I agree with @phusis, when I horizontally bi-amped my speakers with an analog active crossover design by the same manufacturer (of the speakers) it brought my speakers three notches above the passive crossover in sound quality. 😎
Mike
I agree with @phusis, when I horizontally bi-amped my speakers with an analog active crossover design by the same manufacturer (of the speakers) it brought my speakers three notches above the passive crossover in sound quality. 😎 Mike |
Having built many Xovers ,passive such as a passive preamp is not active and you loose a lot of dynamics , electronic Xovers will change the Xover points and enhance certain aspects of the frequency band but imo,flatten the sound no life a true active Xover you choose the parts especially capacitors, Such a Duelund being a top quality capacitor, vh audio ,Jupiter Jantzen Alumina Z , there are many , resistors for speakers there are only two, theNewer Mundorf Ultra Copper foil is most neutral and detailed , Path audio a bit warmer ,not quite as detailed but still very good in absolute terms. ,I have never cared for electronic Xovers except in Bass where it is not in the critical midrange region ,,I am speaking in Loudspeaker terms , in electronics such as preamps ,absolutely a Active preamp, if A tube preamp many top ones don’t use capacitors on the output ,there are trade offs, with capacitor output stage you Taylor the sound with capacitors ,I use Tinned Copper foil Duelunds, in Top Vacuum tube some use very high quality chokes and Transformers to couple the output stage ,then it comes down to design for many use Lundahl transformers and chokes , then Upper Monolith, or Hashimoto .all depends on budget. All depends on the application design engineering. |
@mikelavigne wrote:
We may be addressing different aspects here. Digital Signal Processing can be many things, but in my use of the Xilica DSP unit it serves only one purpose: acting as a digital cross-over, and nothing else. No "room<->speaker integration," surround processing or other; 2 channels only (i.e.: 3 outputs pr. channel), with 4 outputs dedicated for the 2-way main speakers, and 2 outputs for the subs. It’s worth noticing that as a digital XO in my case there’s no passive ditto in the signal path, so each amp output channel sees its respective driver terminal directly. Is this how your experience with DSP, acting actively as a digital XO solely, has also been formed - apart from being used as a room correction unit over already passively configured speakers?
I looked up the Trinnov - an impressive beast of a multiple-feature, high quality apparatus. For home theater use in particular I gather it’s a godsend, and with digital inputs and a digital source one would avoid the A/D conversion, not that I find the added A/D conversion to make much of a difference sonically, if any.
The A/D to D/A conversion necessitated with a DSP in your case with an analogue source - if the DSP were to act only as a digital XO sans any passive XO - to my mind would be the lesser evil compared to the influence of passive cross-overs on the output side of the amp, but again, that’s just me.
With my former passive configured all-horn speakers I at one point had 3 processing stages involved: the passive cross-overs in the speakers as an analogue "processing" stage, the Xilica DSP to high-pass them, and JRiver Convolution hosting a software for room correction in both the amplitude and time domain. It was a capable setup overall, but I prefer my current fully active setup with only one processing stage: the Xilica DSP. Room acoustics have been optimized with both diffusion and light absorption, so no room correction.
Indeed sounds like an awesome speaker setup - kudos. Have you tried running the whole system fully actively with no passive XO’s involved?
I differ here, certainly as outlined above using a DSP unit as a digital XO - sans any passive ditto - only. |