a few things to consider

Posted by Arbelos on March 22, 2001 at 09:41:03

In Reply to: Crossover for bi-amping posted by Andre Linoge on March 20, 2001 at 14:03:38:

The B-G driver is susceptible to DC pulses. Amps which make a switch-on pop might be dangerous. A friend blew a B-Gs inside his Genesis 200 when a static charge discharged on the phono input, volume turned up. They'd prefer at least a cap ahead of the driver -> partly a passive crossover.
You might set the cap for a ca. 500 Hz XO, and then a second 6 dB XO at the same frequency by a cap ahead of the tweeter amp. This yields a 12 dB Linkwitz crossover (Q=0.5), weith no undue load on the preamp (less so than Daveys design).

You should then be able to order a matching active bass *only* XO module from Rane or Marchand. This keeps the sound un-opamped over a major frequency range and costs lower.

*If* you have to XO the bass systems below 100 Hz, i'd not go to 325 Hz for the midbass / tweeter XO: Only 1.6 octaves (fu/fl=3.25) for one driver makes the whole filter system underdamped, and even fu/fl=5 is not plenty. Too low bandwidth reduces apparent speed, and makes the bass probably a bit slow, in a critical area.

If i could wish freely, i'd opt for a closed box, use a cap ahead of the midbass amp, XO set at the same frequency as the natural bass roll-off of the box, below 50 Hz, and match a *real* subwoofer (with ELF balls) accordingly.

The reduced bandwidth in the lower-most region is of less concern, because all the standing waves and walls etc. interact already and cover possible problems better.

I think Marchands 'fixed' crossovers use kind of a plug-in module which you should be able to change easily.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Crossover for bi-amping - Andre Linoge 14:03:38 03/20/01 (23)

a few things to consider - Arbelos 03/22/0109:41:03 03/22/01 (0)

Re: Crossover for bi-amping - wessongroup@megapathdsl.net 06:15:40 03/21/01 (0)

Re: Crossover for bi-amping - clyde 21:04:08 03/20/01 (5)

Re: Crossover for bi-amping - Andre Linoge 23:04:25 03/20/01 (4)

Re: Crossover for bi-amping - clyde 23:55:42 03/20/01 (3)

Re: Crossover for bi-amping - Andre Linoge 00:58:28 03/21/01 (2)

Re: Crossover for bi-amping - clyde 12:01:23 03/21/01 (1)

Re: Crossover for bi-amping - Andre Linoge 13:32:31 03/21/01 (0)

Re: Crossover for bi-amping - C.B. 16:13:21 03/20/01 (2)

Re: Crossover for bi-amping - Andre Linoge 16:15:54 03/20/01 (1)

Re: Crossover for bi-amping - C.B. 11:22:02 03/21/01 (0)

Re: Crossover for bi-amping - Davey 15:13:00 03/20/01 (14)

Re: Crossover for bi-amping - Andre Linoge 16:04:28 03/20/01 (13)

an active (or passive)crossover is: - Arbelos 10:06:44 03/22/01 (12)

Re: an active (or passive)crossover is: - Andre Linoge 10:48:38 03/22/01 (11)

Re: an active (or passive)crossover is: - Arbelos 11:21:31 03/22/01 (10)

Re: an active (or passive)crossover is: - Andre Linoge 11:56:23 03/22/01 (9)

Re: an active (or passive)crossover is: - Davey 12:28:13 03/22/01 (8)

Re: an active (or passive)crossover is: - Andre Linoge 15:08:30 03/22/01 (7)

Re: an active (or passive)crossover is: - Arbelos 19:27:20 03/22/01 (6)

Re: an active (or passive)crossover is: - Andre Linoge 22:28:20 03/22/01 (5)

Re:-> audio-x-stream.com - Arbelos 11:53:12 03/23/01 (1)

Re:-> audio-x-stream.com - Doug 15:26:59 03/23/01 (0)

Follow Ups

a few things to consider - Arbelos 03/22/0109:41:03 03/22/01 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.