constant. 
I had the EAD 7000 and later upgraded to the 9000,  evetually I kept the 7000 and sold the 9000....

Here is an explation from someone on the web  I dont know: 

"Do you know binary?

If not disregard the rest of this message.

If so that all this really is.

Say for example 65,535 is as loud as a signal can get... 0 is as quiet as it can get.

Pick any number between 0 and 65,535 and write it in binary. As you choose lower numbers (aka lowering the signal level) and write that in binary you will find it takes less bits to reproduce those numbers in binary. IOW, the lower signal is using less bits.

65,535 is 1111111111111111 in binary... IOW 16 bits of data.

20,000 for example is represented by 15 bits..
10,000 needs 14 bits
3,000 needs 12 bits
etc...etc..."


http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/history/topic/481837-1.html

You can find it here:

or just google:  EAD dsp 9000 pro 
01-05-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,184
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 57
Post ID: 17669
Reply to: 17668
DSP volume controls only for toy equipment.
fiogf49gjkf0d
All digital domain volume controls (or crossovers, which is the same) by definition reduce amount of bits. Some “creative” companies fight within by introducing the additional processing after the bits were lost in order to hide the fact that they operate at not full resolution. They inject dither and other crap – this is very bad thing for Sound and must not be use in serious equipment. For most of the “dead audiophiles” it works, here is where the “proliferation of digital volume controls” comes from. There are some (very few) companies that do resetting the whole D/A algorithm, use the new volume level as reference.  This approach has other problem… why to go into this if analog attenuation works perfectly fine. The DSP volume controls (aka crossovers) only for toy equipment and for toy results…


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-06-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Kerry Brown
Posts 23
Joined on 03-22-2005

Post #: 58
Post ID: 17671
Reply to: 17669
OK, here's the deal
fiogf49gjkf0d

ACTIVE CROSSOVERS 


1) Loudspeaker drive units of different sensitivities may be used in one system without the need for lossy resistive networks ( and L-Pads ) or transformers

( DEQX lets me use 98 dB/meter/watt planar magnetic tweeters with 105 dB+ horn drivers ).


2) Distortions due to overload in any one band are captive within that band, and cannot affect any of the other drivers - eg. occasional low frequency overloads do not pass distortion products into the high-frequency drivers, and therefore instead of being objectionable they may, if slight, be inaudible.


3) Amplifier power and distortion characteristics can be optimally matched to  drive unit sensitivities and frequency ranges.


4) Driver protection, if required, can be precisely tailored to the needs of each driver ( DEQX cuts off low frequencies at 20 Hz to protect my subwoofer drivers ).


5) Complex frequency response curves can easily be realized in the electronics to deliver flat acoustic responses at the listening position. Inherent driver irregularities can be easily regularized ( the DEQX processor/crossover 'corrects' my horn's imperfect phase and frequency responses ).


6) There are no complex load impedances as found in passive crossovers, making amplifier performance (and whole system performance) more dynamically predictable. 


8) System intermodulation distortion can be significantly reduced. ( Less band overlap = less i.m. distortion )


9) Cable problems can be dramatically reduced.


10) Low source impedances at the amplifier outputs can damp out-of- band resonances in drive units. A passive filter may function as a buffer and prevent effective amplifier damping.


11) Drive units are essentially voltage-controlled. When coupled directly to a power amplifier, (most of which act as voltage sources) drivers are more optimally driven than with passive filters which can alter impedances between the source and load . When ‘seen’ from the point of view of a voice coil, passive crossover components represent an irregularity in the amplifier output impedance.


12) Direct connection of the amplifier and loudspeaker is a useful distortion reducing system. It can eliminate the strange currents which can often flow in complex passive crossovers.


13) Steeper filter slopes can easily be achieved without loss of system efficiency.


14) Low frequency to high frequency driver+cabinet time alignments are possible which, by passive means, would be more or less out of the question.


15) Drive unit production tolerances can easily be trimmed out ( = perfectly matched drivers ).


16) Driver 'drift' from aging ( less flux = lower spl ) can easily be trimmed out.


17) Subjectively, clarity and dynamic range are generally considered to be better on an active system compared to a passive equivalent (with the

same enclosure, and the same drive units). 



18) Amplifier designs may be simplified, sometimes to sonic benefit.


19 ) In passive loudspeakers used at high levels, voice-coil heating will change the impedance of the drive units, which in turn will affect the crossover termination. Crossover frequencies, as well as levels, may dynamically shift. Actively crossed-over loudspeakers are immune to such crossover frequency changes.


20) Problems with inductor location (to minimize interaction with drive unit voice coils at high current levels) do not occur.


Digital Active Crossovers 


A digital crossover with lower bit depth and sampling rate than the recordings it's processing won't deliver maximum sound quality; unfortunately my DEQX crossover is limited to 24/96 so it can't process hi-res digital files ( early DEQX processors were limited to16/48 ). 


Digital crossovers are expensive compared to active analog crossovers.


Digital attenuation is not a problem with 24 bit processors processing 24 bit recordings. Quantization errors, the only ones specific to digital filters, are not audible when this is the case. Even 16 bit processors can attenuate up to 8 bits without audible 'rounding' errors. 


In terms of dynamics, 6 dB of digital attenuation equals roughly a 1 bit loss of resolution and a 50% reduction of dynamic range. This also applies to analog attenuation . The solution is to use a crossover - digital or analog - with high voltage output. ( Sensitive systems like horn speakers must use amps with low input sensitivity, or you can use voltage splitters. I use voltage splitters. ) You get decreasing Sound to Noise ratios with lower voltage signals whether you use analog or digital filters.


Finally, if the DAC chips in a digital crossover are limited to a SNR of 120 dB, as they usually are, a 24 bit processor ( w/ a dynamic range of 144 dB ) loses 24 dB of dynamic range. In this case the DAC chips themselves add noise to the signal. So an analog crossover can sound better than a digital one if attenuation ranges greater than 24 dB must be achieved. If the range of attenuation is less than 24 dB, a 24 dB processor should give more than satisfactory results with 24/96 files.


Kerry





01-06-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,184
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 59
Post ID: 17672
Reply to: 17671
It might makes no difference to YOU.
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Kerry Brown wrote:
A digital crossover with lower bit depth and sampling rate than the recordings it's processing won't deliver maximum sound quality; unfortunately my DEQX crossover is limited to 24/96 so it can't process hi-res digital files ( early DEQX processors were limited to16/48 ). 

Of cause a crossover sampling rate has absolutely no relation and no connection with recordings sampling rate. The facts that somebody insist I this relation is absolutely laughable.  

 Kerry Brown wrote:
Digital crossovers are expensive compared to active analog crossovers.
 Quite opposite. digital crossover are very cheap, the entire operation is make in $0.5 chip and the rest is juts bells and whistles….
 Kerry Brown wrote:
A digital crossover with lower bit depth and sampling rate than the recordings it's processing won't deliver maximum sound quality; unfortunately my DEQX crossover is limited to 24/96 so it can't process hi-res digital files ( early DEQX processors were limited to16/48 ). 

Of cause a crossover sampling rate has absolutely no relation and no connection with recordings sampling rate. The facts that somebody insist I this relation is absolutely laughable.
 Kerry Brown wrote:
Digital attenuation is not a problem with 24 bit processors processing 24 bit recordings. Quantization errors, the only ones specific to digital filters, are not audible when this is the case.

Yes, it is what the people who sell digital toys to gullible and deaf audio people are trying to “publicly state” in order others to repeat it.

 Kerry Brown wrote:
Even 16 bit processors can attenuate up to 8 bits without audible 'rounding' errors.  ). 

Kerry, is it something that you recognize yourself or it is something the somebody told you?

 Kerry Brown wrote:
In terms of dynamics, 6 dB of digital attenuation equals roughly a 1 bit loss of resolution and a 50% reduction of dynamic range. This also applies to analog attenuation .

What?!

 Kerry Brown wrote:
The solution is to use a crossover - digital or analog - with high voltage output. ( Sensitive systems like horn speakers must use amps with low input sensitivity, or you can use voltage splitters. I use voltage splitters. ) You get decreasing Sound to Noise ratios with lower voltage signals whether you use analog or digital filters.

Kerry, do not even enter the conversation about S/N ratio. You have absolutely no idea what happen with digital signal at stop band.

 Kerry Brown wrote:
Finally, if the DAC chips in a digital crossover are limited to a SNR of 120 dB, as they usually are, a 24 bit processor ( w/ a dynamic range of 144 dB ) loses 24 dB of dynamic range. In this case the DAC chips themselves add noise to the signal. So an analog crossover can sound better than a digital one if attenuation ranges greater than 24 dB must be achieved. If the range of attenuation is less than 24 dB, a 24 dB processor should give more than satisfactory results with 24/96 files.

Kerry, stop to reiterate the foolishness that you most likly do not understand yourself and make a simple listening test. I told you: take uncompressed file, reduce volume by any amount of dB and listen results. If you do not find that digital attenuation made any difference then… it makes no difference to ... you.

Rgs, The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-06-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Jorge
Austin TX
Posts 141
Joined on 10-17-2010

Post #: 60
Post ID: 17673
Reply to: 17672
Stephano´s new xover
fiogf49gjkf0d

Stephano Two good ears has put a post on his site about his new 4 way passive xover.

I think this is a better direction than the digital xo.  The designer, Thomas, designed also the preamp and I guess he has taken into consideration the input and output impedances in order to make it work perfectly.  6 db only and independent volume control for each channel... perfect!

I would argue that a stepped volume control would limit the micro volume adjustments needed for a perfect integration of the channels, in such case I would rather used those ugly pots or maybe even the optical volume controls like the Lightspeed.  But the effort is great and in a good direction!

Internal Xovers on the coupling stages of the amplifiers, as Romy has it, works better IMHO, I have tried both and there is a certain insertion loss for a Line level passive xover,  but this also will allow the use of different amplifiers and even an amplifier tasting can be arranged, always a lot of fun!  I know Stepaho owns a lot of good quality amps!

Having played with a lot of amps too I noticed every amp has a different phase output, I have noticed that phase output becomes really important to sound, maybe even more than the amplifier itself, if the phase is off between two amps, the sound is terrible, if you use identical amplifiers, it is easier to multiamp with good results.  Of course, phase problems can be adressed by precise time alignement, but a new change of amplifiers, will need a new careful time alignment, and it can become quite complicated.

Kerry:  Can you put a simple series xover on your system, speaker level based on the original data from Bruce Edgar.  Try it against your wonderful DEQX and see what you like better:  invite some friends over to hear their input, it always helps...

Page 3 of 4 (70 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 4 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  The crossovering Messiah is coming...air capacitors..  The air-transformers from Santa...  Audio Discussions  Forum     6  67932  11-22-2004
  »  New  The Edgarhorn RTA response...  Poor quality crossover components?...  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     7  86842  08-29-2007
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts