Hi,
Are you using a passive or active line level crossover or are the amps designed for bandwidth limited outputs on their output stage?
What are the pros & cons of high-efficiency horns?
- Thread starter manisandher
- Start date
Hi,
Are you using a passive or active line level crossover or are the amps designed for bandwidth limited outputs on their output stage?
Norwegian PhD in horns Bjorn Norbek developed this wideband driver over 5 years. Here is my first listen. Can't say much about it today but over time hope to hear it with other horns and valves.
Celestion axiperiodic driver with horn loaded Bengal tiger tweeter
Celestion axiperiodic driver with horn loaded Bengal tiger tweeter
I have been using multi amped systems for more than 30 years. For the first 10 or so years I used active line level crossovers from Luxman,Krell, Audio Research etc . I was always unhappy with the sonic imprint of all of these. With my transition into high efficiency speakers almost 20 years ago I started experimenting with low level passives. Neither myself nor my techs could get this quite right or predictable enough ,especially as I prefer quite steep slopes.
I then discovered the Marchand XM 46. It is a passive line level LCR setup that is remarkable insensitive to ancillaries (provided a few simple rules are followed), works exactly as Marchand claims, is dead quiet(naturally) and apart from simple changes like improved pots and wiring sound fantastic. Cheap too! I run this as a 4 way at 24db/oct(Bass /low mid), 24 db /oct (low/high mid) and 6db oct (tweeter leg only)
CROSSOVER by jdza, on Flickr
I have been using multi amped systems for more than 30 years. For the first 10 or so years I used active line level crossovers from Luxman,Krell, Audio Research etc . I was always unhappy with the sonic imprint of all of these. With my transition into high efficiency speakers almost 20 years ago I started experimenting with low level passives. Neither myself nor my techs could get this quite right or predictable enough ,especially as I prefer quite steep slopes.
I then discovered the Marchand XM 46. It is a passive line level LCR setup that is remarkable insensitive to ancillaries (provided a few simple rules are followed), works exactly as Marchand claims, is dead quiet(naturally) and apart from simple changes like improved pots and wiring sound fantastic. Cheap too! I run this as a 4 way at 24db/oct(Bass /low mid), 24 db /oct (low/high mid) and 6db oct (tweeter leg only)
Hi,
Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. I really get why you prefer to go the route you do - there is something about the direct coupling of the amp to the driver that delivers immediacy and life that I love. I put forth a similar option on this forum about a year ago but several folks tried to dismiss it although I thought their argumentation was unfounded so ignored them lol.
Anyway - I knew about the Marchand stuff but only their active crossovers rather than the passive.
I know that Thomas Mayer developed a line level LCR passive crossover with transformers that looked interesting.
Best wishes,
Bill
DIY active speakers apparently seem the miraculous way for audiophiles - every aspect in them seems very logic. This is what I posted about the subject a few years ago : I must re-read it from time to time to resist DIY temptation:
I exchanged a few posts and private emails with the creator/owner of a great active system - Paul Stubblebine of Paul Stubblebine Mastering, that owns a Magico active system using a Marchand modified crossover with many Bottlehead triode amplifiers. At that time it looked like to me as a dream system. Fortunately he was very frontal - forget about it, you do not have the expertise or time to built such system. He explained me how long it took to assemble his system, what type of modifications the Bottlehead team had to carry and how the system had to be tuned. I must thank him for his excellent advice. If I had entered that way I would have spent the next ten years without time to listen to music ...
I have been using multi amped systems for more than 30 years. For the first 10 or so years I used active line level crossovers from Luxman,Krell, Audio Research etc . I was always unhappy with the sonic imprint of all of these. With my transition into high efficiency speakers almost 20 years ago I started experimenting with low level passives. Neither myself nor my techs could get this quite right or predictable enough ,especially as I prefer quite steep slopes.
I then discovered the Marchand XM 46. It is a passive line level LCR setup that is remarkable insensitive to ancillaries (provided a few simple rules are followed), works exactly as Marchand claims, is dead quiet(naturally) and apart from simple changes like improved pots and wiring sound fantastic. Cheap too! I run this as a 4 way at 24db/oct(Bass /low mid), 24 db /oct (low/high mid) and 6db oct (tweeter leg only)
I thought about this Marchand route and might give it a shot in the future. Currently, I am using a miniDSP active digital xover but it is different in that it is only digital out, so I need external DACs for each channel as well as amps. Fortunately, it is for the moment only a 2-way design... I agree that hooking the drivers directly to the amps brings something more that gets lost perhaps in the passive elements of a high level crossover.
Microstrip
I watch in awe how you flip from one very high end piece of equipment to another. If one takes into account the amount of time needed to get such a piece at its optimal best ,the amount of energy needed is mind boggling. Now if someone else spend that same time doggedly pursuing one single idea, one single vision ,surely one has some chance of success?
I share Stubbeltine's feelings as I have neither the skill nor absolute knowledge (plus I am not allowed to use my hands for anything but my day job) to do the fine bit so when I watch others doing something for me it always appear vastly more difficult than it really is.
Last edited:
I have done a few active systems in the past (Based on an Accuphase F-25 active xover and design work with the Behringer DCX2496) that really worked well (Like welding two large electrostats into one 4 panel supersystem and a DIY planar hybrid that I almost commercialized...it was damn good). That being said, this new DIY active setup I have is even better (for digital at least) with the minidsp and external DACs and amps. The flexibility of the digital system with the minidsp means I can get quite good frequency response and impulse response while still having the drivers directly connected to the amps and being fed by good DACs.
Yes but no need to pursue something you do not have expertise in. Simply assemble what us put up by experts and you have already heard matched together.
For example, if i thought Tang's analog is the best and I can afford it, buy the AS, strad, EMT, SME. If I think it is G's replicate that.
I am not discussing an approach to build or add unknown carts. Of course, once you know you have replicated your reference, and you are happy with the replication, you can play around with the carts etc as long as you know how to get back if you break the system's
Some DIY people start building their own and don't have a reference sound they try to get to
Last edited:
Some time ago I heard an DIY Kinoshita type speaker and just had to have a pair . There is just something to the tremendous drive of two ported high eff 15s coupled to a compression driver. Anyway I had that person build me a pair . He runs his with mini DSP so changing xo ,delay and levels is as easy as typing on a keyboard. I on the other hand sweated nights to create a passive xo in the TAD spirit . This became complex as I am using a non TAD compression driver on a non TAD horn. Then there was the agony of waiting for the crossover to be built and sheer terror of hooking it up for the first time. It worked as planned except for a glitch in the low pass circuit that ironically is a direct copy of the TAD crossover ( my own high pass kludge works perfectly as designed). My friend with his DSP? No sweat ,he just changes everything with a stroke of a key, easy peasy.
Last edited:
I don’t really know what you want to communicate with this post.
This is interesting. Thank you very much Leif.you´ve come to the right man
I replaced 4001 and 2001 with 4003 and 2002
the new drivers have much less distortion and are much cleaner and pleasant to listen too
4001 tend to have a little "brittle" signature on certain frequencies
difference to 4003 might be different diaphragm suspension
the 4003 performs further down in same horn with more "growl"
both have better body and harmonics
2002 is more extended and supertweeterlike in extension, but still with the twack and body of a 1" compression driver
this is why I prefer it to ET-703...could possibly add over 15-20K but don´t see the point
4003 is also a better candidate to cover whole range from hipass in a constant directivity horn, due to more even response upwards above 10K
no other drivers we tested were even close
JBL 2450SL with Truextent on a good second
best
Leif
Hi Brad,
Is the mini dsp vastly superior using its digital output to a DAC? I know it seems obvious but I just wondered.
I reported a fact. People will draw their conclusions, according to their knowledge, skills, interests and time availability. Mine was that this was not a route that I should go. Part of the message is also that I seriously consider the advice of experts and professionals in such matters.
4001 but cannot recall if it is 2001 or 2002 with ET703. I have to check at the office. What Leif said is interesting because some time you dont recognize it until you do a direct a/b.
That buying expensive advertised equipment is actually the miraculous way - every aspect in it seems logic. No one has gone wrong that way, it sounds great from day one. If everyone is having sugar, it has to be good for you
Last edited:
Similar threads
